Findings Of Fact General Contractors & Construction Management, Inc. (Petitioner), is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of general contracting and construction (construction and renovation of commercial and residential buildings), including subcontracting, since 1985. Petitioner's President is Ms. Akram Niroomand-Rad and its Vice-President is Mr. Kamran Ghovanloo, Ms. Niroomand-Rad's husband. Petitioner is a small business concern as defined by Subsection 288.703(1), Florida Statutes. Prior to April 1990, Ms. Niroomand-Rad owned 50 percent of Petitioner's stock. In April 1990, she acquired 100 percent of the stock and became the Petitioner's sole owner. Ms. Niroomand-Rad is a minority person as defined by Subsection 288.703(3), Florida Statutes. According to Petitioner's articles of incorporation and by-laws, its corporate business is conducted by a majority of the board of directors. Petitioner has two directors, Ms. Niroomand-Rad and Mr. Ghovanloo, 1/ and as such, the minority owner does not control the board of directors. Also, according to Petitioner's by-laws, Petitioner's President manages its business and affairs subject to the direction of the board of directors. Petitioner's licensed contractor is Mr. Ghovanloo who is a certified general contractor. Ms. Niroomand-Rad is not a licensed contractor although she is taking course work to become a licensed contractor. Mr. Ghovanloo is Petitioner's qualifier, and, as its qualifier, brings his expertise and license to the business. Further, as qualifier, he is also responsible for the finances of Petitioner and for pulling the necessary permits in order for Petitioner to perform the contractual work. Additionally, Mr. Ghovanloo performs Petitioner's estimating, handles quality inspection of job sites, assists in the evaluation and preparation of bids, and attends some of the pre-bid meetings on projects. Ms. Niroomand-Rad has been involved in soliciting bids, reviewing bids and estimates, negotiating contracts, visiting clients, responding to correspondence, overseeing financial activities, hiring and firing, and visiting job sites. However, Ms. Niroomand-Rad relies heavily upon Mr. Ghovanloo's technical expertise, expert opinions, and judgment and upon others for guidance and for handling the technical aspects of the business. Further, Ms. Niroomand-Rad relies heavily on Mr. Ghovanloo, and others to a lesser degree, regarding the purchasing of goods, equipment, or inventory, and services needed for the day-to-day operation of the business, including evaluating and retaining subcontractors. Mr. Ghovanloo is authorized to sign checks without restriction. Ms. Niroomand-Rad was reared in a construction environment. Also, she has completed a construction management course offered by the City of Miami and is a licensed real estate broker. Petitioner has been certified as an MBE by Dade County and the Dade County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development enter a final order denying General Contractors & Construction Management, Inc., certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 24th day of July, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for certifying persons as minority business enterprises. Petitioner applied for certification as a minority business enterprise. Petitioner is a minority business enterprise within the meaning of Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes. 1/ Petitioner is a small business concern, domiciled in Florida, and organized to engage in commercial transactions. Petitioner is a Florida corporation wholly owned by Ms. Sandra A. Pichney, vice president, and by Mr. D.B. Young, president. Petitioner engages in the roof consulting business. Ms. Pichney owns 51 percent of Petitioner's outstanding stock. Ms. Pichney is a member of a minority group for purposes of Chapter 288. The remaining 49 percent of Petitioner's outstanding stock is owned by Mr. Young. Mr. Young is a licensed architect. No professional license is required for Petitioner to engage in the business of roof consulting. Petitioner has all of the occupational licenses required to engage in the commercial transactions required to conduct its business. Ms. Pichney has 16 years experience in the roof consulting business. Ms. Pichney controls the daily management and operations of Petitioner's business. Ms. Pichney: manages and operates the office; and is responsible for payroll, accounts receivable, and general financial matters. Ms. Pichney conducts field visits, estimates jobs, reviews projects, and rewrites specifications. Ms. Pichney is the person who signs checks for Petitioner in the ordinary course of Petitioner's trade or business. Mr. Young is authorized to sign checks but only signs checks in emergencies. Ms. Pichney hires and fires personnel. Ms. Pichney consults with Mr. Young, but the ultimate responsibility is born by Ms. Pichney. Ms. Pichney reviews specifications and design work for specific projects and makes amendments where appropriate. Original specifications and design work are prepared by Mr. Young and other personnel. Mr. Young, and other personnel, can be terminated by Ms. Pichney without cause. Mr. Young can be terminated as an employee at any time by Ms. Pichney, without cause. Mr. Young has no employment agreement or shareholder agreement with the company. The board of directors are comprised of Ms. Pichney and Mr. Young. Any director may be dismissed by a majority of the shareholders. As the majority shareholder, Ms. Pichney can terminate Mr. Young, as a director, without cause. Ms. Pichney and Mr. Young receive salaries and monthly draws. Although salaries are equal, monthly draws and dividends are distributed in proportion to the stock ownership of each shareholder. Ms. Pichney has exclusive use of the company car. Ms. Pichney's stock ownership has increased over the last two years because Mr. Young has been unable to attend to the demands of Petitioner's business due to Mr. Young's divorce. Ms. Pichney has properly reported the increase in stock ownership, for purposes of the federal income tax, and has, and will, pay the requisite income tax on her increased stock ownership. Ms. Pichney and Mr. Young consult with each other in making significant decisions in the ordinary course of Petitioner's business. However, the ultimate responsibility for those decisions is born by Ms. Pichney.