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
The Issue The issue for determination at final hearing was whether Petitioner should be certified as a minority business enterprise pursuant to Section 287.09451, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 38A- 20, Florida Administrative Code, by the Office of the Supplier Diversity of the Department of Management Services.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation seeking certification in the field of "Sales and Installation of Network and Telephone Cabling" under the minority status of female-owned company. Fifty-one percent of Petitioner's stock is owned by Cynthia Martin, a white female, and 49 percent is owned by her husband, a white male. Until shortly before submitting its application, Petitioner corporation had previously operated as a sole proprietorship under the ownership of Keith Martin. The majority of the assets of Petitioner came from the previous sole proprietorship when Petitioner was formed. According to Mrs. Martin's testimony and payroll information submitted by Petitioner, Keith Martin received twice the salary of Cynthia Martin. Cynthia Martin is a full-time employee of the State of Florida. There is no evidence of employment for Keith Martin other than with Petitioner. The corporate documents in evidence reflect that since incorporation Cynthia Martin has been vice-president and secretary of the corporation, while Keith Martin has been president and treasurer. Petitioner's checks may be signed by either Keith Martin or Cynthia Martin and only one signature is required on each corporate check. Petitioner's Articles of Incorporation provide that the number of directors shall be determined in the By-Laws. The initial directors were Keith Martin and Cynthia Martin. The By- Laws provide that the corporation shall be managed by two directors, and that the number of directors may be increased only by amendment of the By-Laws. Also, a majority of the directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. This provision of the By-Laws has not been changed. At the organizational meeting of Petitioner, Keith Martin was elected president and treasurer, and Cynthia Martin was elected vice- president and secretary. No other documents were introduced into evidence reflecting any changes to the articles of incorporation or the By-Laws. The documentation submitted by Petitioner, and prepared by Cynthia Martin, consistently reflect Keith Martin as the president of the company and Cynthia Martin as vice-president. Cynthia Martin's duties include bookkeeping and performing administrative functions. Keith Martin's duties include the installation of cabling for local area networks and phone systems, picking up goods to be used on contracts, preparing daily timesheets and generating the paperwork necessary for billing clients, preparing quotations for clients, consulting with clients to determine needs, installation of phone systems and providing sales, service, and repair for clients. Cynthia Martin's duties for Petitioner are performed on her days off from her full-time employment, and on nights and weekends. The fact that Cynthia Martin owns 51 percent of the stock of Petitioner is important at stockholder meetings. At such meetings, she is entitled to one vote for each share owned, thereby allowing her to control stockholder meetings and effectively determine the directors of the company. The company is managed by the directors, while the day-to-day operations are managed by the officers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Office of Supplier Diversity enter a final order denying Tele-Net Communications, Inc.'s, application to be a certified minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: O. Earl Black, Jr., Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Cynthia Martin Tele-Net Communications, Inc. Post Office Box 11784 Jacksonville, Florida 32239 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Windell Paige, Director Office of Supplier Diversity Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Wanda Forbess is an American woman. She is the president of the Petitioner corporation, Center Office Products, Inc. She owns 5l percent of that corporation's outstanding stock. The stock is full voting stock and there are no agreements in existence or anticipated which would cause any change in the percentage of ownership of Wanda Forbess, nor any change in the voting power of her stock. The Petitioner corporation and Wanda Forbess has no affiliation or relationship with any other business and Wanda Forbess is not an employee of any other business. The net worth of the Petitioner as of the date of hearing is less than one million dollars. It has also been stipulated that the Petitioner, that is, Wanda Forbess, has been performing a useful business function and operating the Petitioner's business since 1981. Wanda Forbess is the mother of Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess and the wife of Thomas D. Forbess. In 1981 her children were almost out of school, with her youngest child being about to enter college. She decided she wanted to start her own business. She had been active as a homemaker, a volunteer and active member of civic organizations. She decided to enter the office supply retail business in 1981 because of the low initial investment required due to the presence of two wholesale suppliers in Jacksonville who could supply goods for inventory on a rapid basis. She also chose to enter this business because there were no particular special skills, training or licenses required and because she knew something about it, since her husband worked for twenty-five years in one phase of the business, that of sales of paper products. This decision being made, Ms. Forbess approached her sons, Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess, to persuade them to enter into the business with her. They agreed to join her in the venture and she set about to form the Petitioner corporation. She desired to incorporate in order to limit the liability which she and her sons would be exposed to in