The Issue The issue in the case is whether Respondent entered a store, not in connection with his duties as a security guard, while openly wearing a firearm, in violation of Sections 493.315(2) and (3) and 493.319(1)(p), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent held the following licenses: Class "B" Watchman, Guard, or Patrolman Agency license number B-88-00055; Class "MB"' Watchman, Guard or Patrolman Agency Manager license number MB-88-00083; Class "D" Watchman, Guard, or Patrolman license number D-89-01736; and Class "G" Statewide Gun Permit number G-89-00216. In September, 1989, Respondent provided security services to about six of the approximately 41 merchants located at a small "L"-shaped strip mall located on Saxon Boulevard in Orange City, Florida. These services were provided pursuant to contracts between the individual merchants and Respondent. The security services supplied by Respondent required him to patrol common areas, such as sidewalks and parking areas. Entrances to all of the stores faced the unenclosed mall's parking lot. One of the merchants at the strip mall with whom Respondent had no contract was Lauri Black, who owned and operated a store known as "Florida Scene." This store, which opened for business on or shortly after September 22, 1989, is located at the end of a long line of stores and faces directly into the parking lot serving all of the stores. The closest store that Respondent protects is relatively close to Florida Scene, about five stores away. Ms. Black also operated a similar store in nearby Deland. Respondent had previously visited her to solicit security business. Based on prior conversations, Respondent reasonably believed that he might successfully obtain the business for the new store in Orange City. On Monday, September 19, 1989, at about 3:25 p.m., Respondent, who had just gone on duty, entered Ms. Black's store for the purpose of soliciting security business. At the time, he was in his normal security guard uniform and was wearing a handgun, which remained holstered at all relevant times. Ms. Black did not ask Respondent to leave or to remove his gun. In fact, she was not intimidated by the fact that he was armed. However, upon his entrance into her store, Ms. Black, without warning or prior objection, excused herself and contacted the police. At the hearing, Ms. Black testified that she had been "roped into this." "This" apparently refers to her participation that day in an ongoing dispute between Respondent, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the management and certain mall merchants that is not otherwise relevant to the present case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE 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 16th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings: adopted. rejected as irrelevant. adopted except that Florida Scene was not open for business until after September 22, 1989. adopted in substance. adopted. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings: 1-3. adopted. adopted in substance. adopted in substance. adopted as to Respondent being on duty. Whether he was in proper performance of his duties is rejected as conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 T. Hulen Ray, Attorney 118 WeSt. New York Ave. Deland, FL 32720
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the intended action by Respondent to award RFP 21-203T for Security Guard Services to Intervenor is improper.
Findings Of Fact Respondent wanted to procure security guard services for its various schools, centers, departments, buildings and/or compounds in order to protect its equipment and property from damage or theft. Consequently, on March 19, 2001, Respondent issued RFP 21-203T (RFP), entitled "Security Guard Services," with a contract period from October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2004. The RFP required all proposals to be submitted by 2:00 p.m. on April 24, 2001. At the time of the hearing, the security guard services were being provided by Petitioner under a contract awarded through a previous procurement, RFP 98-146T. The contract was to expire on September 30, 2001. The RFP contains Sections 1 through 9 and Attachments A through F.1 Section 2, entitled "Introduction," provides that the scope of services included, but were not limited to, the requirements contained in the Articles of Agreement, which is Attachment A. Additionally, the said Section set forth the major sites that may be covered under the contract of the RFP, which were described as Group 1 and Group 2. Proposers to the RFP were permitted to offer their security guard solutions to existing and future school sites. Respondent selected the Group 1 facilities consisting of eight school sites for the RFP. Further, Section 2 provides that Respondent reserves "the right to increase or decrease its stated requirements under the hours of coverage for the number of security personnel, location and/or hours from time to time at the hourly rate quoted"; and provides the hours of coverage for each site. Section 3, entitled "Information to be Included in the Submitted Proposal," contains several subsections. Subsection 3.5 requires certain information to be submitted by a proposer with the proposal or within three days of request. Subsection 3.7 requires a proposer to validate its minimum eligibility. Subsection 3.71 requires a proposer to submit a copy of its Florida's security guard services license and submit the license number on the Cost Proposal Sheets Additional Information, which is Attachment B. Subsection 3.8 requires a proposer to show its experience and qualifications through certain submissions. Subsection 3.8.13 requires a proposer to provide a security solution that includes additional security guards and/or hours that differs from the individualized security solution based on a single security guard at the specified sites in the hours of coverage in Section 2. Subsection 3.8.15 requires a proposer to provide an individualized security solution for specified sites based on the information obtained from the attendance of the mandatory site visits. Subsection 3.8.16 requires proposers to "prepare and submit with their proposal, an individualized, concise delineation of their recommendation to protect and secure . . . property on the sites listed in Section 2 . . . ." Additionally, Subsection 3.816 requires the recommendation to "include all personnel, their hours and equipment that proposer intends to provide . . . (i.e. contract (road) supervisor(s), number and level of guards, radios, cars, off-street motorized carts, etc.). Address each group listed on the Cost Proposal Sheets separately." Section 3.10, Cost of Services, requires the prices quoted by a proposer to be "all inclusive and represent security guard services at existing sites and any future identified sites" and requires a proposer to "complete Attachment B, Cost Proposal Sheets, for both Group 1 and 2 and provide an itemized breakdown of the total cost for each site and a total cost for each group." Section 3.10 provides further that the "fundamental responsibilities of the awardee(s) will be to provide the services listed in Articles of Agreement, Attachment A." Section 7 is entitled "Evaluation of Proposals." Subsection 7.1 provides for the evaluation by Respondent's Evaluation Committee of proposals which meet or exceed the minimum eligibility requirements in Section 3.7. The following four categories and maximum points, totaling 100 points, are to be used by the Evaluation Committee: Experience and Qualifications--a maximum of 15 points; Scope of Service Provided--a maximum of 40 points; Minority/Women Business Participation--a maximum of 20 points; and Cost of Services Provided--a maximum of 25 points. Subsection 7 confers broad discretion upon the Evaluation Committee. Subsection 7.2 confers upon the Evaluation Committee the "sole discretion" as to how many of the top-ranked proposers, based on the scoring, it may recommend to be awarded the RFP; as to whether a short list of top-ranked proposers should be established for further consideration and how many should be on the short list; and as to whether to reject all proposals. Subsection 7.4 reserves to the Evaluation Committee the right to negotiate any term, condition, specification or price with the short list proposers. Subsection 7.5 reserves to the Evaluation Committee and Respondent the right to ask clarifying questions after the proposals have been opened, and to interview all or any of the proposers. Subsection 7.5 further reserves to the Evaluation Committee the right to make its recommendations solely on the proposals submitted by the proposers. Section 8 is entitled "Special Conditions." Subsection 8.8 reserves to the Evaluation Committee and/or Respondent the right to waive irregularities or technicalities in proposals received. Section 9 is entitled "General Conditions." Subsection 9.371 reserves to Respondent the right to request additional information, reject any or all proposals that do not meet all mandatory requirements, or reject all proposals received. Subsection 9.37.3 provides for the rejection of a proposal if it fails to conform to the rules or requirements contained in the RFP and provides examples for which rejection may be made, one of which at Subsection 9.37.3.5 provides, among other things, for rejection when a proposal is incomplete, or contains irregularities which make the proposal incomplete, indefinite, or ambiguous as to its meaning. Subsection 9.45 reserves to the Evaluation Committee and/or Respondent the right to waive irregularities or technicalities in proposals. Attachment A, paragraph numbered 2, reserves to Respondent the right to "increase, decrease, delete hours and/or locations." Associated thereto, the said paragraph further provides that "additional locations or additional guards at existing locations shall be furnished at the price quoted on Attachment B, Cost Proposal Sheets." Additionally, the said paragraph reserves to Respondent the right to "choose which pricing group will be used in the evaluation process and sites requiring services during the term of the contract" and to "add, delete or make changes to any guard requirement, including hours of coverage, post location, numbers of posts, number of guards, etc." Attachment B, Cost Proposal Sheets, also reserves several rights to Respondent. Per Attachment B, Respondent has the right to reject all or any of the sites of Group 1 and Group 2, to modify all or any of Group 1 and Group 2, to make an award based on the