The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the February, 1993 General Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, David W. Kradin (Kradin), took the February, 1993 General Contractor Examination and received a score of 65 on the project management portion. A minimum score of 70 is required to pass that portion of the examination. Kradin challenged questions numbered 6, 12, 19 and 30. Joint Exhibit 1 is a composite exhibit of the challenged questions. Joint Exhibit 2 is a drawing included in the examination relating to question number 6. Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 are deemed to be confidential pursuant to Section 455.229, Florida Statutes. Question number 6 required the calculation of the square feet of concrete contact surface for formwork for an elevator pit depicted in Joint Exhibit 2. Kradin challenged the question on the basis that the drawing was unclear because the elevation line appeared to drop slightly in one place. The drawing was sufficiently clear to determine the correct answer. The height of the concrete contact surface could be determined by the height shown on the drawing and the height of the expansion joint. Kradin failed to answer the question correctly because of an error in his calculations. Question number 12, an entry level question, dealt with comparing the estimated cost per cubic yard with the actual cost per cubic yard for excavation work based only on the information in the job cost ledger provided in the question. The job cost ledger contained costs and the net profit made from the sale of spoil. Kradin challenged the question as unclear and imprecise because the job cost ledger contained information on the net profit from the sale of spoil. The parties stipulated that it is improper, incorrect, an error, and a mistake to have job profit in any job cost ledger. Kradin included the net profit when he calculated the actual costs for the project. As a result his answer was incorrect because the profit should not have been included in the calculation of the actual cost for the excavation work. Question number 19 concerned the calculation of the amount of money that should be deducted from a subcontractor's application payment for the cost of worker's compensation insurance premiums. Kradin challenged the question, stating that the question was improper because he read the question to mean that the subcontractor and contractor did not have a written agreement before the work was performed and that the contractor would pay the premium and deduct the premium amount from the subcontractor's pay request. He viewed the scenario set up in the question to mean that the subcontractor was violating the law because he did not have worker's compensation coverage and the general contractor was violating the law because he hired a subcontractor without worker's compensation coverage. Additionally, he read the question to mean that the general contractor was subjecting himself to civil liability because of the lack of worker's compensation coverage. Question number 19 is not a difficult question. The contractor and subcontractor have agreed that the general contractor will provide worker's compensation coverage for the work done and will deduct the amount of the coverage from the subcontractor's application for pay. The question gives the amount of the pay request and the cost of the worker's compensation insurance per $100 worth of billing. The candidate is supposed to calculate the amount that will be deducted. The question does not deal with the legalities of the arrangement between the subcontractor and general contractor nor would a reasonable person read the question as such. Kradin's answer was not a correct calculation of the amount to be deducted. The examination is an open book examination and the candidates are allowed to bring specified reference materials with them, including the Contractor's Manual. Question number 30 deals with material found in the Contractor's Manual, relating to project schedules. Here, the question asks the candidate to pick out the entity not listed in the manual. Kradin picked out an entity which was listed in the manual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the challenge by Petitioner requesting that he be awarded a passing grade for the Project Management portion of the February, 1993, General Contractor Examination be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 23rd day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3936 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1 and 2 accepted. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Kradin 1525 J Spring Harbor Drive Delray Beach, Florida 33445 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
The Issue The dispute in this case arises out of Petitioner's termination of Respondent's Employment with the Monroe County School District.
Findings Of Fact Having determined, for the reasons detailed below, that the Division of Administrative Hearings lacks jurisdiction in this cause, the undersigned declines to make findings of fact, as such would be a nullity.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner dismiss Respondent's request for an administrative hearing for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 29th day of September, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent entered into a contract with Anthony Cocco and his wife in August of 1977, to construct a single-family residence. By June of 1978, work on the project had virtually ceased, although Respondent caused some landscaping work to be done after that date. In October, 1978, Respondent gave notice to Cocco of a default on the contract. This led to civil litigation on the contract between the parties which was unresolved at the time of the subject hearing. Respondent was licensed as a residential contractor in 1970. See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. The Respondent was also licensed at the time of the hearing. See Petitioner's Exhibit #2. No evidence was received that the Respondent was licensed at any time between the date he entered into the contract with Cocco and the date that Respondent gave notice of default. Regarding the Respondent's licensure between August of 1977, and October, 1978, the only evidence received was the Petitioner's Exhibit #2, which states in pertinent part: ... Said licensee was licensed September 1970 and has been current for all years licensed.