operating the business. She retained an attorney to incorporate the business, but paid no particular attention herself concerning how the shares were to be issued and held or as to the manner of appointment of the members of the board of the directors. She simply followed her attorney's instructions who advised her to do the "standard type" of incorporation. The corporation estab- lished by her attorney provided, in its by-laws, that there would be three directors. Wanda, Ray and Thomas Forbess were each named as directors since they were the only three individuals involved with the Petitioner at its formation. The attorney also issued stock certificates for 200 shares each to the three directors. Wanda Forbess was appointed as president and chief executive officer of the Petitioner corporation. This was because the formation of the business and the company was Mrs. Forbess' idea and she had provided more than five times the amount of capital of each of the other two owners, her sons. In fact, she had provided $11,000 of her own money as initial capital and her two sons provided $2,000 each. Notwithstanding their equal ownership status and the equal vote each of the three has on the Board of Directors, as well as the requirement in the bylaws that a majority vote of the Board is controlling, Mrs. Forbess has been in control of the Petitioner corporation's operations from the day of its inception. Her sons do not question that control and established the fact of it in their own testimony at the hearing. The vice- president is Raymond D. Forbess and the secretary treasurer is Thomas J. Forbess. The bylaws provide that the property and business of the corporation is managed by its Board of Directors and that a majority of those directors shall be necessary and sufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The act of the majority of the directors present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be deemed to be the act of the board. It is also provided in the bylaws that the holders of the majority of shares of stock may remove a director at any time, with or without cause, at a duly called meeting. The president of the Petitioner is empowered to call such a meeting at any time. Any vacancy occurring as a result of removal of any director by the majority shareholders may be filled by the affirmative vote of the majority of remaining directors, even if less than a quorum shall be present. Directors are not required to be shareholders. Therefore, as a holder of 51 percent of the shares of the Petitioner, Wanda Forbess has control over the board of directors by the power to elect or remove any director by voting shares accordingly at a meeting which she may call at any time, with or without notice, as the president of the Petitioner corporation. Replacement directors could then be appointed by her vote alone and could be any person she elects, including, for example, an employee over who she has authority and who she may direct to vote a certain way. In any event, from 1981 through 1987, the Petitioner grew from a company with three employees to a company of 18 employees and more than $280,000 gross monthly sales. During this time, the Petitioner enjoyed some State of Florida contract business. Some time in 1987, Mrs. Forbess became aware that she would soon be unable to continue doing business with the state because her business was not a certified minority business enterprise. In fact, however, the Petitioner had been, from its inception, an American woman-controlled corporation in actual practice. On June 1, 1987, Mrs. Forbess directed her sons to convey sufficient stock to her so that she could become a 51 percent shareholder of the Petitioner corporation. This transfer was done to comply with section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, concerning the definition of "minority business enterprise." It was also done to formally reflect what had been the case, as a practical matter, since the inception of the corporation: that Wanda Forbess controlled the Petitioner corporation. The company by that time had significant value reflected in the value of its stock, but neither son required payment for his stock which he conveyed to Mrs. Forbess. They considered that she was the controlling owner of the corporation from its inception anyway due to the fact that the business was her idea and that she had contributed by far the most significant amount of initial capital. Mrs. Forbess spends a majority of her time conducting the financial affairs of the Petitioner. She is more familiar and more involved with the financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation then any other owner, officer, director or employee. In that capacity, she sets all the salaries, including the salaries of her sons and her husband. All salaries are set completely at the discretion of Mrs. Forbess and always have been. She pays her two sons and her husband a higher salary than she pays herself because their financial requirements are greater, but the salient point here is that she is the manager with the discretion to set their salaries. In 1985, after the Petitioner had been operating successfully for four years, Thomas J. Forbess, the husband of Mrs. Forbess, retired from his position with Jim Walter Paper Company after 25 years of employment with that firm. Prior to that time he had no involvement with the formation, operation or management of the Petitioner corporation. He has never had an ownership interest in the Petitioner. He is an employee of the corporation and assists in some of the operations, including preparation and submittal of bids for some of the work the corporation undertakes. Mrs. Forbess controls the purchase of goods, equipment and business inventory and services used and needed in the day- to-day operation of the business. She frequently purchases significant items used in the business, such as computers, trucks, and postage machines, as well as inventory. In addition to this, the major purchases made by the business by any co-owner or employee must be made only with her approval. Evidence was offered