Findings Of Fact The findings below are based on the undisputed facts set forth in Petitioner's Protest and supplements thereto, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, and representations by the parties during the motion hearing. On October 7, 2009, Respondent electronically posted its final ranking of firms which had submitted proposals to provide mechanical engineering services for six HVAC projects for Respondent in 2010. Respondent's electronic posting of the final ranking of firms included the following language: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), shall constitute a waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." On October 12, 2009, Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest the final rankings. On October 22, 2009, Petitioner filed its Protest. Although Petitioner's Protest was timely filed, Petitioner initially did not file a bond or other security. The Protest alleges that Petitioner was not required to file a bond, because Respondent did not include in its final ranking notice that a failure to post a bond would constitute a waiver of proceedings under Subsection 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Protest alleges that Respondent: (1) failed to provide Petitioner with notice of the estimated contract amounts within 72 hours, exclusive of Saturdays and Sundays and state holidays, of the filing of a notice of protest as required by Subsection 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) because Respondent had not provided that notice, Petitioner was unable to calculate the amount of the bond required and was, therefore, relieved of the obligation to file a bond. On October 30, 2009, Respondent, through counsel, wrote to Petitioner. In this correspondence, Respondent informed Petitioner that Section 287.042, Florida Statutes, did not apply to Respondent because it was not an "agency" for purposes of that law. Respondent further informed Petitioner that Section 255.0516, Florida Statutes, allowed Respondent to require a bond in the amount of two percent of the lowest accepted bid or $25,000. Respondent also notified Petitioner that because it was protesting all six project awards, all awards must be included in the calculation of the bond amount required. Finally, Petitioner was allowed ten days within which to post a bond. On November 3, 2009, Petitioner submitted to Respondent a cashier's check in the amount of $3,143.70 and noted that the check was intended to serve as security for the Protest "as required by F.S. 287.042(2)(c)." In the letter which accompanied the check, Petitioner also noted that: (1) the amount of the check was determined by calculating one percent of the largest proposed contract award amount of $314,370.00; and (2) Petitioner was providing that amount "under duress," because Respondent had "just published the contract award amounts." The relief requested by Petitioner in the Protest is that: (1) it be awarded one of the six HVAC projects comprising the final ranking; and/or (2) alternatively, all six awards be rescinded and "start the entire process over." The final ranking which Petitioner protests included six separate projects, each of which had a separate construction budget. Those projects and their respective construction budgets are as follows: Northwest--$1,144,000; Tampa Palms--$2,649,081; Yates--$2,770,828; Ferrell--$2,550,758; Stewart--$2,805,437; and Erwin--$4,191,603. The proposed fees for each project were as follows: $97,240 (Northwest); $211,926 (Tampa Palms); $221,666 (Yates); $204,061 (Ferrell); $224,435 (Stewart); and $314,370 (Erwin).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Hillsborough County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Protest filed by Petitioner, RHC and Associates, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 20th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent undertook to act as a contractor without a license as charged in the Administrative Complaints, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Section 20.165, the Division of Professions is a subordinate unit of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the Department). The Department provides administrative support, including prosecutorial support to the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board), which is also located within the Department. Mr. Grandmont is not currently licensed as a State Registered or State Certified Contractor in this state, nor has he ever been licensed by the Board. Mr. Grandmont's last known address is 355 China Berry Circle, Davenport, Florida. He was provided notice of the hearing at that address, and at 7733 Park Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28210, which is the address he used when demanding a hearing on disputed facts in two of these cases. In DOAH Case No. 06-3279, he provided no address in his demand for a hearing. All attempts by U. S. Mail to notify Mr. Grandmont of the hearing, were returned. Mr. Grandmont is deemed to have known of the time, date, and place of the hearing, and is deemed to have waived his appearance at the hearing. On November 11, 2005, subsequent to Hurricane Wilma, Robert L. Coe, of Lake Worth, Florida, was contacted by Mr. Grandmont, who offered to repair his damaged mobile home. He provided a written estimate of $10,500. The estimate contained a list of 11 items requiring repair, and stated that he would accomplish the repair of them. He demanded a $4,200 down payment, which Mr. Coe provided in a draft drawn on Fidelity Cash Reserves, and dated November 11, 2005. Mr. Coe never saw Mr. Grandmont again. The repairs set forth in the written estimate were not accomplished. The draft, however, was negotiated by Mr. Grandmont. On November 12, 2005, subsequent to Hurricane Wilma, Joseph Webster, of Lake Worth, Florida, was contacted by Mr. Grandmont, who offered to repair his damaged residence. Mr. Grandmont discussed charging $13,500 in return for repairing Mr. Webster's residence. After negotiations, Mr. Grandmont agreed to do it for $11,500. No written estimate or contract was prepared. Mr. Grandmont demanded $5,750 payment in advance. Mr. Webster rounded off the down payment to $6,000 and presented Mr. Grandmont an official check of the Taunton Federal Credit Union, of Taunton, Massachusetts, for that amount. The check was negotiated by Mr. Grandmont, but the promised repairs were not accomplished. On November 4, 2005, subsequent to Hurricane Wilma, Ella Arseneau, of Lake Worth, Florida, was contacted by Mr. Grandmont, who offered to replace her roof. He provided an estimate of $5,500 in return for repairing Ms. Arseneau's residence. He demanded that she pay $3,500 in advance, which Ms. Arseneau provided by presenting Mr. Grandmont a check for $3,500, drawn on an account in Wachovia Bank. The check was negotiated by Mr. Grandmont, but the roof was not repaired as promised. Mr. Coe is 78 years of age, Mr. Webster is 85, and Ms. Arseneau is 77.