Recommendation Therefore, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Respondent's Motion for Directed Verdict is granted, and it is recommended that this cause be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael E. Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jane E. Heerema, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 George E. Tragos, Esquire 487 Mandalay Avenue Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Donald A. Moyant, Petitioner, operates a contractors' exam school in Brandon, Florida, at which he preps builders to take the CILB exam for licensure as contractors. Petitioner took the exam given in June 1985 and received a score of 58.60. A score of 70.00 is required to pass this examination. The only answer that Petitioner questions is the answer he supplied to question No. 2, which related to the number of reinforcing bars required in a concrete slab of given dimensions and spacings of the bars. In Petitioner's solution to the problem he dropped the fractional bar that resulted from dividing the length of the slab by the spacing between bars. The correct solution requires the addition of a bar for this fractional spare. Petitioner's purpose in pursuing this proceeding is to obtain information to use in his Contractors Exam School, Inc. Since he would not have passed the examination even if his solution to question No. 2 had been marked correct, Petitioner is without standing to bring this action because he is doing so on behalf of the school he runs and not to allow him to receive a passing grade.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a real estate broker in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate (Division), for the Florida Real Estate Commission, was the state agency responsible for the licensing of real estate professionals and the regulation of the real estate profession in Florida. Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesperson or broker in Florida. During pertinent portions of 1990, Respondent was licensed both as a real estate broker by the Division, and as a contractor by the Construction Industry Licensing Board of the State of Florida. During that period he handled numerous sales of real property for the United States Veterans Administration and received deposits of funds on those sales which he placed in his brokerage trust account with First Commercial Bank of Manatee County. At that time, the bank had a policy on availability of funds of seven business days for out-of- town checks and three business days for local checks. In January 1990, Respondent wrote five checks from his trust account, each in excess of $1,000.00. Three of these were to the VA for sales deposits, and two were to others. All five checks were dishonored for insufficient funds. Thereafter, on August 24, 1990, the Division filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent alleging the utterance of dishonored checks as misconduct. Respondent, at an informal hearing, admitted the utterance of the dishonored checks, and as a result, the Florida Real Estate Commission revoked his broker's license on October 16, 1990. Respondent's subsequent appeal of that action to the Second District Court of Appeal resulted in a per curiam denial of his petition for review. Sometime later, in 1991, Respondent appealed to the Commission for reinstatement. At a subsequent hearing before the Commission, an exculpatory letter of explanation from Respondent's accountant resulted in the Commission allowing Respondent to sit for the salesman's examination, as a result of which he was subsequently licensed as a salesman. Respondent was thereafter again licensed as a broker on December 6, 1993. In the interim, however, on June 4, 1992, Respondent's contractor's license was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board for misconduct involving his failure to properly supervise a construction project and allowing an unlicensed individual to do the work on a project for which he had pulled the permit. An informal hearing was held by the Board as a result of which it imposed an administrative fine of $2,000.00, and to assure the payment thereof, provided for suspension of Respondent's license if the fine was not paid within thirty days. Respondent admits he did not pay the fine. He contends he called the Board office to inquire what would happen were he not to pay the fine and was advised his license would be suspended. Since Respondent intended to cease working as a contractor anyway, he elected not to pay the fine and sent his license in to the Board. Respondent's contractor's license was suspended on July 22, 1992, though he claims he did not receive a copy of either the Board's Final Order or the notice of the suspension going into effect. Respondent had an obligation to pay the fine imposed as punishment for past misconduct. Voluntary relinquishment of his license, which he thought he could do without effect on him since he was getting out of the construction business, did not excuse his non-payment of the fine. On October 21, 1993, after Respondent's salesman's license had been reinstated, he applied for licensure as a broker, In his answer to the first part of question 13 on the application form, Respondent indicated he had had a license suspended. He noted thereon the prior case against his license by the Commission which dealt with the dishonored checks. He did not, however, list the action taken against his contractor's license. He listed the prior real estate case, he contends, upon the advice of someone in the Division office. He did not, at the time of his call to the Division indicate or inquire about the action taken by the Board on his contractor's license. He claims he did not list that action on the application form because the action taken by the Board was not based on fraud or dishonesty but merely a failure to supervise, and because he did not know his license had been suspended. He thought that voluntarily relinquishing his license ended the situation. Respondent claims he did not intend to conceal any misconduct or adverse action as he could not do so. It was a matter of public record, and he believed the information available to one regulatory board was available to all others that were under the Department. At some point thereafter, not further established, a complaint was filed with the Commission which resulted in the matter being referred to Mr. Pence for investigation. Mr. Pence assembled the documents relating to the allegation of concealment and sent a written notice of his inquiry to the Respondent. Upon receipt of that notice, Respondent telephoned Mr. Pence to discuss the matter. During the ensuing conversation, Pence asked Respondent if he was aware of his suspension by the Construction Board and claims Respondent indicated he was. Respondent allegedly indicated he was under the impression he had been fined by the Board and that the suspension was only to insure the fine was paid. Respondent further indicated that because of the depressed economy and because he was not much interested in keeping his contractor's license he had let it go. In evaluating the evidence presented, it must be noted that the interview between Pence and the Respondent took place about a year ago. Pence's investigative notes are no longer available and he testified from memory. It was evident that much of Mr. Pence's testimony was a reconstruction of how Mr. Pence, in retrospect, felt he would have handled the interview and what he feels sure he would have asked. Taken together, the evidence of record establishes that Respondent was disciplined by the Real Estate Commission for dishonored checks and his license revoked. Though, on the basis of his accountant's exculpatory letter, Respondent was allowed to