Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department had the authority to certify those firms who qualified as MBE's for the purpose of contracting with it under the provisions of Chapter 13-8, F.A.C. When an application for MBE status is received at the Department's certification office in Tallahassee, it is assigned to one of five certifying officers who reviews it and determines whether it is complete as submitted or requires additional documentation. This is called a desk audit review. In the event all required documents have not been submitted with the application, they are requested in writing and the applicant has thirty days to provide them. Failure to do so results in denial of the application. If, on the other hand, all the required documentation is present, a decision is then made as to whether an on-site visit of the applicant's operation is necessary. If so, Department personnel go to the site and look to see if the business can qualify as an MBE. If an on-site visit is appropriate, but for some reason cannot be made, Department personnel try to get the required information by phone. The decision to approve or deny certification is made, based on the reviewing certifying officer's recommendation, by the certification manager who, before making a decision, personally reviews the file and, if appropriate, sends it to the Department's legal staff for additional review. Once the legal staff has made its recommendation, if the decision is made to deny the application, a letter of denial is sent to the applicant who may then appeal that decision. An application must meet all criteria set out in Rule 13-8, F.A.C. to be certified as an MBE. Each application is looked at on a case by case basis to see if those criteria are met. In the instant case, the denial was based on the Department's concern over several factors. These are related to Rule 13- 8.005(3), F.A.C. and included A question as to whether the business was actually controlled by Ms. Hogan. The nature of the corporate structure. The application of Chapter 47, F.A.C., dealing with the construction industry. The ability of both Hogan and Perretta to sign business checks. Whether Ms. Hogan had the technical and mechanical capability, skills and training to run a construction company, and Whether Ms. Hogan could effectively control such areas as financing, purchasing, hiring and firing, and the like. In arriving at its decision to deny Petitioner's application, the Department relied only on those matter submitted with the application. It did not ask for or seek any information about the company and its operation beyond that initially provided. Notwithstanding her recommendation in this case, Ms. Freeman has previously recommended the certification of numerous woman owned businesses as MBEs. On April 6, 1990, Ms. Hogan, as owner of E.C. Construction, Inc., a licensed general contractor qualified under the license of Carmen M. Perretta, applied to the Department for certification as a woman owned MBE. The application form reflected Ms. Hogan as the sole owner of the business, a corporation created under the laws of Florida. Ms. Hogan was listed on both the Articles of Incorporation, (1989), and the application form in issue here as the sole officer and director of the corporation, as well. Mr. Perretta was to be merely an employee of the firm, E.C. Construction, Inc.. In that regard Ms. Hogan claims, and it is so found, that the letters, "E. C." in the corporate name do not stand for Elinor and Carmen. Instead, they stand for Elite and Creative. Ms. Hogan is a 63 year old widow who professes a long-standing interest in building, design and decorating. In 1950, she and her husband started a floor covering business in another state which they operated for nineteen years. In 1969 they moved to Florida where her husband started a lawn maintenance business in Sarasota. She worked full time as a nurse at a local hospital and still found time to assist her husband in every aspect of their business including marketing, bookkeeping, public relations, etc. Her husband took ill in early 1986 and from that time on and after his death in May, 1988, until the business was sold almost a year later, she exercised complete control. She still runs a wedding supply and stationery business from her home. She sold the lawn business because she wanted to break the emotional links with the past and since she had some experience in construction, design and remodeling of her own home, went into the construction business establishing the Petitioner firm. In the few preceding years, she had designed and supervised several construction projects in the area in which she attended to financing, hiring the1 subcontractors, and supervision of the work. She also took some courses in design and has taken other courses and seminars in financing, accounting, marketing, advertising and operating a small business. Ms. Hogan and her husband met Mr. Perretta in 1987 when they put an addition on their house and she was impressed by his talents. When she decided to look into going into the construction business, she turned to him for advice and ultimately recruited him as the corporation's qualifying agent. Notwithstanding the fact that neither the corporate documents nor the application for MBE status so reflect, Ms. Hogan's lawyer now indicates that Perretta was also made a Vice-President of the firm, but his authority was limited to those actions necessary to meet the minimum compliance requirements of Florida law. When confronted with this discrepancy, Ms. Hagan claimed that the corporate papers and the application were in error and that she didn't know what they meant when she signed them. Ms. Hogan claims to be in full and complete control of all corporate activities, and to delegate to Mr. Perretta those responsibilities and functions, relating to the actual construction, that he is best qualified to carry out. She claims she does not share dominant control of the daily business activities of the firm though the evidence indicates both she and Mr. Perretta can individually sign corporate checks. In that regard, she claims he has signed only 19 of more than 500 checks issued by the firm since its inception. They have an understanding he will sign checks only for the purchase of materials, and then only in an emergency situation. He claims to no longer use that authority. The Department introduced no evidence to the contrary. Ms. Hogan admits to not having formal construction training or experience but, based on her other experience, believes she is qualified to run a business. Under her leadership the company has reportedly secured over one million dollars in contracts and for the most part, has performed them successfully. Under oath she claims to negotiate the contracts, prepare the estimates and deal with contracting customers in all the projects in which the company is engaged. She claims to have made those contractual decisions independent of Mr. Perretta to whom she is not accountable. Yet, as was seen, the Articles of Incorporation wrongfully indicate her as the only officer when Mr. Perretta was actually a Vice-President, and she claims not to have known that. This gives rise to some doubt as to her business credentials. In reality, Mr. Perretta actually directs and supervises the actual construction work at all job sites and schedules the subcontractors and materials to insure their presence at the job when needed. When changes are required, Mr. Perretta gives the necessary information to Ms. Hogan who prepares the change orders, including the typing, and forwards them as appropriate. Ms. Hogan has also entered into an agreement, dated June 25, 1989, with Mr. Perretta whereby, in lieu of salary as qualifying agent and field superintendent for the company, he is to receive 40% of the gross profits of each construction project. He gets a periodic draw against that percentage. In addition, in May, 1989, Ms. Hogan, as President, and Mr. Perretta, as Vice- President, entered into an agreement with Raymond Meltzer to retain him as general manager of E.C.'s Designer Structures division. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Meltzer was to have "absolute, unlimited and exclusive authority" to conduct all affairs of the division, except to incur debt other than short term debt to subcontractors. Mr. Meltzer was to have the right to draw checks on a separate E.C. account in a bank of his choosing, and was to receive 95% of all monies received as a result of the activities of that division. E.C. was to obtain the required permits or licenses for projects and to provide such supervision as is required by law. Though Petitioner did not incorporate under the name Designer Structures, nor did it register that name under the fictitious name statue, it continues to do business under that name. When it does, business is not conducted out of E.C.'s office, but from Meltzer's office instead. This is not consistent with Petitioner's MBE application which reflects only one office. Petitioner submitted at the hearing a notarized statement dated December 8, 1990, from Mr. Meltzer in which he admits to seeking to originally use Mr. Perretta and E.C. primarily as a qualifying agent for his own construction activities. The terms of the agreement referenced above tend to confirm that arrangement. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion that Ms. Hogan possess excellent business acumen and administrative abilities, and, he claims that, based on his initial meeting with her, he abandoned his plans to set up his own business and went into a business relationship with her. The evidence indicates he develops the work for the division and gets 95% of the fee. Ms. Hogan claims to be considering terminating the arrangement since it has not proven to be a lucrative one. She is apparently not aware the agreement specifically states it is for a three year term and carries options to renew. Though both Petitioner's application for MBE status and its bonding application indicate E.C. has no employees, Ms. Hogan testified that both Mr. Perretta and Mr. Meltzer are employees. She claims to use only subcontractors in the accomplishment of company projects and this appears to be so. She claims to have the strength of character and the will. to manage, hire and fire subcontractors as required. There is other evidence in the record, however, to indicate that Mr. Perretta actually schedules the subcontractors and materials to insure their presence at the job site when needed. It is found that there are no other employees who do direct, hands on contracting work, but while there may be a question of word meaning, it is clear that both Perretta and Meltzer qualify as employees. E.C.'s application for MBE status also indicates that it had not executed any promissory notes, yet there is a note for $3,500.00 from E.C. to Mr. Perretta, dated May 10, 1989, on which no payments have been made. Though Ms. Hogan claims to be fully in charge of running the business side of the operation, she is apparently also unaware of certain basic facts other than those previously mentioned. In addition to the inconsistencies regarding the office structure and her mistake concerning the employee status of Mr. Perretta and Mr. Meltzer, as well as her error regarding the loan, she was also in error as to the company's net worth. Whereas she indicated it was set at about $30,000.00, the company's most current financial statement reflects net worth at just above, $6,000.00, revealing her estimate to be 80% off. She also did not know the character of Mr. Perretta's license, (Class E.C. owns very little construction equipment and Ms. Hogan rents all needed equipment as indicated to her by Mr. Perretta. The lack of ownership is not significant, however. The one piece of equipment the company owns is a transit level which was purchased at Mr. Perretta's insistence. He has also donated to the company some used office equipment from his prior business as a contractor. He was not paid for it. Other equipment, in addition to office space, was furnished by Mr. Meltzer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case denying E.C. Construction, Inc.'s application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-5217 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. & 10. Accepted 11. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as to her prior experience though it was limited. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 24. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. & 29. Accepted. Not proven. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. & 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. Unknown but accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Guy Brisson, Personal Representative E. C. Construction, Inc. 105 Island Circle Sarasota, Florida 34232-1933 Dannie L. Hart, Esquire Joan V. Whelan, Esquire Department of General Services Suite 309, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Knight Building Koger Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 3399-0950 Susan Kirkland General Counsel DGS Suite 309, Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Virginia Valletti, an American woman, within the meaning of Section 288.703, Florida Statutes, holds 75 percent of the stock of Petitioner, Commercial Air Tech, Inc., (Commercial Air). Sam Valletti, the husband of Virginia Valletti, owns 15 percent of the stock of Commercial Air, and the two daughters of the Valetti's each owns five percent of the stock of the business. Sam Valletti is not a minority person as defined in Section 288.703, Florida Statutes. Article II, Section 1 of the bylaws of Commercial Air provides that "All Corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business affairs of the corporation shall be managed under the direction of, the Board of Directors." The bylaws state that the corporation shall have two directors. Those directors are Virginia and Sam Valletti. Article III, Section 2 of the bylaws of Commercial Air sets out the duties of the President of the company as follows: The President shall be the chief executive officer of the corporation, shall have general and active management of the business and affairs of the corporation subject to the directions of the Board of Directors, and shall preside at all meetings of the shareholders and Board of Directors. Commercial Air provides heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) services and is required by Florida statutes to be qualified by a licensed contractor. Sam Valletti holds the contractor's license which qualifies Commercial Air. Virginia Valletti testified that she does not believe that she could pass the contractor's test to become the qualifying agent for the company. Sam Valletti is authorized to sign checks on the account of Commercial Air, but Virginia Valletti signs the majority of the checks for the business. Sam Valletti signed the business lease for Commercial Air. Sam Valletti or a male employee, signs the contracts on behalf of the business. According to Virginia Valletti, the two men sign the contracts for appearance sake because the HVAC business is a male-dominated industry. According to the application submitted to the Respondent, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office (Department), Virginia Valletti's major responsibilities in the business are as follows: Open and close office Monday through Friday Transact all accounts receivables and payables Answer customer calls and inquiry's [sic] all on customers to insure their needs are being met Dispatch technicians to job sites Compose all company forms and form letters and contract forms Track job costs Analyze profit & loss statement, balance sheet and other financial reports Oversee office personnel - hire, review (all personnel) and fire (office only) Shop and purchase all insurance (workman's comp., liability, bond, etc) Figure payroll and all associated taxes Negotiate credit lines and loans Track truck maintenance and inventory Place orders with vendors and track shipments to job sites The application submitted to the Department lists Sam Valletti's major responsibilities as follows: Estimates jobs in construction and service Troubleshoots equipment problems with technicians Recommends and designs new installations with property managers and owners Keeps up to date on So. Florida code changes, labor laws, and union regulations Finds new resources and seeks out leading edge technological advances Customer liaison for technical questions Hires, reviews, and fires service personnel Purchases company vehicles Sam Valletti receives approximately $16,000 per quarter in wages from Commercial Air, and Virginia Valletti receives approximately $3,000 in wages.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Commercial Air, Tech Inc.'s request for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Edmond L. Sugar, Esquire 950 South Federal Highway Hollywood, Florida 33020 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 303, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Coggin and Deermont, Inc. (C&D) has forty-odd employees. The company owns a building and, among other equipment, bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, graders, draglines, and dump trucks. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. C&D clears, grubs, grades, and otherwise prepares roadbeds and constructs roads through the stage called "base work." C&D has qualified as a prime contractor with respondent Department of Transportation. The firm also builds culverts and storm drainage structures, including head walls, and does other concrete work. After Mr. Deermont died, at age 94, his partner carried on their road- building business with the help of Ralph C. Carlisle, a 25-year employee, and, until recently, president of C&D. Mr. Coggin died last year at 88, and the Carlisle family decided to acquire the rest of C&D's stock. Mr. Carlisle's wife Bertha, nee Lopez, had inherited Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000) from her father, who, like her mother, was born in Mexico. Blonde and blue-eyed, Mrs. Carlisle herself was born in the United States, on April 26, 1929. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. FAMILY BUYS COMPANY On February 10, 1982, the Carlisles bought all of C&D's stock Mr. Carlisle did not already own. They used Bertha's inheritance to make a Six Thousand Dollar ($6,000) cash payment and executed a promissory note in the amount of One Hundred Seventy-three Thousand, Three Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($173,325), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, for the balance of the purchase price. The note was secured by a mortgage encumbering three parcels of real estate owned jointly by Ralph C. and Bertha L. Carlisle. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The expectation is that income from C&D will make it possible for Mr. and Mrs. Carlisle to make the installment payments promised in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. C&D owes some Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) to various banks. Mr. and Mrs. Carlisle are personally liable for some, if not all, of C&D's debt. They are not obligated to begin installment payments on the note they executed to pay for the stock until March 10, 1983. Mrs. Carlisle paid Two Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($225) per share for her stock. (T. 58.) Only one hundred (100) shares are outstanding. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Mrs. Carlisle holds fifty-one percent (51 percent) of C&D's stock, and her husband holds thirty-four percent (34 percent). Mr. and Mrs. Carlisle have two sons, Ralph C. III and Richard D., to whom they gave ten percent (10 percent) and five percent (5 percent) of C&D's stock, respectively. All the Carlisles are directors of the corporation. Dividends have not been paid since the Carlisles took over. At some point, the Carlisles "decided [they] were going to apply for minority business enterprise [certification] and use [Mrs. Carlisle's] ethnic origin." (T. 64.) PRESIDENT'S DUTIES Mrs. Carlisle did not bring any particular expertise to C&D, even though she had accompanied her husband on some of his travels for C&D (without compensation). After graduation from high school, attendance at "business school," and two years as a clerk in a stock broker's office, she married Mr. Carlisle and began a twenty-five-year career as a housewife, which was interrupted recently by a two-year stint as an interior designer in a gift shop. (T. 65.) When she became majority stockholder, Mrs. Carlisle voted herself president of C&D. She succeeded her husband in that office. Her salary is One Thousand, One Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($1,125) weekly, and his is Eight Hundred Ninety-five Dollars ($895) 1/ weekly. They "combine" their salaries. (T. 90.) Machinery is not Mrs. Carlisle's strong point; she has some difficulty distinguishing among the different types of heavy equipment C&D uses. Field operations are not her primary concern. As a matter of company policy, she ordinarily visits job sites only in the company of her husband. (T. 63, 66- 67.) Her routine upon returning from site inspections she described as follows: [W]hen I come back I always check my mail and my phone calls or--something like that. Most of the time when I go out on the job, like I say, it's quite a distance away from home and I go back to the office and check to see what problems we have had, I have had. He checks his desk and I check my desk. And then we'll go on home and that's when we confer with our sons again. And business starts all over again. (T. 67-68.) She also buys most of the office supplies and signs weekly payroll checks, which are prepared by an employee and countersigned both by her husband and Patricia Kirkland, who keeps C&D's books. Mrs. Carlisle has only limited knowledge of basic accounting concepts. (T. 85-86.) She acts as C&D's "EEO representative," (T. 53) a task she took over from a secretary, Mrs. Cook. Mrs. Carlisle has other duties in connection with bid preparation. She reads some ten newspapers published in Chipley, Florida, and surrounds "to see which jobs are going to be coming up" (T. 50) and orders the plans for jobs C&D might be interested in; she and her husband ["he's the engineer and has all the experience . . ." (T. 51)] inspect the site; she inquires by telephone of "salesmen and people to get the prices" (T. 52) for pipe, concrete, and other materials, but does not negotiate prices. According to Mrs. Carlisle, her "husband is the one that is doing all of the figuring on the job," (T. 52) but Mrs. Carlisle works at figuring, particularly when she travels with her husband to Tallahassee. MINORITY OWNERS Both sons work for C&D and had held salaried positions with C&D before the Carlisles bought out the other owners. Their combined experience amounted to less than five years. The older boy, Ralph C. III, serves as corporate treasurer and as general superintendent "overseeing all the work that the company has under construction" (T. 20) and overseeing maintenance. He has power to hire and fire and has exercised it. As treasurer, he reviews a treasurer's report prepared by Mrs. Kirkland and signs rental agreements. He can operate every piece of equipment C&D owns. He has never supervised a road-building project from start to finish, but he worked on one project as a timekeeper and grade man from start to finish. He worked for C&D for a year after he graduated from high school. Since then he has had two years of college; he took math, engineering, and accounting courses. After college, he worked for Ardaman & Associates in Tallahassee for eight or nine months taking soil samples, before returning to C&D in February of 1982. He is paid Two Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($225) weekly. Richard D. works as foreman of a six-man crew, at a salary of One Hundred Seventy Dollars ($170) per week, and has full authority in the field in his father's absence, including the power to hire and fire the men he supervises. He began at C&D as a laborer. He has finished 60 hours of drafting technology courses at a junior college and may graduate in December. EFFECTIVE CONTROL As vice-president and general manager, answerable only to his wife, Ralph C. Carlisle has charge of C&D and manages day-to-day operations. He is trained as an engineer and does surveying for C&D. He is "the job estimator" (T. 90); he stakes out jobs and prepares cost reports. Richard D. Carlisle testified as follows: Q: Who do you report to? A: My daddy. Q: Do you receive instructions from him? A: Mostly. And I receive instructions from my brother and my mother. She will help us out. (T. 13.) Ralph C. Carlisle III testified, as follows: Well, basically I have the control of field supervising. If I make a decision in the field and it doesn't work then I ask [my father] to make a decision. That way he has a little more experience than I do, not a little more, a lot more. I make ninety- nine per cent of the decisions in the field. (T. 28-29.) He explained the lines of authority at C&D in these words: Totally to my mama, I'm totally responsible to her. But in the meantime I'm still re- sponsible to my daddy too. What I'm saying is, basically I do not have to report my day to day activities to anybody. If I have to, if there is something that arises I tell my mama first, being the stockholder, if she is available. If not then I go over it with my daddy. Basically my daddy and I have a little conference every evening on the field activ- ities, which my mama is also in on. We have a little conference every evening. We do report our activities to each other every evening. When it gets right down to it we don't have to. When asked whether decisions she makes in the field are joint decisions, Mrs. Carlisle answered: Yes. Just really because I'm president of the company that still doesn't mean -- that still means that we share it. My husband has a lot of say so just like I do. He has more knowledge in this field than I have. And this is what he is educated in too. (T. 70.) Mrs. Carlisle does not make policy for C&D by herself. (T. 76.) Mr. Carlisle is involved with all technical decisions. (T. 91.) The four owners live together as a family and discuss business at home as well as on the job.