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation impose a fine upon Clifford Grandmont in the amount of $30,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Clifford Grandmont 7733 Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Simone Marstiller, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a Certified Building Contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this disciplinary action, Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board), seeks to discipline Certified Building Contractor License No. CBC010878 held by Respondent, Michael Joseph Salvatore, on the ground that he violated state law in numerous respects while performing a renovation on a residence in Archer, Florida, in 1998. Respondent's license authorizes him to practice contracting under the name of Project Advisors Corporation; however, he holds no license to practice contracting in his individual name. Respondent has denied all allegations. In 1994, Doris Newell, now known as Doris Lehman (Lehman), purchased a partially completed house located at 20120 Southwest 191st Avenue, Archer, Florida. After efforts by her husband to finish the interior portion of the house were unsuccessful, bids were taken in 1996 from several contractors, including Respondent, to complete the project. However, at the request of her husband, Lehman delayed undertaking the project. After having building plans drawn up in the fall of 1997 at a cost of $1,194.00, in July 1998 Lehman decided to complete the renovation of her home. She again contacted Respondent and requested an estimate for all remaining work except the flooring, painting of drywalls, and installation of air-conditioning ducts. Respondent prepared and signed a proposal dated July 17, 1998, which called for the remaining work to be completed at a cost of $31,527.00. The contract was prepared in Respondent's individual name, and not in the name of Projects Advisor Corporation. As noted above, Respondent had no authority to engage in such a project under his own name. Because Alachua County found the original plans to be deficient in one minor respect, Lehman expended another $200.00 to have an engineer redesign the plans to "update the wind-strap bindings on the house." Although the contract was executed by Respondent and Lehman on July 17 and 21, 1998, respectively, Respondent retained the original copy and only provided Lehman with a copy that he had signed. For that reason, the contract received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 contains only Respondent's signature. In any event, the contract required that Lehman make "[a] deposit of $7,880.00 to start work," and it authorized Respondent to make "draws every two weeks [until the project was] completed." Lehman used her copy of the contract to procure a bank loan, which took approximately three months to finalize. In accordance with the contract, on November 3, 1998, Lehman paid Respondent $7,880.00, or approximately twenty-five percent of the total due under the contract. The check was made out to Mike Salvatore, and not Project Advisors Corporation. By receiving more than ten percent of the contract price, Respondent was obligated to obtain a permit for the job from Alachua County. However, he failed to do so. When he received the check, Respondent told Lehman that he was working on another job, but he would start work on her house in about two weeks. During the course of his written dealings with Lehman, Repondent failed to advise her of her rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by law. During the first week of December 1998, Respondent finally began work on the Lehman project. Although Respondent suggested during cross-examination of Lehman that he worked four days on the project, the more credible evidence shows that he spent only a day or so at her home, and he framed a closet, leveled the top of some of the frame work, and dropped off some lumber at the site. Thereafter, he ceased work on the project and never returned. The work to that point constituted far less than twenty-five percent performance of the total contract price. In fact, Respondent himself informed Lehman that the value of his materials and labor was approximately $1,100.00, or about three percent of the total contract price. Understandably, Lehman attempted to contact Respondent by telephone on numerous occasions in December 1998 and January 1999. However, she was only able to leave a message on Respondent's answering machine. Respondent did not return the calls, and to date, he has not returned any money to Lehman. Finally, he has not completed his contractual obligations. Through cross-examination of Lehman, Respondent suggested that Lehman's telephone was not working for several days in December 1998 (which she denied), and that he suffered heart problems in January 1999, which prevented him from doing any work for an undisclosed period of time. Even if this is true, however, it does not constitute just cause for totally abandoning the project after performing only one day's work or refusing to refund her money. Likewise, Respondent never timely notified Lehman that he would not or could not complete the project, as required by law. Because of the cessation of work, Lehman was unable to complete the renovation of her home, and she was forced to sell the property. Although she filed a lawsuit against Respondent in March 1999 seeking to recover her money, she was forced to drop the suit for lack of funds. In mitigation, there is no evidence that Respondent has ever been disciplined by the Board on any other occasion, and there are no other reported complaints against his license. He has held a license, either in an active or inactive status, since 1976. In aggravation, Lehman suffered monetary damages by virtue of Respondent's conduct; there was an actual on-site violation of the local building code, namely, the failure to pull a permit; and Respondent has failed to make any efforts at rehabilitation, such as repaying the money in full or completing the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of the charges in Counts I-V and VII-IX of the Adminstrative Complaint. Count VI should be dismissed. Respondent should have an administrative fine in the amount of $4,100.00 imposed, and he should be required to make restitution to Doris Lehman in the amount of $6,980.00. Also, Petitioner should be allowed to seek recovery of the costs of its investigation and prosecution of this matter, subject to Respondent's review of the total amount. Finally, Respondent's license should be suspended for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 15th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Michael Joseph Salvatore 305 Northwest 6th Street High Springs, Florida 32643-1108 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, as a prevailing small business party in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the pleadings, affidavits, stipulations, and the matters officially recognized, the following findings are made: Parties Petitioner is an engineering firm whose principal office is located in Tampa, Florida. Petitioner is certified as a minority-owned business by the State of Florida and the School Board. Petitioner’s majority owner and president is an African-American male. At all times material hereto, Petitioner had less than 25 full- time employees or a net worth less than $2 million. Respondent is a local school district of the State of Florida. Respondent is responsible for the construction, renovation, management, and operation of the public schools in Hillsborough County. To fulfill those responsibilities, Respondent is often required to obtain the services of architects, engineers, and other professionals through competitive procurement under Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, the Consultants’ Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA). DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID On May 21, 2002, the School Board published a notice in the Tampa Tribune announcing its need for professional architectural and/or engineering services to supplement its in- house staff of architects and inspectors in order to provide increased on-site supervision, management, and inspection on ongoing school construction projects. The notice is a request for qualifications (RFQ), and is subject to the provisions of the CCNA. A report prepared by the Ernst & Young consulting firm based upon its “forensic evaluation and analysis of the District’s construction and maintenance policies, practices, and procedures” had recommended augmenting the District’s staff in the manner described in the RFQ. At the time the RFQ was advertised, the only adopted policy governing the School Board's