hourly cost(s) submitted by the proposers, or to reject all proposals and either make the award in total or any portion of the RFP in-house if it is in the best interest of Respondent. Additionally, Attachment B requires proposers to submit, "in accordance with all terms, conditions, specifications and requirements," their annual all-inclusive total cost for each site in Group 1, the annual all-inclusive total cost for all the sites in Group 1, and, as an attachment to the RFP, an itemization of costs for certain specified items for each site in Group 1. The referenced attachment to the RFP is to include, but not be limited to, the itemized breakdown for the costs at each site for the following: number of contract (road) supervisors and their hourly cost; number and level of guards proposed and their hourly cost for each level; total number of coverage hours required; and equipment proposed. Further, Attachment B requires the proposers to list the level (category) of their proposed unarmed security guards and their hourly cost and to list the hourly cost of their unarmed contract (road) supervisors. Some proposers sought clarification of the RFP. As a result, on April 12, 2001, Respondent issued Addendum Number 1 to the RFP, which consists of written responses to proposers' questions and of the provision of a replacement page for the RFP. The replacement page contains minor changes to the RFP. Petitioner did not submit any questions for clarification. Section 9.24 of the Special Conditions of the RFP permits the filing of bid specification protests. However, no bid protest, regarding specifications contained in the RFP or Addendum Number 1, was filed. On April 24, 2001, nine proposals were submitted to Respondent's Purchasing Department. The proposers were Petitioner; Intervenor; Chi-Ada Corporation; Command Security Corporation; 50 State Security Services, Inc.; Gabriel Security of Florida, Inc.; Kemp Security & Investigative Services; Metro Security Services; and Pronto Security, Inc. Evaluation of the proposals was performed by Respondent's Evaluation Committee, which consisted of five members. Each member either possessed knowledge of security guard services or had knowledge of the sites to be guarded. The Evaluation Committee made a recommendation to Respondent for the award of the RFP. The Evaluation Committee first met on May 3, 2001. Prior to the meeting, the members of the Evaluation Committee were provided copies of the proposals submitted, the RFP, Addendum No. 1, score sheets, and cost analysis worksheets. Further, they were provided other evaluation documents relating to categories and point allocations, which correspond to experience and qualifications, scope of services, cost of services, and Minority/Women Business Enterprise (M/WBE) participation. Prior to the meeting, the members read and understood the RFP and the proposals. Technical staff from the Purchasing and W/MBE Departments were available to the Evaluation Committee at the meeting to provide technical support. As to scoring, Petitioner is challenging the scoring for the Cost of Services Provided category found at Section 7.1 of the RFP. Furthermore, Petitioner is not seeking to have any proposer disqualified or found to be non-responsive. Each member of the Evaluation Committee, as directed, used the score sheets in the analysis of the proposals. The score sheets correspond to the four categories found at Subsection 7.1 of the RFP. In scoring the proposals, each member of the Evaluation Committee evaluated the proposals, applying the evaluation criteria in the RFP to the materials provided to him or her, as well as using the presentations made by the technical staff. Each of the four categories was scored separately and independently. No category is interconnected with the scoring for another category. Prior to the meeting, no discussion was had amongst the members as to the method to be used for scoring. The same scoring method was used for each category. The RFP contained no method of scoring, other than the allocation of points found at Section 7 of the RFP. The members of the Evaluation Committee decided on the method of scoring. They independently used their own best judgment and sound discretion in the scoring. The method decided upon and used was that each member would independently score each proposer on each category, using the maximum number of points in Section 7; the proposer with the highest overall all-inclusive cost for a category would be allocated the lowest number of relative points and the proposer with the lowest overall all-inclusive cost would be allocated the highest number of relative points; the points allocated for a category to a proposer would be totaled and averaged; and the average number of points for a proposer would be the total and final score for a proposer for that category. The members of the Evaluation Committee scored the Cost of Services category of the proposals based on the annual all-inclusive total cost submitted by each proposer, using the scoring method devised by the members. Section 7.1 of the RFP provides that the maximum number of points for the Cost of Services category is 25, thereby providing a range of points from 0 to 25. Petitioner's annual all-inclusive total cost for the security guard services for Group 1 is $779,431.53. Each member of the Evaluation Committee utilized this amount in allocating the points for the Cost of Services category. Petitioner's annual all-inclusive total cost includes the number of guards, road supervisors, vehicles, hourly rates, and hours of coverage. The points allocated to Petitioner for the Costs of Services category by each member of the Evaluation Committee are as follows: three members allocated 5 points each; one member allocated 8 points; and one member allocated 3 points. Petitioner received an average of 5.2 points. Petitioner's points for the Cost of Services category is 5.2. Petitioner received the lowest number of points for the Cost of Services category of all the proposers and, therefore, received the lowest score for that category. The lowest score means that Petitioner, amongst all the proposers, submitted the highest annual all-inclusive total cost for the Cost of Services category. The points allocated by each member to Petitioner are within a reasonable range and do not appear and are not considered to be an aberration. Intervenor's annual all-inclusive total cost for the security guard services for Group 1 is $440,279.75. Each member of the Evaluation Committee utilized this amount in allocating the points for the Cost of Services category. At hearing, evidence was presented that, due to a clerical error, Intervenor had omitted the cost of road supervisors from its annual all-inclusive total cost. The members of the Evaluation Committee were unaware of this clerical error when they evaluated Intervenor's proposal. The members of the Evaluation Committee considered Intervenor's annual all-inclusive total cost to include the number of guards, road supervisors, vehicles, hourly rates, and hours of coverage and evaluated the proposal as such. At hearing, Intervenor stated that it would be bound by the annual all-inclusive total cost as submitted and, therefore, the road supervisors would be included in the total cost submitted. Consequently, no harm has been shown to have occurred as a result of the omission. Additionally, Intervenor failed to provide an itemized breakdown of all its guards and hours of coverage in Attachment B of the RFP. However, Petitioner is not seeking to disqualify Intervenor's proposal as being non-responsive. Regardless, Intervenor's proposal does contain, albeit in Attachment B, the number of security guards and hours of coverage for each site in Group 1, and the number of road supervisors. The hourly rate for guards and road supervisors are in Attachment B. Therefore, even though the information is not itemized, all the information needed is contained in Intervenor's proposal. Hence, the lack of itemization is not a material deviation and is considered waivable. The points allocated to Intervenor for the Costs of Services category by each member of the Evaluation Committee are as follows: three members allocated 20 points each and two members allocated 25 points each. Intervenor received an average of 22 points. Intervenor's points for the Cost of Services category is 22. Intervenor received the highest number of points for the Cost of Services category and, therefore, received the highest score for that category. The highest score means that Intervenor submitted the lowest annual all-inclusive total cost for the Cost of Services category. The points allocated by each member to Intervenor are within a reasonable range and do not appear and are not considered to be an aberration. Petitioner also finds fault, regarding another proposer, Metro Security Services (Metro), in the scoring by the Evaluation Committee in the Cost of Services category. Metro's proposal as to an annual all-inclusive total cost is only on an hourly rate basis, not the total cost. In order to obtain an annual all-inclusive total cost for the Cost of Services category, the Evaluation Committee, themselves, performed calculations using the hourly rate submitted by Metro. The Evaluation Committee took the total number of hours of coverage for one guard and multiplied that number by the $10 per hour rate submitted by Metro, which produced the annual all-inclusive total cost for Metro. Based upon the number calculated to be the annual all-inclusive total cost, the Evaluation Committee allocated points to Metro. The points allocated to Metro for the Cost of Services category by each member of the Evaluation Committee are as follows: three members allocated 12 points each, one member allocated 15 points, and one member allocated 14 points. Metro received an average of 13 points. Metro's points for the Cost of Services category is 13. Metro's points are more than Petitioner's points in the Cost of Services category, which means that Petitioner's annual all-inclusive total cost is more than the annual all-inclusive total cost calculated by the Evaluation Committee for Metro. Metro was not considered for award of the RFP. Metro received the sixth highest ranked total score. Metro is not challenging Respondent's intended award of the RFP to Intervenor. Metro has not sought to intervene in this proceeding, and Petitioner cannot represent the interest of Metro in the instant case. The action by the Evaluation Committee of calculating and scoring Metro's annual all-inclusive total cost for the Cost