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Mill-It Corporation is a Florida Corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida. Ben Guzman, a stipulated member of a recognized minority group, is the President of the Petitioner Corporation. Additionally, Mr. Guzman owns 26 percent of the stock. The other stockholders are James E. Quinn (24 percent), Myrna Bortell (26 percent), and Edward T. Quinn, Jr., (24 percent). Ms. Bortell is also a member of a qualified minority. The Petitioner Corporation was formed in August, 1983. The first three months of its existence was spent obtaining the necessary licenses, permits, loans, and equipment. Mr. Guzman was primarily responsible for these activities. During this time period, Mr. Guzman was required to return to Chicago, his former home, to undergo surgery on his arm. During his absence, he delegated minimal authority to Edward T. Quinn, Jr., in order that the Corporation could continue to operate. During Mr. Guzman's absence, he maintained control of the Corporation through frequent telephonic communications with Mr. Quinn. Just before Mr. Guzman was required to go to Chicago for the surgery, Mill-It Corporation had taken delivery of its milling machine. The machine had been in the possession of Mill-It Corporation for only one week and Mr. Guzman had not had an opportunity to run the machine prior to his departure. Mr. Guzman relied on Mr. Quinn because they had known each other for approximately 25 years and Mr. Guzman was aware of Mr. Quinn's knowledge of the road building business and the necessary steps to establish Mill-It Corporation as a viable business in Florida. Mr. Guzman returned to Florida for the onsite inspection by an agent of the Respondent, but he was still under a doctor's care and was on various types of medication for pain. Mr. Guzman returned to Chicago for additional medical treatment following the onsite inspection, and he did not return to Florida until January, 1984. In January, 1984, Mr. Guzman began to completely learn the operation and mechanics of running and maintaining the milling machine and he assumed the complete responsibility for overseeing all the projects of the milling operation. Mr. Guzman originally relied upon the expertise of Edward T. Quinn, Jr. in the field of bidding, but Mr. Guzman always supplied the necessary figures and data for the bid. Mr. Guzman hired Edward T. Quinn, Jr., as his sales representative and estimator. After the brief learning period, however, Mr. Guzman began to totally supervise the bidding procedures and began directing Mr. Quinn to attend various bid lettings with the figures supplied by Mr. Guzman. At the time of the onsite inspection, Mill-It Corporation had completed only its organizational phase of becoming a business entity. In fact the milling machine was such a recent acquisition that during the onsite inspection Mr. Guzman had not had time to learn the technical aspects of the operation and mechanics of the machine. After the onsite inspection, Mr. Guzman assumed responsibility for operation of the milling machine and supervising the overall performance of the job. Additionally, James Quinn also operated the machine. Mr. Guzman has the authority to hire and fire employees, sign checks, correspond on behalf of the corporation, enter into contracts, and purchase equipment on behalf of the corporation. Cancelled payroll and vendor's checks, correspondence to and from the company, bonding contracts, insurance contracts, and corporate documents were all signed by Mr. Guzman. All major business decisions are made by Mr. Guzman after considering the advise of the other officers and stockholders. All day-to-day decisions are made by Mr. Guzman.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Mill-It Corporation's application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 7th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: RUSSELL H. CULLEN, JR., ESQUIRE P. O. BOX 1114 ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32701 VERNON L. WHITTIER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING, M.S. 58 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 PAUL A. PAPPAS, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to be certified as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact West Construction, Inc., is a Florida corporation that is engaged in the construction business. The focus of the business is the renovation and new construction of commercial buildings. Petitioner has been certified as a minority business enterprise by several local governmental entities. Petitioner regularly bids on governmental contracts. Petitioner's application to the Respondent for certification as a minority business enterprise was denied. Petitioner is a "small business" as that term is defined by Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes. 1/ At the time of the formal hearing, Martha A. Morgan owned 51 percent of the issued shares of stock in West Construction, Inc., served as one of two members of the Board of Directors, and was the President, Treasurer, and Assistant Secretary of the corporation. Ms. Morgan is an American woman. 