acquisition of professional services was Section 7.14 of the Hillsborough County School Board Policy Manual (Policy Manaual). Section 7.14 did not specifically reference the CCNA and simply included a general authorization for the Superintendent of the District or his or her designee to “contract for professional or educational services to complete projects or activities authorized or approved by the school board.” The only other description of Respondent’s procurement process under the CCNA in existence at the time the RFQ was advertised was a document entitled "Capital Projects Standard Procedures" which was presented to but never adopted by the School Board. That document references the CCNA in connection with the selection of architects and construction managers, but not engineers, and it only provided a general outline of the selection process. The RFQ did not specifically reference or otherwise incorporate Section 7.14 of the Policy Manual or the “Capital Projects Standard Procedures” document, nor did the RFQ explain the criteria or factors upon which the responses to the RFQ would be evaluated or the weight that would be given to each factor. The RFQ did not specifically inform potential Respondents of their right to file a protest challenging the specifications, nor did it include the language provided in Section 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner timely filed a notice of protest and formal written protest challenging the specifications in the RFQ pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Among other things, Petitioner challenged the absence of evaluation criteria in the RFQ and the absence of a formally-adopted policy governing the procurement process. Petitioner’s protest was referred to the Division, where it was assigned DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID. A formal administrative hearing was held on the protest, and on September 6, 2002, a Recommended Order was issued in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID (hereafter “Specification Protest Recommended Order”). The Specification Protest Recommended Order agreed with Petitioner that the specifications in the RFQ were deficient and, more specifically, concluded that: the School Board's current selection process is deficient because neither the RFQ or the School Board's existing policies and procedures specify in advance the factors upon which the responses will be evaluated nor do they identify the weight which the School Board will give to each criteria. The process is also deficient because the selection committee members do not utilize a uniform method of evaluating the respondents. These deficiencies affect the integrity of the School Board's selection process and subvert the policies underlying Section 287.055 and competitive procurement generally. Accordingly, Petitioner met its burden of showing that the RFQ specifications are arbitrary and contrary to competition. Specification Protest Recommended Order, at 36 (paragraph 85) (emphasis in original). That conclusion was consistent with the report prepared by Ernst & Young, the following excerpts from which are pertinent here: [W]e have identified significant shortcomings related to ranking the professional service providers that have submitted bids for either architectural design, engineering, or construction management services. * * * [T]he architects and construction managers within the [architectural/ engineering/construction (A/E/C)] community do not understand how vendors are evaluated or ultimately rank ordered [sic] by the District to arrive at a list of the three highest ranked respondents. As a matter of fact, the District has moved away from using a score sheet or "score card" with pre-established evaluation criteria and a weighted point structure, and toward a rather subjective process whereby a selection committee simply appoints professional service providers either based upon past performance on a similar type of project (i.e. replicate design) or based upon the District's desire to equitably distribute work amongst the A/E/C community. This type of evaluation and selection process, as currently utilized by the District, while effective at distributing work amongst the A/E/C community, does not ensure that the best or most qualified vendor will be selected for each of the proposed school district projects. The current vendor selection process could permit abuse and favoritism as the selection committee could be influenced by School Board input, personal relationship [sic] and lack of objective criteria. Although we found no evidence of undue influence, the subjective nature of the process offers the District little credibility. * * * E&Y [Ernst & Young] found that the vendor selection process being utilized by [the District] lacks credibility in that it remains highly subjective as new projects are allocated without respect to numerical analysis of prior performance, company financial condition, proposed project management team, etc. Moreover, the selection committees do not rotate sufficiently to eliminate the possible influence from senior [District] Administrators or Board Members. * * * Upon comparison to each of the peer and contiguous school districts, Ernst & Young found that only [the District] engages in a vendor selection process in the absence of pre-established or pre-determined evaluation criteria and a numerically-based scoring system which permits a numerical ranking of each interested professional service provider. E&Y found that the vendor selection process being utilized by [the District] lacks credibility in that it remains highly subjective as new projects are allocated without respect to numerical analysis of proper performance, company financial condition, proposed project management team, etc. . . . * * * The District's vendor selection process can be more objective and better understood within the A/E/C community by developing standard evaluation criteria and a numerically-based scoring system. Such a system will permit the District to numerically rank each interested professional service provider and thus eliminate bias and potential favoritism of the [District] selection committee. Evaluation criteria should include, among other things, prior performance, company financial condition, proposed project management team, etc. . . . E&Y Report, at 27-29, 107, 117. The Ernst & Young report was formally transmitted to the School Board on May 17, 2002, which is four days prior to the date that the RFQ was published in the Tampa Tribune. The Specification Protest Recommended Order and the Ernst & Young report were not critical of all aspects of Respondent’s procurement process. Both concluded that the procedural elements of the evaluation process utilized by the School Board were consistent with the procedural requirements in the CCNA. Specifically, the Ernst & Young report stated “[o]ur review of [the District’s] vendor’s [sic] selection process indicates in many respects, that the process follows traditional requirements established by SREF [State Requirements for Educational Facilities] and Florida Statute[s] . . . [and], in many instances, the procedures mirror those utilized by peer and contiguous school districts” (E&Y Report, at 27), and the Specification Protest Recommended Order similarly concluded that: the School Board's current selection process, although not detailed in a formally-adopted rule or policy, is consistent with the procedural requirements of the CCNA. The only material difference is that the School Board has consolidated the second and third steps in the process -- i.e., qualification and competitive selection -- by interviewing every respondent and not just three pre-qualified firms as required by Section 287.055(4)(a). Accordingly, Petitioner failed to show that specifications of the RFQ are contrary to the School