showing the lease agreements and notes evidencing that corporate debts related to large purchases were signed by all corporate officers as a basis for an attempt to show that decisions are made by "consensus" or are joint decisions. However, the fact that lenders and lessors require all corporate officers to sign documents evidencing leases or debts does not mean each corporate officer had an equal part to play in making the decision involved. The record is replete with evidence and testimony from employees and the other owners that Wanda Forbess has a veto power on all decisions concerning purchases, loans, leases of real property and every other major business decision the Petitioner confronts. Further, the fact that discussions are had amongst the owners and officers of the business prior to making major decisions is really a sound business practice and does not mean that one of the owners, directors or officers does not have final authority to make a binding decision. The person who has final authority for such major decisions is Wanda Forbess. Mrs. Forbess also has the authority to hire and dismiss employees, a requirement of subsection 3(b) of Rule 13-8.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. She herself has interviewed employees from time to time and also has final authority to approve all hiring and discharge decisions or to veto them in those instances where she has delegated that authority. She controls which professional services are obtained by the Petitioner corporation, as shown by her decision to discontinue the services of the former company accountant. Indeed, she has delegated some of the hiring processes, given the fact that the Petitioner corporation has grown to be a business with 18 employees. That however, is a normal, acceptable business decision. The delegation of the advertising of a position, the interviewing of prospective employees and the conveying of offers of employment to prospective employees in no way indicates that the delegator does not have the final authority to hire or dismiss the employees. Wanda Forbess also controls all financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation. She thus has unsurpassed knowledge in relation to the other owners, officers and directors, of the financial structure and operations of the business. In fact, the bulk of her time spent working for the Petitioner, corporation since its inception, has been in the field of financial matters. She makes the decisions concerning debt to be incurred by the Petitioner, and approves any major expenditure, without which approval expenditures may not be made. It is significant that Mrs. Forbess has veto authority over the extension of credit to customers and establishment of credit accounts by customers. One instance was described by Jeannine Silcox and Raymond Forbess concerning Raymond Forbess' attempt to open an account to service a particular customer on a credit basis. Mrs. Forbess opposed that procedure and ordered that the account not be opened. The account was not opened. This demonstrates effectively that not only does Mrs. Forbess control the financial affairs of the company, but also wields ultimate authority amongst the co-owners of the Petitioner. Additionally, it is undisputed that Mrs. Forbess writes the vast majority of checks on the Petitioner's two checking accounts, in terms of the requirement, at subsection 3(D) of the above-cited rule, that she control the accounts of the business. She estimates that she writes 97 percent of the checks and there is no evidence to refute that estimate. Thomas J. and Raymond B. Forbess are each authorized signatories on the accounts, but their names are simply there as a matter of convenience and the only instances in which they sign checks are when there is an immediate need for the check to be paid and Mrs. Forbess is unavailable to sign herself. There is no question that Mrs. Forbess is the ultimate authority controlling the Petitioner's bank accounts. In order to comply with subsection 3(e) of the above cited rule, the minority owner must demonstrate capability, knowledge and experience in making decisions concerning the business involved. At the time of the business's inception, neither Mrs. Forbess nor her co-owner sons had the capability, knowledge or experience required to make many of the decisions concerning the retail office supply retail business. Over seven years of operation however, Mrs. Forbess has actively supervised and managed the business of the Petitioner and has developed to a high degree those attributes, in making decisions involved in operating that business successfully. She has delegated certain aspects of the company's business to the supervision of her sons. Thomas J. Forbess, for example, is involved in developing additional retail operations. Raymond B. Forbess is more actively involved in the delivery of merchandise to customers and the monitoring of customer accounts, as well as maintaining and accounting for inventory. Nonetheless, neither of the other owners effects any significant decisions without consulting Mrs. Forbess first and gaining her approval or veto. Through this supervision and control over the past seven years, as well as her current direct involvement in managing the Petitioner's affairs, Mrs. Forbess has developed the capability, knowledge and experience required to make decisions regarding the office supply business involved herein. Her operational and managerial capabilities are demonstrated by the fact that under her leadership the business started with three employees and has grown to an 18 employee business with gross sales in the neighborhood of $280,000 per month in just over seven years. Finally, Mrs. Forbess has displayed independence and initiative in conducting all major operations and details of the Petitioner since its inception, (as required by subsection (f) of the above rule). Although she has done little bid negotiating directly, she has the ability to do so and has some experience in that activity. Further, bid proposals are submitted to her for approval and are not made without her knowledge and assent. Further, she herself negotiates leases and other contracts on behalf of the Petitioner.