be re-examined for a salesman's license, that evidence did not completely exonerate the Respondent. This is shown by the fact that the revocation of his broker's license was not reversed. He was merely allowed to reapply for licensure as a salesman. In addition, the accountant's letter does not explain or justify all the bad checks. In regard to the Construction Board's discipline, the evidence shows that Respondent pulled a permit and then allowed a non-licensed individual to do most of the work without proper supervision. Respondent contends that complaint was filed by his friend, the owner of the property, after the project in question was determined to be far more extensive than had been anticipated. The complaint, Respondent asserts, was not made because of any dissatisfaction arising out of his performance, but merely to preserve the owner's interest as to a possible insurance claim. That argument is not persuasive. The fact is that Respondent was disciplined because he had committed an act which authorized the imposition of discipline. His approach to the situation was cavalier, and that approach or attitude continues to raise a substantial question as to his fitness to have entrusted to him the money, property, transactions and rights of others.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Warren Up. Box, guilty of Misrepresentation and concealment in his application for a license as a real estate broker in Florida, and of having been twice guilty of misconduct which warrants suspension, and revoking his license as a real estate broker in this state. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine M. Ryall, Esquire Department of Business and Professional regulation Division of real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Terrence Matthews, Esquire 5190 26th Street West Bradenton, Florida 34207 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On August 16, 1991, respondent, Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), issued Request for Proposal No. 92-002 (RFP) to various firms inviting them to submit proposals for assisting DPR and the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) in the production and scoring of the Florida Real Estate and Appraisal Examination for the period beginning January 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993, with a renewal option for one to two years. More specifically, the contract called for the successful firm to develop examinations from a bank of questions provided by the Commission, administer periodic examinations, score and analyze tests, and perform other related support services. Such proposals were to filed no later than 2:00 p.m. on September 20, 1991. Thereafter, and in accordance with the RFP, a six-person committee composed of representatives of the DPR, Commission and Division of Real Estate (Division) would evaluate the proposals and make a recommendation to the Secretary of DPR, who retained final authority to award the contract. Proposals were timely filed by three firms, including petitioner, Professional Testing Service, Inc. (PTS), Applied Measurement Professionals, Inc. (AMP), and National Assessment Institute (NAI). After these proposals were evaluated by the committee, AMP was recommended for award of the contract. By a 4-3 vote, the Commission concurred with this recommendation. On October 24, 1991, the Secretary of DPR selected AMP as the recipient of the contract, and notice to that effect was posted. Citing various alleged irregularities in the review process, PTS filed its formal protest to the award of the contract on November 4, 1991. After efforts to informally resolve this dispute were unsuccessful, this proceeding ensued. The Vendors Who Submitted Proposals Petitioner is a Florida corporation with offices located at 223 Pasadena Place, Orlando, Florida. It has provided various licensure examination services to DPR for the past eighteen years. Except for a two year break in 1984 and 1985, for the last eleven years PTS has held the contract with DPR to provide licensure examination services on the real estate examination, and pending resolution of this dispute, it continues to provide such services. AMP did not intervene as a party in this cause. However, according to its proposal, AMP is a Kansas corporation with offices at 8310 Nieman Road, Lenexa, Kansas, and has been in the business of developing and administering examinations since 1984. Among other things, it now provides assistance to the State of Michigan for the real estate licensure examination. AMP maintains no offices or personnel in the State of Florida. Although NAI submitted a response to the RFP, it is not a party to this action. Located in Clearwater, Florida, with branch offices in other cities in Florida and throughout the country, NAI has provided assessment services to various state governments since 1976. It has administered the DPR contractor examination for the last fourteen years. Events Leading to the Issuance of RFP 92-002 In May 1991, DPR issued RFP 91-009 requesting proposals for assistance in the development and administering of real estate examinations. That RFP requested proposals on three components of the real estate examination services, including (a) application processing, (b) test development, grading and review, and (c) administration of the examination. Items (a) and (c) and a portion of item (b) had previously been handled by the Division, the administrative arm of the Commission. In response to RFP 91-009, proposals were filed by PTS, AMP, NAI, and two other vendors. PTS was recommended for award of the contract as to two components while AMP was recommended for the award of the contract as to one component even though its proposal had been deemed to be nonresponsive. However, DPR eventually decided to reject all proposals and issue a new RFP. The new RFP (91-002) did not call for proposals on items (a) and (c) and the test development portion of item (b) since the Division determined that it would continue to perform those functions. Even so, while RFP 91-002 was more narrow in scope of services than was 91-009, it nonetheless contained some of the same terms, conditions and requirements as did the earlier RFP. It is also noted that, with one minor exception relating to on-site grading, the scope of services under the existing contract held by PTS and those enumerated in RFP 91- 002 are the same. Prior to the time for submitting responses to RFP 91-009, the Division, whose director was designated as contract manager, and Commission conducted a pre-bid conference with interested vendors to answer questions concerning the RFP. Both RFP 91-009 and 91-002 contained an identical requirement that the successful firm "(m)aintain an office/center in the greater Orlando area." In response to a question by a vendor as to whether DPR would "accept proposals that identify Tallahassee as the office/center site for the provider's office in lieu of Orlando", the response given was "no, Orlando is the designated site." Other questions and answers concerning the same topic were as follows: Q. Would the Department