Board's governing statutes (i.e., Section 287.055) or its rules or policies. Specification Protest Recommended Order, at 35-36 (paragraph 84). Nevertheless, based upon the deficiencies in the RFQ described above, the Specification Protest Recommended Order recommended that: the School Board issue a final order that rescinds the request for qualifications published May 21, 2002, and reformulates the specifications of the request in a manner that, at a minimum, advises potential respondents in advance of the factors upon which the responses will be evaluated and the weight that will be uniformly given to each factor by the selection committee. Id. at 37. The School Board adopted the Specification Protest Recommended Order at its meeting on October 1, 2002, and consistent with the recommendation therein it rescinded the RFQ. DOAH Case No. 02-3138RP In response to the Ernst & Young report and Petitioner’s challenge to the RFQ specifications (and while DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID was pending), the School Board initiated the rulemaking process under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to adopt new policies and summaries of procedures to govern the acquisition of professional services pursuant to the CCNA. Petitioner timely challenged the proposed new policies and summaries of procedure pursuant to Section 120.56(2), Florida Statutes. The challenge was assigned DOAH Case No. 02- 3138RP. A formal administrative hearing was held, and on October 11, 2002, a Final Order was issued in DOAH Case No. 02-3138RP (hereafter “Rule Challenge Final Order”). The Rule Challenge Final Order dismissed Petitioner’s challenge to all of the proposed new policies and summaries of procedures except for that portion of proposed Section 7.31 of the Policy Manual which provided that interviews are optional for projects costing less than $1 million. The procedural aspects of the new policies and summaries of procedure are essentially the same as the practice followed by the School Board in the past pursuant to Section 7.14 of the Policy Manual and the unadopted “Capital Project Standard Procedures” document. However, the new policies and summaries of procedure addressed the deficiencies in the substantive elements of the School Board’s procurement process. In this regard, the Rule Challenge Final Order included the following observation: [T]he Proposed Rules address the fundamental deficiencies in the School Board's procurement process that were identified in the Ernst & Young report and the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID. The Proposed Rules require the factors/criteria upon which the applicants will be evaluated and the weights [sic] that will be given to each factor to be formulated and provided to the applicants in advance of each solicitation, and they require uniformity in the evaluation and scoring of the applicants by the Committee. The Proposed Rules also provide the necessary framework for the preparation of the project-specific forms and materials which will be prepared in connection with each RFQ/RFP, and they provide a discernable standards against which to judge those materials in the event of a Section 120.57(3) protest of the specifications of the RFQ/RFP or the award of the contract arising therefrom. Rule Challenge Final Order, at 57-58 (paragraph 145). The Rule Challenge Final Order was not appealed. Attorney’s Fees and Costs Incurred by Petitioner Petitioner was represented in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID by attorney George Kickliter. Mr. Kickliter spent 25 hours on Petitioner’s behalf in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID, and he charged Petitioner a fee of $200.00 per hour. Accordingly, Petitioner incurred a total of $5,000.00 in attorney’s fees in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID. Petitioner incurred costs in the amount of $563.00 in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID. That amount is attributable to the cost of the Transcript of the final hearing in that proceeding. Respondent stipulated that the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Petitioner in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID were reasonable.
The Issue The issues in dispute are those associated with the invitation to bid in Project No. 565 by the Respondent as responded to by Petitioner and Intervenor. Among the specific questions to be answered are those concerning Petitioner's allegation that the Respondent allowed the Intervenor to materially alter its bid response to clarify the line item associated with tear down and return delivery for the relocatable classrooms that were being leased under the terms of the bid invitation and that alteration was allowed for the provision of canopies or awnings associated with the entrances to the relocatable classrooms. Questions are raised, first whether the Intervenor's bid response is in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code and, second whether the bid response of the Intervenor provides sufficient detail to allow the Respondent to understand the nature of the item, in this instance, the relocatable classroom, which the Intervenor proposed to provide in response to the invitation to bid. Finally, the general question is raised whether the Petitioner or Intervenor is the lowest responsible qualified bidder.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1989, Respondent sent out an invitation to bid in Project No. 565. It sought responses from a number of vendors and asked that those vendors on or before July 1, 1989, be prepared to deliver 49 portable classroom units. The arrangement which Respondent contemplated in the invitation was rental of the portable classrooms under a lease for a period of one year. It was intended that the portable classroom units would be delivered to various locations throughout Lake County, Florida. The bid opening was to occur on May 8, 1989, at 2:30 p.m. The request for bids included a lead sheet and in the second paragraph of the instructions on that lead sheet it was stated: All terms and conditions below are a part of this bid request and no bids will be accepted unless all conditions have been complied with. Rights are reserved to reject any and all bids and to waive all technicalities. It was further stated: DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING BIDS ARE AS FOLLOWS: * * * 5. Samples must be submitted with bid where required. On other items descriptive literature with complete manufacturer's specifications in sufficient detail to indicate clearly the item bidder proposes to furnish must accompany the bid. NO BID will be considered without this data. Equipment offered as equivalent to the specific brand must be equivalent in quality of materials, workmanship, effect and corresponding in function and performance When the requirements set out in the preceding paragraph to the Recommended Order are read in the context of all other requirements set forth in the bid invitation, they are found to be consistent with those additional requirements. On the second page of the instructions for the Invitation to Project No. 565 was found a section entitled "Lease/Rental of Portable Classrooms" which stated: The Lake County School Board is requesting bids for Lease/Rental of Portable Classroom units meeting 6A-2 requirements at various locations. Units must meet Florida Code, SBCC Code and 6A-2 Department of Education code for structures of this type. We are requesting prices for 49 units for one-year rental, to be set-up at various locations. Steps, ramps, electrical, water or sewer hooks are not required. This work will be done in- house by Lake County School Board staff. A minimum of three 4' x 8' melaminc marker boards, two 4' x 4' tackboards, one 8 lb. fire extinguisher (2A40 BC) and junction box with stub-out for F/A and