The Issue Whether the Respondent, School Board of Broward County, Florida (Respondent or Board), may reject all bids as proposed for Bid No. 2002-02-FC, Group A1, or whether such action is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the entity charged with the responsibility of governing the public schools within the Broward County School District. As such, the acquisition of school properties and attendant improvements fall within the Board's legal authority. These cases involve the procurement of relocatable buildings suitable for classroom purposes. Pursuant to its authority, on or about December 27, 2002, the Respondent issued a bid that is the subject matter of the instant challenge. The bid, identified in this record as Bid 2002-02-FC, sought proposals for the procurement of district-wide relocatable buildings. In a prior time these buildings were known as "portable classrooms" or "portables." In the post-Hurricane Andrew world, these structures are now pre-engineered and constructed of concrete or steel (or a hybrid of both) and must be, by design, capable of being relocated to various sites. The Petitioners, Royal and Padula jointly, and the Intervenor, James B. Pirtle Construction Company, Inc. (Pirtle or Intervenor), design, construct, and install such structures. In these cases the bid sought several distinct proposals. First, the project sought vendors who would provide and deliver concrete relocatable buildings (Group A1). Group A2 (not at issue in this proceeding) sought steel relocatable buildings. Group B (also not at issue in the instant case) sought site adaptation prices for landscaping, lighted covered walkways, steps, ramps, and other engineering incidental to the installation of the buildings. The advertisement for the bid carried the same generic information as to all groups. The bid documents also contained many terms that were applicable to all groups. Pertinent to the issues of these cases are the following excerpts from the bid document (Joint Exhibit 2). The order of the excerpts should not suggest any significance. The excerpts are listed in this manner solely for convenience sake: BASIS OF AWARD In order to meet the needs of the school system . . . each Award will be . . . up to three responsive and responsible bidders meeting specifications, terms and conditions. Individual projects will be issued . . . based upon lowest cost among one or more bidders per project as determined by the project manager. Therefore, it is necessary to bid on every item in the group, and all items in the group must meet specifications in order to have the bid considered for award. Unit prices must be stated in the space provided on Document 00410 Bid Form. SBBC [the Respondent] reserves the right to procure goods from the second and third lowest bidders if: a) the lowest bidder cannot comply with delivery requirements or specifications; b) the lowest bidder is not in compliance with delivery requirements or specifications on current or previous orders; c) in cases of emergency; d) work may be issued to multiple contractors if in the opinion of The School Board of Broward County, Florida or its staff the work cannot be completed by a single contractor in the specified time such as a Summer, Winter or Spring Break or if it is in the best interest of SBBC to do so regardless of reason. ARTICLE 4 BIDDING PROCEDURES 4.01 FORM AND STYLE OF BIDS A. Bids shall be submitted on forms identical to Document 00410, Bid Form, and other standard forms included with the Bidding Documents. The following documents are required to be submitted with the Bid: * * * SIGNED SEALED ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING DESIGN DRAWINGS OF THE STRUCTURES TO BE PROVIDED (FOR RELOCATABLE BUILDINGS BID ONLY) 5.03 REJECTION OF BIDS AND IRREGULAR PROPOSALS * * * The Owner shall have the right to reject any or all Bids, reject a Bid not accompanied by a required bid security, good faith deposit, or by other data required by the Bid Documents, or reject a Bid which is in any way incomplete, irregular or otherwise not Responsive. The Owner may waive any formality in the bid requirements and award or not award the contract in the best interests of The School Board of Broward County, Florida. (Emphasis in original not shown) In addition to the foregoing, the bid documents contained detailed and specific design criteria that set forth information such as the slope of roofs, the roof spans, the mechanical systems, ventilation, plumbing, windows, and stoops. These design criteria covered hundreds of topics and encompassed virtually every facet of the structures. To review each bid proposal as to whether each design specification was met would require countless man-hours. The issue of how to review the bid proposals was not adequately anticipated by the Respondent. From the outset the bid document evolved from unusual circumstances. Whether the bid document was intended to be a request for proposals (RFP) or an invitation to bid (ITB) was a primary confusion among the Board's staff. If the proposals were to be deemed responsive or not and then ranked solely on price (thus making the bid process more like an ITB) how could staff effectively determine the threshold question of responsiveness? If the proposals were to be ranked based upon a point or qualitative approach (more like an RFP) where were the criteria by which to score the proposals? In fact, there were no objective criteria disclosed in the bid document by which a proposal could be evaluated. More curious is that no bidder brought this lack of evaluation criteria to the Board's attention during the mandatory bidder's conference. Moreover, no one challenged the bid specifications. Presumably, the bidders believed it was an "all or nothing" award. That is, if they were the lowest responsive bidder, they would receive the award. The question of who would be responsive and how that decision would be resolved did not come to light until after the bids had been opened. At the mandatory bidders' conference conducted on January 14, 2003, the bidders posed questions in the form of requests for information. In response, the Respondent issued six addenda intended to cover the questions posed. None of the responses addressed how the bid proposals would be evaluated. If anything, Addendum No. 3 added to confusion related to what documents must be submitted with the bid proposal. More specifically, Addendum No. 3 provided, in pertinent part: [Addendum 3, question and response to inquiry] 9. Can schematics be submitted with the bid instead of the signed and sealed architectural and engineering design drawings of the structures that are requested in Document Article 4.01.A.6? Response: Signed and Sealed Architectural/Structural Drawings are required to be submitted with the Bid. The Requirement for Mechanical and Electrical signed and sealed drawing is waived, however all engineering associated with the Relocatable Buildings will require engineer of record signed and sealed drawings and calculations prior to issuance of building permit DRC review. Nevertheless, when the bid proposals were opened on March 4, 2003, the Petitioners and the Intervenor were found to be the three lowest bidders. If responsive, the Intervenor would be considered the lowest bidder with the Petitioners being considered alternate vendors for the procurement. Unsatisfied with the preliminary determination that the Intervenor was the lowest bidder, the Petitioners timely challenged the bid award. The Petitioners maintained that the Intervenor had not timely provided sealed design drawings as required by the bid document. Petitioners argued that the Intervenor had attempted to impermissibly amend their proposal by late-filing a set of structural drawings for the bid. Thus the initial bid protest sought to determine what design drawings were required by the bid and whether the Intervenor had timely supplied such drawings. The Petitioners contended that the Intervenor's submittal should be rejected as non-responsive to the bid. Whether they had complied with the full dictates of the bid requirements was potentially at issue as well. While the initial bid protest was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and scheduled for formal hearing, the parties continued to attempt to resolve the issues. It was apparent that the bidders had not submitted identical proposals. How the proposed products had been compared and evaluated was difficult to determine. From the Respondent's