consider allowing the contractor (for application processing function only) to maintain offices in Tallahassee instead of Orlando, provided that 1)regular meetings are held in Orlando, and 2) reports can be delivered to the Department's offices in Orlando? A. No. Because the application processing function relating to deficient applications must be closely coordinated with the records section, the investigative section, the legal section, administrative section of the Division of Real Estate and the Florida Real Estate Commission. Florida Statutes require that the office of the Division of Real Estate and the Florida Real Estate Commission be located in Orlando. Therefore, Divisional functions must be performed in the Orlando area. Q. Is Orlando the only site the Department will agree to, or is the Department flexible to the location if all requirements can be met from another site in the State of Florida? Orlando is the only site. The above questions and answers, together with others asked and answered at the conference, were transcribed by DPR and then furnished to all interested vendors. Since AMP filed a proposal in response to RFP 91-009, it may be reasonably inferred that AMP was privy to the above clarifying information. It is noted that there was no pre-bid conference prior to the filing of proposals in response to RFP 91-002. The RFP A copy of RFP 91-002 is found on pages 90 through 108 of petitioner's composite exhibit 1. The RFP includes sections relating to statement of need, purpose, scope of work, DPR responsibilities, provider responsibilities, general information, documents required in submitting a proposal, the proposal format, proposal rating criteria, and an appendix delineating the manner in which points would be awarded in the evaluation process. Prior to the submission of the proposals, no vendor formally challenged any provision in the RFP as being unreasonable, ambiguous, or otherwise unlawful in any respect. A number of provisions within RFP 91-002 are relevant to this controversy and are cited below. First, there is a general requirement found in Article VIII which requires all responses to be prepared in a manner consistent with the requirements of the RFP. More specifically, this article provided that Respondents must follow the proposal format as set forth under Section III in this request for proposal. The provider shall refer to the request for proposal to ensure all required information is submitted. By following the designed format of proposals, respondents will have a uniform method of presenting information helping assure complete fairness by the review team in evaluating proposals. Next, Article VII set forth those documents that were required to be submitted with the proposal. Among them was a requirement in paragraph 1 that the vendor submit "evidence that the organization is a legal entity." The purpose of this requirement was to ensure that DPR could enforce the agreement in the event the successful firm later attempted to back out of its commitment. The RFP also prescribed twenty-three major services that were within the scope of work to be provided by the successful firm. Indeed, the RFP stated in unequivocal language that "(t)he provider shall perform the following services as outlined below." (Emphasis added) Specifically, paragraphs 22 and 23 of Article III specified that the successful firm would Furnish to each candidate an unofficial grade report at the examination site at no additional cost to the candidate according to specifications approved by the Department. Maintain an office/center in the greater Orlando area. These two requirements, both unambiguous, were reasonably construed by participating vendors to mean that (a) the successful firm would furnish, at no cost to the candidate, on-site grade reports to those candidates who desired an unofficial grade after the examination was completed, and (b) the successful firm would maintain an office in the Orlando area to provide technical and other assistance to Commission and Division personnel regarding the examination. The interpretation as to paragraph 23 was especially reasonable since it conformed to clarifying information given to vendors at the pre-bid conference prior to the submission of proposals for RFP 91-009. Finally, despite DPR's contention to the contrary at hearing, the requirements in paragraphs 22 and 23 were considered material by the Division and Commission. From DPR's perspective, an important consideration was the costs to be charged both the candidate who sat for the examination and the candidate who made application but did not take the examination. This was because DPR's experience indicated that each year a large number of candidates apply for the examination but then fail to appear and sit for the examination. Indeed, during the most recent fiscal year of record, DPR had received 38,886 applications to take the various real estate and appraiser examinations but almost 3,000 did not appear. These figures were contained in RFP 91-009 and thus were available to all vendors, including AMP. Accordingly, DPR inserted a provision in the RFP directing each vendor to develop a cost schedule reflecting the cost for both the candidates scheduled for examination and the candidates who were actually examined. This material requirement was embodied in paragraph 1 of Article VI, which provided the following instructions to the vendors: The costs schedule for this proposal shall be priced on a per candidate examined for the first year and each of the option years provided. *Differences between the number of candidates scheduled for exam and the number of candidates examined shall be compensated for at a specific rate per candidate to be set forth by the provider.* (Emphasis added between *) The above provision was consistent with the manner in which the existing contract holder (PTS) had calculated its candidate costs for DPR during the preceding five years. Very simply, this meant that the proposal had to include one cost figure for candidates examined and another cost figure for scheduled candidates who did not appear. In calculating the costs for scheduled candidates, Appendix I, Section IV, page 3 of 3, required that all vendors develop a cost for services, including a "cost per candidate scheduled" to be made up of eight cost components: scan sheet costs, examination booklet production costs, scanning and microfilming costs, on-site grading costs, scoring costs, grade reporting/grade summary costs, security costs, and item bank maintenance costs. Therefore, each vendor was required to segregrate its costs per candidate into the eight prescribed categories, with the sum of those eight components representing the total costs per candidate scheduled. The Responses A copy of AMP's proposal filed on September 20, 1991, is found at pages 257 through 392 of petitioner's exhibit 1. In response to the requirement that the vendor give "evidence that the organization is a legal entity", AMP responded that it was a private stock corporation incorporated in 1982 in the State of Kansas. Although AMP represented that "a