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1982.
The Issue Whether Expedient Services, Inc. should be certified as a minority business enterprise by the Respondent, pursuant to Section 288.703(1) and (2), Florida Statutes and the applicable rules implementing the statute.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation founded prior to 1978 by five minority owners who purchased all of the stock originally issued. The primary business of the corporation was to provide janitorial services for corporate and governmental clients. In 1978, Harvey Hughes was hired as president and CEO. As part of his compensation package, Hughes purchased a minority interest in the corporation at par value. Hughes continues to serve in that capacity to the present day. Beginning after 1983, the five original stockholders, on separate occasions, sold their shares back to the corporation leaving Hughes as the sole stockholder with 833 shares outstanding. In the late 1980's, Hughes' son, Carl Hughes, joined the company as Vice-President and began the process of changing the type of services the corporation provided. He became a minority shareholder in 1991. Sherry Hughes has served as a member of the Board of Directors and Secretary/Treasurer to the Corporation for many years. In addition, she is employed by the Corporation as its Human Resources Director. In 1992, for past services rendered and no additional consideration, Horace Hughes transferred 450 shares, or 54 percent of the outstanding shares, to Sherry Hughes, his wife. Fifty-Four percent of the Petitioner/applicant is presently owned by Sherry Hughes, a woman. The Petitioner's current business is the repair and sales of computers and peripheral equipment. The majority owner, Sherry Hughes, is not a computer technician. She cannot diagnose a computer which needs repairs. The corporation hires computer technicians. Sherry Hughes does not hire technicians, as that duty has been delegated to the Service Manager, Vincent Schneider. Additionally, Schneider usually does the firing when needed. Payroll for Petitioner is done by an employee, Kathy Levann. Mrs. Hughes purchases office supplies and leaves the purchasing of technical supplies to a buyer. The company presently has three male Directors and two women Directors, including Sherry Hughes. All the Directors are authorized to sign corporate checks. For their work, Sherry Hughes is paid $5.00 hourly; Horace Hughes is paid $12-14 hourly and Carl Hughes is paid $12-15 hourly. All are stockholders. Horace Hughes, as President, signed the lease for the business location. Horace Hughes signed the affidavit for insurance on the business vehicles. Horace Hughes signed for a business loan in the financed amount of $70,302.71, both as President and Guarantor at SunTrust Bank. Horace Hughes is authorized by corporate resolution to borrow money on behalf of the corporation. Carl Hughes entered into the agreements with various computer dealers on behalf of the Petitioner. Sherry Hughes does not handle invitations to bid. Carl Hughes handles all invitations to bid, cost estimating and negotiations. Applicant has not established by competent evidence that Sherry Hughes exercises a real, substantial continuing ownership and control of the applicant corporation. Other than her salary, no evidence was introduced to establish that Sherry Hughes receives income commensurate with the percentage of her ownership in the company. Sherry Hughes failed to establish that she shares in all of the risk through her role in decision-making, negotiations, and execution of documents as either an individual or officer of the corporation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed by Expedient Services, Inc. on April 7, 1995, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5067 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-18. COPIES FURNISHED: Horace Hughes, President Expedient Services, Inc. Post Office Box 5400 Titusville, Florida 32783-5400 Joseph L. Shields General Counsel Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000 Veronica Anderson Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000
The Issue The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Reguest for Statement of Qualification for Petroleum Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. Attachment F to the solicitation sought information related to utilization of minority business enterprises as subcontractors. Points were available for said utilization. The Department awarded zero points to parties which failed to include the three pages of the attachment in the responses to the solicitation. The issue in this case is whether the Department acted in accordance with law in awarding zero points for failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F.
Findings Of Fact On March 1, 1991, The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSOQ) for Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. As stated in the RFSOQ, the DER's objective is to enter into approximately ten contracts for petroleum cleanup services with contractors most qualified to perform the services. It is in the best interests of the state and the DER to enter into such contracts with the most qualified contractors available. Selected firms will be placed under contract with the DER to respond to task assignments. There is no work guaranteed to any contractor as a result of being selected and placed under contract. The cover sheet to the DER Solicitation #9111C identifies Attachment B as "General Instructions", Attachment C as "Instructions for Preparation of an SOQ", Attachment F as "Minority Business Certificate" and Attachment N as an "SOQ Checklist." In the RFSOQ, the DER specifically reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. The general instructions set forth at Attachment B provide, that the DER "may waive minor informalities or irregularities in the SOQs received where such are merely a matter of form and not substance, and the corrections of which are not prejudicial to other contractors." The DER is not required to waive all minor irregularities. The ability to waive such defects is within the jurisdiction of the agency. The evidence establishes that the DER applied such discretion consistently. There is no evidence that, at any time prior to the SOQ opening, did the Petitioner or Intervenors seek additional information from the DER regarding the agency's discretion to waive minor irregularities. Attachment C provides that "ANY AND ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY A CONTRACTOR IN VARIANCE WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE REVIEWED OR EVALUATED (e.g. pages beyond the 20-page SOQ limit will not be reviewed) or may result in the response being deemed non-responsive and rejected as noted." The purpose of the statement was to discourage responders from submitting information beyond that required by the RFSOQ, in order to provide a common basis for the evaluation of all SOQs submitted. The provision also provided the DER with the ability to reject an SOQ which failed to substantially comply with the agency's solicitation. Attachment C states that an SOQ shall consist of three parts, a one- page transmittal letter, a 20-page SOQ, and "other required information". According to Attachment C, the SOQ was to contain an introduction, a section on the company's background, a statement of experience and knowledge related to the qualifications required by the RFSOQ, a description of project organization and management appropriate to the tasks assigned, a list of personnel responsible for completion of assigned task, a list of "a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the FDER" and related information. Work performed for the DER was to be set forth separately in addition to the ten non-DER clients. "Other required information" included minority business utilization information. Attachment C provides as follows: Contractors submitting SOQs under this solicitation must identify intended minority subcontractors and estimated percentage of total contract amount to be awarded to minority firms on Attachment F of this Request for Statement of Qualifications. Use of any document other that Attachment F shall result in disallowance of any credit for use of minority subcontractors. (emphasis supplied.) Evaluation points were available on a scaled basis to contractors based upon their commitment to utilization of minority businesses enterprises in their SOQs. Attachment B provides that "Minority Business Utilization will be evaluated. provided that the responder complies with the reporting requirements contained in Attachment F...." (emphasis supplied.) Attachment F, page 1 of 3, provides as follows: Directions: Each contractor and/or subcontractor which meets the definition of a certified small minority business, as described below, shall submit an originally signed copy of page 1 of this Attachment in the response package to this solicitation. If more than one minority business is to be used, the prime contractor shall copy this page and have each minority business complete that copy as though it were an original. A prime contractor which intends to utilize subcontractors meeting the definition of small minority business is responsible for completing page 2 of this Attachment. A prime contractor which meets the definition of a small minority business is responsible for completing page 3 of this Attachment. If a particular page of this Attachment is not applicable, the prime contractor shall so indicate on that page and include the page as part of the response package. At a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit-- this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization. (emphasis supplied.) Attachment N, the "SOQ checklist," provides a list of items which are to be "properly completed, signed and enclosed" in order to "ensure that your SOQ is responsive to FDER Solicitation No. 9111C...." Item 3.b. of Attachment N reads: "Minority Business Utilization Form - if applicable (Attachment F)". As stated in Attachment B to the RFSOQ, on March 13, 1991, a mandatory pre-bid meeting was held in Tallahassee, Florida, at the DER's offices for all contractors wishing to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ). Failure to attend the meeting would have resulted in rejection of SOQs submitted by non- attending contractors. The Petitioner and Intervenors were represented at the pre-bid meeting. The meeting provided an opportunity