committee members came the disclosure that the decision of determining whether the bidders had complied with the bid ultimately came from three fashioned questions. If the structure proposed was pre- engineered, relocatable to various sites, and suitable for educational purposes, the entry was deemed responsive. Based upon this assessment the Petitioners and the Intervenor were deemed responsive and their bids ranked based upon price. This approach did nothing to discern if the designs were comparable in quality, if they met the bid design criteria, or if the drawings were even sufficient to comply with the dictates of the bid. The first posting of the bid award for Group A1 was entered March 18, 2003. On March 21, 2003, the Petitioners timely filed their notices of intent to protest the award of Group A1 to the Intervenor. Thereafter they timely filed the petitions to protest the award and the initial protest was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The protests did not encompass Group A2 or Group B. No bidder protested the proposed awards for Group A2 or Group B. In fact, the Respondent went forward on those procurements and awarded contracts for those groups on April 1, 2003. The Respondent did not award the contract award for the Group at issue in this proceeding. It must be noted that the instant procurement is not the Board's first experience with the procurement of concrete relocatable classrooms. In fact, the Board has purchased similar structures through a procurement contract that the Palm Beach County School Board holds with its vendors. One of the Respondent's concerns when the instant bids were reviewed was why the cost per unit for the bids in this case was higher than the Palm Beach County amount. As it turned out, the installation economy of multiple units at one site directly impacts the cost of the relocatable structures. Royal confirmed this information after the bids had been opened. When the Respondent's staff met with its counsel in preparation for the initial bid dispute (before the Board elected to reject all bids) the cost of the bid, the lack of full evaluation of the bidders' proposals, and the issues of the first protest were openly discussed. By that time any irregularities with the bid documents could not be repaired as to the contracts already awarded, but as to the instant matter the Respondent could revisit the circumstances and determine its best course. As a result of that reassessment, the Respondent elected to reject all bids regarding this group and attempt to re-bid the procurement with more certain terms. To that end on May 9, 2003, the Respondent issued a revised bid decision that provided in pertinent part: The Facilities and Construction Management Division intends to recommend that The School Board of Broward County, Florida, at the School Board meeting on June 3, 2003, reject all bids received for Group A1 and authorize revising the bidding documents and re-bidding. The rejection of all bids received for Group A1 is made due to serious flaws and ambiguities contained in Document 00200 4.01.A-6 as modified by Addendum No. 3. The Division intends to revise the bidding documents to delete the requirements that bidders submit plans with the bids; include ranges of unit quantities within the bid form; include one or more additional types of construction of the classroom buildings including a composite concrete/steel structure; and incorporate within the new Invitation to Bid all revised terms and conditions that were released through addenda in this procurement. The Petitioners timely filed protests regarding this new decision by the Board and the instant action ensued. By issuing the revised decision to reject all bids the Respondent intended to resolve all issues and to cure the perceived problem with the lack of consistent evaluation of the bidders' proposals. More specifically, the Respondent would be able to assure that the project design could comport with the specifications sought; specify whether architectural or engineering drawings were required and when (it was hoped that the confusion over "architect" vs. "engineer" could be eliminated); and obtain a substantial discount based upon economies from multi-unit purchases for a single site. None of the objectives sought were pre-textual or contrived. Additionally, by avoiding any process that would require a detailed reviewed of the bidders' proposals, countless man- hours could be saved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County enter a Final Order affirming the decision to reject all bids in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November 2003 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ 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 20th day of November 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Usher Larry Brown, Esquire Brown, Salzman, Weiss & Garganese, P.A. 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 660 Orlando, Florida 32801 Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esquire Schwarzberg & Associates Esperante, Suite 210 222 Lakeview Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas R. Shahady, Esquire Adorno & Yoss, P.A. 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Broward County School Board C. Wright Administrative Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the bid for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Lease No. 590:1871 to provide office space in Dade County, Florida, should be awarded to either Petitioner or Intervenor.
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: The Petitioner, Robert Litowitz (hereinafter "Litowitz"), in response to an invitation to bid advertised by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "HRS"), timely filed a bid submittal form offering to lease real property located at 11401 SW 40th Street (also known as Bird Road), Miami, Florida. This lease was to be for a five-year term with two one-year renewal options. The net square footage for the lease required by HRS was 14,781 + 3 percent with the geographical boundary designated by the invitation to bid being described as follows: All bid should be for existing office space located within the following boundaries: On the North, S.W., 48th Street. On the South, S. W., 88th Street. On the East, Palmetto Expressway, and on the West, S.W., 117th Street. This description contained an error in that the western boundary line should have been 117th Avenue not 117th Street. This minor discrepancy was noted at both of two pre-bid conferences conducted by HRS. The Intervenor, James C. Colross (hereinafter "Colross"), also timely filed a bid submittal form offering to lease real property described as Building "B," 9495 Sunset Drive (Southwest 72nd Street), Miami, Florida. Prior to the bid opening date, February 17, 1987, employees of HRS conducted two pre-bid conferences. At these conferences the bid package was reviewed and explained to all potential bidders present. Litowitz attended the pre-bid conference held the last week in January 1987. At this pre-bid conference Litowitz received the bid package and advised employees of HRS that he would be submitting property located on Bird Road for consideration for lease No. 590:1871. Linda Treml was the HRS employee who served as the contact person for the bid for Lease No. 590:1871. Ms. Treml conducted the pre-bid conferences and answered questions from potential bidders regarding the bid submittal forms. Several months earlier, perhaps during the summer 1986, Litowitz had met with Linda Treml regarding the possible lease of the Bird Road site, Ms. Treml had advised Litowitz that, at that time, HRS was not looking for space but that Litowitz would be added to their mailing list for future bid opportunities. Ms. Treml toured the Bird Road property with Litowitz as a courtesy visit for his inquiry. The bid submittal form for Lease No. 590:1871 required the proposed space be in an existing building. "Existing" was defined to specify the entire space to be dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rentable square footage. Both the Colross and the Litowitz properties met this definition for an existing building at the time of the bid submittals. The bid submittal form for Lease No. 590:1871 required a minimum of 90 parking spaces to include a minimum of 80 full size spaces and 4 spaces meeting the Standards For Special Facilities For Physically Disabled found in Chapter 130-1, Florida Administrative Code. The required