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to be certified as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Certified General Contractors & Developers, Inc. is a Florida corporation organized to do business in this state. Jeri Dee Goodkin, at all times material to this case, has been the president and sole owner of Certified General Contractors & Developers, Inc. Ms. Goodkin is a minority person as that term is defined by Section 288.703, Florida Statutes. Jeri Dee Goodkin holds a general contractor's license, number CGC041575, which was issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Ms. Goodkin is the only employee of Certified General Contractors & Developers, Inc. so licensed. The sole business of the company is to do general construction contracting. Ms. Goodkin's father, Ivan Goodkin, and brother, Mark Goodkin, are employed by the company. Both father and brother work as salesmen. They attempt to procure jobs for the company, and their responsibilities include estimating the price at which the work can be completed. Once the job is secured, Ms. Goodkin contacts subcontractors who submit bids for portions of the job. Ivan and Mark Goodkin may supervise the jobs they procure for the company. Ms. Goodkin is also responsible for supervision and must be on site for inspections performed by governmental agencies. According to two subcontractors with whom Petitioner has done business, Jeri Dee Goodkin negotiated and reviewed all work performed by the subcontractors. Prior to forming the Petitioner company, Ms. Goodkin and her father and brother worked for another company which was involuntarily dissolved by the Secretary of State. Ivan Goodkin was not an owner of the prior company. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that the Goodkins owned or solely operated their prior employer. Jeri Dee Goodkin has executed a lease on behalf of the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered approving Petitioner's request to be certified as a minority business enterprise. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Buildinc 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1,2,3,5.7,8,10,13,and 14 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as not supported by the record in this cause. Paragraph 6 is rejected as not supported by the record in this cause. Paragraph 9 is rejected as argument or comment unnecessary to the determinations and findings of fact. That portion of paragraph 11 which sets forth the license number for Jeri Dee Goodkin is accepted, the rest of the paragraph is rejected as not supported by the record in this cause. Paragraph 12 is rejected as not supported by the record in this cause. Paragraph 15 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or unsupported by the record in this cause. With regard to the subparagraphs listed under paragraph 16, the following findings are made: subparagraphs 2,3,7,10,13,and 27 are accepted. Subparagraph 28 is accepted to the extent that Jeri Dee Goodkin is the only licensee employed by the company. All other subparagraphs are rejected as unsupported by the record in this cause. Rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,8,9,10,11,13,and 15 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted, however is deemed irrelevant and immaterial to the resolution of the issue in this case. The evidence does not establish nor suggest that the Goodkins had an ownership interest in the prior company with whom they were employed. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Paragraph 7 is rejected as speculative or argument. At best the lease shows it was executed by Jeri Dee Goodkin. The "Mr.Goodkin" referenced on the lease is not explained either by the document itself or the record in this cause. Paragraphs 12 and 14 are rejected as a recitation of testimony, argument or irrelevant comment. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah S. Rose Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Jeri Dee Goodkin Certified General Contractors & Developers, Inc. 16375 Northeast 18th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Room 133, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
The Issue The issues in this case concern the question of whether the Petitioners are entitled to certification as a Minority Business enterprise within the meaning of Chapter 288, Florida Statutes and Rule 13-8.005, Florida Administrative Code. The basic question is whether Bonnie M. Mobley, who is the minority person in Council Enterprises, Inc., and majority stockholder controls the management and daily operations of that corporation.
Findings Of Fact On July 1, 1984 council Enterprises, Inc. was incorporated as a Florida corporation. From that date until the Fall of 1985 the corporation was engaged in the business of plumbing and mechanical services in Florida. At the inception Luther E. Council, Jr., who is also known as "Snipes" Council, was the president, a director and stockholder within the corporation. His mother Bonnie M. Mobley, a minority person, was the majority stockholder and a director in the corporation. At the commencement of the corporation, Bonnie Mobley was secretary/treasurer. Her percentage of stock ownership was 51 percent and the other 49 percent was held by the son. The money which was used to capitalize the corporation in its inception was provided by the mother in the amount of $50,000. On June 14, 1985 by action of the Board of Directors, namely the mother and son, Luther E. Council, Jr. submitted his resignation as president. As the minutes of that meeting state, he did this having secured jobs for employees of Council Enterprises, Inc. with a firm known as Hays Heating and Plumbing Company. Council took a job with that company as manager. On the same date of the Board of Directors meeting, Bonnie M. Mobley was appointed as president, secretary and treasurer, in furtherance of a concern that each of these corporate officers be installed during the life of this corporation. When