during the solicitation process to have technical, legal or administrative questions answered. Accordingly, potential responders are expected to have read the complete RFSOQ prior to the meeting. At the pre-bid meeting, the DER did not review every part of the solicitation, but invited questions from participants. The DER official conducting the meeting stated that "any and all information submitted by a contractor in variance with these instructions will not be reviewed or evaluated," however, the other directions provided in the RFSOQ were otherwise reviewed only upon request. Although there was a specific discussion of the requirements for reporting proposed minority business utilization, there were no questions asked with regard to the requirements for completion of Attachment F. There were no questions asked regarding the DER's right to waive irregularities, or whether the failure to submit Attachment F in accordance with the directions would be regarded by the agency as a minor irregularity. Potential responders also had an opportunity to submit written questions prior to a time certain. There is no evidence that questions were raised related to the requirements of Attachment F or to the DER's application of it's discretionary authority to waive minor irregularities. On March 22, 1991, the DER issued an addendum, not material to this case, to the Request for SOQs. The addendum was sent by certified mail to each contractor represented at the March 13, 1991 meeting. On March 27, 1991, a second addendum was sent to each contractor. The addendum, among other things, changed the date for submission of an SOQ from April 1, 1991 to April 15, 1991 at 2:00 P.M. On April 15, 1991, SOQs were submitted by the Petitioner and Intervenors in this case. The bids were opened at 2:00 P.M. or shortly thereafter, and subsequently evaluated and scored by DER personnel. In some categories, points were awarded on a weighted basis, which provided a relative ranking of responders. For example, the prime contractor with the highest minority business enterprise subcontractor utilization received 13 points, with lesser ranked contractors receiving fewer points. On June 3, 1991, at 10:05 A.M. bid tabulation results were posted in the DER's contract office. The Petitioner and Intervenors in this case submitted responsive SOQ's to DER solicitation #9111C. The result of the DER's evaluation was the development of a short list of contractors permitted to make oral presentations to agency officials after which the DER will initiate contract discussions with approximately ten contractors. The SOQs were reviewed by DER officials who initially identified information submitted which did not comply with the requirements of the RFSOQ. Irregularities were identified and discussed with DER legal counsel to determine the materiality of the irregularity and to ascertain the appropriate treatment of the defects. The DER officials did not disclose the identity of the responder during the discussions, although the person identifying the defect was aware of the related responder. However, there is no evidence that the three DER officials were aware of an individual non-complying contractor's identity, or that the decision to waive such irregularities was based upon the identity of the participants. The DER determined that, in order to be equitable to all participants, it would not waive irregularities where the directions were clear and the consequences for noncompliance were specifically set forth. If the solicitation were less clear, or the consequence of noncompliance with the requirement was not specifically identified, the Department attempted to be more lenient regarding the waiver of such irregularities. Where the DER waived irregularities, such waivers were awarded on a consistent basis without regard to the individual responders involved. Information which was not to be reviewed or evaluated was concealed by either covering the information with white paper, or stapling excess pages together. The DER waived several types of minor irregularities in the SOQs received for Solicitation #9111C. Some contractors submitted transmittal letters consisting of multiple pages rather than the one page letter specified in the RFSOQ. The transmittal letter received no evaluation points. The DER stapled multiple page letters together and considered only information contained on the first page. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the one- page limit was not reviewed or evaluated. The DER did not waive the failure to attach a transmittal letter. DER waived some irregularities related to subcontractor letters. Multiple page letters were stapled together and only page one information was reviewed. The DER decision to waive such defects was based upon the fact that such subcontractors were less familiar with the DER's submission requirements than were the prime contractors, that such letters were submitted by the subcontractors, that it was unfair to penalize the prime contractors for the minor irregularities of the subcontractor letters, and that the tasks to be performed by subcontractors were generally not critical to the successful completion of the prime contractor's assigned responsibilities. There was sufficient information to permit the DER to conclude that the subcontractor and prime contractor were committed to the project. There is no evidence that the identities of the subcontractors was considered in determining whether such defects should be waived. The DER waived other irregularities related to subcontractor letters, including the failure of a subcontractor to sign the letter. There was no specific requirement that the subcontractor sign the letter. However, the DER did not waive the failure to submit subcontractor letters. In instances where no letters were submitted, the DER awarded zero points and references to the subcontractor in the SOQ were deleted. The DER's actions related to subcontractor letters was reasonable and appropriate. Another irregularity waived by the DER was the failure to supply a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the DER, with work performed for the DER set forth separately. The DER did not waive the failure to submit ten references, however, in some cases, not all ten references were acceptable. Attachment C does not state that the failure to submit ten acceptable references shall result in an award of zero points. In such instances, the DER reduced the number of points available to reflect the percentage of acceptable references provided. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the requirements, such as unacceptable references, was not evaluated. The DER acted reasonably and consistently with the provisions set forth in the RFSOQ. The DER requested that responders identify three "deliverables" required through an ongoing contract which had been effective within the past year. The DER did not consider deliverables related to contracts which had not been effective within the past year. The DER checked the references and awarded no points for unacceptable references. Several SOQ's did not appropriately identify key personnel as required. The DER did not consider information which was not reported as required by the RFSOQ. Where minor irregularities were waived, the waiver was applied consistently to all responders. The DER did not waive the failure of any responder to submit the three pages of Attachment F, as clearly required by the directions to the attachment. All parties which failed to submit all three pages of the attachment received a score of zero. There is no evidence that the DER, at any time, indicated that the directions set forth on Attachment F were optional. Approximately 20 of 45 of contractors submitting SOQs failed to include all three pages of the MBE utilization form, Attachment F to the Request for SOQs. Most failed to include page three of the attachment. The Petitioner, as well as Intervenors ERM-South, ITC and Westinghouse, were included in the 20 responders which failed to submit all three pages of Attachment F. As provided in the directions to Attachment F, failure to include all three pages of the attachment resulted in a score of zero points for MBE utilization. The DER could have made certain assumptions about the applicability of Attachment F to specific responders to the solicitation. However, given that the directions were clear and the penalty for not complying with the directions was equally clear, the DER did not waive the failure to submit all three pages of the attachment as part of the SOQs. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the DER's action was outside the agency's discretion or the requirements of law. Extensive testimony was offered in support of the assertion that the directions related to reporting of minority business utilization were confusing and ambiguous. However, the directions to Attachment F are clear and provide that, "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." There is no credible evidence to establish that such directions are confusing or ambiguous. The instructions to the RFSOQ consistently refer to Attachment F as being the only acceptable means of reporting minority business utilization information. Attachment F consists of three pages, with the "Directions" for completing and submitting the attachment set forth at page one, paragraph one. The Petitioner and Intervenors timely filed SOQ's and are substantially affected by the DER's determination that responders failing to submit all three pages of Attachment F were awarded zero points for minority business utilization. There is no evidence that the Petitioner or Intervenors are unable to perform the tasks identified in the RFSOQ.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (Case No. 91-4318B1D), as well as Cases No. 91- 43I6BID and 91-4317B1D, as set forth in the preliminary statement to this Recommended Order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-4316B1D, 90-4317B1D, and 90-4318B1D The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected as to the implication that DER had no right to waive minor irregularities, contrary to the evidence. 12, 16, 19. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected. Such additional points appear to have been awarded to M&E in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 24-25. Rejected. Although the specific waivers are factually correct, the implication of the proposed finding is contrary to the weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER waives such irregularities, even though the instructions were clear, where the consequences for failing to comply with each specific instruction were unclear. There was no penalty set forth at the requirement that a document be signed or not exceed one page in length. The evidence establishes that the DER's actions were reasonable, logical, and within the authority of the agency. 29-32. Rejected. Contrary to the clear "Directions" of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." Responders were referred to Attachment F by the instructions cited in the proposed finding. 33-34, 36-38, Rejected, irrelevant. 39. Rejected, immaterial. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by M&E and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40-41 Rejected. A logical reading of the checklist reference to Attachment F would be that, if the attachment were applicable, the attachment should be included. The clear and specific directions to Attachment F require the submission of the three page package to receive points. 42-43. Rejected, irrelevant. 44. Rejected. The failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F resulted in zero points, as provided in the directions to the attachment. The DER policy related to waiver of irregularities does not include the waiver of irregularities where the instructions are clear, the penalty for noncompliance is specific, and a responder fails to comply. The policy is reasonable and was applied consistently. 47. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. It appears that M&E's assertion that it would be included in the "short list" requires addition of points awarded by the DER in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 49-50. Rejected. While "instructions in a competitive bidding solicitation can be rendered ambiguous by their location," in this case, the instructions contained in the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. Attachment F's directions are not ambiguous or confusing. 