parking spaces did not have to be reserved for the exclusive use of HRS. Colross offered 62 exclusive spaces on site with 50 additional exclusive parking spaces located one block from the proposed facility. The Colross site plan for Building B (the bid property) established over 90 non-exclusive parking spaces available on site. The Litowitz property also had 90-plus non-exclusive parking spaces on site. HRS requested a clarification for the 50 exclusive spaces offered off-site by Colross. The verbal clarification was reduced to writing to confirm such spaces, if needed, would be at no cost to HRS. This written confirmation was not issued until March 31, 1987. HRS established a bid evaluation team to review the bids submitted for Lease No. 590:1871. This team, comprised of Janet Robinson, Dorea Sowinski, and Grace 0abolish, visited both the Litowitz and Colross properties. Subsequent to the site tours, they met in a conference room at Janet Robinson's office to discuss the bid evaluation process. This team was to make a recommendation as to which bid was the lowest and best. The recommendation was to be made based upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the bid submittal form. No other criteria were to be employed by the evaluation team. HRS has no guidelines which specified how each team member is to apply the evaluation criteria. The team recommendation would then be reviewed by George Smith and his superiors. Linda Treml advised the evaluation team not to consider the Litowitz property because it was outside the geographical boundary established by the invitation to-bid. The Litowitz property located on Bird Road is, in fact, outside of the advertised boundaries. The bid advertisement required the property to be considered for Lease No. 590:1871 to be within the stated geographical area. HRS did not, by act or omission, encourage Litowitz to prepare and submit a bid for a property known to be outside the defined boundary. HRS did not advise Litowitz that a property outside of the defined boundary would be disqualified. The bid evaluation criteria assigned a weighing value of 10 percent to the proximity of the offered space in the central or preferred area of the map boundaries. Litowitz mistakenly concluded that even though his property was not within the boundaries that he would lose only the 10 percent weighing factor when his property would be evaluated. HRS did not, by act or omission, affirm this erroneous interpretation. Because the Litowitz property was not within the defined geographical boundary, HRS disqualified the Litowitz bid. Accordingly, the Colross bid was the only bid left for consideration and was selected for Lease No. 590:1871. The interested parties were notified of this selection on or about March 19, 1987. The Colross bid included a higher rental fee than the Litowitz bid. HRS rejected a third bid for Lease No. 590:1871 submitted by Brookhill Capital Resources (hereinafter "Brookhill") since it was missing certain documents which had to be submitted by the time of the bid opening. The Brookhill bid included a lower rental fee than the Litowitz bid. The Brookhill property was within the advertised boundary. HRS selected the Colross property and deemed it the lowest and best bid since the Litowitz and Brookhill properties had to be disqualified. Members of the bid evaluation team preferred the Colross property for Lease No. 590:1871. HRS did not waive the boundary requirement for Lease No. 590:1871. Employees of HRS completed a bid synopsis which listed data on all three bidders for lease no. 590:1871 even though two of the bidders, Litowitz and Brookhill, had been disqualified, HRS reserved the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection would be in the interest of the State of Florida. Janet Robinson as the managing administrator of the disability determination office set the geographical boundaries for the invitation to bid. The boundaries were established in consideration of the needs and desires of the employees of the disability determination office.
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings retains jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Section 120.53, Florida Statutes, after the Department invokes the provisions of Section 946.515, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On August 28, 1992, the Department advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Open Office Furniture Systems, RFP #92-/93-5016. Thereafter responses were received from threee responsive bidders. On October 7, 1992, the Department posted its intent to award the bid to Haworth, the proposer which received the best technical score among the three responsive bidders. Pride of Florida (PRIDE) was second, and Interior Contract Services, Inc., (ICS) was third. Haworth's was the lowest bid, at $879,752.92, PRIDE was next lowest, at $931,925.02, and ICS was third at $1,220,173.63. ICS's bid was well above the amount budgeted by the Department for the RFP. On October 9, 1992, ICS filed its Notice of Protest of the intent to award the bid to Haworth. ICS did not file a formal protest of the award of the bid to Haworth within 10 days of the Notice of Protest. The Department later discovered that the bid specifications were substantially flawed and ambiguous, and decided to reject all bids, including that of ICS. ICS was notified of the intent to reject all bids on October 16, 1992. ICS filed a Notice of Protest of the decision to reject all bids on October 21, 1992, followed by a formal protest of the rejection, filed on October 28, 1992, all pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. On October 28, 1992, Department representatives visited PRIDE's factory in Polk City, Florida. PRIDE demonstrated at that time that it could provide the furniture that the Department was seeking, that it was manufactured by inmates, that it could supply the furniture at a reasonable price, and that the furniture met the Department's standards as described in the RFP. PRIDE followed its demonstration of those facts with a letter to the Department, asserting the same facts on November 18, 1992. On October 30, 1992, the Department determined that it would purchase the furniture from PRIDE. This decision was related to ICS at a meeting between the Department and ICS on November 5, 1992. The Department and PRIDE entered into a contract for the open office furniture systems on November 18, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the petition of Interior Contract Services protesting the Bid Proposal for Open Office Furniture Systems, Proposal Number RFP-DOT-92/93/-5016. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1992, 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 22nd day of December, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher H. Morrison BALDWIN & MORRISON, P.A. 7100 South Highway 17/92 Fern Park, Florida 32730 William H. Roberts, Esquire Carolyn S. Holyfield, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issues in this case are stated in two counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint: Count I--whether Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest conduct, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.624(2), Florida Statutes (2006); and Count II-- whether Respondent is guilty of failing to exercise reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal report in violation of Subsection 475.624(15), Florida Statutes (2006). Counts III through IX of the Administrative Complaint were dismissed on the day of the final hearing held in this matter.