Certificate of Good Standing with the State of Kansas is available upon request," no such certificate was enclosed with its proposal. Documentation offered by PTS confirmed that AMP is not a Florida corporation, and there is no evidence to show that AMP, as an out- of-state corporation, has registered with the Department of State to transact business in the State of Florida. In its proposal, AMP provided an overall price "per candidate" but failed to differentiate between the costs incurred for candidates examined and candidates who were scheduled to take the examination but did not appear. This was contrary to the requirement in Article VI that such costs be identified for both categories and caused the proposal to be nonresponsive in a material respect. Although the RFP specifically required the vendor to set out eight cost components in developing the cost per candidate scheduled, AMP submitted nine specific costs as follows: 1. Test Development $3.72 2. Scan Sheet 0.10 3. Examination Booklet Production 2.47 4. Scanning 1.01 5. Scoring 1.05 6. Grade Tape Preparation 0.43 7. Security 0.32 8. Item Bank Maintenance 0.50 9. On-Site Grading 0.20 TOTAL $9.80 It should be noted that the first item, "Test Development" costs, which included 38 percent of AMP's total price, was not a category contained in or authorized by the RFP. Thus, the proposal was nonresponsive in this material respect. According to its proposal, AMP did not intend to maintain an office/center in the greater Orlando area. Rather, it proposed that: as an alternative to staffing an office in Orlando, AMP proposes to conduct regular monthly meetings in Orlando with the Division and key AMP project staff, typically the doctorate level Program Director and a Test Development Specialist. AMP will bring its portable computer equipment, and paper and computer files of the draft test and the item banks to these meetings. Any changes to examinations, as required by the Division, can then be immediately made in the draft tests and reviewed by the Division. It is AMP's opinion that this procedure will provide the Division with the direct responsiveness desired, and ensure efficient communication between the Division and the key project staff, without information being filtered through a lesser qualified individual in a satellite office. Additional urgent concerns can be discussed using the telephone or FAX equipment with the Program Director. (page 272, petitioner's exhibit 1) By filing this response, AMP contravened the material requirement in paragraph 23 of Article III that it maintain an office/center in the greater Orlando area. In response to the material requirement that it "furnish to each candidate an unofficial grade report at the examination site at no additional cost to the candidate according to specifications approved by the Department", AMP responded that it would: train the Department's test administration personnel to use this equipment to this end . . . . AMP's cost proposal is based on using the Department's personnel. If this is not possible, an additional per candidate fee will be determined based on using AMP personnel. Thus, AMP's response unilaterally modified the RFP requirement that AMP personnel rather than DPR personnel perform the task of providing unofficial grade reports at the examination site. Moreover, AMP's proposal did not state what its price per candidate would be if DPR enforced the RFP requirement. Under AMP's proposal, it calculated a cost of 20 cents per candidate for providing this service assuming DPR personnel were used. This was $2.27 less per candidate than the charge given by PTS ($2.47). Thus, AMP gained an economic advantage by its failure to provide on-site grading with its own personnel. Accordingly, this portion of the proposal was nonresponsive. The proposal of PTS was responsive to the RFP in all respects. This finding was not contradicted by DPR. It is noteworthy that two potential vendors, H. H. Block & Associates, Inc., a Gainesville, Florida firm, and Psychological Services, Inc., a firm located in Glendale, California, both advised DPR in writing that because of the requirement in the RFP that the successful vendor locate a center/office in the greater Orlando area, they would not be filing a proposal. The latter two vendors were obviously prejudiced by DPR's failure to advise them that it did not intend to enforce the requirement in paragraph 23 of Article III. This failure by DPR to enforce the provision also gave AMP an economic advantage over other vendors since AMP did not have to incur the costs of operating an Orlando office. The Evaluation Process The committee selected to evaluate the proposals was made up of six individuals appointed by the Secretary of DPR. It met in Tallahassee on September 30, 1991, to evaluate the proposals. The committee was chaired by Ella D. Hall, a DPR psychometrician. In accordance with the instructions in the RFP, the committee reviewed only the technical aspects of the proposals and did not review the cost data. Article IX of the RFP outlined the responsibilities of the evaluation committee and the procedure for evaluating proposals. Among other things, the committee was assigned the responsibility to: first determine if all required documents are included, that the proposal format is followed, and that all responses to the request's responsibilities of the provider are properly addressed. The cost data will not be reviewed as part of the technical evaluation. The committee utilized both a scoring guide and an evaluation guide in arriving at its recommendation. A total of 300 possible points were to be given to a vendor, of which 226 were related to technical matters. As noted above, the committee did not consider cost in its evaluation. Contrary to Article IX of the RFP, the committee did not initially determine whether the proposals were responsive. More specifically, the committee did not "first determine if all required documents (were) included, that the proposal format (was) followed, and that all responses to the request's responsibilities of the provider (were) properly addressed." According to the committee's chairperson, the committee was never told to determine if the proposals were responsive before evaluating them on their merits. Indeed, the chairperson assumed, albeit incorrectly, that someone else had previously evaluated the proposals in terms of responsiveness. As it turned out, none of the proposals were evaluated for responsiveness prior to or during the committee evaluation process. Through its chairperson, the committee issued a written report on October 9, 1991, recommending that AMP be awarded the contract. Although the committee considered the responses by AMP and PTS to be almost equal in terms of technical ratings, it gave a slight edge to AMP's proposal in the cost rating and recommended that AMP be awarded the contract. NAI was a very distant third in the evaluation process. Because of the committee's report, and AMP's announcement on October 16, 1991, as discussed below, that its price per candidate scheduled but not examined would be zero, the