pullbox must be installed in each unit. Other provisions within the bid invitation describe the nature of the bid performance security that was incumbent upon each bidder, the need for insurance, nature of the insurance coverage expected and information related to lease provisions, purchase provisions, parts warranties and prices. The bid invitation pointed out that each bid packet furnished by the vendors should provide proof of insurance, a sample lease/rental contract, brochures and specifications of construction materials and contents and a 5 percent bid bond in a separate sealed envelope attached to the outside of the bid. Four vendors offered their responses to this invitation, among them Petitioner and Intervenor. The additional bidders were Diamond Engineered Space and Williams Mobile Offices. The bid opening occurred on May 8, 1989, as advertised. That bid opening was under the auspices, Provisions 6.05(7) and 6.87, Lake County School Board Policies Manual, which describe school construction bid procedures and contemplate awarding contracts to the lowest responsible qualified bidder meeting specifications with regard for the quality of the product being offered by the bidder, its suitability for the needs of the school system, delivery terms, service and past performance of the vendor. Some consideration is given to local vendors, under the provisions, but this has no role to play in this dispute. Rule 6A-2.016, Florida Administrative Code, also speaks to the procedures to be followed by the Respondent in this bid invitation process. The bids were opened, announced and tabulated. It was revealed, in turn that Diamond Engineered Space's price quote was $299,292.92; Petitioner's was $246,563; Intervenor's was $236,166 and Williams Mobile Offices' was $367,420. All vendors had made a timely response to the invitation to bid. In the course of the examination of the bid materials, the price sheet of the Intervenor came into question. This price sheet may be found as part of the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. In particular, item 3 on the price sheet was debated. In that section, the Intervenor's response stated: 4(b) Tear Down, and Return Delivery $350.00 (50 mile average at $1.50 per side) 4(c) Other ($200.00 Mat'l & Labor)$ NONE Given the parenthetical remarks found within the response, Norma Hale who was the Purchasing Agent for the School Board and in charge of the bid opening asked of Mike Connolly, who was attending the bid opening for the Intervenor, whether the quoted price was a firm price. Herman Kicklighter, the Director of Facilities and Maintenance who attended the bid opening for Respondent also made inquiry concerning whether the tear down charge was a variable or fixed price. These questions were raised against a background circumstance in which some sites may have been further away than is contemplated by the 50 mile average set out in the parenthesis. It was not the intention of the Intervenor to leave the parenthetical information on the bid response and Connolly was caught off guard by this revelation. He had not prepared the bid submission by the Intervenor. Nonetheless, he informed the persons assembled that the price quotation of $350 was a firm price. This information was revealed after the Petitioner's bid had been opened. After some discussion, school officials at the bid opening were convinced that the $350 price was a firm price. Having considered the evidence, the $350 price is found to be a firm price. Moreover, this finding is made recognizing that the Intervenor was never allowed to remove the parenthetical remark from the bid response. That removal would have constituted an alteration of the bid response. If one examines the bid response and multiplies the 50 mile average times $1.50 per side, the amount is $150 plus $200 for material and labor for a total of $350 as reflected in the cost per unit designation. This is not considered to be a variable price quotation. Another topic that was brought up during the course of the bid opening concerned the question of whether the portable classroom units that were to be supplied by Intervenor included awnings or canopies over the door entrances. Petitioner was and is of the opinion that the awnings and canopies are required. It is not clear from a review of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence, which is the Petitioner's bid material, whether Petitioner intended to supply awnings or not. It is clear that the bid material of the Intervenor did not include awnings. Kicklighter asked Connolly if the Intervenor's bid included awnings and the essence of Connolly's response would indicate that the bids did not include awnings. Connolly was allowed to leave the room to make a telephone call to his office to further inquire concerning the response of the Intervenor as it related to awnings. While he was gone, the School Board checked with the Department of Education in Tallahassee on the topic of whether Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code required awnings in this application. In a conversation with William Moncreath, a certified architect with the Department of Education, Kicklighter was lead to believe that awnings were not needed. Connolly then made this known to the persons in the bid room. Connolly was not present at that time. Connolly then returned and told Kicklighter that the Intervenor would furnish awnings. This comment was met by a remark by Mr. Kicklighter to the effect that it looked like that the Intervenor and the School Board would be doing business. To allow the Intervenor to alter its bid response to include awnings that were not shown in the bid response, would be a material alteration if awnings were required. They are not. Therefore, this discussion concerning the awnings is a moot point. On May 9, 1989, the School Board determined to award the contract to the Intervenor. This met with a timely notice of protest from the Petitioner on May 12, 1989, and in a Formal Written Protest on May 22, 1989. Having been unable to resolve the matter amicably, the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for resolution of the dispute. Notwithstanding the pendency of the case before the Division of Administrative Hearings, based upon a claim of emergency, the lease agreement was entered into between the Respondent and Intervenor on June 15, 1989. In addition to the assertions by the Petitioner concerning whether the quotation for tear down and return delivery was a firm price and whether awnings are required, Petitioner calls into question whether the Intervenor has complied with paragraph 5 on the lead page concerning directions for submitting bids and the third paragraph on the next to the last page of the bid invitation concerning the things that the bid packet must include. Petitioner also questions whether Intervenor has adequately established that it will meet applicable requirements of Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code. Contrary to the opinion held by the Respondent and Intervenor, paragraph 5 on the lead page to the invitation to bid is a requirement that must be complied with. It is not an item to be ignored, nor it is considered to be superceded by any of the more specific references to requirements that are announced in the subsequent pages to the invitation to bid. The bidders had to make proof of insurance and to offer a sample lease/rental contract and provide a 5 percent bid bond. All bidders complied with those requirements. Petitioner complied with all other requirements as announced in the bid invitation as well. The question is whether Intervenor as a general matter has provided descriptive literature with the complete manufacturer's specifications in sufficient detail to clearly point out what item the bidder is proposing to furnish and whether indeed the item does comply. This