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all licensed and certified real estate appraisers in the state. It is the Division's duty to ensure that all appraisers comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Respondent is a certified residential real estate appraiser. He has been an appraiser since 1998 and has been certified since 2002. There have been no prior actions taken against his professional license or certification. Respondent moved to Orange County, Florida, in 1980 and his entire appraiser practice has been in the greater Orlando area. On or about May 25, 2006, Respondent issued a real estate appraisal report (the "Appraisal") on a property located at 2119 Blossom Lane, Winter Park, Florida ("the Subject Property"). Several different approaches can be utilized by appraisers when assessing a property's value. Using the sales comparison approach for appraising residential properties, Respondent assigned a value of $750,000 to the Subject Property. When Respondent applied the cost approach to the property, it resulted in a value of $765,000. The income approach was not used in the Appraisal. The Division received an anonymous complaint about the Appraisal some time after it was completed.1 After conducting its investigation pursuant to the complaint, the Division asserts that in preparing and issuing the Appraisal, Respondent engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest conduct, culpable negligence, or breach of trust. The Division also alleges that Respondent is guilty of having failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing the Appraisal. The Subject Property The Subject Property is a one-story, single-family residence located on .42 acres in Winter Park, Florida. The Subject Property is located one block away from Lee Road, a heavily traveled four-lane road. The rear of the Subject Property is located on a finger of water identified as a canal that connects the property to Lake Killarney. Lake Killarney is a large lake suitable for motorboats and skiing. There is a dock on the rear of the Subject Property which can be used to secure a boat. There are 2,551 gross square feet of living area in the Subject Property. The house has a two-car garage, two screened porches, and a fireplace. The home is 15 years old, with an "effective" age of three years. An effective age indicates how well a home has been maintained, upgraded and taken care of during its existence. While the Subject Property is located in a nice, upscale neighborhood, the value of its location is somewhat diminished by the view across the canal. The far side of the canal houses a two-story, red brick office building with an asphalt parking lot. The view is not completely consistent with a typical neighborhood environment. At the time of the Appraisal, however (according to uncontroverted testimony by Respondent), the view across the canal was obscured by foliage and trees located on the bank of the canal near the boat dock. Ownership and Sale History of the Subject Property At the time Respondent prepared the Appraisal on behalf of his client, American Heritage, the Seller's Disclosure and Latent Defects Statement indicated the owners were a couple by the name of Huong Thu Do and Nguyen Do. The Sales Contract itself listed the seller as the Thu/Nguyen Trust. No buyer is listed on the Sales Contract. Mr. and Mrs. Do had not signed the contract. It is not unusual for Respondent to have an unsigned contract; his client is normally the lender,2 rather than the buyers or sellers. The contract price on the Thu/Nguyen contract was $699,000. There were also other sales contracts associated with the Subject Property at about the same time. An "As Is Contract for Sale and Purchase" listed Do Huong Thu and Do Nguyen (presumably the same persons named in the unsigned contract mentioned above) and Beth Schuldiner/SPI, Inc., and/or Assigns as the Seller. This contract, signed by someone as Attorney in Fact for the Sellers, had a contract price of $575,000. There is then an Assignment of the Contract to Beth Schuldiner/SPI, Inc., on April 29, 2006. At the time of the Appraisal, the Subject Property was listed in the MLS report as having sold for $575,000 in March 2006. The Appraisal mentioned the MLS report and the sale date, but did not indicate the sale price. It was an oversight by Respondent not to put the sale price in the Appraisal. The $575,000 sale of the Subject Property, however, was never recorded in the public records of Orange County, Florida. The Closing Settlement Statement for the sale transaction listed Huong Thu Do and Nguyen Do as Seller and Aracely McFarland (yet another person involved in the transaction) as Buyer. The settlement statement indicates a contract sales price of $699,000 and states that $123,079.50 is due to Seller as an "Assignment Fee to Steele Property Investments" (which the Division opines is the SPI, Inc., mentioned in conjunction with Beth Schuldiner in the sales contracts). Taking away the assignment fee, the price would be approximately $575,000. Ultimately, a general warranty deed was recorded which listed Huong Thu Do and Nguyen Do as Sellers, and Aracely McFarland as the Buyer. The warranty deed was recorded in the Orange County public records on June 27, 2006. By way of a Quit Claim Deed recorded August 8, 2006, McFarland deeded the property to Beth Schuldiner as trustee of McFarland Trust. The confusing and somewhat contradictory sales contracts and deeds may suggest some degree of shenanigans surrounding the sale of the Subject Property. It is clear Respondent knew of and had done work for Schuldiner previously. He said that Schuldiner sometimes gave him a bonus of up to $100 to expedite his appraisal work. (Interestingly, Respondent made only about $350 for the Appraisal at issue.) There is no evidence that Respondent was involved in or aware of the various transactions mentioned. Respondent was hired by a lender to appraise the Subject Property. It is unsubstantiated conjecture to suggest that some collusion between Respondent and anyone else related to the sale was going on in this transaction. There is, in fact, no proof whatsoever that the allegedly shady deal was actually improper at all. The Appraisal Respondent, in his cost approach valuation of the Subject Property, listed the site value at $250,000. A general appraiser who viewed the Subject Property to review Respondent's findings determined the site value to be $160,000. The general appraiser's finding was based on the amount appearing in the county property appraiser's records. Such records, while they are some indication of the value of a property, are not meant to be a final word or completely reliable source. Respondent, conversely, took the property appraiser's value and compared it to other properties in the area, e.g., the site at 115 Killarney was valued at $229,000; the one at 139 Killarney was $224,000; a Rippling Avenue site was $292,000; and an Interlachen site was listed at $301,000. Based on those property values, plus the phenomenon of great growth in land values at that time, Respondent made a good faith estimate of the site value for the Subject Property. His approach is reasonable. Respondent's sales comparison approach to the appraisal used five comparable properties (or Comps) for comparison purposes. It is typical to use at least three comparables, but in special cases an appraiser would use more. Respondent considered this a special case. Comp 1 was a much smaller, older home3 located directly across from, but not directly on, Lake Killarney. There is no commercial property nearby. That being the case, Respondent discounted the location value for Comp 1 by $35,000 in an effort to make its overall value similar to the Subject Property. Respondent explains this discount as a necessary adjustment based on location and difference in land values. Other positive and negative adjustments were made, but the net adjustment for the property (vis-à-vis the Subject Property) was $10,000. Comp 2 was a somewhat smaller home than the Subject Property but with actual lake frontage, as opposed to a canal connecting to the lake, on Lake Killarney. This property is located some two miles from the Subject Property in a different neighborhood. Adjustments were made to this property totaling $27,400, although no adjustment was made for the site, even though Comp 2 is directly on the lake, rather than on a canal. Comp 3 was a somewhat larger home located less than half-a-mile from the Subject Property. An $85,700 adjustment was made to make this Comp more comparable to the Subject Property. Comp 4 is considerably larger than the Subject Property and is not located directly on the water. This property has access to Lake Catherine, but that lake is a much smaller and less usable body of water than Lake Killarney. An adjustment was made by Respondent to account for the larger size of this Comp, but such adjustments are a judgment call made by the appraiser. Comp 5 is a similarly sized, though older, two-story home located a little over two miles from the Subject Property. This property is located in a much nicer neighborhood, on a much larger lot than the Subject Property. Again, an adjustment was made to make the property more comparable to the Subject Property. Respondent did not use a very similar property located on the same street as the Subject Property, because he was