of Services category was reasonable, rational, and fair. Their action is not shown to be and is not considered materially affecting or significantly impacting the scoring or the process of the RFP. Metro provided the information needed for the Evaluation Committee to evaluate Metro's proposal in the Cost of Services category. The points allocated by each member to Metro are within a reasonable range and do not appear and are not considered to be an aberration. Even assuming that the Evaluation Committee should not have calculated the annual all-inclusive total cost for Metro using Metro's hourly rate, Metro was not considered for award of the RFP. Furthermore, Metro was the only proposer for whom the Evaluation Committee performed this calculation. Because of the action by the Evaluation Committee, no benefit was shown to inure to Intervenor and no detriment was shown to inure to Petitioner. Additionally, Petitioner finds fault as to another proposer, Chi-Ada Corporation (Chi-Ada), in the scoring by the Evaluation Committee in the Cost of Services category. At the May 3, 2001, meeting of the Evaluation Committee, its members were informed by the technical staff of Respondent's Purchasing Department that Chi-Ada had not submitted proof of licensure required by the RFP but that Chi- Ada was providing proof of licensure by mail. The RFP permitted additional information to be provided, upon request by Respondent, after submission of proposals. The Evaluation Committee proceeded to evaluate Chi-Ada's proposal. Chi-Ada's annual all-inclusive total cost for the security guard services for Group 1 is $510,963.60. Each member of the Evaluation Committee utilized this amount in allocating the points for the Cost of Services category. The points allocated to Chi-Ada for the Cost of Services category by each member of the Evaluation Committee are as follows: two members allocated 25 points each, two members allocated 20 points each, and one member allocated 21 points. Chi-Ada received an average of 21.2 points. Chi-Ada's points for the Cost of Services category is 21.2. Subsequently, Chi-Ada was found to be non-responsive for the failure to provide the proof of licensure. Chi-Ada had failed to provide a copy of its Florida's security guard services license, as required by Subsection 3.7 of the RFP, within three days of the request from Respondent's Purchasing Department. The action of the Evaluation Committee proceeding to evaluate Chi-Ada's proposal was reasonable, rational, and fair. Their action is not shown to be and is not considered materially affecting or significantly impacting the scoring or the process of the RFP. The points allocated by each member to Chi-Ada are within a reasonable range and do not appear and are not considered to be an aberration. After scoring of the proposals, the Evaluation Committee voted to recommended that Intervenor be awarded the RFP as the responsive responsible bidder, having received the highest total number of points in the scoring. On May 23, 2001, the Evaluation Committee met again to reconsider the points allocated to Petitioner regarding the M/WBE Participation category. The Evaluation Committee assigned additional points to Petitioner in the M/WBE Participation category for workplace diversity. On May 24, 2001, the proposed recommendation and tabulation were posted. The proposed recommendation is to award the RFP to Intervenor. The scoring tabulation, indicating the total points out of 100 points allocated to each proposer for all categories is a follows: Chi-Ada--55.2 points; Command Security Corporation--58.8 points; 50 State Security Services, Inc.--54.2 points; Gabriel Security of Florida, Inc.--42.6 points; Kemp Security & Investigative Services--64 points; Metro Security Services--55 points; Petitioner--69.2 points; Pronto Security, Inc.--44 points; and Intervenor--76.6 points. At first, Petitioner filed a notice of protest with Respondent. Subsequently, Petitioner also filed a formal written protest. Chi-Ada filed a combined notice of protest and formal written protest with Respondent. Respondent's Bid Protest Committee, in accordance with statute and rule, attempted to resolve the protests by mutual agreement. Through separate noticed public hearings, the Bid Protest Committee considered the protests. As to Chi-Ada, the Bid Protest Committee rejected the protest. The Bid Protest Committee determined that Chi-Ada failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria of Subsection 3.7 of the RFP by failing to provide proof of its licensure and was, therefore, a non-responsive bidder. As to Petitioner, the Bid Protest Committee rejected the protest and upheld the recommendation to award the RFP to Intervenor. Petitioner timely requested the referral of its protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Neither Petitioner's nor Intervenor's standing is in dispute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order awarding to Security Services of America, L.L.C. the contract under Request for Proposals (RFP) for Security Guard Services, RFP 21-203T. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 6th day of November, 2001.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Respondent has been charged by Administrative Complaint with violations of numerous provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, regarding the several licenses held by the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact During October of 1990, Respondent's Class "B" Security Agency License was in a suspended status due to his failure to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Department of State. His Class "B" license expired July 10, 1991, and has not been renewed. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent held a valid Class "D" Security Officer License and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent's Class "M" Manager License was issued in July of 1985 and expired in July of 1987. He did not possess a valid Class "M" license in October of 1990. On approximately October 1, 1990, Respondent changed his business location from 2950 Northwest 214 Street, Opa Locka, Florida, to 4623 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent did not notify the Department of his address change within ten days of moving. The Department was notified of the address change sometime in May of 1991. On October 18, 1990, May Weiser, an employee of Respondent, appeared at the Department of State, Division of Licensing, West Palm Beach Regional Office to obtain applications for licensure. Ms. Weiser was wearing a security officer badge depicting a replica or facsimile of the Great Seal of the State of Florida. The badge was issued to her by Respondent. On October 19, 1990, Investigator Frank Bedingfield of the Division of Licensing inspected Respondent's business address at 4623 Forest Hill Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida. At that time it was determined that Respondent did not possess or have on display a valid Class "B" Security Agency License, an agency disclosure notice, a manager's license, or the required city and county occupational licenses. On that occasion, Respondent was dressed in a security guard uniform and was wearing a .357 caliber model 686 Smith & Wesson revolver loaded with three rounds of .357 caliber steel jacket ammunition and three rounds of .38 special hollow point ammunition. Respondent was also wearing a badge that depicted a facsimile of the Great Seal of the State of Florida. On October 19, 1990, Respondent was unable to provide Mr. Bedingfield with a current list of security agency employees or any business records including hiring and termination notices, and informed the investigator that records were not available due to his recent move. However, he agreed to meet with Mr. Bedingfield again on October 22, 1990, to provide the records. On October 19, 1990, Respondent was providing security guard services to four Miami churches. At the same time he was soliciting business and mailing advertisements in West Palm Beach. Respondent's Class "B" Security Agency License was issued February 23, 1990, was suspended for nonpayment of a fine on September 13, 1990, and was due for renewal on July 10, 1991. Respondent informed Mr. Bedingfield that the fine would be paid by October 22, 1990, in the Miami Regional Office of the Division of Licensing. On October 24, 1990, Mr. Bedingfield returned to Respondent's business location at 4623 Forest Hill Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent was again wearing a .357 revolver even though he had been notified of the violation during Mr. Bedingfield's previous visit on October 19, 1990. Respondent told Mr. Bedingfield that he had requested a waiver from the Division of Licensing to carry other than a .38 revolver, but could not produce a copy of his request or an approval of such request. The Division of Licensing never received a waiver request from Respondent. Mr. Bedingfield's return visit also revealed that Respondent was again wearing a security badge with the Great Seal of the State of Florida. Respondent did not have a Palm Beach County occupational license and could not provide any evidence that he had notified the Division of Licensing of his change of business address. He could not provide Mr. Bedingfield with a current list of employees, copies of his agency security guard contracts, personnel files for the previous two years, or records of all terminations and new employments. Nor could Respondent produce evidence of current general comprehensive liability insurance. He did provide Mr. Bedingfield with approximately 73 employment applications of current and previous employees. Using these records Mr. Bedingfield compiled a list of guards and produced computer printouts of each current and previous employee. As of October 24, 1990, Respondent had failed to notify the agency of the hiring or termination of 43 employees. Respondent's insurance had been cancelled for non- payment of the premium in August of 1990. At the time of the events described in the foregoing findings of fact, Respondent had overlooked, or was not aware of, a number of the statutory requirements such as the requirements that he notify the Department when he changed business locations, that he display an agency disclosure notice, and that he not use the Great Seal of the State of Florida on his badges. He has since painted over the Great Seal on the badges. For reasons not clarified on the record in this case, Respondent's manager's license states that it is "non-expiring," notwithstanding the statutory provision that all licenses issued under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, shall be valid for two years.