is also described as brochures and specifications of construction materials and contents. Additional items that must be provided by Intervenor are those contemplated under Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code associated with relocatable classroom space and related construction codes made mention in the instructions to bidders under that portion referred to as "Lease/Rental of Portable Classrooms" and the last paragraph of that set of instructions associated with melaminc markerboards. Instead of relying upon clearly delineated information within the response of the Intervenor by way of literature with complete manufacturer's specifications to merely show the nature of the product or item that the Intervenor was proposing to furnish, Respondent, and in particular its principal advisor, Mr. Kicklighter, chose to rely upon certain self-serving statements made by the Intervenor in the course of its bid materials. This refers to an attachment to the sample lease agreement which is a fourth page in that set of materials stating: FLORIDA CODED BUILDING; Built to Comply with the Florida Department of Education's 6" A" .2 Specifications. With prints certified as a Classroom Building which can be located anywhere in Florida. (Zoning permitting). To Kicklighter this means Intervenor'S promises to build the classroom space in accordance with Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code and to provide certified prints and that provision would overcome any infirmities or paucity of information about the product in his mind. Kicklighter took further solace from correspondence of October 17, 1988, from David Toner, Director of Facilities Planning/Operation of St. Johns County, school Board in Florida which praises the Intervenor's performance in the lease of 28 relocatable classrooms in that county and states that plans and specifications were sent to Tallahassee for approval and installation met Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code. This is hearsay information and does not establish anything relevant in the matter of whether Intervenor will do as well for the Respondent as it appears to have done for St. Johns County School Board, if Intervenor doesn't first show that it has complied with this invitation to bid. It has not. It is not so much that Kicklighter attached no significance to the substantive information provided by the Intervenor in its response to the invitation, it is the fact that a clear understanding of the impression of Kicklighter concerning that substantiative information is overshadowed by his reliance upon the promise to provide certified prints and the remarks of his counterpart in the St. Johns County School Board as a principal reason for believing that the Intervenor's response was sufficient. That reliance was ill advised. It would be different if certified plans had been provided. They were not. The promise to provide them is outside the bid experience and is unacceptable as a means of compliance with the bid invitation. Looking at what was provided, there is a single sheet entitled Proposed Classroom which gives basic dimensions and information about frame and floor, walls, windows and doors, exterior covering, roof, electrical, A/C and heat, and restrooms. Within this document are found references to a 2600 rpm fan which could well mean 2600 cfm fan, the latter of which would meet requirements and the former which would not. Correction of this item would not be a material alteration. Likewise, correction of the reference of 1" x 4" top plate to 2" x 4" top plate to meet specifications would not be a material correction. in that this 1" x 4" reference as opposed to 2" x 4" reference could well be a typographical error. Within the bid documents by Intervenor there is a sheet referred to as Typical H.C. Toilet Rooms. Toilet Room A relating to Florida and Toilet Room B relating to Georgia. The outside dimensions of the Florida toilet room do not coincide with the Proposed Classroom sheet that has been mentioned. While the outside dimensions of the Georgia toilet room on this document appears the same as in the Proposed Classroom sheet that has been referred to, the configuration in the proposed classroom sheet and that of the sheet related to toilet rooms most recently under discussion are different. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to know what the Intervenor intends by way of toilet room facilities and the response is inadequate to meet the requirements of the bid invitation. This is a material deviation. There are some partial sheets within the bid materials which appear to be the first half of the Classroom Sheet that has been referred to and being duplicates of that information no particular significance is seen in those matters. There is material referred to U.S.G Acoustical Finish. There are further materials related to interior fixture finishes. There is a brochure with pictures showing the outside of a building and the interior of a portable classroom building. This document does not give any specific information as to types of materials, dimensions, etc. There is a document of May 5, 1989, from Descom directed to Mr. Connolly promising to make available replacement parts for 49 classrooms if Descom manufacturers them. There is information provided on the fourth page which is the attachment to the Lease Agreement which makes reference to frames being provided "per code." This page gives certain dimensions and design information related to the floors, walls and petitions and roofs. There is another two page document that shows miscellaneous equipment such as exit signs, melaminc marker boards, tack boards, emergency light with battery and backup and fire extinguisher. These items do not show manufacturer's name. There are references to various provisions within Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code where Intervenor claims that these items will correspond to. There are comments made on this page about the foundation of the portable classroom that are unclear. On the second page of these materials are found references to plumbing to include plumbing, related to the bathroom dealing with vinyl covered gypsum wall covering, the commode, wall mounted lavoratory, 90 cfm ceiling vent fan and mirrors and accessories. Again, the manufacturer's names are not given. A reference is made under the ceiling vent fan to a rule provision of Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code. There is reference under electric to two 100 amp load centers with mains and 12/2 copper romex. There is a reference there to 15-440 fluorescent light fixtures. Again, there is the reference to the 2600 rpm through the wall ventilation fan and 2 adequate wall receptacles. HVAC references a three ton Bard wall mount with heat strips and a ceiling supply duct system with STD return air system and a timer for the air conditioner. There is a reference to exterior materials, windows and doors and insulation factors. Again, some of these items under the bathroom, electric and HVAC reference sections within Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code. Other than the fluorescent light fixtures and HVAC Bard unit, manufacturers names cannot be discerned from this information submitted. The bid invitation calls for buildings of 24' x 36'. The response by Intervenor provides for a building which is 23' x 36', a material deviation from the requirements of the specifications. The light fixture is a Metalux Manufacturing Company surface mounted fixture of four forty watt bulbs. According to Gareuth Eich, an architectural expert whose opinion testimony is accepted, this light fixture does not comply with Rule 6A-2.064, Florida Administrative Code. This is a material deviation. The statement of plans do not show compliance with Rule 6A-2.059, Florida Administrative Code, as to