concerned as to whether the sale of that home had been an arm's length transaction. His refusal to use this property as a Comp is reasonable. Respondent's cost approach method of appraising the property involved an estimation of the cost of the site on which the home was located; the cost of the house itself, minus depreciation; and the addition of any improvements. A site value can be derived using any one of various methods. If a vacant comparable site exists in the area, it can be used to estimate value of the site being appraised. However appraisers are seldom lucky enough to find such a vacant lot. The abstraction method is another approach, using a comparable site and subtracting the contributory value of improvements. Also, a county tax assessor's estimate on the tax rolls could be used. The tax rolls at that time listed a value of $160,000 for the Subject Property. Respondent assigned a value of $250,000 for the site, based on his review of various properties listed in the Microbase (a tool used by appraisers to ascertain site values of properties). The Microbase property values should generally be consistent with county records, but that is not always the case. The figure decided upon by Respondent was an extrapolation of existing site values using recent trends. There were no specific references made in the Appraisal as to the use of those existing sites, however. A sales comparison approach to appraise the Subject Property was later done by a certified general appraiser (in 2009). Respondent is a certified residential appraiser. The general appraiser used one of Respondent's comparative sales (Comp 1) and four other homes for comparison purposes. While opining that appraisals are a judgment call and not an exact science, the general appraiser felt like the comparable sales he used were more closely alike the Subject Property than the comparative sales used by Respondent. The general appraiser's comparative properties, while certainly having merit as more similar to the Subject Property, were not contemporaneously reviewed with the Subject Property in 2006 (when Respondent did his Appraisal). While showing that the Appraisal could have been done differently, and, arguably, better, the general appraiser's report does not invalidate Respondent's work. The general appraiser opined that Respondent made three primary errors in the Appraisal: 1) Not disclosing the commercial property located near the Subject Property; 2) Identifying the Subject Property as "lake front" when it was actually on the canal connecting the lake; and 3) Not appropriately adjusting the values in the comparative properties used to appraise the Subject Property. As to the commercial property, Respondent testified that at the time of the Appraisal, the commercial building was hidden by the trees along the back of the Subject Property. The pictures in the Appraisal do not show a view of the canal, so there is no way to confirm what foliage existed at that time. As to the identification of the property as lake front, the MLS listing used by real estate agents lists the property as "waterfront," with the waterfront type as "canal-fresh lake." As far as water is concerned, the description is a matter of opinion by the appraiser or real estate agent. There is no definitive guideline as to what constitutes waterfront. As to the adjustments made by Respondent to the comparable sales properties, it is clear the general appraiser made significantly larger adjustments than those made by Respondent. However, the reasons set forth for the general appraiser's adjustments are not convincing. Respondent's adjustments are equally valid to those made by the general appraiser. There is no evidence of collusion by Respondent with anyone associated with the sale of the Subject Property. There is no evidence that Respondent's client, the seller or the buyer believed the Appraisal was improper or incorrect. There is no evidence that the amount determined by Respondent for valuation of the Subject Property was wrong.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Peter Joseph Esposito. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2010.
The Issue These proceedings arose as the result of a bid solicita- tion issued by Respondent, Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), whereby DOAH sought the lease of office space. DOAH disqualified two proposals submitted by Petitioner, Parkway- Oakland General Partnership (Parkway), and proposed to award the lease to Intervenor, American National Bank of Florida (American Bank). Parkway protested the disqualification of its proposals and the intended award. The Koger Company (Koger) also protested the intended award, but filed a voluntary dismissal prior to the final hearing in Case No. 88-3357BID. By separate order, this Hearing Officer has entered an order closing her file on Case No. 88-3357BID. The disputed issues are described as follows by the parties in their prehearing stipulation and at final hearing: 1. Whether Parkway bid an existing, dry and measurable building. 2. Whether American Bank bid an existing dry and measurable building. 3. Whether DOAH acted arbitrarily and capriciously by disqualifying Parkway's proposals and by evaluating American Bank's proposal. At final hearing, Parkway called Jack B. Tobin, Tony Benton, William M. Baldwin, and Al Rudolph as witnesses. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 3 were received into evidence. DOAH called Linda C. Spears, Mary V. Goodman, and Stephen F. Dean as witnesses. DOAH's Exhibits 1 through 2 were received into evidence and portions of the deposition of Marilyn Lawrence were read into the record. . American Bank called Donald L. Feather as a witness, The transcript of the hearing was filed on August ll, 1988, and the parties were to file Proposed recommended orders within ten days of the filing of the transcript. The parties’ Proposals have been addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on stipulations of the Parties, on the exhibits received in evidence and ‘on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: 1. DOAH issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for over 2,000 square Feet of office space in Tallahassee, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2) ‘The RFP was prepared using the Department of General Services! (DGS) guidelines (TR 89) and DGS Porm BPM 4136, which is a solicitation format Prepared by DGS for use by all State agencies. (TR 123 and Rule 13M-1.015(3)(e)) 2. Parkway submitted three bid Proposals, two of which were disqualified by DOAH. American Bank submitted a proposal which was determined by the evaluation committee to be the lowest and best proposal. (Prehearing Stipulation) 3. One of the disqualified Proposals submitted by Parkway was known as the "Option Proposal." In this arrangement, DOAH was to continue occupying the space it was currently leasing until October, 1988 at which time, DOAH would move into Building "B" located at 2001 Old St. Augustine Road. (TR 18, 19, 86, and Pet. Exhibit 1) - 4. The other disqualified Proposal submitted by Parkway was known as the "Park Proposal." The Park Proposal was for 2001 Old St. Augustine Road, where two buildings called Building "a" and Building "B" were being constructed. Both buildings were identical in size, shape and total construction. (TR 28) ‘The Park Proposal submitted by Parkway contains two Photographs and four drawings. (Pet. Ex, 2) One of the Photographs depicts Building "A." (TR 34) Three of the four drawings relate to Building "B" and one of the drawings relates. to Building "A" and related site development. The Proposal never clearly identified a specific building at 2001 Old St. Augustine Road as being the building bid. However, during the evaluation committee's site visit at 2001 Old st, Augustine Road, a representative of the Parkway indicated Building "B" was the building proposed for lease by DOAH. (TR 98) 5. American Bank submitted a Proposal for the space located in a former bowling alley on Apalachee Parkway. This space is herein referred to as the old bowling alley. (TR 60) 6. Form BPM 4136, which is the bid solicitation document, contains the following requirement: The proposed space must be in an existing building. To be considered as existing, the space must be dry and capable of being physically measured to deter-— mine net rentable square footage at the time of bid Submittal. Renovations to bring the facility into compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local codes and regulations and/or to meet the desired arrangements are permitted, it (sic) carried out in accordance with prescribed Procedures. (Emphasis in original.) 