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: (a) Concluding that Count V of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed for insufficient proof; (b) Concluding that the Respondent committed all of the other violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and (c) Imposing the following administrative penalties: A suspension of the Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License for a period of one year; A suspension of the Respondent's Class "G" Statewide Firearm License for a period of one year; and An administrative fine in the total amount of one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of May 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-1015 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties in this case. Findings submitted by the Petitioner: All of the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner have been accepted in substance. Findings submitted by the Respondent: The Respondent's proposed recommended order consists of nine unnumbered paragraphs, none of which are specifically identified as proposed findings of act, but most of which contain factual assertions. All of the factual assertions in the Respondent's proposed recommended order have been treated as if they were proposed findings of fact and are specifically addressed below. First paragraph: The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The second sentence is rejected as irrelevant or as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument, rather than proposed facts. Second Paragraph: First two sentences accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Third Paragraph: Accepted. Fourth Paragraph: First two sentences rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, irrelevant. Last sentence accepted. Fifth Paragraph: First paragraph rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; there were other reasons the licenses were not on display. Second sentence is accepted. The last two sentences are rejected as irrelevant or as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Sixth Paragraph: First sentence accepted in substance. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Seventh Paragraph: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details because other evidence establishes that at the time in question the Respondent was conducting and advertising the business of a security agency. Eighth Paragraph: Rejected as constituting comment on a subordinate matter, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Ninth Paragraph: This paragraph consists of a suggested disposition of the case, rather than proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. Dave Burgess, Jr. Post Office Box 552590 Miami, Florida 33055 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Judge L. Williams, age 58, has been a resident of Florida for approximately 40 years, except for employment related intervals. He has a high school education, received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy after more than three years of service, was employed in the merchant marine service for approximately 11 years, and retired from Exxon Company, U.S.A., after almost 20 years. Since the Petitioner retired in 1975, he has held various jobs in Jacksonville. Some of his employers have been Southland Corporation (7-11 Stores), Oxford Security, and Pinkertons of Florida. The Petitioner admits having an arrest record going back to the year 1949, and continuing to June of 1979, for various charges, but he has never been convicted of a felony. He has never been arrested for an offense involving the use of a firearm, or for a crime relating to property such as burglary or larceny, and he has never lost his civil rights. However, the Petitioner has had a sexual problem. In 1951 be was arrested in Los Angeles, California, for sex perversion involving a minor, and convicted on his guilty plea. He served 30 days, after which his mother convinced him to be hospitalized to treat his sexual problem. Nevertheless, in 1954 the Petitioner was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, on a charge of sodomy, and paid a fine. Again, in 1956, the Petitioner was arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, on a charge of molesting minors, and convicted. He served 30 days. Finally the Petitioner's record of sex related offenses concluded in Norfolk, Virginia, in 1971 when he was arrested on a charge of soliciting for immoral purposes. He posted bond which was forfeited when he failed to appear for trial. The Petitioner also has had a problem with alcohol, stemming back to 1949 when he was arrested for driving while intoxicated in San Francisco, California. Other alcohol related offenses occurred in 1956 in Las Vegas, and in Jacksonville, Florida, in 1958, 1962, 1968, and as recently as 1979 when he was arrested on a driving while intoxicated charge. The Petitioner admits to having been affected by a social problem which he describes as drinking too much. However, he asserts that this problem, as well as his former sexual problem, are not present in his life now. The Division of Licensing has issued a Class D Unarmed Security Guard License to the Petitioner, which permits him to secure employment as an unarmed guard. The Petitioner, however, contends that even with the problems be has had in the past, and in spite of his arrest record, there is nothing in his background to demonstrate violence, and he is completely rehabilitated now from both sexual and alcohol problems. Without a gun permit, he contends that employment as a security guard is difficult to find, hard to keep, and pays less than an armed guard., The only evidence presented by the Petitioner was his own self-serving testimony, and two letters relating to his character. This is insufficient and unconvincing proof of rehabilitation from his admitted problems related to sex and alcohol, in view of the recentness of the recurrence of these problems. The charge in 1971 in Norfolk is 10 years old, but some 15 years elapsed between the sex related arrest in 1956 and the 1971 occurrence. The 1979 arrest for driving while intoxicated is only 2 years old. The totality of the evidence does not support the Petitioner's uncorroborated assertion that he is now fully rehabilitated, and does not support a finding that the Petitioner is of good moral character, or that he is fit to be licensed to carry a firearm.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Judge L. Williams for a Class G security Guard License, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 13th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen O. Parker, Esquire 607 Florida Theatre Building 129 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 James V. Antista, Esquire Room 1501 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Petitioner protests the method by which Respondent Department of Transportation (DOT) advertised RFP-DOT-99/00-3002 and RFP-DOT-99/00-3003 and the specifications contained in the RFP's SCOPE OF SERVICES, Sections 1.7.2, 2.0-A, 14.0-A, 14.0-B, and 14.0-C.
Findings Of Fact The subject Requests for Proposal (RFPs) are RFP-DOT- 99/00-3002 and RFP-DOT-99/00-3003, commonly referred-to as the 2000 RFPs. These RFPs seek suppliers of security guards for rest areas and welcome centers maintained by DOT in its District III. That District currently is administered by "east" and "west" segments of Interstate Highway 10, with "east" corresponding to RFP 3003 and "west" corresponding to RFP 3002. NYCO is a supplier of security guard services for industrial, health care, general, and retail establishments in Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. Ken Chandler is Administrator and Operational Manager for NYCO. Since 1994, NYCO has bid on DOT RFPs for the same project and has provided security guard services for District III. Generally speaking, security guards are non-skilled persons who work at or near minimum wage. Higher standards for its security guards imposed by prior DOT contracts requiring law enforcement training and certification have resulted in NYCO paying off-duty law enforcement officers at a considerably higher rate of pay to work at DOT's facilities. The 2000 RFPs constitute "contractual services contracts" governed by Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. They also are "standard scope of services contracts," which means they are developed on a statewide basis with District input. NYCO's first contract with DOT was awarded July 1, 1994, for two years. The second was awarded July 1, 1996, for two years. For the first contract, specifications were mailed to Mr. Chandler three months in advance of the bid submittal date. For the second contract, NYCO, as the incumbent contract holder, was notified that specifications were ready for pick-up. NYCO had to submit a written request for the RFP package. The 1999 RFP was advertised on the Florida Communities Network (FCN) and, according to Richard Norris, DOT District III Contract Administrator, RFP packages also were sent to all proposers for the prior contract because he had promised to do so when that set of bids had all been rejected. Apparently, no such promise was made for the 2000 RFPs. (TR-103). FCN is a website maintained by the Florida Department of Management Services for the purpose of advertising public contracts. During the course of NYCO's most recent contract, NYCO employee Joe Huff regularly checked with DOT personnel to ensure that the security which NYCO was already providing was going along well. Both Mr. Chandler and Mr. Huff assumed NYCO would be alerted during these conversations as to when it could request the specifications for the next round of contracts, the 2000 RFPs. DOT employee Lloyd Tharpe submitted technical aspects of the 2000 RFPs to Richard Norris on or about December 23, 1999. Mr. Huff testified that he made contact with DOT personnel, including Mark Thomas, Tom Williams, Charlie Ward, Rufus Baron, and Milton Blake, on February 7, February 14, February 15, February 21, and February 29, 2000. While Mr. Huff maintained that on nearly every occasion he asked if the DOT employee to whom he was speaking knew when the new RFP specifications would be ready, his testimony on the precise contents of these conversations is a little vague. He based his recollection on notes in his day planner which merely listed the name of a city, and he then assumed that he spoke with whomever he usually contacted in