exterior lighting. This is a material deviation from the specifications. The electrical specifications information provided by the Intervenor in the Proposed Classroom sheet shows two 100 amp panels that are separated, whereas specifications shown on the two-page printed informational sheet under electric speak in terms of a 100 amp load center with main disconnect. Regardless, requirements of Lake County are such that a main disconnect panel is required on the exterior of the portable classroom, the installation of which would be the responsibility of the school board. Thus, if two panels were employed inside they would become subpanels and not in conflict with the national electric code as spoken to in Rule 6A-2.065, Florida Administrative Code. On the other hand, it is not clear which alternative in panel design and service Intervenor intends to offer and this is a material deviation from the bid requirements. The information provided concerning the nature of the foundation for the portable classroom units is inadequate. This is a material defect in the response to the bid specifications. Gareuth Eich, Hugh Stump, President of Southern Structure, a company that manufactures portable classroom units and a person who is familiar with bidding procedures associated with those units and Paul Crum, an architect testified on behalf of the Respondent. All questioned the quality of information submitted by the Intervenor in terms of specificity, to meet paragraph 5 on page one of the invitation to bid and particulars that relate to certain requirements of Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code to this bid invitation. Having considered the remarks and the testimony of others and the exhibits, the Intervenor's response cannot be seen as providing manufacturer's specifications in the necessary detail to indicate clearly the item that bidder proposes to furnish as called for in paragraph 5 of the lead page of the invitation to bid. The response has also failed to meet certain provisions of Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code in the manner described. The quoted size of the portable building is too small in overall dimension. These are material shortcomings sufficient to cause the rejection of the Intervenor's bid response. Therefore, the Petitioner is in fact the lowest responsible bidder. Although Respondent and Intervenor have contracted for the delivery of the portable classroom units and they are located at the various sites within Lake County, Florida called for in the contract, Petitioner is theoretically prepared to provide classroom units in accordance with the requirements of the specifications.
Recommendation Under authority of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, a formal hearing was held in this case on July 10-11, 1989 in Tavares, Florida. Charles C. Adams was the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact As project architect under contract to HRS, Greenleaf/Telesca Planners, Engineers, Architects, Inc. (Greenleaf) prepared a project manual (manual). The manual invited contractors to bid on a contract for construction of the forensic services building at the South Florida State Hospital in Pembroke Pines, Florida, project No. HRS-0278. The manual contained specifications for a base contract covering construction of the building itself, and for four alternate additive bids, covering various equipment and furnishings. The first alternate called for installation of mess hall tables and seats. For the first alternate, the manual specified tables and seats manufactured by Folger Adam Company, their model number 522, or "upon prior approval" the equivalent. From the floor plan it is clear that 24 tables and corresponding seats would be required. The language of the manual describing alternate No. 1 presents no particular ambiguity or difficulty. The Folger Adam Company is well known in the construction business. Harold Wayne Blackwell, petitioner's president, used the manual in preparing Blackwell's bid for the contract. Blackwell bid on the base contract and on each of the four alternates. There are seven or eight contract hardware suppliers in Dade and Broward Counties, all of whom have access to Folger Adam Company products. Folger Adam Company does not have exclusive distributors. To determine the price of the tables, Mr. Blackwell telephoned several contract hardware suppliers, including Christensen Hardware Services, Inc. (Christensen). Christensen quoted Blackwell a price of ten thousand eight hundred dollars ($10,800.00) for twenty-four sets of Folger Adam model number 522 tables and seats. Blackwell submitted a bid of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00) on alternate No. 1. Forsythe bid on the base bid but did not bid on alternate No. 1, because Forsythe failed to obtain a quote on the tables and seats, before preparing its bid. Richard B. Solomon, Greenleaf's project manager for the forensic services building, opened the bids on March 20, 1979. As tabulated by Greenleaf, the bids were: Base Bid Alt. No. 1 Alt. No. 2 Alt. No. 3 Alt. No. 4 M.D. Forsythe Construction Co. $375,000 $ --- $50,842 $27,220 $33,020 Porfiri Construction Co. 406,200 7,000 45,534 25,315 44,130 Wayne Blackwell and Co., Inc. 397,735 11,000 47,000 25,000 35,000 Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. 405,000 14,900 52,000 28,300 47,650 McKee Construction Co. 407,000 --- 45,000 28,000 --- L.G.H. Construction Corp. 524,176 18,014 43,464 24,712 35,048 Creswell Construction Co. 394,000 41,000 43,000 23,000 33,000 Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. On the base bid, Forsythe was lowest, Creswell Construction Company next lowest, and Blackwell third lowest. Among contractors who bid on the base bid and all alternates, Blackwell's combined bids were lowest for the base bid plus alternate No. 1, the base bid plus alternates Nos. 1 and 2, the base bid plus alternates Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the base bid plus alternates Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Solomon was aware of two telephone calls received by Greenleaf during the time for preparation of the bids, inquiring about the price of the tables and seats. In examining the bids, he noticed that two contractors had not bid on alternate No. 1, and that the base bids as well as the bids on alternates Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were "pretty tight" as compared to the range of bids on alternate No. 1. From looking at the bids on alternate No. 1, it was hard for Mr. Solomon to tell what a reasonable price for the tables and seats was. Mr. Solomon recommended to HRS that the bids on alternate No. 1 be thrown out. Charles Robert Yates, an architect employed by HRS, concurred in Mr. Solomon's recommendation. He was under the impression that funding for the project would not be available unless the contract was let before April 1, 1979. Mr. Yates could not recall such diversity among bids in his thirty-year career, yet he had no difficulty learning what the tables and chairs cost when he called architectural firms to find out. After the bids were opened, Blackwell promptly protested Forsythe's bid. Under the heading of alternates, the manual states: If the Base Bid is within the amount of funds available to finance the construction contract and the Owner wishes to accept alternate additive bids, then contract award will be made to that responsible Bidder submitting the low combined bid, consisting of the Base Bid plus alternate additive bids (applied in the numerical order in which they are listed in the Bid Form). Petitioner's exhibit No. 1, Paragraph B-9, Alternates. HRS wrote Blackwell on April 3, 1979, denying Blackwell's protest and stating, as reasons: M.D. Forsythe Construction Co., Inc. did not ignore Alternate No. 1, but completed that section of their bid by