Commission voted 4-3 to endorse the committee's recommendation. The Secretary received the proposals in that posture. Events Occurring After the Committee Evaluation On October 4, 1991, or before the contract was awarded but after the committee evaluation was completed, AMP's president, Steven K. Bryant, sent a letter to the Secretary of DPR. The letter was received by DPR on October 9, 1991, and a copy of same has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit It provides in relevant part as follows: Dear Secretary Stuart: At the request of Lou Ritter, I am writing to you due to our concerns about the opportunity for our company to fairly compete for testing services business in your state. The recent rebidding of the Florida Cosmetology and Real Estate Programs have generated some serious questions in my mind as to whether or not it is in our interest to continue to respond to Florida RFPs. I hope you will investigate the following concerns and use the power of your office to correct these circumstances: The second RFP regarding real estate was clearly written to ensure that the current vendor retains the contract. The requirement that the vendor have an office in Orlando staffed by an individual whose only job would be to serve as a liaison with the Real Estate Commission makes it basically impossible for any organization based outside of the state of Florida to compete with the current vendor. An organization such as ours cannot afford to put a doctorate level individual in an office in Florida to be at the beck and call of the Real Estate Commission to answer examination development questions and economically survive. At best, we could put a clerical person in an office in Orlando who would be unable to answer any of the Commission's test development concerns. In our response to the RFP, we indicated that we would not establish an Orlando office, but would provide a doctoral level measurement expert and a test development specialist to meet once a month with the Real Estate Commission to revise the real estate examinations to their specifications using very highly qualified individuals. The second real estate RFP also requires that the examination booklets be printed and shipped to Florida examination centers within a seven day time frame, after the examinations are reviewed by the Real Estate Commission. This item was clearly written for the current vendor, which is basically photocopying examination materials as soon as the Commission provides approval on examination copy. There is no real reason why the examinations could not be reviewed and approved by the state to allow a longer time frame for printing, so that higher quality offset printed examination booklets could be prepared and shipped to Florida by a vendor residing out of state. In fact, we could provide several months of examinations in advance for the Commission's approval and avoid the crisis mode of printing which a seven day turnaround would cause. Although, we could provide the seven day turnaround through the use of overnight air carriers and the like, clearly the Real Estate Commission had in mind the current vendor when making this unreasonable requirement. * * * The letter also carries a handwritten note by the Secretary in the upper right hand corner which reads "Discussed with Lou Ritter/Steve Bryant - file 10/21". According to the Secretary, Ritter (a former Secretary of DPR) is now a consultant for AMP. The Secretary acknowledged that he spoke with Ritter and Bryant concerning the letter and advised them the agency was proceeding with the RFP. The Secretary's assertion that he followed up on the letter only to the extent that he wanted to ascertain if AMP had been unfairly penalized in the evaluation process was not contradicted. On October 16, 1991, Bryant sent a second letter on behalf of AMP to the Secretary of DPR. It read as follows: Dear Secretary Stuart: This is to confirm our telephone discussion regarding our price proposal for RFP #92-002 (sic) for Real Estate Examination Services. Since the RFP calls for AMP to provide examination booklets to the test centers the department administers, it was our intention to charge the state $9.80 per candidate tested, based on the number of answer sheets actually scored by AMP. Thus, there would not be a charge for candidates who do not appear for testing. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information. Please let me know if there are any other questions. The above letter was solicted by the Secretary after he and Bryant spoke by telephone on or about October 15, 1991. The purpose of the letter was to allow AMP to clarify and amend its proposal which failed to include a cost for candidates who were scheduled to take the examination but did not appear. In contrast, neither PTS nor NAI were offered the opportunity to clarify or change their proposals after being filed. Thus, AMP was allowed to correct a material deviation from the terms of the RFP thereby giving it an advantage over its competitors. The contract was thereafter awarded to AMP on or about October 24, 1991. Summary of Errors in the RFP Process By failing to file evidence that it was a "legal entity", failing to file a cost per candidate scheduled but not examined, and submitting a price per candidate based on nine cost components rather than the prescribed eight, AMP failed to follow the proposal format required of all vendors by Article VIII. AMP's proposal was materially nonresponsive in four respects. First, it failed to differentiate between costs incurred for candidates examined and candidates who were scheduled but did not appear. Second, it utilized nine cost components in developing the cost per candidate scheduled instead of the eight components specified by the RFP. Third, in declining to establish an office in the greater Orlando area, AMP deviated from a material requirement. Fourth, contrary to the RFP, AMP proposed that DPR personnel rather than its own personnel provide unofficial grade reports to candidates at the examination sites. If this was unsatisfactory to DPR, AMP proposed to assess DPR an unspecified charge for providing this service. By waiving the enforcement of a material requirement (paragraph 23, Article III) after the proposals had been filed and evaluated, DPR gave a competitive advantage to AMP not enjoyed by other vendors. Further, by allowing AMP to correct a material variance from the RFP on October 16, 1991, as to the price charged for candidates scheduled but who did not take the examination, DPR gave a competitive advantage to AMP not enjoyed by other vendors. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that (a) the proposal submitted by AMP was materially nonresponsive and should be rejected, and (b) DPR created unfair competition and favoritism by waiving material requirements and allowing AMP to amend its proposal after being filed and evaluated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by respondent rejecting the proposal filed by Applied Measurement Professionals, Inc. in response to RFP 91- 002 and awarding the contract to one of the other vendors who filed a response. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of January, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner: Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Partially adopted in findings of fact 11, 12, 13 and 22. Partially adopted in findings of fact 6 and 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. Partially adopted in findings of fact 2, 3 and 4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 24. Partially adopted in findings of fact 10 and 14. Partially adopted in findings of fact 7, 11, 17, 19 and 29. Partially adopted in findings of fact 11, 18 and 29. Partially adopted in findings of fact 12, 15, 28 and 29. Partially adopted in findings of fact 13, 16, 28 and 29. Respondent:* 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 2-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 22. Partially adopted in findings of fact 1, 20 and 24. Partially adopted in finding of fact 24. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. 6a. Partially adopted in findings of fact 3, 15 and 19. 6b. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. 6c. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. 7-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 24. 9-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 26. Partially adopted in findings of fact 10 and 14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 17. The second sentence is specifically rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 18. Rejected as being unnecessary. * Respondent's proposed findings of fact included numbers 4, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6. Therefore, the second set of findings numbered 4, 5 and 6 have been renumbered 6a, 6b and 6c for purposes of this Appendix. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, redundant, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Post Office Box 1116 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether petitioner, an applicant for licensure to practice architecture, is entitled to a passing grade on the design and site planning portion of the architecture examination administered in June, 1981.
Findings Of Fact I. Petitioner is an applicant for licensure, by examination, to practice architecture in Florida. The National Architectural Examination administered by the Department consists of two parts, a written examination given in December of each year, and a site planning and design test which is given in June. Petitioner met all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Petitioner took the design and site planning portion of the examination in June, 1981. This portion of the examination consists of a twelve-hour sketch problem. Examinees are required to provide a site plan and building structure ("solution") in accordance with specific program requirements specified in the examination booklet. Examinees are supplied a pre-examination booklet describing the sketch problem and the various requirements which must be met in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the examination, additional information is supplied to the applicant to enable him to more adequately design the structure and perform the necessary technical analysis. In general, the examination is intended to provide applicants with an opportunity to demonstrate competence in the design process by requiring them to solve a specific architectural problem through graphic methods. The grading of the site and design problem is accomplished by the independent review of the applicant's design solution by at least three architects. These graders receive pre-examination training in order to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. All sketch solutions are evaluated on a blind grading basis; the graders do not know of the name or state of origin of the examinees. Graders are required to evaluate the solutions on a holistic basis--"the graders' overall impression . . . [on] how adequately and satisfactorily . . . [the examinee has] incorporated and responded to the conditions and requirements of the problem." (Joint Exhibit No. 2.) Each solution is graded on the basis of specific criteria: 1/ Site Planning and Site Design: This criteria will incorporate such elements as: conformance to zoning requirements; conformance to site restrictions; vehicular access to site; vehi- cular on-site circulation; parking location and layout; pedestrian access to site; pedes- trian on-site circulation; equal access and circulation for handicapped; separation of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; site grading and surface drainage; site landscap- ing; building siting for orientation, views, energy efficiency; completeness and clarity of presentation. Building Programming, Planning and Design: This criteria will include such elements as: conformance to building code requirements (fire safety, egress, barrier free, lateral forces); relationships of activities and spaces; circulation patterns, horizontal and vertical; conformance to programmed area requirements; connection to adjacent struc- ture(s); appropriateness (e.g., size, shape, height, fenestration) of spaces for intended use; proportion and design of spaces for required furnishings and equipment; rela- tion of building to site conditions and characteristics; energy-conscious design (e.g., building configuration, orientation, fenestration, shading devices, passive solar) architecture of the building in relation to the surrounding neighborhood and buildings; completeness and clarity of presentation. Technical Aspects: This criteria will include such elements as: choice of mate- rials and methods of construction; struc- tural system concept; mechanical systems concept; lighting and acoustical concepts; completeness and clarity of presentation. (Joint Exhibit No, 2, Pre-examination Information Booklet, pp. 5-6.) Graders are instructed that examinees are "entitled to make some mistakes;" that the program analysis and design sketch must be done by examinees hurriedly, in a tense situation, without access to standard reference materials, without customary time for deliberation and critique by others; and that, consequently, the examinee must "always be given the benefit of the doubt." (Joint Exhibit No. 2, Grader's Manual, p. 6.) In evaluating the solutions, graders are told to keep these questions in mind: If the examinee knew more about the particular project, would I say this per- son could design? If the examinee had time to polish the solution, would I say that this person could design? Is the solution presented by the exam- inee buildable? Are the flaws in the solution so minor that small changes could be made without destroying the concept? (Joint Exhibit No. 2, Grader's Manual, p. 7.) Graders are also reminded that they must not judge a solution against an imaginary ideal solution. Graders are required to use a scoring scale ranging from 4 (the highest) to 1 (the lowest). A solution in the 3-4 category is minimally acceptable or above--i.e., passing; a solution in the 1-2 category is less than minimally acceptable--i.e., failing. By not having a middle