51-53. Rejected, immaterial. This proposed finding is also contrary to the suggestion that the instructions were unclear, and indicates, not that the instructions were unclear, but that the M&E representative did not read the RFSOQ. It is not possible to find that a careful and intelligent reader of the directions to Attachment F could misunderstand the meaning of "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 54-61. Rejected, immaterial. The fact that a substantial number of responders failed to comply with the clear directions of Attachment F does not establish that the directions are confusing. The instructions to the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. The first paragraph of Attachment F is entitled and contains "Directions" which are clearly set forth. There is nothing at all ambiguous about the requirement that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 62-65. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no requirement that the DER waive all irregularities. Such irregularities may be waived at the Department's discretion. The DER chose not to waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for failure to comply with said requirements, were clear. The DER applied this policy appropriately and consistently. There was no appearance of favoritism when the agency's policy is fairly and consistently applied. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER expects potential responders to have read the RFSOQ prior to the pre-bid meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to answer questions and provide clarifying information. The fact that no questions were asked regarding the requirement to submit all three pages of Attachment F indicates that participants either clearly understood the requirement or had not read the RFSOQ prior to the only mandatory opportunity to obtain clarification. In any event, the DER is not obligated to read every sentence of the RFSOQ aloud at a pre-bid meeting in order to make certain that responders who fail to read the document will submit responsive SOQs. Rejected, cumulative. 68-69. Rejected, immaterial, unnecessary. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 23. Rejected as to the implication that Attachment C, Page 1, indicated the DER could not waive any irregularities. Cited language states that information submitted in variance with instructions would not be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence establishes that information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated, but was disregarded. 28. Rejected. It is not clear what is meant by this proposed finding. 37-39. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. 41. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. 42-43. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible, especially given M&E/PIECO's correct submission in response to similar requirements of RFSOQ #9003C. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. The fact that the cited witness understood the directive and failed to comply due to oversight does not suggest that the directive was unclear. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. The reason for the cited witnesses failure to comply is unclear. Rejected, cumulative. 48. Rejected, unnecessary. 50-51. Rejected, immaterial. The issue in this case is not whether to goals of the minority business utilization program are met, but whether the DER acted inappropriately in reviewing SOQs submitted in response to the DER RFSOQ #9111C. 52-53. Rejected, unnecessary. 54-56. Rejected, unnecessary, cumulative. Intervenor ERM-South The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, cumulative. 14-19. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. 21. Last sentence rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER applied the language of the RFSOQ in a reasonable way, and that material information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated. 32-39, 41. Rejected, immaterial. The issue is whether the failure to follow the clear directions of Attachment F should result, as the directions provide, in zero points being awarded. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by ERM-South and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. There is no evidence that the omission of Attachment F, page three, is the sole basis for exclusion of a contractor from the short list. The short list was determined by ranking scores awarded. As stated in the directions to Attachment F, the result of noncompliance with said directions was an award of zero points for minority business utilization. 42-46. Rejected, cumulative, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER's action in reviewing the submitted Attachment F was reasonable, logical, and was applied in a consistent manner. As to whether the DER should have contacted other agencies to determine MBE status, the agency is under no obligation to do so. 47-49. Rejected, contrary to the clear directions of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." It is simply not possible to find, as suggested in the proposed finding, that such language cannot be relied upon to put contractors on notice that the failure to submit the three pages would result in zero points. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. Rejected, irrelevant. 52-54. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. 55-57. Rejected, irrelevant. 59-64. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. Intervenor ITC The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Proposed findings of fact #7, #10 and #14-16 relate to evidence introduced at hearing by ITC to support it's position that it had been excluded from the "short list" due to DER's clerical error. As stated in the preliminary statement, ITC failed to timely file a notice of protest subsequent to the posting of the bid tabulation results challenging the DER's clerical error. Accordingly, this Recommended Order does not set forth Findings of Fact related to the clerical error due to ITC's failure to timely file a written notice of protest as required by Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes. 12. Rejected. The M&E formal written protest does not allege that the DER had improperly drawn the line for the "short list." 18-20. Rejected. Although likely correct, the proposed findings are irrelevant to the issue in this case. Rejected. Such additional points awarded to M&E by the DER appear to have been awarded contrary to Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. Rejected, cumulative. ITC had an opportunity to timely file a written notice of protest subsequent to the bid tabulation posting, but failed to do so. An intervenor takes the case as it is found. Rejected, cumulative. 25. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The evidence does not establish that the failure to complete all of Attachment F was based on it's inapplicability. Attachment F clearly states that inapplicable pages should be so marked and submitted with the response package. If such pages were not returned, as suggested, because there did not apply, then it is reasonable to conclude that the responder failed to read the clearly stated directions to Attachment F. 26-29. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER did nothing more than apply the clearly stated direction that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package" and imposed the clearly stated penalty, stating that "[f]ailure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 32-33. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence that the DER did not waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for noncompliance with said requirements, were clearly stated. The DER did waive other irregularities where the instructions were ambiguous or confusing, or where there was not a specific penalty attached for the failure to follow a specific requirement. The evidence establishes that the DER actions were appropriate. 34. Rejected, immaterial. All three pages of Attachment F were clearly required to be submitted or a score of zero would be awarded. Intervenor E&E The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-3. Rejected, cumulative. 12. Rejected, contrary to the cited evidence. Although Attachment F was discussed in terms of reporting requirements, there were no questions asked related to the directions for completing or submitting the attachment. 21. Rejected, cumulative. Intervenors EBASCO, ABB, OHM, Cherokee and Westinghouse jointly filed a proposed recommended order. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 13, 16-17, 43-45, 47. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esq. Carlos Alvarez, Esq. 123 S. Calhoun Street Post Office Drawer 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 M. Christopher Bryant, Esq. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George N. Meros, Esq. 101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barrett G. Johnson, Esq. 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rex D. Ware, Esq. 106 East College Avenue Highpoint Center, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Robert Venzina, III, Esq. Mary M. Piccard, Esq. 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0589 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esq. Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The DOT, as a state agency, is charged with developing a DBE program for contractors dealing with the Department. Burkett is a Florida corporation whose sole stockholder is a white female American. She meets the criteria of a socially and economically disadvantaged individual. Burkett applied for certification as a DBE on July 12, 1991, and was denied by the Department on October 1, 1991. Burkett submitted additional information and made changes to its internal organization to better conform to the Department's requirements; however, the Department has denied Burkett DBE status on the basis of the owner's alleged lack of expertise in the critical areas of the firm's operation, to wit; she does not possess education or training in engineering. The DOT interprets "critical areas of operation" to mean the technical area in which the DBE certification is being sought. Management limited to the day-to-day normal business operations is not considered to be a "critical area of operations." Evidence of expertise is dependent upon the nature of the business; however, the DOT expects to see education or experience on the part of the disadvantaged owner in the technical area of operations of the business. The DOT denied the Petitioner because the disadvantaged owner did not possess engineering experience or education. The disadvantaged owner is the widow of the founder of the business who died of a form of multiple sclerosis. As her husband lost the ability to direct the operations of the company, the owner assumed more and more responsibility for the day to day operations of the company. Professional engineers were hired to handle the technical aspects of the business; however, she clearly directed the hiring and firing of engineering staff. In this regard, her son and son-in- law, who are both trained engineers, came into the business. Her son-in-law left when the owner limited his participation in the business. Her son remains in the business as head of the engineering operation; however, she actively participates in the assessment of projects and preparation and presentation of bids. She is in overall control of the company, and, although she does not make direct assignments of tasks to engineers and draftsman, she does oversee their work. She has pointed out to her son draftsmen who are under utilized, and given directions to assign the men more work and terminate them. The owner does not have any formal engineering training or experience in technical engineering work.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation deny the Petitioner's request for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) status. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1992. Appendix A to Recommended Order 92-896 The parties submitted supplemental proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which findings were adopted and which were rejected and why. Petitioner' Proposed Findings: Paragraph 1 True, but rejected in favor of discussion of son-in-law's leaving business. Paragraph 2 Irrelevant. Paragraph 3 True; but rejected in favor of Para 5 in RO. Respondent's Proposed Findings: Paragraph 1-3 Rejected as argument, and conclusions of law. Paragraph 4,5 Irrelevant. Paragraph 6 Irrelevant. The Department based its determination on the owner's lack of education and experience and not lack of participation. Paragraph 7 Irrelevant. She was afforded the opportunity to present her case at the hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Cobb, Cole, and Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Pamela S. Leslie, Esquire Pamela A. Arthur, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS # 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Tholy Construction, Inc., applied for minority business enterprise status with the State of Florida in three basic areas, minority consulting, grassing and trucking. Tholy Construction, Inc., was founded in May, 1983, by Thomas L. Hawthorne and his wife, Lynette Hawthorne. Mr. & Mrs. Hawthorne own 100 percent of the capital stock of Tholy Construction, Inc. Mr. Hawthorne serves as the President and Chief Operating Officer, and Mrs. Hawthorne serves as Vice- President and Office Manager. Both Mr. & Mrs. Hawthorne are Black. Thomas L. Hawthorne is a graduate of Florida A & M University with a major in Business Administration and Accounting After graduation in 1972, Mr. Hawthorne went to work for the Department of Transportation as a Right-of-Way Agent. At the Department of Transportation, Mr. Hawthorne's basic assignment was the acquisition of property for road building projects. In 1973, Mr. Hawthorne moved to Dothan, Alabama, and became an employee of Pike Building Company. This was not an administrative position, but was a construction worker position. Mr. Hawthorne worked there for ten months and then took a position at Couch Construction Company in Dothan as a personal trainee in the area of equal employment opportunity. Couch Construction is a large construction company engaged in road building and airport construction. Mr. Hawthorne was employed at Couch Construction Company from 1974 to 1983, having responsibility for compliance with minority requirements of the Federal Government, setting up programs to attract and secure minorities, assisting minorities in proposing bids for subcontracts, and decision making relative to the cost of bidding projects. Lynette Hawthorne has worked full time at Tholy Construction Company since December, 1983. Her major areas of responsibility are the financial and bookkeeping procedures of the company. Previously, she worked in banking for six years, and her education consists of two and a half years of business administration at Florida A & M University. Mrs. Hawthorne is being trained by her husband to prepare bids and bid proposals, and is in training to inspect job sites of projects to make sure that they are completed in accordance with specifications. Tholy Construction, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of the State of Alabama. The offices are located at 1701 Reed Street, Suite 105, in Dothan. There are presently two full time persons working in the office. Thomas Hawthorne and his wife, Lynette Hawthorne. Tholy Construction, Inc., is certified as a minority business enterprise in both the States of Alabama and Georgia. Mr. & Mrs. Hawthorne give all the orders as far as work is concerned, they prepare their own income tax returns, file their quarterly statements with the Federal Government, and make out the payroll. They are the only ones authorized to sign checks and entered into lease agreements, and the business pays 100 percent of their salary. In the states where the company is certified under the minority enterprise program, bids are regularly submitted on behalf of the Tholy Construction, Inc. Through December, 1983, Tholy Construction, Inc. grossed $200,320.39. Mr. Hawthorne has been successful in gaining several contracts for minority consulting work, one with his former employer which includes monitoring of the ? ? programs. In addition, Tholy Construction ? ? ? ? contracts with at least one other small construction company to provides technical business assistance and payroll services. This is with Salter Construction Company which is a 100 percent minority-owned corporation, employing about 20 persons. In the area of grassing, there are several projects that Tholy Construction Company has completed or is involved in, including Lowe Field in Alabama and the grassing project on Interstate 10. Mr. Hawthorne is familiar with grassing projects, including the need for flat bed trucks to pick up and haul the grass, mulching machines, the 888 fertilizers, and the different types of grass, Osora, Bermuda and Bahia. In each case, according to specifications of the grassing projects, Tholy Construction leases the area where the grass comes from, supplies the necessary fertilizer, and puts the grass in place on the particular project. In the area of trucking services, Tholy Construction, Inc., regularly bids on trucking and hauling projects in the states where it is certified as a minority business enterprise. However, the company has not purchased any equipment, and its basic method of operation is to subcontract with companies in the area to do the work. The company has two full time employees, Thomas Hawthorne and Lynette Hawthorne. On work at the Army's Lowe Airfield, there was a contract requirement that a certified payroll be maintained so the Army could monitor the wages paid individuals doing the work. In leasing the earthmoving equipment for site preparation on this project, Tholy Construction agreed to carry the equipment operators on its payroll to satisfy the contract requirement for a certified payroll. The company has subcontracted with other companies to perform different items of work on this project, and basically all other construction type work has been subcontracted by Tholy Construction. During 1983, 70 percent of the contract income of $181,310.39 shown by Tholy Construction was with Couch Construction Company, and 90 percent of the consulting income of $19,200 was with Couch. Also, Tholy rents equipment and purchases material from Couch, which is the largest construction company in the Dothan area. The MBE Rule requires firms to have adequate resources such as equipment and personnel to do the work, and does not allow brokers to become part of the MBE program. A broker does not own equipment or have its own personnel, but subcontracts the work to another company. If a firm subcontracts, it must perform at least 51 percent of the work with its own personnel and equipment to meet the requirements for certification. The firm must have in-house resources, necessary personnel, expertise and experience to do the work.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Tholy Construction, Inc., be DENIED certification as a Minority Business Enterprise in the area of trucking, and GRANTED certification as a Minority Business Enterprise in the area of minority consulting and grassing. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 9th day of August 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Luther C. Smith, Esquire 219 E. Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr. Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Commission, was the state agency responsible for the certification of Minority Business Enterprises in Florida. Petitioner, Computer Service, was founded by Ronald E. Willett in January, 1987. It is a computer maintenance and repair company of which Brenda Willett is currently President and Chairman of the Board and owner of a 51 percent share of the capital stock issued on December 15, 1993. Ronald E. Willett is the Executive Vice-president, a Director, and owner of a 49 percent share of the capital stock. Mr. Willett was the sole owner and Chairman of the Board until May, 1994, at which time he gave 51 percent of the stock to his wife, Ms. Willett, and the Board elected her Chairman. Ms. Willett has been in the data processing field for 13 years. Before she began working with the Petitioner, she was a computer programmer for the State Attorney's office. She uses computer software to help with managing the affairs of the company, but she is neither a programmer nor a technician. She does not do any repair work for the company because she is not trained to do it. Most of the repair work is done by her husband and two computer engineers employed by the company. A fifth employee works in the warehouse and repairs printers. Of the non-family employees, Ms. Willett interviewed one and hired another. Now she is responsible for all interviewing and hiring. Because of the technical nature of the work, however, she does the initial screening interview after which either Mr. Willett or one of the engineers evaluates the candidates' technical qualifications. She completes the evaluations of her employees' performance by relying on her customers to evaluate the employees' technical performance. In addition, she notes when an employee orders an inordinate amount of parts for a job instead of doing repair work because that generally indicates the employee is not performing properly. Ms. Willett is paid $1,500 every two weeks. Her husband is paid $6,500 per month, and each of the engineers is paid $40,000 per year. Ms. Willett is primarily in charge of the business administration. The inventory of repair parts is maintained at the company warehouse and at the various work sites where the company has contracts to maintain the equipment. Each repairman notifies her of the parts needed. She gets prices and orders the needed parts. The company does not have a line of credit with suppliers. Ms. Willett has, in the past, personally signed for a line of credit which was used for the company. The company presently owes $18,000 to a power supply company under a contract which she negotiated. For the past year, she has been the only company official to sign to commit the company on loans. In addition, Ms. Willett negotiates the company's contracts with customers and she works as a team with the engineers on pricing. The company works on a basis of 35 - 50 percent off IBM prices for similar service. Though her husband helps her decide on what machines the company can buy and repair, she would not need to replace him if he should retire. He is currently working only 18 -20 hours per week. The company submitted its application for minority business enterprise certification on April 18, 1994. Ms. Willett indicated she did not know about the program until it was mentioned to her by an instructor in a course she was taking, and she felt it would help her secure business. As a woman, she was finding it difficult to be taken seriously by the male business officers and managers she dealt with in soliciting business, and she understood that the minority certification would help her qualify for state contracts. The initial review of Petitioner's application was accomplished by Mr. DeLaO, who requested and received from Petitioner matters needed in clarification or amplification of the information contained in the application. Mr. DeLaO also conducted a telephone interview with Ms. Willett to determine how the business was operated and to reaffirm the accuracy of the documentation. Mr. DeLaO did not look elsewhere for information. Based on the information listed above, he recommended denial of the Petitioner's certification. Mr. DeLaO's recommendation was based on several factors, all of which are listed in the recommendation submitted in writing to his supervisor. The problems he found included: The risk of the minority owner, as weighed against the risk of the non-minority owner indicated Ms. Willett, who had received her shares as a gift, had no investment in the corporation to lose. Mr. DeLaO felt the risk of the minority owner should be greater than that of the non-minority owner. Risk was defined as the amount of investment capital put in to start the company or to purchase ownership. The minority owner's wages