stating "No bids received on this item." Proposals for Alternate No. 1 ran the gamut for "No Bid" to prices extending from $7,000 to $41,000. The Department holds, as concurred in by the attached letter from our consultants, that there was confusion in the marketplace regarding the intent of Alternate No. 1, as attested to by the disparity among the proposals, and therefore we choose not to consider Alternate No. 1. Provisions for this deletion include Sections B-17, B-22 and B-24 of the Contract Documents. Petitioner's exhibit No. 3. HRS then awarded the base contract and additive alternates Nos. 2 and 3 to Forsythe, and gave orders to proceed with construction on May 7, 1979. After construction began, Mr. Solomon wrote Forsythe to inquire what Forsythe would charge to install the tables and seats called for by additive alternate No. 1. Forsythe eventually agreed to do it for eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00), after first quoting a higher price. On August 1, 1979, Greenleaf prepared a change order at HRS' behest, directing Forsythe to install the tables and seats originally called for by additive alternate No. 1, at a price of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00). Other provisions of the manual relied on by the parties include the following: B-17 PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF BIDS Each Bidder shall copy the Proposal Form on his own letterhead, indicate his bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the entire work and for alternates on which he bids. Any erasure or other correction in the proposal may be explained or noted over the signature of the Bidder. Proposals containing any conditions, omissions, unexplained erasures, alternations, items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. . . DISQUALIFICATION OF BIDS Any or all proposals will be rejected if there is reason to believe that collusion exists among the Bidders and no participants in such collusion will be considered in future proposals for the same work. Proposals in which the prices obviously are unbalanced will be rejected. Falsification of any entry made on the Contractor's bid proposal will be deemed a material irregularity and will be grounds, at the Owner's option, for rejection. REJECTION OF BIDS The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the proposal of a Bidder who is not in position to perform the contract. AWARD OF CONTRACT The contract will be awarded as soon as possible to the lowest qualified Bidder provided his bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. The lowest bidder will be determined by adding to the Base Bid such alternates, in numerical order, as available capital funds will allow. The Agreement will only be entered into with responsible contractors, found to be satisfactory by the Owner, qualified by experience, and in a financial position to do the work specified. Each Bidder shall, if so requested by the Owner, present additional evidence of his experience, qualifications, and ability to carry out the terms of the contract, including a financial statement. Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. At no time did Forsythe attempt to influence the award of the contract improperly. At the time of the final hearing, the project was approximately 95 percent complete.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That, in the future, HRS adhere to the letter of language like that contained in paragraph B-9 of the manual whenever such language is used in an invitation for bids. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 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: Louis L. LaFontisee, Jr., Esquire 200 South East First Street, Suite 802 Miami, Florida 33131 Leonard Helfand, Esquire 401 North West 2nd Avenue Room 1040 Miami, Florida 33128 Richard Morgentaler, Esquire 1600 North East Miami Gardens Drive North Miami Beach, Florida 33179 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a registered specialty contractor in the state of Florida with license No. RR 0049820 and qualified Marion Pump Service with the state of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation. On January 8, 1986, Dorothy Dorsey and Respondent entered into a contract whereby Respondent was to install a four- inch well and a one horsepower pump on Dorsey's property in Marion County, Florida for a contract price of $1,410.00 Respondent commenced work on the well and pump installation on January 9, 1986, but it was not clear from the record when the Respondent completed the temporary installation of the pump. Temporary installation consists of drilling the well, installing and connecting the pump to a service pole for electrical service so the building contractor can use the water during construction of the house. Permanent installation could not be completed until Dorsey's home was at a stage completion to allow permanent pipe and electrical connection to the house. At the time of entering into the contract, Respondent requested that Dorsey "pull" the permit for the well and pump installation with the Marion County Building Department. It is not clear from the record when Dorsey attempted to "pull" the permit with the Marion County Building Department, but at that time she was informed by someone in the Marion County Building Department that the contractor would have to "pull" the permit. Again, it is not clear from the record when, or if, the Respondent was advised by Dorsey that he would have to "pull" the permit. Dorsey attempted to contact the Respondent by telephone concerning this matter, but Respondent did not return her telephone call. Apparently, the Respondent had completed the temporary installation at this time and was not at the job site. Upon Dorsey's home being completed, Dorsey was unable to get a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) from the Marion County Building Department because no permit had been issued and no final inspection called for or made. Being unable to get any response from the Respondent, Dorsey obtained a permit through Armstrong Well Service. Permanent connections to the home were made and a final inspection made, resulting in a CO being issued sometime around September 9, 1986. There was no evidence that Respondent's action in this regard resulted in any substantial delay to Dorsey obtaining a CO. Marion County's ordinance number 85-8, duly enacted on June 25, 1985, requires that the "contractor and/or owner" apply for and be issued a permit before well construction or pump installation, unless the State requires a permit, in which case proof that such permit has been issued exempts the applicant from this provision of the ordinance. This ordinance was in effect at all times material hereto. Ordinance 85-8 provides for doubling the permit fee as a penalty for failure to obtain the permit prior to commencing the well and pump installation. At all times material hereto, the water management district covering Marion County, Florida, the agency usually responsible for well permits, did not require a permit in the section of Marion County where Dorsey's home was located. It was Respondent's understanding of the ordinance that a permit was not required until the final inspection. There was no evidence that any inspection other than the final inspection was required by the Marion County Building Department for well construction and pump installation.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order DISMISSING the Administrative Complaint filed herein against the Respondent, Johnny Lee Bryant. RESPECTFULLY submitted and entered this 15th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 David E. Bryant, Esquire Jonathan M. Deer, Esquire 220 East Madison Street, Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33602 Johnny Lee Bryant, Pro Se Post Office Box 600 Silver Springs, Florida 32688