that city. He could not recall the exact content of these conversations. None of the foregoing DOT employees corroborated that they had been asked about the 2000 RFP specifications by Mr. Huff. It was not established that any of Mr. Huff's contacts were with DOT's procurement office, which Mr. Huff knew advertises the RFPs. DOT District Maintenance Engineer Mark Thomas stated that he only became aware on or about February 29, 2000, that the 2000 RFP was being advertised. Mr. Huff was told on February 29, 2000, by Mark Thomas that the 2000 RFPs were "on the street" and that the mandatory pre-bid conference would be held March 2, 2000. NYCO attended the mandatory pre-bid conference for the 2000 RFPs on March 2, 2000. On March 3, 2000, NYCO timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest the specifications of the 2000 RFPs. The deadline for submitting proposals in response to the 2000 RFPs was March 9, 2000. NYCO submitted a bid proposal timely, but found it difficult to prepare in such a short time frame. On March 13, 2000, NYCO timely filed its Formal Written Protest of certain specifications of the 2000 RFPs. The specifications challenged in this case were developed by the Department's State Maintenance Office. They read as follows: 1.7.2 Qualifications of Key Personnel Those individuals (as identified in Section 12 of Exhibit "A" Scope of Services) who will be directly involved in the project should have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise excepted by the Department's Contract Manager. Where State of Florida registration, certification, or license is deemed appropriate, as identified in Exhibit "A" Scope of Services, a copy of the registration, certificate, or license shall be included in the proposal package. 2.0-A Services to be Provided by Contractor A. Provide uniformed, armed Security Officers licensed pursuant to F.S. 493, to provide security services. 14.0 Eligibility Criteria All Security Officers and Contract Supervisors employed by the Contractor under this Contract are required to meet the following requirements. Training Requirements: Must be a graduate of a certified United States federal, state, county, or local law enforcement agency training program, a correctional officer training program, a military police training program, or an equivalent training program, which presented the individual with the appropriate certificate or diploma stating eligibility for employment as a Law Enforcement or Correctional Officer. Law Enforcement Officer and Correctional Officer shall be defined in Sections 943.10(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. The Contractor is encouraged to seek services of security guards licensed pursuant to Chapter 493, F.S., who are former members of the armed forces of the United States and have been affected by military downsizing or base closures, and shall be further encouraged to contact community colleges or other educational institutions which provide training for security guards for candidates meeting these qualifications. Licensing Requirements: Contract Supervisors and Security Officers, while on duty, must possess upon their person and present to Department personnel upon request the following: State of Florida Class "D" License (security guard license). State of Florida Class "G" License (license authorizing individual to bear a firearm). State of Florida Driver's License or other State Driver's License which permits the individual to operate a vehicle in the State of Florida. No Security Officer will be permitted to work under this contract using an Acknowledgement Card from the Department of State. A Security Officer or Contract Supervisor employed as a Law Enforcement Officer or Correctional Officer must have documentation showing proof of current employment and approval from his/her employing agency or department to carry a firearm during off-duty hours in his/her capacity as Security Officer and Contract Supervisor. The manner of advertising the 2000 RFPs also was challenged. For the 2000 RFPs, DOT did not advertise in newspapers or the Florida Administrative Law Weekly and did not mail specifications to incumbent contractors or to a list of potential bidders. DOT only advertised the 2000 RFPs via FCN from approximately February 1, 2000 to March 6, 2000. According to Richard Norris, the Department is required by statute to advertise projects on FCN. He cited neither statute nor rule to support his conclusion. He stated that there are many other or additional ways DOT may advertise a project and that advertisement by FCN is only the minimum requirement. He was not aware of any current statutory or rule requirement that DOT directly notify potential bidders for this type of RFP. However, he stated that if he were approached directly by a potential bidder, he would tell that potential bidder about the RFP over the phone. To develop scope of services contracts such as the 2000 RFPs, Alan Reese, the Department's State Contracts and Agreements Manager, directs the gathering of information from the Department's Districts or other sources, develops a draft, receives input from each District as to the draft, and the draft is reviewed throughout the Department, including its legal office, until finally the State Maintenance Engineer signs-off on it. In this instance, the bid specifications were intended to create a uniform and consistent statewide system that was understandable to the bidders. Lloyd Tharpe and his staff were responsible for mailing out the RFP packages as they were requested by potential bidders after the first advertisement approximately February 1, 2000. No active intent or effort by DOT staff to obscure NYCO's opportunity to bid was proven. The 2000 RFPs require that to be a security guard of DOT facilities, one must be qualified to be hired as a law enforcement officer or correctional officer as defined in Subsections 943.10(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. (RFP Section 14.0-A). The training qualifications to be hired as a law enforcement officer under Chapter 943 are higher than those imposed by a Class "D" security guard license from the Department of State pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. The 2000 RFP specifications also require that to be a security guard of DOT facilities one must have a Class "D" or Class "G" (if a gun is carried) license from the Department of State, pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes (RFP Section 4.0-B.1 and 2). DOT interprets the foregoing RFP requirements to mean that even currently employed Florida law enforcement officers and correctional officers must also be licensed by the Florida Department of State as Class "D" or Class "G" security officers. DOT is aware of an exemption in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, permitting law enforcement officers to act as security guards without obtaining a Class "D" license from the Department. As far as the 2000 RFPs are concerned, the exemption may not be exercised. A 1996 DOT Inspector General's internal audit report identified individuals with questionable backgrounds working for security firms which had already contracted with DOT. The report concluded that the background checks that the then- existing contracts required the contract security firms to perform had been unsatisfactory. The report recommended that the security firms do more extensive background checks on their employees. DOT did not want anybody guarding tourists, especially women and children tourists, who had not gone through a thorough background check. DOT apparently felt it could not rely on the security firms to do background checks on their employee-guards. DOT determined that it did not have authority or ability to do its own background checks, so it decided to rely on the Department of State, which did have authority and ability to do background checks. Mark Thomas understood that once an application for a Class "D" or "G" license has been received by the Secretary of State, an FDLE criminal background check is conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), and an acknowledgment card is sent by the Department of State to the applicant which states that the applicant may perform security guard services while carrying the card. However, Mr. Thomas ultimately admitted that he did not know anything at all about Department of State background checks. His "understanding" was not corroborated by Ms. Constance Crawford. Constance Crawford is the Bureau Chief for the Bureau of Licensing, Department of State. She handles the administrative responsibilities associated with the review of security guard applications pursuant to Chapter 493, and Sections 790.06 and 849.094, Florida Statutes. According to her, the Department of State will issue Class "D" and Class "G" security guard licenses to law enforcement officers. Ms. Crawford provided no information about the Department of State's security guard background checks. In developing the 2000 RFPs, DOT decided not to accept Department of State acknowledgement cards because DOT staff believed that acknowledgment cards were issued by the Department of State to applicants before a national background check (also called an NCIC check) was completed through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). No DOT witness had knowledge of how Department of State, FDLE, or FBI background checks are performed. Mr. Chandler testified that NYCO's problem with the RFPs' requirement for law enforcement officers to have Class "D" and/or Class "G" licenses before they are employed at DOT's interstate facilities was due to the time it takes to get Class "D" and "G" licenses issued by the Department of State, which can be anywhere from a few weeks to several months, and because it is very difficult for NYCO to retain potential employees for that long before they are placed on the jobsite. He testified that NYCO would have no problem if the employees could be certified in three days. Mr. Chandler testified that the letters of authorization required by DOT in specification 14.0-C differed from the language employed in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, and that many law enforcement agencies had refused to sign the form letter provided by DOT because those law enforcement agencies interpreted the letters to make the law enforcement agencies liable for anything done by the law enforcement officer, on or off-duty. DOT's approved form letter reads: Dear Sirs: is an employee of this Department and has the approval of this Department to carry a fire arm during off- duty hours in his/her capacity as a Security Officer and/or Contract Supervisor at the Florida Department of Transportation Rest Areas/Welcome Centers within the Third District. Sincerely, Name Title