score, graders are forced away from a middle or uncommitted score. Since each solution is separately graded by three persons, the overall pass-or-fail status is determined by the majority of the scores in the pass-or-fail category. If scores of 1 or 2 are awarded, graders are required to indicate the examinee's weaknesses in the box opposite the appropriate subcriteria on the Evaluation Sheet. Indications of weakness "must not be arbitrary." (Joint Exhibit No. 2, Grader's Manual, p. 5.) Solutions which do not give a clear overall impression to the graders are termed "borderline cases." In such cases, examiners are told that "a deciding evaluation will be made by a member of the National Council of Architectural Registration Board's Coordinating Committee who will not know the grades given by the firsts three evaluators." (Joint Exhibit No. 2, Grader's Manual, p. 4.) II. Petitioner received two 2's and one 3 on his sketch solution to the site planning and design test. Since two of the three grades were below minimally acceptable standards, the Department notified him that he had failed the examination. Petitioner contests the validity of the alleged deficiencies, or weaknesses, indicated by the two graders who gave him failing grades. These alleged deficiencies or weaknesses are the basis for the Department's determination that petitioner failed the examination. Each is addressed separately below. Surface Drainage. One grader indicated this as an area of weakness while the other did not. No general or specific requirements for surface drainage were contained in the problem. (Joint Exhibit No. 2, Examination Information Booklet.) The site was given as a tract of land 150 feet by 64 feet sloping from west to east. Petitioner's solution showed spot elevations relative to walkway grades at all points of entry to the building, and indicated parking area drainage flow. At hearing, the Department did not demonstrate how petitioner's treatment of surface drainage was inadequate or failed to respond to the requirements of the problem. Landscaping and Site Lighting. One grader indicated this as an area of weakness while the other did not. The problem required examinees to place a 20-foot public pedestrian walkway with "new landscaping, paving patterns and lighting." (Joint Exhibit No. 2, Examination Booklet, p. 7.) Petitioner's solution clearly showed landscaping and paving patterns and lighting in the walkway area. At hearing, the Department failed to show how his solution failed to adequately respond to the requirement of the problem. Instead, its expert witness was satisfied with petitioner's treatment of this subject. Conformance to Program Area Requirements. One grader indicated this as an area of weakness, the other did not. The problem specified area requirements for the various portions of the project. (Joint Exhibit No. 2, Examination Booklet, pp. 6-11.) The project scope provided: The developer's economic goal is to maxi- mize his investment either by fully utiliz- ing the maximum available square footage of 32,768 to be rented at competitive rates; or to develop a building of less square footage with amenities such as atriums, multi-floor openings, balconies, terraces, etc. to be rented at premium rates. A min- imum of 21,000 sq. ft. of floor area must be developed in order to make the project feasible. (e.s.) (Joint Exhibit No. 2, Examination Booklet, p. 1.) The Department's witness testified that petitioner's solution did not maximize the square footage allowed by the problem. Petitioner, however, chose to design a building of less than the maximum square footage with amenities, such as a multi-floor light well. If such a light well is not a "multi-floor opening," it surely falls within the definition of "amenity," a feature which adds attractiveness and value. Petitioner thus made a choice expressly provided by the problem. The Department failed to show how petitioner's solution failed to satisfy the area requirements specified by the problem. Conformance to Building Code Requirements. (Fire protection, handicapped, etc.) One grader indicated this as an area of weakness, the other did not. The problem specified these requirements: CODE STANDARDS The basic aspects for the protection of life, health, safety, welfare and for minimizing property damage must be incorporated in your solution. The project must be planned for barrier free access. FIRE RATING The building shall have the following mini- mum fire ratings: 1-hour - between floors 4-hours - stairs, elevator tower, mechanical chases, exterior walls within 5' of side property line. The east and west exterior walls do not require rating, but must be of non- combustible construction. Sprinklers - required throughout the building. Indicate the materials to be used to achieve the required fire ratings. (e.s.) (Joint Exhibit No. 2, Examination Booklet, p. 5.) The Department failed to show how petitioner's solution failed to satisfy the Code Standards requirement. However, petitioner did not adequately respond to and comply with the requirement that he indicate the materials used to achieve the required fire ratings. His solution omitted such information. Lobby Operation. (Security, art work, information, etc.) Both graders indicated weakness in this area. The problem specified a ground floor gross area of 4,608 square feet, a maximum of 1,608 square feet in the lobby, a building identification on the west elevation, display area for art work, and a station for a watchman "to oversee the entrances and act as a building information source." (e.s.) (Joint Exhibit No. 2, Examination Booklet, p. 6.) Petitioner's solution satisfies these specific requirements. The Department's only criticism is that a watchman at the station provided by petitioner cannot oversee elevator waiting areas. While such observation of the elevator area might be useful, it was not a program requirement and petitioner cannot be fairly faulted for not providing such oversight. Structural System Concept, Logic, and Appropriateness. One grader identified this as an area of weakness, the other did not. This is the most significant deficiency in petitioner's solution. He placed the core on the south side of the office building, thereby depriving rentable office space on the third floor of window access. 2/ Furthermore, while the light well provides sunlight, two-thirds of the well is blacked by office walls. The design of the structure is thus deficient in logic and appropriateness. (Testimony of Coons.) Completeness and Clarity of Presentation. One grader indicated this was a weakness, the other did not. Petitioner's solution lacks detail on the nature of the insulation, roof, and windows used in the structure. The Department concedes that this is a borderline case, that petitioner's solution is extremely close to the standard required for minimal competency. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter an order determining that petitioner failed the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination administered in June, 1981. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1982.