Luther E. Council, Jr. left Council Enterprises, Inc. to go and work with Hays he was no longer a director. It was further recommended by the son that his mother secure a Leon County Mechanical Contractor's License and serve as a qualifying agent and gain registration with the State of Florida. Other recommendations pursuant to Article II of the Articles of Incorporation were that she consider brokering mechanical equipment as a livelihood and secure a wholesaler's license as well. The events that took place by the corporation was in recognition of the fact that the corporation had concluded its business of offering plumbing and mechanical services. In fact, Bonnie Mobley had gone to work with Hays Heating and Plumbing Company on February 1, 1985 and would remain in her position as office manager at that company until January 9, 1987. During that time she was responsible for secretarial and bookkeeping responsibilities for Hays. During part of that time, as an aside, through Council Enterprises, Inc., she sold supplies to Hays for its use in projects. She tried to gain other contracts for supplies from companies other than Hays, without success. Luther E. Council, Jr., while working at Hays as a manager, was his mother's supervisor. He stayed with Hays from February 1, 1985 until June 19, 1987. As a consequence of leaving Council Enterprises, Inc. to go and work with Hays, Luther D. Council, Jr. transferred his stock in Council Enterprises, Inc. to his mother and she continues to hold all the stock in that company. In August, 1987 and to the present, Bonnie Mobley and her son Luther E. Council, Jr. reconstituted Council Enterprises, Inc. for purposes of offering services in plumbing, mechanical, fire protection, underground utilities, pollutant storage and as builders. They opened an office at 110 Perkins Street, Tallahassee, Florida, which continues to be their business location. Following the August, 1987 restructuring of the business Bonnie Mobley made her son vice-president and named him a director. This meant from that point forward, that there were two directors, Ms. Mobley and her son, Luther E. Council, Jr. In the past, Ms. Mobley had some familiarity with the heating, ventilation and air conditioning and plumbing business which her ex-husband, father of Luther E. Council, Jr. began in 1959. This business was Council Brothers, a company which her former husband and his brothers had started. Her awareness of that business corresponded to about an 11 year period in which at times she was involved to some extent in doing "take offs", cost estimating on jobs for her husband's company. Her principal occupation during the course of this period related to working in the Lewis State Bank as a secretary, receptionist and in the personnel department associated with payroll. She had also done some bookkeeping work for a small business which her ex-husband had relating to an air conditioning and heating service. Ms. Mobley has a license with Council Enterprises, Inc. related to Leon County in the mechanical field. As such, she is the qualifying agent for the corporation. Her son, by contrast, holds certified licenses with the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, in the fields of plumbing contracting, mechanical contracting, building contracting, underground utility contracting, and pollutant storage contracting. In order to gain these licenses he had to have requisite experience in these fields and pass an examination. He also holds a First Class Fire Protection Contractor's License, and a Florida LP Underground Gas License issued by the State of Florida, Department of Insurance. Since the corporation returned to the active contracting business in August, 1987 Ms. Mobley's duties include giving instructions to an office secretary, Laverne Taylor, as needed, and generally keeping things running in the office. She is involved with final decisions about business choices to include an awareness of Dodge reports which advertise contract job opportunities and looking at the local newspaper to see about available work. She is involved in the purchase of equipment and has a say in those choices. She is involved with answering the phone at the office, paying bills, and taking care of the payroll. She sometimes goes to jobsites and stays a number of hours or even may stay all day. Luther E. Council, Jr. describes his position with the company as one of doing whatever needs to be done from running equipment, writing letters, raking and shoveling at jobs and doing job estimating. The mother and son and their field foreman, John W. Edwards, III, all involve themselves in bidding jobs which the company is interested in. The arrangement for hiring employees in the company is one in which a number of the employees who work for the company were associated with Hays and came to work at Council Enterprises, Inc. when Luther E. Council, Jr. returned from Hays to Council Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Edwards was an individual whom Luther E. Council, Jr. knew through their interest in law enforcement. Edwards as field manager is responsible for obtaining additional employees as needed in the field, subject to the approval of Ms. Mobley. Ms. Mobley has on occasion fired a couple of foremen with the company. This was against the recommendation of the field foreman Edwards. Another example of hiring relates to Laverne Taylor whom Ms. Mobley hired. The basic arrangement for hiring and firing in the company is premised upon consultation among Ms. Mobley, her son and the field foreman Edwards. Although 95 percent of the checks in the bank account by the company have been signed by Ms. Mobley, her son has signed the other 5 percent of the checks and has the authority to sign checks on the company's single signature accounts. In the bidding process which has been alluded to, all three persons, namely Ms. Mobley, Mr. Edwards and her son, Luther E. Council, Jr. are involved. Edwards is not as experienced as the son and neither is Ms. Mobley. Luther E. Council, Jr. has a better grounding in the business and in the more