were not commen- surate with her percentage of ownership. Here, Mr. Willett, the non-minority owner, was making more than she was, as were both engineers. The Board of Governors of the corporation was not controlled by the minority owner. At the time of the review, only Mr. Willett was on the Board. Now that she is on the Board, she still does not control it because she one of only two Directors. Ms. Willett does not appear to have the technical expertise and capability to control the business of the company. She does not appear to have the technical education or experience to do the work of the company herself or to properly evaluate how her employees are performing it - computer repair. Her contribution appeared to be only administrative. Ms. Willett admits her ownership of the 51 percent of the shares of the company was a gift from her husband who felt she deserved it. She claims, however, that the initial cash infusion to the company, when it was first started, came from jointly owned funds utilized to purchase the necessary tools to start Mr. Willett in business. From that initial investment the corporation grew. It should be noted, however, that the actual transfer of stock ownership to Ms. Willett took place just four months prior to the filing of the application for certification, and Ms. Willett's election to the Board came in May, 1994, after the application was filed. The allegation regarding Ms. Willett's salary relative to that of her husband and two of the three other employees is correct. By the same token, the comments regarding her Board membership are also correct. In addition, it is clear her technical competence is insufficient to permit her to accomplish a majority of the computer repair functions completed by her employees. Whether she must be qualified to perform all tasks done by each employee is debatable. She must, however, have a general knowledge of the business which would make her supervision and management meaningful, and it is not at all clear she possesses either those skills or that knowledge. She is quite correct in her claim, however, that if she did not get the contracts, the workmen would have no work to do. Mr. DeLaO's supervisor, to whom his recommendation for denial of certification was addressed, on August 24, 1994 concurred with his recommendation and notified Ms. Willett, on behalf of the Petitioner, that the request for certification as an MBE was denied. The letter of denial contained the Commission's basis for denial.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order in this case denying Computer Service Concepts, Inc.'s request for certification as a minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1995, 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 28th day of February, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda J. Willett, pro se Computer Service Concepts, Inc. 7616 Industrial Avenue, Suite 3 New Port Richey, Florida 34668 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Suite PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Crandall Jones Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building 2727 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 General Counsel Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building 2727 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be certified as a minority business enterprise (MBE) by the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security (Department).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, All Kinds of Blinds, was incorporated in the State of Florida on January 15, 1999, as All Kinds of Blinds of So. Fla., Inc. The President of the Petitioner is Angela Conroy, a female. Mrs. Conroy owns 51 percent of the company. The remaining 49 percent of the company is owned by Phillip Conroy, Angela’s husband. Mr. Conroy also serves as the company’s vice president and secretary. On June 2, 1999, Mrs. Conroy executed a Florida Statewide and Inter-local Minority Business Enterprise Certification Application that was filed with the Department. The application identified Angela Conroy as the person who makes policy, financial decisions, signs payroll, signs surety bonds and insurance, and makes contractual decisions for the Petitioner. The application also identified Phillip Conroy as the person who makes personnel decisions and signs payroll for the Petitioner. Mr. Conroy is authorized to sign checks on behalf of the company. According to the application, the Petitioner performs various functions regarding the sales, consultation, service, and installation of all types of window coverings. Mrs. Conroy sought MBE certification as an American woman with majority ownership of the Petitioner. Mrs. Conroy has ten years of experience in this type of business but was reluctant to let her former employer know that she was opening her own business. Accordingly, Mrs. Conroy authorized Mr. Conroy to execute applications and various papers on behalf of the Petitioner. She relied on his business experience to guide her through the start-up process. An initial loan in the amount of $4,000 from the couple’s joint bank account was the start-up funds for the Petitioner. Mr. Conroy does the installations for the Petitioner. He performs other functions for the company as may be necessary. He also owns and operates an air conditioning filter company that leased a vehicle also used for the Petitioner’s business. Mr. Conroy maintained that his name appears on records pertaining to the Petitioner as a convenience for his wife. Mr. Conroy is a white male.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office, enter a final order denying the Petitioner’s application for MBE certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela Conroy All Kinds of Blinds 123 North Congress Avenue Suite 328 Boynton Beach, Florida 33426 Joseph L. Shields, Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 301, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue Whether the Petitioner qualifies as a minority business enterprise?
Findings Of Fact J. F. Dees is the husband of Edith Dees and the father of Gale Dees Paschal and Michael Dees. Edith Dees is the mother of Ms. Paschal and Michael Dees. In 1959, J. F. Dees and Edith Dees began operating a painting business. The business was eventually incorporated as J. F. Dees, Inc. J. F. Dees, Inc., employed union employees. In June of 1974, Ms. Dees formed the Petitioner. The Petitioner was formed so that nonunion labor could be used and to provide for the future of Ms. Paschal and Michael Dees. Ms. Dees owned 100 percent of the stock of the Petitioner from its formation in 1974 until 1976. In 1976, Ms. Dees sold 50 percent of the stock of the Petitioner to Ms. Paschal and 50 percent to Michael Dees. The purchase price for 50 percent of the stock of the Petitioner in 1976 was $25,000.00, half the appraised value of the Petitioner at that time. The money used by Ms. Paschal and Michael Dees to purchase the stock was given to them by Ms. Dees. After selling the stock of the Petitioner, Ms. Dees and J. F. Dees retired. From 1976 until June, 1986, Ms. Paschal and Michael Dees were 50-50 owners and the only directors of the Petitioner. On June 19, 1986, Ms. Paschal and Michael Dees each gave 100 shares of their stock in the Petitioner to Ms. Dees. Ms. Dees was given an interest in the Petitioner and returned to work because J. F. Dees had suffered a serious illness. As a result of this illness, Ms. Dees had suffered financial difficulties which necessitated her return to work. The Petitioner is a Florida corporation. It was formed on June 6, 1974. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of commercial and industrial painting and related services. The Petitioner has no affiliation or relationship with J. F. Dees, Inc., or any other business. As of March 31, 1986, the net worth of the Petitioner was $652,128.29. No financial statements as of March 31, 1987, or any other date after March 31, 1986, have been prepared. In 1986 the Petitioner had gross sales of over $2,000,000.00. The net profit on the Petitioner's gross sales was $164,870.23. The net worth of the Petitioner as of the date of the final hearing of this case was less than $1,000,000.00. The Petitioner is performing a useful business function. Ms. Paschal and Ms. Dees are not employees of a non-minority business with any ownership interest in the Petitioner. The Petitioner has one outstanding class of stock. The outstanding stock of the Petitioner is currently owned as follows: Ms. Paschal 400 Shares -- 40 percent Michael Dees 400 Shares -- 40 percent Ms. Dees 200 Shares -- 20 percent Ms. Paschal, Ms. Dees and Michael Dees are the only directors of the Petitioner at this time. The By-Laws of the Petitioner provide that the management and control of the business of the Petitioner is vested in the Board of Directors. Any combination of two directors can control the business of the Petitioner. The Petitioner's officers are as follows: President: Ms. Paschal Vice-President: Michael Dees Vice-President: Ms. Dees Secretary/Treasurer: Joye M. Glenna The By-Laws of the Petitioner provide the following with regard to the duties of the officers: The duties of the officers shall be such as are usually imposed upon such officials of corporations and as are required by law, and such as may be assigned to them, respectively, by the Board of Directors from time to time. Ms. Paschal, Ms. Dees and Michael Dees are all paid a salary for the work they perform for the Petitioner. The Board of Directors approves Christmas bonuses. In 1985 no bonuses were given to Ms. Paschal, Ms. Dees or Michael Dees. In 1986, Michael Dees was awarded a bonus. The bonus was awarded to Michael Dees because of his work as one of 5 estimators of the Petitioner. His bonus was computed in the same manner that bonuses for the other 4 estimators were calculated. Bonuses were awarded based upon an employee's contribution to the Petitioner's business. Ms. Paschal and Ms. Dees did not receive a bonus in 1986 because they did not work as estimators. Michael Dees has received a loan from the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a subchapter S corporation for Federal income tax purposes. The profits and losses of the Petitioner are allocated to Ms. Paschal, Ms. Dees and Michael Dees in the same proportions as their stock ownership. The five estimators of the Petitioner, including Michael Dees, have the same authority and duties. Michael Dees' primary job function with the Petitioner is in his capacity as an estimator. Michael Dees does not supervise the work of the other 4 estimators. In his capacity as an estimator, Michael Dees prepares bids on jobs, supervises projects he is responsible for, orders materials needed for his projects and signs some correspondence. Correspondence signed by Michael Dees is prepared for his signature by Ms. Paschal. The duties Michael Dees performs as an estimator are also performed by the other 4 estimators. Estimators, including Michael Dees, hire painters and laborers for their projects. Foremen are also hired at the suggestion of the estimators by the Directors. The Petitioner has a weekly staff meeting attended by the estimators, Ms. Paschal and Ms. Dees. Ms. Dees attends as few of the meetings as possible because she does not like getting up as early as the time the meetings are held. The general operation of the Petitioner is discussed at the staff meetings. The estimators report on the status of their projects and recommend who should be hired as a foreman when one is needed. The ultimate decision on who is to be hired by the Petitioner is made by the Directors. The Board of Directors has authorized Ms. Paschal, Ms. Dees, Michael Dees and Joye Glenna, the Secretary/Treasurer, to sign checks on the Petitioner's bank accounts. They are all authorized to sign checks for convenience purposes. All checks are authorized by Ms. Paschal or Ms. Dees. Ms. Glenna prepares the checks and Ms. Paschal or Ms. Glenna sign them. Ms. Paschal reviews all checks except routine ones. Ms. Paschal is a guarantor on outstanding loans of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not borrowed any funds since Ms. Dees acquired her stock in the Petitioner. If required by a lending institution, Ms. Dees would personally