2/ At the time of the formal hearing, Donald West owned the remaining 49 percent of the authorized and issued shares of stock, served as the other member of the Board of Directors, and was Vice-President and Secretary of the corporation. Mr. West is not a "minority person". Ms. Morgan and Donald West have been married to each other since 1985. West Construction, Inc. was incorporated by Donald West and his father in 1977 after they had operated as a partnership for several years. The corporation is authorized to issue 1,000 shares of common stock. When it was incorporated, a total of 200 shares of stock were issued, with Donald West and his father each being issued 100 shares of stock. When Donald West's father retired in 1984, the corporation repurchased his 100 shares of stock and distributed to him an amount equal to 50 percent of the assets of the business. This distribution adversely impacted the corporation's ability to secure performance bonds for projects. After that repurchase, the only issued shares of stock were the 100 shares that had been issued to Donald West in 1977. Prior to her marriage to Mr. West in 1985, Ms. Morgan had her own separate assets. She contributed these assets to the marriage. The marital assets were thereafter used to obtain performance bonds for the corporation and served as security for other obligations of the company. Ms. Morgan is a college graduate with a degree in Business Administration. Her experience includes working as a certified legal assistant for a land development company. In 1985, Ms. Morgan started working for West Construction doing accounting, posting, and general record keeping. In 1989, she began to take a more active role in the affairs of West Construction in that she did more of the day to day bookkeeping, including payroll and accounting. Since December 1992, Ms. Morgan has been licensed by the State of Florida as a certified building contractor. Ms. Morgan became the majority owner of the company on January 1, 1993, when Donald West transferred to her 51 of his 100 shares of stock in the corporation. Donald West remained the only other stockholder with 49 shares of stock. Effective January 1, 1993, Ms. Morgan became the President, Treasurer, and Assistant Secretary of the corporation. Ms. Morgan and Mr. West became the only two members of the board of directors of the corporation. One of the reasons for the transfer of stock was to qualify the corporation for certification as a minority business enterprise. The consideration for the transfer of the stock to Ms. Morgan was the contribution she had made to the marital assets and the work she had done on behalf of the corporation. There was no separate payment of money by Ms. Morgan for this stock. Donald West has been in the construction business all of his adult life. He has a degree from the University of Florida in building construction and has a general contractor's license and a building contractor's licensed from the State of Florida. Mr. West's construction licenses were used to qualify the firm for construction work between 1977 and December 1992, when Ms. Morgan obtained her building contractor's license. Ms. Morgan's license has been used to qualify the corporation since she obtained it. Ms. Morgan is in charge of managing the finances of the company. Ms. Morgan keeps the company books, pays the bills, and invests any profits. She is responsible for payroll, insurance, bonding, accounts receivables, and billings. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. West have the authority to sign checks, make withdrawals and deposits on company accounts, and execute bank documents. Both have the authority to draw on a line of credit that has been established by the company, but neither has had the need to do so. Mr. West has the authority to sign company checks, but he seldom does so. Ms. Morgan and Mr. West are jointly and severally liable as indemnitors on the company's bond, and their personal assets, including the jointly owned marital assets, act as security for this risk. Both serve as guarantor's on the company's line of credit. At the time of her application for certification, Mr. West and Ms. Morgan were paid the same salary. Between that time and the formal hearing, Ms. Morgan had increased her salary so that she was being paid $3,000 per month and Mr. West was being paid $2,000 per month. Ms. Morgan testified that she determined her own salary without consulting Mr. West. Ms. Morgan arranged for the financing of the latest vehicle purchased by the company, she determined that the building out of which the company operates should be financed. She made the decision as to how the company's idle capital would be invested. In addition to Mr. West and Ms. Morgan, the company has two other full time employees who were employed by Mr. West before Ms. Morgan became an owner, officer and director of the company. One of these employees is a carpenter and the other is a general laborer. Mr. West is the direct supervisor for these two employees. Ms. Morgan reviews submittals from subcontractors and works as the liaison between subcontractors and the project architect. Mr. West supervises the work of subcontractors. Ms. Morgan is also responsible for finding projects for the company to bid upon. The company subscribes to two services that provide information to potential bidders as to public works projects. Ms. Morgan reviews that information and determines the projects upon which the company will bid. Ms. Morgan obtains and reviews the bid packages, secures any other information she deems necessary by communicating with the contract letting agency or architect, and attends the pre-bid meeting. Both Mr. West and Ms. Morgan work on the company's bid. Mr. West's role is to prepare quantitative takeoffs from the bid plans. Ms. Morgan determines the overhead by factoring in the amount of current business undertaken by the company, the complexity of the project, and the difficulty of the project. Both Mr. West and Ms. Morgan attend pre-construction meetings. Ms. Morgan usually signs the company bids and any resulting contracts as its president and uses her license to qualify the company. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. West develop the company's work schedule. Despite being licensed as a certified building contractor, Ms. Morgan has never supervised a construction project from beginning to conclusion. The actual construction projects undertaken by the company are supervised and managed by Mr. West. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. West order materials and supplies for construction projects. Ms. Morgan would have to hire someone to manage the construction projects if Mr. West were not available. The management of this family run company is divided between Ms. Morgan and Mr. West. Petitioner established that Ms. Morgan takes a meaningful role in the management of the affairs of the corporation, but it is also clear that Mr. West takes a meaningful role. The managerial functions performed by both stockholders are essential to the operation of the company. One was not established to be more important than the other. It is found that Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Morgan exercises dominate control of the affairs of the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development enter a final order that denies West Construction, Inc.'s application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1995.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner should be certified as a Minority Business Enterprise, (Woman-Owned).
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Commission On Minority Economic and Business Development, now the Division of Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security, was the state agency in Florida charged with the responsibility for certifying minority and women-owned businesses for most state agencies. It is required, by statute, to ensure that the preference for minority business firms obtained by the certification process are awarded only to those firms for which the benefit is intended. Petitioner, Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc., is a small business corporation registered in Florida on August 7, 1985. At the time of the original incorporation of the corporation, 1,000 shares of corporate stock were issued of the 7,000 shares authorized in the Articles of Incorporation. Of these, 510 were issued to John D. Richeson, the individual who, with his brother in the late 1970's, started the window cleaning business while a student in college as a means of supporting himself and, later, his wife and family. The remaining 490 shares were issued to Hope L. Richeson, his wife. The funds utilized to start the business and ultimately incorporate were jointly owned by Mr. and Mrs. Richeson. The Articles of Incorporation, as filed initially, list John D. Richeson as incorporator and registered agent, and John D. Richeson and Hope L. Richeson as the Initial Board of Directors. On January 1, 1986, an additional 500 shares of corporate stock was issued in her name to give her a total of 990 shares out of a total 1,500 shares issued and outstanding. Mrs. Richeson's percentage of ownership, after the issuance of the additional 500 shares, was 66 percent. Share certificates reflect this fact. No additional funds were contributed to the corporate assets by Mrs. Richeson as consideration for the issuance of those shares. Mrs. Richeson, currently the President of the company, attended Bible College in Kansas for three years, graduating in 1978. She moved to Florida in 1980 where she attended Hillsborough Community College (HCC), taking as many business education courses as she could in pursuit of an Associates Degree in Business. In addition to that, she has taken the Small Business Administration Class offered by the University of South Florida. She married John Richeson in 1982 and they have worked together in the window cleaning business since that time. After graduating from HCC Mrs. Richeson contacted a family friend, an attorney, for the purpose of incorporating the business. It was at this time she began to run the business. Without asking any questions about the division of duties or the responsibility for leadership in the business, the attorney drafted the incorporation papers making Mr. Richeson the president. Ms. Richeson took the position of vice-president. She admits she did not, at the time, understand the ramifications of that action. Had she known the importance of the title, she would not have acquiesced in having her husband made president. Even though Ms. Richeson was the de-facto head of the business from the time of its expansion from a one-man operation, John D. Richeson served as president of the corporation from inception up to January 1, 1996, when Hope L. Richeson was elected president. At the annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the corporation, held on December 20, 1995, attended by Mr. and Mrs. Richeson, the two directors, the Board recognized Mrs. Richeson's control over the operation of the business since its inception and made her president effective January 1, 1996, when Mr. Richeson, the incumbent, became vice- president Mrs. Richeson indicates, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that neither she nor her husband had any specific training in order to operate the business. What was most important was a general business sense and a knowledge, gained by reading trade periodicals and from experience, of specific window cleaning products. Most of the major business contracts obtained by Petitioner come from bids to government entities and corporations. Other than herself, several employees, namely those who were brought into the business because of their experience with large cleaning projects, evaluate prospective jobs and prepare proposals. This proposal is then brought to her for approval before it is submitted to the potential client. These individuals