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation which rejects all bids and provides that the specifications be redrafted in accordance with the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 22nd day of August, 2000.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondents' Class B, Class D, Class G and Class MB security licenses should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of private security guards and guard agencies in Florida. Respondent held a Class B Security Agency license, a Class D Security Officer license, a Class G Statewide Firearm license, and a Class MB Security Agency Manager license, all issued pursuant to and under the restrictions contained within the provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Though the Class B Security Agency license was issued in the name of Alert Security Services, in reality, Respondent Maraia was the proprietor and operator of the agency under the license. Peter F. Walker was employed as the assistant manager of the 7 - 11 convenience store in Indian Shores, Florida on July 21, 1993. About 11:30 PM, that evening, he observed Respondent in the store about 8 to 20 feet away, wearing his security guard uniform shirt with khaki shorts. A patch on the shoulder of the shirt bore the logo, "Alert Security." As another customer was checking out, Mr. Walker heard a gunshot and then something hitting the floor. At this point, only Mr. Walker, his customer, and the Respondent were in the store. When Walker asked the Respondent about it, Respondent replied that a customer had come up behind him and was trying to take Respondent's weapon from the holster he had stuck in the waistband in the back of his shorts. Respondent claimed that when this happened, the clip from the weapon fell to the floor and one round in the clip went off. Later on, however, Respondent claimed the weapon had dropped and fired when it hit the floor. As Mr. Walker remembers it, however, he heard the shot before anything hit the floor. Patrolman Angela Cole had just pulled into the 7 - 11 parking lot late on the evening of July 21, 1993 when she heard a pop - as if someone had run over a bottle. She checked around the area and seeing nothing unusual, went into the store where she saw the clerk and the Respondent, whom she knew. Respondent was wearing a security badge and carrying a 9 mm weapon in plain view. When Cole spoke with Respondent and asked him why he wasn't in proper security guard uniform, because his dress that evening was not consistent with his usual security uniform, he indicated he was not feeling well. In response to her inquiry regarding the noise she had heard, and why he had the weapon in plain view, Respondent claimed he had dropped his weapon and he and the clerk were joking about it. At this point, however, Respondent seemed nervous and didn't want to discuss the matter further. Also about the same time, Patrolman Vance Nussbaum, of the Indian Shores Police Department entered the store to see Respondent, who had his 9 mm weapon in plain view and was wearing a security badge, engaged in conversation with the store clerk. The pistol was in a holster tucked into Respondent's pants in the back. Nussbaum took hold of the gun and shook it and then chastened Respondent for poor gun safety. At that point, Respondent indicated someone had just hit the magazine release on the weapon and the magazine fell to the floor. That individual was no longer in the area, however. Taken together, it is clear that on the evening in question, Respondent's 9 mm pistol, which was in his possession at the time, was somehow discharged. No report of this weapon discharge was ever filed with the Division, however. On May 23, 1993, Officer Nussbaum responded to a call to the Holiday Villas II in Indian Shores. Upon his arrival at the scene, he saw June Hawks, who he knew to be a part-time security guard employed by Respondent, on duty in the resort's parking lot after a fire alarm had been sounded. This same activity was also observed, the following day, by E. D. Williams, Chief of the Indian Shores Police Department who presumed Ms. Hawks was working for Respondent. Chief Williams drew this conclusion because he had seen Respondent doing this work at the resort the night before and assumed the same firm was still in charge. On August 2, 1993, Officer Nussbaum responded to a call to a Pick-Kwick in Madiera Beach based on a call about a drunk individual which call had come in to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office from an individual who described himself as Chris "Myers", a reserve police officer with the Indian Shores Police Department. It is found that Chris "Myers" is, in actuality, the Respondent, Christopher Maraia, who had represented himself as a reserve police officer. This call was sent out to street units for response, thereby impacting on police operations in the area. When Nussbaum arrived at the scene, he observed Respondent, fully dressed in the uniform of a security guard, with patches, badge and weapon, in the company of a Madiera Beach Police Officer. At one time, Respondent had been a reserve officer with the Indian Shores Police Department but that status had terminated in December 1992. Keith Stillwagen had been employed by Mr. Maraia, off and on, for several years, but worked for him primarily as a security guard at the 34th Street Food Lion market in St. Petersburg between January and March, 1993. He was hired by Mr. Maraia personally, and the identification card Maraia issued to him bore Maraia's signature and license number. This employment was not reported to the Division as required. These allegations were investigated by Gary Floyd, an investigator with the Department of State, who initially interviewed Respondent regarding the alleged hiring of Ms. Hawks and Mr. Stillwagen. In a sworn statement to the investigator, Respondent indicated Alert Security Services had hired Stillwagen on weekends from January to March, 1993, and had also employed Hawks on holidays between April and June, 1993. He admitted that the firm did not notify the Department of State about the hirings and could give "no good reason" for failing to do so as required. In another sworn statement given to Investigator Floyd, Respondent indicated he had worked at Holiday Villas II on July 21, 1993 and had, while out of uniform but wearing a badge on his belt, visited a nearby 7 - 11 store. He admitted that at the time he had a 9 mm pistol with him and it had accidentally discharged when he dropped it. Respondent denied anyone had grabbed for the weapon. He did not report the discharge. On August 9, 1993, Floyd took a third statement from Respondent in which he admitted making the call about the drunk and initially indicating he was a reserve police officer with the Indian Shores Police Department. He acknowledged this was not a true statement in that he had not held that status for a year and a half at the time. The following day, August 10, 1993, Respondent reiterated his statement to Floyd that he had been at the 7 - 11 when leaving a duty station and claimed he was not in uniform at the time. While he may not have been in full uniform, other credible evidence of record indicates he was dressed in a uniform shirt which bore the patch of his security guard; was displaying a security officer's badge; and was armed. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case, dismissing Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, but finding Respondent, Maraia, guilty of Counts III, V and VI thereof and Respondent, Alert Security Services, guilty of Count I. It is also recommended that the Class "D", "G", and "MB" security licenses held by Respondents, Christopher J. Maraia, Sr. be revoked; that the C lass "B" license held by Respondent, Alert Security Services, be suspended for one year; and that Respondents jointly and severally pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Stop 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Christopher J. Maraia, Sr. Alert Security Services 15518 Redington Drive, Redington Beach, Florida 33708 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as an unarmed security guard and an armed security guard. In response to Question #13 on the application, "Have you ever been arrested?", Petitioner answered "yes" and indicated he was sentenced to 18 months for "buying and receiving" in 1971. Petitioner's complete criminal record is as follows: Arrested Charge Sentenced 1967 Willful misuse without right of 1967, six months a motor vehicle 1968 Willful misuse without right of 1968, two years' a motor vehicle probation 1969 Aggravated assault 1969, dismissed 1969 Willful misuse without a motor vehicle right of 1970, 158 days 1970 Receiving a stolen auto 1971, 18 months 1971 Escape, auto robbery, robbery 1971, years total 25 concurrent 1980 Arrested auto theft Charge dropped February 1981 Possession of a concealed weapon Dismissed February 1982 Possession of a concealed weapon Pending The 1967 arrest and conviction occurred when the Petitioner was approximately 16 years old. Petitioner admitted that he had taken the cars as alleged for joyriding as a youth. Petitioner explained that he was sentenced to the state correctional institution for possession of a rental car which he had borrowed from a friend, who had stolen it. Petitioner admitted he had escaped from prison, had stolen a car, and had been recaptured when he ran out of gas in Perry, Florida. Petitioner served eight years in prison and two years of probation of the 25 years' sentence imposed on him. Since his release from prison, the Petitioner has worked as a truck driver, roofer, security guard and mechanic. He has married and lives with his father-in-law, his wife and her two children by a previous marriage. Petitioner has had his civil rights restored to him except for the right to bear arms. He has petitioned to have that right restored. The Petitioner testified that he was issued a temporary pistol permit and issued a firearm by his employer, "Globe," and that he worked in an armed guard post on a building project in Miami. He worked hard as a security guard, frequently worked double shifts, had obtained two promotions, and was being considered for a third promotion when he was terminated as a result of the denial by the Division of Licensing. All charges made against the Petitioner since his release from prison