7. DGS interprets the requirement of an existing building to mean that the building must be enclosed with flooring, a roof, and walls and that exterior doors and windows must be in Place or the building must be such that the exterior is enclosed so that it is dry in adverse weather. Additionally, the building must be capable of being measured by pulling a tape inside the building to determine the net rentable Square footage. (TR 116) The purpose of having the dry and measurable criteria is to distinguish between an existing building and one that is to be built or that is Partially complete. (TR 119) 8. On May 13, 1988, the date of the bid submittal, Building "B" was not an existing building. (Prehearing Stipulation) Building "A" had a roof, a Slab, and walls, which comprised 50 percent of the vertical Plane from the slab to the roof. The windows and exterior doors in Building "A" had not been installed on May 13, 1988, (TR 40-42, 96-97, 147) Building "a" had a four foot overhang but the testimony of Mr. Tobin that the Overhang prevented rain from entering the building is not credible, given the large amount of window space which was not enclosed. (TR 51) 9. On May 13, 1988, the old bowling alley had walls, a slab, and portions of the exterior walls were boarded over, possibly in the location of existing windows or window openings. (TR 63, 109, 133, 134) The roof did have a hole, which was approximately three feet in length and allowed water to leak into the building. (TR 118, 119) The interior of the old bowling alley was capable of being measured. (TR 67, 119) The old bowling alley is an existing building. (TR 118-119) 10. After the bid solicitation document was issued, representatives of the Parkway met with staff of DOAH, (TR 27, 91) A DOAH staff member advised Parkway representatives that Parkway could "bid the park," but it had to bid an existing building which was dry and measurable. (TR 46, 80, 93, 138, 139) ll. At the prebid conference, DOAH representatives advised a Prospective bidder, in the Presence of a Parkway representative, that in order for a building. to be considered for the contract, it must be existing and dry and measurable at the time the bids were submitted. (TR 94, 95) 12. At the time Parkway submitted its proposals, neither Building "A" nor Building "B" was an existing building as defined by the bid solicitation document. 13, At the time Parkway submitted its proposals, Parkway was negotiating with a Private company for the lease of Building "A" (TR 77,27) and Parkway entered into a lease for Building "A" with the Private company on dune 13, 1988. (TR 43, 45) Thus, even if Building "A" had -been an existing building at the time the bids were Submitted, it is not available for lease to DOAH. (TR 45)
Conclusions CASE NO. CASE NO. 88-3357BID 88-3358BID On September 1, 1988, the Hearing Officer who conducted a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, in the above-styled case submitted her Recommended Order to the undersigned and all parties of record. A copy of the Recommended Order is attached as Exhibit A. In ays accordance with Rule 28-5.404, all parties were allowed twenty days in which to. file..exceptions..to.. the. Recommended Order. °.To date, none of the parties have submitted exceptions. The Recommended Order came before me as agency head for final agency action.” Having considered the Recommended Order, the exhibits admitted into evidence at final hearing and the transcript of the final hearing conducted on August 1, 1988, it is ORDERED that.the Recommended Order, attached as Exhibit A, is adopted as the final order of the agency. Accordingly, the protest filed by Parkway-Oakland General Partnership in Case No. 88-3358BID is dismissed and Lease No. 510:0049 is awarded to American National Bank of Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this o%/~& day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. | Lh aap A ssi SHARYN SMITH Director 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 Qist day of September, 1988.
Recommendation SEE NVDATION Based on the foregoing, it recommended that the Division of Administrative Hearings enter a final order dismissing Case No. 88-3358BID ang awarding Lease No. 510:0049 to American National Bank of Florida. st : RECOMMENDED this /*~ day of September, 1988, in buce BK ghhad SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 (904)487-1082 Tallahassee, Florida. Filed with the Clerk of the Department of General Services this /od day of September, 1988 Copies furnished to: Kim Cecile Rice Lobrano & Kincaid, P.A. Suite 810, 121 Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William A. Bald, Esquire Dale & Bald 2900 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert D. Newell, Jr. Newell and Stahl, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Mark Rubin, Esquire 777 Arthur Godfrey Road Suite 320 Miami Beach, Florida 33140 10 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 68-3358B1D The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case, ’ Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Parkway-Oakland General Partnership Proposed Finding of Fact No. 1 is incorporated in Finding of Fact Nos. 1 and 2. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 2 is incorporated in Finding of Fact Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 3 is incorporated in Finding of Pact No. 8 and is covered in the Introduction and Issues, Proposed Finding of Fact Wo. 4 is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. . Proposed Finding of Fact No. 5 is covered in the Introduction and Issues. The first sentence in Proposed Finding of Fact No. 6 is subordinate and unnecessary. The remainder of the proposed finding of fact is rejected as not supported by the record as a whole, as conclusionary, and as mere recital of testimony. . The first sentence in Proposed Finding of Fact No. 7 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 8. The remainder of the proposed finding of fact is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. The portion of Proposed Finding of Fact No. 8 which indicates that windows were not installed at the time of the bid submittal and that the building had a four foot overhang is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 8. The remainder of the proposed finding of fact is rejected as mere recitation of testimony, conclusionary, speculative and not supported by the record as a whole. The first two sentences of Proposed Finding of Fact No. 9 are cumulative in part and subordinate and unnecessary to the facts aB found. ll 10. ll. 12, 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2i. 22. 23. 24. In Proposed Finding of Fact No. 10, the fact that the building proposed by American Bank had a hole in the roof is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 9. The remainder of the Proposed finding of fact is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 11 is cumulative. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 12 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 10. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 13 is rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 14 is rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 15 is subordinate and unnecessary as to the facts as found. The first paragraph in Proposed Finding of Fact No. 16 is mere recitation of testimony, subordinate, and unnecessary. The last paragraph is rejected as conclusionary and not supported by the record as a whole. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 17 is rejected as conclusionary and not supported by the record as a whole. Ms. Goodman's testimony did not contradict the testimony of Ms. Spears. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 18 is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. . Proposed Finding of Fact No. 19 is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 20 is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 21 is mere recitation of testimony, subordinate, and unnecessary to the facts as found. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 22 is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. . Proposed Finding of Fact No. 23 is subordinate and unneccessary to the facts as found. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 24 is cumulative and mere recitation of testimony. To the extent that the testimony indicates that Building "A" was not an existing building that is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 12. 12 25. 10. Ti. 12. 13. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 25 is subordinate and unneccessay to the facts as found. Specific Rulings on Joint Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted By DOAH and American Bank Proposed Finding of Pact No. 1 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. l. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 2 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 6. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 3 is incorporated in Finding of Pact Nos. 2, 3, and 4. To the extent not subordinate and unnecessary, Proposed Finding of Pact No. 4 is incorporated in Finding of Fact - Nos. 4 and 8. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 5 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 8. . Proposed Finding of Fact No. 6 is subordinate and unnecessary. To the extent not subordinate and unnecessary, Proposed Finding of Fact No. 7 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 8 is subordinate and unnecessary. To the extent not subordinate and unnecessary, Proposed Finding of Fact No. 9 ig incorporated in Finding of Fact No. To the extent not subordinate and unnecessary, Proposed Finding of Fact No. 10 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 13. Proposed Finding of Fact Nos. 11, 12, and 13 are subordinate and unnecessary. . To the extent not subordinate and unnecessary, Proposed Finding of Fact No. 14 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 4. : Proposed Finding of Fact No. 15 is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 13 Proposed Finding of Pact No. unnecessary. Proposed Finding of Fact No. unnecessary. Proposed Finding of Fact No. in Finding of Fact No. 7 Proposed Finding of Fact No. in Finding of Fact No. 9. Proposed Finding of Fact No. in Finding of Fact No. 9 To the extent not subordinat Finding of Fact No. Proposed Finding of Fact No. unnecessary. Proposed Finding of Fact No. in Finding of Fact No. 10, Proposed Finding of Fact No. in Finding of Fact No. 10. Proposed Finding of Fact No. of Fact Nos. 10 and 1l. 16 17 18 19 20 is is is is is subordinate and subordinate and modified and incorporated modified and incorporated modified and incorporated e and unnecessary, Proposed 21 is incorporated in Finding of Fact 22 is subordinate and 23 is is is modified and incorporated modified and incorporated incorporated in Finding oye STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS THE KOGER COMPANY, Petitioner, “Vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, Respondent, and AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, Intervenor. PARKWAY-—OAKLAND GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, Respondent, and AMERICAN NATIONAL” BANK OF ~ FLORIDA, Intervenor. ew
Other Judicial Opinions A...PARTY .WHO..IS.. ADVERSELY AFFECTED. BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO REVIEWED. Copies furnished: Kim Cecile Rice, Esquire LOBRANO & KINCAID, P.A. Suite 810, 121 Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William A. Bald, Esquire DALE & BALD 2900 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert D. Newell, dr., Esquire NEWELL AND STAHL, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street __ Se Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Mark Rubin, Esquire 777 Arthur Godfrey Road Suite 320 Miami Beach, Florida 33140 Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Willis Phillips, may challenge the specifications of the invitation to bid at issue in this proceeding? Whether the Petitioner has standing to challenge the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' proposed award of lease number 590:2166 to the Intervenor, Rutherford Rentals, Inc.?
Findings Of Fact The Department issued an Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities, lease number 590:2166 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"), seeking to rent office space in Madison, Florida. Responses to the ITB were to be filed with the Department by 2:00 p.m., March 6, 1990. Included as part of the ITB was a map of the City of Madison (hereinafter referred to as the "Map"). Joint Exhibit 1. On page 1, paragraph 3, of the Bid Submittal Form which was included as part of the ITB it was indicated that "[s]pace to be located in Madison, Florida within boundaries depicted in the attached map (Attachment B.) Bidder to mark location of site on map Attachment B." The ITB referred to the Map as a "Map showing bid zone boundaries." See page 4 of the ITB. The Map was labeled as "Attachment B" and included the following language at the bottom of the Map: "WITHIN CITY LIMITS WITH EXCEPTIONS OF UNDESIRABLE LOCATIONS AS INDICATED." The Map included two areas within the City of Madison which were cross- hatched. At the bottom of the Map the word "UNDESIRABLE" had been written in black. This word only appears below the larger of the two cross-hatched areas. The Department intended to exclude any office space located within both of the cross-hatched areas on the Map. The Petitioner spoke by telephone with Robert Smith, a Facilities Services Managers Assistant for the Department, prior to submitting a response to the ITB. The Petitioner initiated the conversation. Based upon this conversation, the Petitioner was aware that property located within either of the cross-hatched areas on the Map was excluded from consideration under the ITB. The property which the Petitioner intended to offer to the Department in response to the ITB is located in the smallest of the two cross-hatched areas on the Map. The Petitioner was informed by Mr. Smith that the property located within the smaller cross-hatched area was excluded as undesirable. Mr. Smith informed the Petitioner that he could not submit a response to the ITB offering to rent property located in the small cross-hatched area. The exclusion from consideration of property located in the areas within the City of Madison which were located in the two cross-hatched areas of the Map could have been more clearly designated. The Department's designation of the excluded areas, however, was not ambiguous. It was clear that the Petitioner's property was located in an excluded portion of the City of Madison and that the Petitioner was aware of the exclusion of his property. Despite the Petitioner's knowledged that his property was located within an excluded area, the Petitioner submitted a response dated March 6, 1990, to the ITB proposing property located in the smaller cross-hatched area. In the Petitioner's response to the ITB he did not indicate the location of his property on the Map. Instead, the Petitioner submitted a different map of a portion of the City of Madison which included his property. Rules 10-13.006 and 10-13.007, Florida Administrative Code, require that protests of the bid specifications of the Department must be filed within 72 hours of receipt of notice of the bid specifications. The ITB did not indicate that persons adversely affected by the ITB could challenge the specifications of the ITB or that any such challenge had to be filed within 72 hours of receipt of notice of the ITB. The following statement appears of the last page of the Bid Submittal Form included with the ITB and submitted by the Petitioner: I hereby certify as owner, officer, or authorized agent that I have read the Invitation to Bid Package and all its attachments, and agree to abide by all requirements and conditions contained therein. . . . This certification was signed by the Petitioner. The Department decided to award the lease to the Intervenor. The Department determined that the Petitioner's bid should be rejected because the proposed property was located in an excluded area. The Petitioner filed a Formal Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on April 23, 1990, with the Department. The Petitioner challenged the Department's proposed award of the lease to the Intervenor and asserted that he was the lowest and best bidder. The Petitioner did not challenge the specifications of the ITB. The Department filed a Motion to Dismiss on Mazy 4, 1990. The Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition and an Amended Formal Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on May 14, 1990. For the first time, the Petitioner challenged the specifications of the ITB.