complicated issues that may arise in the bidding process. Ms. Mobley has been involved in the financial end of the corporation's activities and is well-grounded in that aspect of the business, to include major purchases, heavy equipment, the payment of routine items such as phone bills, and other account activities. Ms. Mobley, Luther E. Council, Jr. and Mr. Edwards are full-time employees for Council Enterprises, Inc. In obtaining recent loans in the amounts of $60,000 and $22,500, the initial amount being for cash flow on accounts receivable and the second amount having to do with a line of credit, it was necessary for Ms. Mobley and her son Luther E. Council, Jr. to guarantee the loans. In a related matter in the purchase of major pieces of equipment, both Ms. Mobley and her son signed the financial agreements involving the lease purchase of equipment. Bonding for the company in its projects include references to the resume's of both Ms. Mobley and her son. Approximately 80 percent of the work of Council Enterprises, Inc. involves underground utility installation and 20 percent is related to plumbing. In this process, Luther E. Council, Jr. is an indispensable person in deciding the direction which the company will pursue in its business activities, most especially related to understanding of the technical aspects of this company's business and the necessity to rely upon his licensing credentials in order to pursue its business functions. For thin's reason, Bonnie Mobley is not in a position to independently control the corporation's affairs and, in fact, has not controlled it, independent of her son a non-minority person. In this connection, Article II, Section 1 of the By Laws of the corporation, Council Enterprises, Inc., speaks in terms' of the business of that corporation being managed and its corporate powers being reposed in its Board of Directors. Further, Article II, Section 6 of those By Laws requires that the majority of the directors shall be necessary as participants at a meeting to constitute a quorum and that it is the act of the majority of those directors present at the meeting where there is a quorum that constitutes the actions of the Board of Directors. Given this circumstance, there are only two directors and Luther E. Council, Jr. has as much authority as Ms. Mobley in his capacity as director. As a result, he necessarily shares in the management of the company. Against this background information concerning Council Enterprises, Inc. it had sought to gain certification as a Minority Business Enterprise by the State of Florida, Department of General Services. It was denied that opportunity by action of the Department on April 8, 1988 and sought a formal hearing under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to resolve the question of its entitlement to such certification. The basis of denial was briefly described in the issue statement to this recommended order and will be more specifically referred to in the Conclusions of Law section of the recommended order which follows.
Recommendation Based upon consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which denies the application of Council Enterprises, Inc. to be certified as a Minority Business Enterprise. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 6th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX The following disposition is made of the proposed fact finding of the parties: Petitioner's Facts The Petitioner's facts are subordinate to the fact found in the recommended order. Respondent's Facts 1.-6. Subordinate to facts found. Subordinate to facts found with the exception of the next to the last sentence which is not necessary to resolution of the dispute. Subordinate to facts found with the exception of the first sentence which is contrary to facts found. First sentence is contrary to facts found. The balance of the sentences within that paragraph are subordinate to facts found with the exception of the discussion of use of Luther E. Council, Jr.'s licenses as qualifying to allow the company to conduct certain business in the contracting field. Although it may be customary to use someone else's license as a qualifier for the benefit of the company, under the present circumstances the person who is the qualifying agent is a director who must be appeased before the corporation can conduct its affairs and who by the facts of thin case, is the dominant figure in the pursuit of the business of the corporation. Contrary to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald S. Modesitt, Esquire 320 West Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sandra E. Allen, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452 Larson Building 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services 133 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible for certification as a "minority business enterprise" in the area of landscape contracting?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a Florida corporation that was formed and incorporated by Margaret Gordon, who is the corporation's sole shareholder and its lone officer and director. Gordon is an American woman. Before forming Petitioner, Gordon held various jobs. Among her former employers are Florida Maintenance Contractors and Scenico, Inc. She worked for the former from 1984 to 1991, and for the latter from 1984 to 1990. As an employee of Florida Maintenance Contractors and Scenico, Inc., Gordon supervised landscaping projects. As a result of this work experience, Gordon has the managerial and technical knowledge and capability to run a landscape contracting business. Petitioner is such a landscape contracting business, although it has not undertaken any landscaping projects recently. Its last project was completed two years prior to the final hearing in this case. Since that time, the business has been inactive. Gordon's two sons, working as subcontractors under Gordon's general supervision, have performed the physical labor and the actual landscaping involved in the previous jobs Petitioner has performed. Gordon herself has never done such work and she has no intention to do so in the future. Instead, she will, on behalf of Petitioner, as she has done in the past, use subcontractors (albeit not her sons inasmuch as they are no longer available to perform such work.) Petitioner filed its application for "minority business enterprise" certification in the area of landscape contracting in March of 1994.