have been dismissed except the charge of possession of a concealed weapon made in February of 1982, which the Petitioner fully disclosed. Petitioner had purchased a .38 calibre revolver, thinking that he was authorized to possess a firearm pursuant to the temporary pistol permit. It was this weapon that was discovered and for which he was charged in February of 1982. The Petitioner understood at the hearing that the temporary pistol permit did not authorize him to purchase or possess a firearm. Petitioner demonstrated a working knowledge of the limits of his authority as a security guard and secured his issued weapon in accordance with the company's rules and applicable regulations. The Petitioner presented a letter from his former supervisor at Globe, attesting to his good work, and a letter from a friend and neighbor attesting to his good conduct since his release from prison. Leroy Dowdell, who lives across from where the Petitioner now works, testified concerning Petitioner's reputation. Petitioner possesses a good reputation in the neighborhood. Dowdell stated he would trust the Petitioner to guard his personal property. The Petitioner stated that he wanted to be licensed because he could earn good money to support himself and his family, and that a knee injury and his criminal record had kept him from finding well-paid employment. Petitioner lacks a high school education. The Petitioner stated he did not list the offenses related to his escape because they occurred while he was in jail for the offense which he did list and were part of that record. Petitioner's testimony was uncontroverted.
Recommendation The Petitioner having established his reputation for honesty and fair dealing and respect for the law, he should be granted an unarmed security guard license; however, Petitioner's application for an armed security guard license should be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Willie James Summersett 2268 NW 51st Terrace Miami, Florida 33142 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing R. A. Gray Building, Room 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1982.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact Jacquelyn Kendrick is the owner of the Club Ecstasy, an adult entertainment club with dancers and strippers, located in Fort Lauderdale. In August 1996 the Club had a contract for security services with Warrior, a security agency. Respondent Manuel Vernerette, as an employee of Warrior, provided security services at the Club. When Warrior's relationship with the Club ended, Kendrick approached Respondent Vernerette with regard to working for the Club. Although Vernerette was currently employed by Navarro during the day, he was able to work at the Club at night. Kendrick also asked him if he knew others who would work at the Club, and he referred several other Navarro employees to Kendrick, who interviewed them. One of the Club's employees would check identification and frisk the Club's customers for weapons outside the front door. The customer could then enter the Club, purchase a "ticket", and then pass through a second door into the "actual" Club portion of the premises. The customer's ticket was collected at the second door. Vernerette's duties were primarily to "collect the tickets" at the second door. He also helped stock the bar and collected money from customers who wanted to use the "VIP rooms". He also had some supervisory responsibilities over some of the Club's employees he had referred to Kendrick. Vernerette only worked inside the Club. On November 23, 1996, two of Petitioner's investigators appeared at the Club to check identification and licenses of any security officers working at the Club. When they arrived, Vernerette was outside with several other Club employees he had referred to Kendrick. Someone other than Vernerette was stationed at the door searching customers. Vernerette appeared to be overseeing the operation. Although all of those employees wore dark clothing, they were not in uniforms. At the request of the investigators, Vernerette produced his Class "D" security officer license and his Class "G" firearm license. At the time Vernerette, who also holds a concealed weapon or firearm license, was wearing a 9 mm. semi-automatic firearm in a gun belt which was covered by his jacket. He was also wearing a badge. He told the investigators how many security officers were working inside the Club and that they could come outside to have their licenses checked. Those persons were summoned. The investigators did not go into the Club that night. In response to the investigator's questions, Vernerette told them that all the security officers were employees of the Club. He specifically used the term "in-house" security. He was cooperative with the investigators. The investigators were told that "Jackie" was the person they needed to speak to regarding the employment status of the security officers but that she was not there. On January 30, 1997, the investigators returned to the Club since they had been unsuccessful in their attempts to contact Jackie. She was there that night. Vernerette was not since he had stopped working at the Club by January 3. Jackie denied that Vernerette and the other security officers were employees. She was unable to produce any documentation regarding her relationship with Vernerette or the other security officers. She had no contract, no payroll records, and no cancelled checks. She advised Petitioner's investigators that she paid Vernerette, sometimes by check and sometimes in cash, and that he then paid the others. After the investigators interviewed her, Kendrick began using deputies from the Broward County Sheriff's Office to provide security services at the Club. In February 1997 Vernerette received his Class "B" license, a security agency license. He visited Kendrick at the Club, gave her a proposal to provide security services at the Club, and gave her his new business card. The business card advertises Armstar Protective Services, lists Vernerette as the President and C.E.O., and includes his Class "B" license number. Vernerette did not conduct the business of a security agency without being so licensed when he worked at the Club. He worked there as an employee of the business and not as an independent contractor. Further, Vernerette did not perform security officer duties at the Club between November 23, 1996, and January 30, 1997.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondents not guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I, III, and V and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against them. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Yolanda Fox, Esquire Law Offices of C. Jean-Joseph Mercede Executive Park 1876 North University Drive, Suite 309C Plantation, Florida 33322 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the amended administrative complaint, and if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, South Florida Patrol Agency, Inc., John D. Turner, President (Respondent), held, and holds, a Class "B" Security Agency license, issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, having been issued license number B91-00002. On May 20 and 25, 1994, an investigator (lead investigator) for the Department of State, Division of Licensing (Petitioner) performed a proactive inspection 1/ of the U.S.A. Flea Market (Flea Market) in Miami, Dade County, Florida. On the inspection conducted on May 25, 1994, Petitioner's investigator was accompanied by another of Petitioner's investigators. Respondent was providing security for the Flea Market on the inspection dates. On May 25, 1994, Petitioner's investigators observed that the security officer on duty at the main gate post, Jerred Smith, was not wearing a uniform. Also, Petitioner's investigators observed that the security officer on duty at the back door post, Juan Fajardo, did not have a patch or emblem on his uniform. The security officers were employed by Respondent. Respondent's President, Johnny D. Turner, was called to the main gate post by the security officer on duty and accompanied Petitioner's investigators to the other posts manned by Respondent's security officers, including the back door post. After the inspection was completed, Petitioner's lead investigator discussed the violations found with Respondent's President and requested that Respondent's President provide certain records. Respondent's President requested a meeting with Petitioner's lead investigator and the lead investigator's supervisor. A meeting was scheduled at Petitioner's Miami regional office for June 2, 1994, at which time Respondent's President was requested to bring with him records for the last six months consisting of payroll records and work schedules for security officers. However, on June 2, 1994, Respondent's President called the lead investigator's supervisor and requested that the meeting be rescheduled. The meeting was rescheduled for June 14, 1994. Respondent's President failed to appear at the rescheduled meeting. At no time subsequent thereto has the lead investigator or his supervisor been contacted by Respondent's President regarding his failure to attend the meeting scheduled for June 14, 1994, or to reschedule another meeting. Furthermore, at no time has Respondent's President provided the requested records.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing enter a final order: Imposing an administrative fine of $350 for Count II; Imposing an administrative fine of $350 for Count III; and Imposing an administrative fine of $500 for Count IV. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of July 1995. ERROL H. POWELL 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 10th day of July 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Alfred T. Rose held a Class "MB" investigator's license issued by the State of Florida, and the Department of State was and is the agency responsible for licensing private investigators and security guards in this State. James T. Hurley, a former law enforcement officer in New York and the United States Marines, was hired by Mr. Rose approximately fifteen months ago, initially as a patrolman in Mr. Rose's company, Secure Plus, located in Pinellas County, Florida. As the business improved, Mr. Hurley was promoted to Lieutenant and then to Captain, and given responsibility for all Secure Plus business in the south end of the northern part of Pinellas County. On June 20, 1988, while working at his automobile body shop located next to Mr. Rose's office, Mr. Hurley overheard an argument erupt between Mr. Rose and his son Cudhay Rose. As he recalls it, the argument centered around the fact that Cudhay has purchased a Cadillac automobile and Mr. Rose was upset about it, feeling that a car more suitable for company business should have been purchased. After about five minutes of alternating argument and silence, Mr. Hurley, at work in the back of his building, heard a window break. He observed Cudhay come out of the Secure Plus building, bloody and cut. Cudhay stated to Mr. Hurley that his father had tried to kill him. He asked Mr. Hurley to see if he could get his car keys out of the office and when Mr. Hurley went into the Secure Plus office, he saw Mr. Rose putting shells in his gun. When Cudhay thereafter came in, Mr. Rose pointed his gun at Cudhay's face and threatened to blow his "fucking" head off. At this point, according to Mr. Hurley, Mr. Rose appeared wild eyed and shaking. Mr. Hurley tried to clam him down and, after Cudhay left, Mr. Rose went to his office with Hurley and commented that the company was finished. At no time during this period did Mr. Rose fire his gun nor did he point it at Mr. Hurley though he advised Mr. Hurley to mind his own business. Mr. Hurley's body shop is located at the rear of Mr. Rose's building, and while the above altercation was going on, he could observe Mr. Rose and his son through the window scuffling and "bouncing off the walls. Mr. Rose admits to an altercation with his son on June 20, 1988. He contends that his son has been in a foul mood all that day and when he asked what was wrong, Cudhay indicated his wife had threatened to divorce him because he was not bring home enough money. According to Mr. Rose, at this point in time, with the business just getting started, funds were short and neither he nor his son was taking much money out of it. Mr. Rose also admits to a physical confrontation between the two of them. He contends, however, that Cudhay had become quite belligerent earlier in the morning. Mr. Rose left the office and went home. When he came back later on, he told Cudhay that his wife had called and wanted to talk with him "now." At this, Cudhay got angry and went into his office. When he came out and Mr. Rose asked what, if anything, he could do, Cudhay got furious and knocked a chair across the room. When Mr. Rose tried to grab him and clam him down, Cudhay tried to kick his father in the groin. With this, Mr. Rose grabbed Cudhay and shoved him across the room as a result of which Cudhay hit his head against the wall. Cudhay then grabbed Mr. Rose's gun from it's holster and threw it across the floor. Mr. Rose got it, and ejected the shells onto the floor. Mr. Rose retrieved his weapon and put it in the car trunk along with all six shells. Mr. Rose denies pointing the gun at Cudhay and denies even having the gun in his hand until he picked it up after Cudhay threw it aside. He denies threatening to kill Cudhay but admits threatening to "whip his butt" in an effort to get him to settle down. According to Mr. Rose, he and his son shook hands to end the disagreement and he heard nothing more about it until approximately two weeks later during which time Cudhay was in the office each day without any further argument erupting. After this two week period of calm, Mr. Chastain, the Department's investigator came to the office and when Mr. Rose asked what it was about, Cudhay indicated someone had reported the fight. It was not Cudhay who reported it, however, but Mr. Hurley. While Cudhay indicated to Hurley, Cook, and Sorenson shortly after the fight that his father had threatened to kill him, when initially interviewed by Chastain, he denied anything serious had happened because, he claims, he didn't want to get his father in trouble. It was only several months later that he went to Chastain and indicated he had lied, asking to make another, correct, statement. There can be no doubt that an altercation took place between Mr. Rose and his son on June 20, 1988, and that physical violence ensued. There is also no doubt that the weapon was displayed and words were spoken in anger. Cudhay Rose was not present to testify and all the adverse direct testimony regarding this incident comes from former employees of Mr. Rose who no longer are in his employ. Mr. Rose, while admitting an altercation, puts a different face on it. Upon consideration of all the available evidence, it is found that the gun was displayed, and while the threat to kill by Mr. Rose may not have been serious, he did assault Cudhay with it. This action is mitigated by the direct physical altercation which preceded it, however. During the months of May and June 1988, Secure Plus had a contract to provide security services for the Manatee Mall construction project located adjacent to a predominantly black area in Pinellas County. According to Mr. Hurley, on several occasions Mr. Rose would take his company car and go down to the area near the site and slowly drive past a bar known to be a place where crack cocaine was available. On these occasions, while in uniform, he would drive slowly past the bar, shining his spotlight on the building and patrons outside, turn around at the end of the street, come back and park on the construction site with his headlights shining on the bar entrance. When he would do this, according to Mr. Hurley, it would create a negative response from the black citizens and as a result, on one occasion, rocks were thrown. Hurley relates that on June 11 or 12, 1988, when he was on patrol at the project, Mr. Rose came by to visit and he saw him do it. Similar actions were recounted by Mr. Cook, also a past employee, who indicated that on one occasion while he was patrolling in the area, Mr. Rose told him that he had driven by the back of the site, a known drug dealer area, and shone his light on the people there because he wanted to "jack" the blacks. At this time, Mr. Rose stayed on the project and did not cross the road to the residential area. Mr. Sorenson, also a former employee of the company, relates that on one occasion, shortly after he was hired in late May 1988, Mr. Rose told him that he had shone his lights on some blacks near the Manatee construction project and they had thrown rocks at him. Mr. Rose had joked about this, stating he had "jacked" with the "niggers." According to Mr. Rose, when he got the job to guard the construction site, he went to the bartender at the bar related here and reached an agreement from him to keep the people from the area off the construction site. Since that time, there has been no problem at all. Mr. Rose denies having bragged about "jacking the niggers." He states he may have used the term "jacked" but denies using any racial epithet. Considering the evidence as a whole, including the repeated independent reports of Mr. Rose's use of the term, "jacking the niggers," it is found that he did harass the patrons of the bar as alleged. Mr. Hurley also related that on one occasion, when he was performing duty at the project, Mr. Rose called him to meet him for breakfast. While they were eating, Mr. Rose allegedly told Mr. Hurley that while at a car dealership he services in Pasco County, he was "spooked" by two individuals at whom he fired his .357 caliber pistol. Thereafter, according to Hurley, Mr. Rose reported the incident to a deputy sheriff but omitted the fact that he fired his weapon, and also failed to report the firing to the Department as it was a requirement to do. Mr. Rose also denies any trouble at a car lot and claims he did not discharge a firearm at the lot. In fact, the only time he has ever fired his weapon was when he took his qualification test. He denies having discussed having reported trouble at a car lot with a deputy in Pasco County because, he claims, he has never had any problem there and such an incident never happened to him. Considering the evidence presented on this issue, consisting only of hearsay admissions by the Respondent and no direct evidence to confirm any element of the allegation, it is found that no such misconduct on the part of Mr. Rose took place. Mr. Rose currently owes Mr. Hurley in excess of $500.00 but Hurley contends this debt does not have any effect on his testimony. He claims he is testifying because, in his opinion, Rose's conduct in all three incidents was dangerous. Though he has asked Mr. Rose for the money several times Mr. Rose has indicated he will not pay. Mr. Hurley claims to like Mr. Rose, describing him as a jovial and good humored individual, but the temper displayed in the altercation with Cudhay surprised him. Mr. Rose cannot understand why Hurley, Sorenson, and Cook, would make the "false" statements they made against him. He admits to owing Hurley money, but thought his relationship with the others was good. Be that as it may, there is direct evidence as to two of the alleged offenses by witnesses who were present at the scene. Mr. Rose has shown no motive for them to lie and their testimony is, therefore, believable. During Mr. Chastain's investigation, he spoke with several witnesses, including Cudhay Rose, from whom he took a sworn statement regarding the assault in which he initially denied his father had pulled a gun on him. His change of heart was prompted by concerns about his father's mental health and the safety of the public. While Mr. Rose admits to carrying a .357 revolver, he claims that when he took his qualification test, his instructor advised him that he must carry only the gun he qualified with, and since it was a .357, that is what he carries.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Mr. Rose's application for a Class MB license be denied, that he be find $1,000.00, and that his Class B, D, G, and ZB licenses be suspended for 90 days. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April ,1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS: 88-6454 AND 89-0001 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 to this case. For the Department: 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2-4. Rejected as unproven. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. For Mr. Rose: The Proposed Recommended Order submitted by Mr. Rose's counsel does not contain proposed Findings of Fact but is more in the nature of argument on the evidence. Consequently, no specific rulings are made. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Asst. General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Howard J. Shifke, Esquire Anthony F. Gonzalez, P.A. 701 N. Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary Of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