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting the Department's Motion to Dismiss and dismissing with prejudice the Formal Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 July, 1990. APPENDIX The Petitioner and the Department 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, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-2 See 9. 3-5 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 6 6-7. 7 and 11 Not relevant. 8-10 and 12-15 These proposed findings are consistent with Ms. Goodman's testimony. Ms. Goodman's opinions, however, are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although this proposed finding of fact is generally true, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Petitioner was not aware that both cross-hatched areas were excluded areas. See 9. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2 and hereby accepted. 3 5-8. 4 7. 5 6. 6 12. 7 9. 8 13 and 17. 9 4. 10 12. 11 17. 12 15. 13 16. 14 18 and hereby accepted. 15 20. 21 and hereby accepted. 22 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Cumulative. Hereby accepted. Copies Furnished To: John C. Pelham, Esquire Gary Walker, Esquire Post Office Box 13527 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3527 John L. Pearce, Esquire District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-2949 Clay A. Schnitker, Esquire Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32340 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Findings Of Fact This matter arose from the sale of a certain apartment building in Dunedin, Florida, known as Piper's Ten. This building was owned by two foreign corporations, the principals of which are represented by a Mr. Eugene Morgan of Boston, Massachusetts. Douglas S. Kennedy, Defendant, is a registered real estate salesman whose license was registered with Lockhart Realty, Inc., of Seawalls Point, Florida, the broker for which was his then wife Trude Kennedy. The Defendant and his wife were involved in domestic difficulties which eventually lead to a divorce. When the Defendant and his wife separated sometime in late 1972, he sought out his friend and business associate, Eugene Morgan, who suggested that the Defendant move to Dunedin, Florida and reside in the model apartment at Piper's Ten. The Defendant heeded the suggestion and took on the assignment as resident manager of the Piper's Ten Apartments at a final salary of approximately $1,000 per month. According to the Defendant and Mr. Morgan, his prime responsibility was seeing that Morgan and his co-investors in the property "receive a fair shake with the local people in and around Dunedin, Florida." At the time the property was registered with a real estate broker of Dunedin, Florida, whose name is Mr. Woodrow Register, and he had an exclusive listing on the sale of Piper's Ten Apartments. The initial arrangement between Morgan and the Defendant was that the Defendant would live in the apartment rent free and he would be paid an amount to defray his expenses for the management responsibility. When the Defendant became dissatisfied with this arrangement approximately 3 weeks later, he notified Mr. Morgan that he could no longer remain in Dunedin under that arrangement. This set the stage for the new arrangement referred to above whereby the Defendant was to be paid $1,000 per month payable out of the proceeds, when and if the building was sold. According to Morgan, this arrangement was to last for at least 4 to 5 months or until such time as a purchaser was located to purchase the apartment building. During April 1973, Kelly Prior Realty of Dunedin produced a proposed purchaser for the property at the purchase price of $400,000 which was the amount set by the owners who had agreed to pay a real estate commission of 5 percent. Kelly Prior Realty prepared a proposed contract of sale and purchase and submitted it to the offices of the attorney for the seller, Raymond Argyros, who after certain modifications, submitted the contract to the sellers for their approval. At the closing in May 1973, Kelly Prior, the selling broker, received a full commission of 5 percent as agreed upon by their sellers in their open listing of the property. According to attorney Argyros, the Defendant received a check for $5,000 as agreed upon between the Defendant and Morgan and according to him, the contract erroneously referred to such payment as a commission. It is this $5,000 payment which is the matter of controversy in this hearing. According to Morgan, Defendant was hired to "see if he could get Morgan and his associates a fair shake with the local people in Dunedin respecting the management of the apartment building." Originally the two story building was primarily an office space on the lower level and approximately ten apartments on the upper level. The plan was to rent the upper level as a condominium and to lease the office space on the lower level. Morgan was unable to sell the condominiums on the upper level based on the fact that prospective purchasers did not want to buy condominiums in a building approximately 50 percent comprised of office space. With this fact, Morgan and his associates made the decision to convert the lower level to apartments as well. When this was done, the Defendant saw to it that the building was properly managed and provided feedback to Morgan in order to keep him advised at all times of the situation with the apartment building. When the building was sold, Kelly Prior Realty Company received the commission of $20,000 which represented 5 percent of the total purchase price and the Defendant received $5,000 for his efforts. In this regard, the Defendant received a check drawn in the amount of $5,000 and the check bore a notation that the amount represented a commission. When the Defendant noted this, he changed the face of the check to reflect that the amount paid was intended to be an agency fee for the sale of Piper's Ten. The Defendant played no part in the drafting of the purchase and sales agreement. After the closing, the Defendant also was given the furniture from the model apartment and he thereafter departed for Puerto Rico. Trude Kennedy, the Defendant's former wife, testified that Lockhart Realty was in no way associated with the sale of Piper's Ten. Trude Kennedy had several conversations with Mr. Morgan regarding the sales and problems which he encountered with Piper's Ten. However the basis of these statements involved other businesses which she had with Morgan regarding the sale and subdivision of other properties in and around Dunedin. Mrs. Kennedy was unaware of the amount paid to the Defendent and she made no claim for such funds when the payment was disbursed. Morgan denied that the amount in any way reflected a commission but rather was payment for the services which the Defendant rendered in the general upkeep and management of the building such that he could be fully advised at all times of the progress, if any, that the local realtors were having with the sale of the apartment building. With these facts, the undersigned is of the opinion that the $5,000 sum given to Kennedy represented the amount as per the agreement he had with Morgan. There was no evidence that he participated in any way with the sale of the building other than to advise Morgan of any efforts that the other local realtors played in locating purchasers. It was noted that the check which represented payment for these services indicated that the amount originally was a commission. However, the Defendant, when noting that the designation of a commission was included on the check, immediately advised Mr. Argyros, the seller's agent, to correct that mistake by placing a designation that the amount represented was intended to be a "seller's agent" fee. This correction was made prior to the time the check was deposited and it was done with the consent of attorney Argyros. There was no evidence that the Defendant demanded such amount as a commission for his efforts as a salesman or that he showed the property to prospective purchasers as a real estate salesman. Thus it appears that the amount paid to the Defendant was an amount given him for his services as testified to by Morgan. The amount paid also appears to correspond with the arrangement as testified to by Morgan. I therefore find that the $5,000 sum paid the Defendant represented an amount for services that he rendered, not as a real estate salesman, but rather, as a property manager of the Piper's Ten Apartment building.