guarantee loans to the Petitioner. Ms. Paschal, Ms. Dees and Michael Dees are all liable on the Petitioner's indemnity bond. Ms. Paschal, Ms. Dees and Michael Dees have the authority to hire and fire employees. If an employee is to be hired or fired, they consult with each other. The last estimator position filled by the Petitioner was filled by the promotion of L. Wayne Long. Mr. Long was promoted in March, 1987. Ms. Dees participated in the decision to promote Mr. Long. Ms. Dees has participated in the decisions to hire foremen since June, 1986. The Petitioner has 18 non-painter permanent positions: 5 estimators, 2 clerical, 8 foremen, 1 warehouse employee and Ms. Paschal and Ms. Dees. During 1985, 1986 and the first quarter of 1987, the Petitioner reported the following number of employees on Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return: 1985 1986 1987 January 64 58 52 February 54 54 49 March 61 61 40 April 74 73 May 61 69 June 60 91 July 57 104 August 78 86 September 58 65 October 74 80 November 79 72 December 69 70 The Petitioner had 212 projects in 1986. The projects had an average duration of 8 weeks. Therefore, the Petitioner had an average of 32 projects at any given time during 1986. The Petitioner currently has approximately 34 projects. The Petitioner has 60 to 75 persons on its payroll as of the date of the formal hearing of this case. The Petitioner paid a bonus to 18 employees at the end of 1986. Not all permanent employees received a bonus, i.e., Ms. Paschal and Ms. Dees. Painting contractor companies generally experience a high turnover of employees. In 1985 the Petitioner employed 337 people during the year. In 1986 the Petitioner employed a total of 374 persons. The Petitioner has 8 foremen who are permanent full-time employees. In order for them to function they must have painters to supervise. If each foreman has only 1 painter, there would be at least 8 additional employees on a permanent full-time basis. More than 8 painters would be needed to work on the 32-34 projects the Petitioner has had at any given time in 1986 and 1987. During 1985 and 1986 the Petitioner employed at least 23 employees who worked for at least 12 months. Ms. Paschal is an American woman. From 1964 until 1974, Ms. Paschal worked full-time with J. F. Dees and J. F. Dees, Inc. Her responsibilities included accounting, payroll and payables. She learned estimating and how to prepare bids and participated in such activities. Since 1974, Ms. Paschal has been employed full-time with the Petitioner. From 1974 until 1976 Ms. Paschal served as a Vice-President of the Petitioner. From 1974 until the present Ms. Paschal has served as a Director of the Petitioner. From 1976 until the present Ms. Paschal has served as the President of the Petitioner. Ms. Paschal graduated from high school. She also has attended Florida Junior College and the University of North Florida. She has taken courses in business and construction, including accounting, management, tax law, blueprint reading, hiring/firing, safety and loss control, Worker's Compensation, insurance and bonding and contract law. Ms. Paschal has also attended seminars relating to product specifications and applications and computers. Ms. Paschal is the secretary/treasurer and founding member of the First Coast Chapter of Painting and Decorating Contractors of America. Ms. Paschal's duties as President of the Petitioner include the following: Overseeing the day to day operations of personnel. She performs this function in part through the estimators and other management personnel who report directly to her; Supervision and control of estimating and final bid estimates; Reviewing specifications on all large and complex projects; The preparation and signing of the vast majority of correspondence on behalf of the Petitioner; Overseeing accounts receivable billings and collections. Estimators, including Michael Dees, also handle the collection of receivables. Difficult collections are often turned over to Ms. Dees to collect; Overseeing and coordinating the use of field personnel; Approval of payroll; Evaluation of personnel and setting of pay; Preparing and overseeing employee management duties, establishing company policies and compliance with personnel laws; Responsibility for financial aspects of the Petitioner; Procurement of insurance; Signing contracts and change orders. Michael Dees and Ms. Dees can also sign contracts and change orders after Ms. Paschal's review and approval; Handling legal matters, including decisions as to whether to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the Petitioner; and Acting as spokesperson on policies of the Petitioner. Ms. Paschal signs the vast majority of contracts entered into by the Petitioner. Michael Dees has signed contracts. Ms. Paschal reviews and approves all bids submitted by the Petitioner. Most bids are initially prepared by the five estimators, including Michael Dees. Ms. Paschal has prepared safety policies for the Petitioner. Ms. Paschal has prepared employee "right to know" compliance manuals for the Petitioner's employees. Ms. Paschal handles the Petitioner's finances, including, among other things, banking relations, loans, payroll, cash flow, review of accounts receivable and budgeting. Ms. Dees assists Ms. Paschal with cash flow and budgeting and other financial aspects of the Petitioner. Ms. Paschal participates in the preparation of large and complex bids. Ms. Paschal and Ms. Dees coordinate and consult on all large purchases. Ms. Paschal keeps her direct contacts with owners, general contractors and project superintendents to a minimum. She has delegated authority to the estimators and allows them to coordinate their projects directly. She is available, however, to handle any problems which the estimators cannot handle. When estimators have a problem they discuss the problem with other estimators, including, but not limited to, Michael Dees. If the estimators cannot resolve the problem they bring the problem to Ms. Paschal for resolution. Ms. Dees is an American woman. Ms. Dees has been involved in the painting business since her early childhood. Her father and her husband were involved in the contract painting business. She has been involved in virtually every function of the contract painting business, including, among other things, estimating, signing contracts, payroll, bookkeeping and inventory control. She is qualified to handle estimating work for the Petitioner. Ms. Dees graduated from high school. Although she has not taken courses in business and construction, her extensive experience in the painting business more than compensates for her lack of formal education. Ms. Dees has served as a Vice-President and comptroller of the Petitioner since 1986. Her duties include collection of difficult overdue accounts, overseeing accounts payable, overseeing purchasing and inventory control and job cost and overhead analysis. A shop man handles the inventory and ordering of supplies but Ms. Dees has the overall responsibility for purchasing and inventory. Ms. Dees reviews estimates prepared by the estimators and can perform estimating work. Ms. Dees designed the purchase order system used by the Petitioner. From 1976 until the present Michael Dees has served as a Vice- President of the Petitioner. Michael Dees graduated from high school and attended Florida Junior College. He has taken building and construction courses and attended seminars, including blueprint reading, estimating and application of new coating products, management, hiring and firing, spray painting and contract law. Michael Dees does not participate in the general, everyday financial affairs of the Petitioner. He is also not actively responsible for accounting, purchasing, payroll, legal matters, insurance or employee and safety regulation compliance. Michael Dees' primary activity with the Petitioner is as an estimator. Although he also serves as 1 of 3 Directors of the Petitioner, Michael Dees does not engage in the overall, daily management of the Petitioner. Michael Dees lacks the experience and knowledge concerning the management of the Petitioner of Ms. Paschal and Ms. Dees. Although he is attempting to learn more about the operation and management of the Petitioner, he relies upon Ms. Paschal and Ms. Dees currently because of their superior experience and knowledge. At present, Michael is more interested in working and being treated in the same manner as the other estimators of the Petitioner. Ms. Paschal has 23 years experience in the painting business, including 11 years with the Petitioner. Ms. Dees has 19 years experience in the painting business, including 3 with the Petitioner. Michael Dees has 18 years experience in the painting business, including 11 years with the Petitioner. Ms. Paschal and Ms. Dees have knowledge of the financial structure of the Petitioner and possess the capability, knowledge and experience necessary to make decisions concerning commercial and industrial painting. In November of 1986, a request for certification as a minority business enterprise was filed by Ms. Paschal on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not entered into any agreement which could result in Ms. Paschal and Ms. Dees owning less than 51 percent of the Petitioner's stock.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's request for certification as a minority business enterprise be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 5th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0515 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 10. 2 11. 3-6 18. 7 43 and 62. 8 21 and 48. 9 21 and 65. 10 21. 11 19. 12-13 44. 14 45. 15 46-47. 16 49. 17 50. 18-19 5. 20 9. 21 12. 22 26. 23 22. 24 52. 25 27 and 69-70. 26-27 27. 28 52-53. 29 54. 30 52. 31 52 and 65. 32 52. 33 57. 34 69. 35 59. 36 31. 37 15. 38 32. 39 33. 40 55. 41 56. 42 51. 43 23. 44 40. 45-47 These proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 48 16. 49-50 63. 51 2 and 4. 52 63. 53 65. 54 66. 55 65. 56 34. 57 28. 58 52. 59 69. 60 70. 61 17. 62 12. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 4 and 10. 2 11. 3 18. 4 1. 5 49, 64, 68. 6-8 71. 9 8 and 19. The evidence failed to prove that Ms. Paschal and Michael Dees "jointly managed the business" prior to June, 1986. 10 21 and 48. 11 21 and 67. 12 5, 9, 18, 21 and 65. 13 22. 14 The first two sentences are rejected. The resolution and the ratification of the lawful actions of the officers of a corporation are routine practices of a corporation's Board of Directors. Duties had already been assigned to the officers through the By-Laws of the Petitioner. No further action was required by the Board in order for the officers to carry out their duties. The last sentence is accepted in paragraph 31. 15 This proposed finding of fact is irrelevant. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The authority of the officers was already provided by the By-Laws. 16 73. 17-21 Hereby accepted to the extent they are relevant findings of fact. 22 52 and 65. Michael Dees handles collecting accounts receivables relating to his projects and in his capacity as an estimator. 23 52 and 57. 30. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 34. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 26 29. 27 30. 28 65. 29 Hereby accepted. 30 57. 31 59 and 65. 32 24. 33 31. 34-35 65. 36-39 52. 40 52 and 53. 41 60. 42-44 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 47 53. 48-51 28. Hereby accepted. The first 3 sentences are irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last 4 sentences are irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is accepted in 19-20 and 22. 54-55 72. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 25. The last sentence is irrelevant. 58 24. 59 The first sentence is irrelevant. 32. 60 33. 61 38. The first 2 sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 24 and 39. Hereby accepted. 14 and 37. The next to the last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald W. Thomas John B. MacDonald, Esquire Executive Director Brant, Moore, Sapp, Department of General Services MacDonald & Wells, P.A. Room 133, Larson Building 121 West Forsyth Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Suite 900 Post Office Box 4548 Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