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a "minority business enterprise" in the area of landscape contracting. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of October, 1995. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1995.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact Iris Reed and her husband, Mark Reed, own and operate a business known as Reed Landscaping, Inc., the Petitioner in this cause. Mrs. Reed is an American woman and owns 60 percent of the subject business. Her husband owns the remaining 40 percent. The Reeds previously owned a lawn maintenance business in New York but moved to Florida several years ago and started doing business as "Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance by Mark." Eventually, approximately 1992, "Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance by Mark" changed its name to Reed Landscaping, Inc. As to Petitioner and all former entities, Mrs. Reed has held an office position with the company while Mr. Reed has operated the field crew or crews. Mr. Reed has the experience and expertise necessary to handle the work at each site for the business. On the other hand, Mrs. Reed has the office and management skills to direct the "paperwork" side of the business. This includes insurance matters and personnel for the office. Mrs. Reed is particularly active in this business since she put up the capital that largely funded the business enterprise. Although her personal financial investment is primarily at risk, creditors and bonding companies require both Reeds to sign for the company and to be individually obligated as well. Mrs. Reed serves as President/Treasurer of the Petitioner and Mr. Reed is Vice-President/Secretary. Both are authorized to sign bank checks for the company. Mr. Reed has formal training and education in landscape architecture and horticulture as well as extensive experience in this field. Mrs. Reed is responsible for many decisions for the company but relies on the opinions of others and delegates, where appropriate, duties to others as well. Among the delegated duties are: all field work for the company (delegated to Mr. Reed, another foreman, or to crews working a job); estimating or preparing bids (an estimator helps with bids); bookkeeping; contract review; and purchasing (some of which she does herself with input from others). As to each delegated area, however, the Reeds stress teamwork; that they are all working together for the common good of the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5684 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: None submitted. Iris Reed on behalf of Petitioner submitted a letter summary of her position concerning the hearing which, if intended to be a presentation of fact, is rejected as argument or comment not in a form readily reviewable for either acceptance or rejection as required by rule. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Shields Senior Attorney Commission on Minority Economic & Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Iris F. Reed, Pro se 951 Southwest 121st Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33325 Veronica Anderson Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic & Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the testimony received at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Power Line Engineering, Inc. was originally formed in 1983 by Roger Sloan, who initially held 100 percent of the stock. The business of the corporation is the installation of overhead power lines and street lights. In August of 1986, approximately 52 percent of the corporation's stock was transferred to LaVerne Sloan, Roger Sloan's wife, and 10 percent was transferred to Scott Austin. Roger Sloan retained the remainder of the shares. The testimony was unclear as to how many directors the corporation has, and no documentary evidence was offered at the hearing. Roger Sloan is the president, Scott Austin is the vice-president and LaVerne Sloan is the secretary/treasurer of the corporation. It appears that these three individuals are also the sole directors of the petitioner. Roger Sloan is the chief estimator and does most of the public relations work for the company. He solves problems in the field and does cost estimating for bids. Most of the equipment owned by the company was purchased by him prior to August of 1986. Scott Austin is in charge of the field work and he consults with Roger Sloan if there are problems in the field. He also helps with the bid work. It is his view that he and Mr. and Mrs. Sloan are partners in running the company. LaVerne Sloan is the general manager in the office. While the company uses an accountant for the book work, she signs all the checks, except during emergencies, and all purchases are approved by her. She also makes decisions as to whether union or nonunion employees are utilized on jobs. However, if there are problems with employees in the field, Mr. Austin and Mr. Sloan make the decision regarding their retention. LaVerne Sloan assembles the bid packages and does some public relations work for the company. She is a full-time employee for the petitioner. The evidence was unclear as to the amount of time, if any, that LaVerne Sloan was employed by the petitioner prior to August of 1986. Roger Sloan, LaVerne Sloan and Scott Austin talk together each day and discuss what has happened that day with respect to the business. While the application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise was not offered into evidence, LaVerne Sloan stated that she applied in September of 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner's application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 13th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: LaVerne Sloan Power Line Engineering, Inc. Post Office Box 671 Plant City, Florida 33566 Sandra E. Allen Department of General Services Office of General Counsel Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Room 133, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Haul-It, Inc., is a trucking company in the business of hauling road building materials. It owns 19 trucks and 13 trailers worth about $106,000; and owes between $75,000 and $79,000 to a bank. Occasionally petitioner engages additional trucks and drivers. All but eight of its 15 or 16 employees are truck drivers. Haul-It, Inc., was organized in 1973. Jack Taylor and his father started the business but later sold out to Hubert E. Real, the president, half- owner and operator of Columbia Paving, and Wiley Jinwright, a 24-year employee of Columbia Paving. Mr. Jinwright became president of Haul-It, Inc., and Jack Taylor stayed on as truck foreman. Messrs. Real and Jinwright each owned 20 shares of stock, representing half interest in petitioner. Columbia Paving itself has never held any of the 40 shares of stock that petitioner has issued. In November of 1980, Mr. Real conveyed all 20 of his shares to his wife, Helen Real; and Mr. Jinwright conveyed one share to Mrs. Real. Both transfers of stock to Mrs. Real were gratuitous. She knew at the time that her ownership might help Haul-It, Inc., qualify as a minority business enterprise. In addition, Mr. Real "had had a couple of heart attacks" (T. 14) and Mrs. Real "thought it would be nice to have a related [to Columbia Paving] business." (T. 14.) The evidence did not reveal whether Mr. Real has spent more, less, or the same amount of time with petitioner's affairs since his divestiture as before. Mr. Real remains active as president of Columbia Paving. From November of 1980 to the time of hearing, Mrs. Real has owned 52.5 percent of petitioner's stock and Mr. Jinwright has owned 47.5 percent. Petitioner's only offices are housed in a trailer located on land owned by Columbia Paving. Haul-It, Inc., pays Columbia Paving rent for the land on which its office trailer, trucks, and other equipment are parked. At the time of the hearing, between 70 and 80 percent of Haul-It, Inc.'s work was being performed under contract to Columbia Paving. As far as the evidence showed, petitioner has always performed most of its services under contract to Columbia Paving. Although it has had other customers, Columbia Paving is petitioner's only regular customer. (T. 27.) Petitioner uses Columbia Paving's computer to keep its books and shares a bookkeeper with Columbia Paving. Each company pays the bookkeeper a separate salary. Mrs. Real sits on Columbia Paving's board of directors. Neither Columbia Paving nor any other entity uses petitioner's hauling equipment unless it has contracted to do so. When Haul-It, Inc., "bid[s] through Columbia Paving" (T. 39) in response to invitations by the Department of Transportation, Columbia Paving personnel check the bid over to make sure that it "fits whatever plan or whatever estimates they feel are in order." (T. 40.) Soon after she became owner of a majority of petitioner's Stock, Mrs. Real became petitioner's vice-president, secretary, and treasurer, even though she had had no prior experience in the trucking business. Mr. Jinwright remains president of Haul-It, Inc. It was also in November of 1980 that Haul-It, Inc., applied for certification as a minority business enterprise. At that time and for some months afterward, Mrs. Real was not working for Haul-It, Inc., on any regular schedule. On the basis of the information petitioner furnished with its application, respondent, in November of 1980, "certified them for 12 months, on the condition that an on-site review would be conducted and at that time the decision would be made as to the ownership and control and whether this minority business enterprise should be continued as certified." (T. 61.) In April of 1981, respondent's Mr. Nath conducted an on-site review. At that time, Mr. Nath requested additional documents which petitioner eventually mailed to respondent. In September of 1981, respondent for the first time communicated to Haul-It, Inc., its intention to disqualify petitioner as a minority business enterprise. After receiving this news, Mrs. Real began going to work for petitioner daily. She has an office in the trailer that she shares with Mr. Jinwright, whose role in Haul-It, Inc., was reduced to cosigning checks when Mrs. Real began working full time. Most of Mr. Jinwright's time is now spent as Superintendent of Columbia Paving's four asphalt plants. Even so, he still draws a salary from Haul-It, Inc., equal to Mrs. Real's salary. Despite their respective titles, both Mr. Jinwright and Mrs. Real act on the assumption that she, rather than he, has ultimate authority in the conduct of Haul-It, Inc.'s business. Mrs. Real has full authority to hire and fire, authority which she has delegated, in the case of the truck drivers, to Jack Taylor. She has the final say on all questions of policy and operations that arise in the business. Haul-It, Inc., cannot borrow money or make expenditures without her permission. Jack Taylor and two other employees buy for Haul-It, Inc., but she cosigns all checks with Mr. Jinwright. She has not learned how to prepare a written bid for the Department of Transportation, although she is involved with bidding. Mrs. Real relies heavily on Jack Taylor's bidding expertise, as have petitioner's other owners. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation reflect the good work done in this case by counsel on both sides. To the limited extent proposed findings have not been adopted, they have been deemed immaterial or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny Haul-It, Inc., certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 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 3rd day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick E. Hurley, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Ella Jane P. Davis, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