are her husband and the Van Buren brothers. Based on a job costing formula learned in school, Mrs. Richeson then evaluates the bid to determine if it is too low or too high. She determines if the company can do the job for the price quoted. In addition to bidding, Ms. Richeson claims to oversee every aspect of the business. These functions range from buying office supplies to costing jobs. No one but she has the authority to purchase supplies or equipment other than minor items in an emergency. She also supervises the finances of the operation, determining how earnings are to be distributed and how much corporate officers and employees are to receive as compensation. By her recollection, on several occasions, due to a shortage of liquid funds, she has waived her right to be paid for a particular work period. She claims not to have taken a withdrawal from the corporation for a year, but the corporation's payroll documents reflect otherwise. The salary of each employee is set by Mrs. Richeson. Employees are paid on a percentage of job income. Those employees who do the high-rise jobs receive 40 percent of the income from those jobs. From her experience in the business, this arrangement for paying washers works far better than paying a straight salary. On the other hand, office personnel are paid on an hourly basis. In the event the business were to be dissolved due to insolvency, Mrs. Richeson would lose her 66 percent stock interest in the corporation and her husband would lose his 34 percent interest. There are no other owners of the company, and no one other than the Richesons would bear any loss. Not only can no one but Mrs. Richeson make purchases for the company, even Mr. Richeson cannot sign company checks by himself nor can he pay bills or make any major business decisions. Only she has the authority to borrow money in the name of the corporation. This was not always the case, however. In 1994, Mr. Richeson purchased a new vehicle for the corporation, signing the finance arrangement as president of the company, but even then, Mrs. Richeson signed as co-buyer. Also, the 1994 unsigned lease agreement for the company's use of real property owned by the Richesons calls for Mr. Richeson to sign as president of the company. Mrs. Richeson is the only one in the company who has the authority to hire or fire employees. While she believes the company would go out of business if she were not the president, she also believes she would be able easily to hire someone to replace Mr. Richeson if he were to leave the company. These beliefs are confirmed and reiterated by Mr. Richeson who claims that his role in the company from its very beginning has been that of services rather than management. On August 14, 1995, Mrs. Richeson, who at the time owned 990 of 1,500 shares of corporate stock, filed an application for certification as a minority business enterprise. The application reflected Mrs. Richeson as the owner of a 66 percent interest in the corporation, but also reflected Mr. Richeson as president. This was before the change mentioned previously Melissa Leon reviewed this application as a certification office for the Commission in September 1995. She recommended denial of the application on several bases. The Articles of Incorporation submitted with the application reflect the Director of the corporation as John D. and Hope Richeson and list only John Richeson as incorporator in August 1985. The corporate detail record as maintained in the office of the Secretary of State also reflects the resident agent for the corporation is John Richeson. The corporation's 1993 and 1994 federal income tax returns show John Richeson as 100 percent owner. No minority ownership is indicated. Income tax returns are afforded great weight by the Commission staff in determining ownership. Though Mrs. Richeson claims to own the majority interest in the corporation in her application, the tax returns do not reflect this. In addition, the corporation payroll summaries for February 28, 1995, March 31, 1995 and April 30, 1995 all show John Richeson receiving more income from the business than did Hope Richeson. In the opinion of Ms. Leon, Mrs. Richeson's salary was not commensurate with her claimed ownership interest. The same records for the last three months of 1995 and through April 1996 reflect Mrs. Richeson as receiving more than Mr. Richeson, however. Other factors playing a role in Ms. Leon's determination of non- qualification include the fact that the purchase order for the truck reflected Mr. Richeson as president; the lease agreement shows him signing as president; the bank signature card reflects him as president in 1994 and the corporate detail record shows Mrs. Richeson as resident agent by change dated May 14, 1996, after the filing of the application. Upon receipt of the Petitioner's application, Ms. Leon reviewed the documents submitted therewith and did a telephone interview with Mrs. Richeson. Based on this information and consistent with the guidelines set out in the agency's rules governing certification, (60A-2, F.A.C.), she concluded that the application did not qualify for certification. Not only was the required 51 percent minority ownership not clearly established, she could not determine that the minority owner contributed funds toward the establishment of the business. Ms. Leon determined that the payroll records, reflecting that from February through April 1995, Mrs. Richeson drew less than Mr. Richeson, were not consistent with the same records for the period from October 1995 through April 1996, which reflected that Mrs. Richeson was now earning more than her husband. Further, the amount Mrs. Richeson earned constituted only 53.2 percent of the salary while her ownership interest was purportedly 66 percent. A further factor militating toward denial, in Ms. Leon's eyes, was the fact that there were only two directors. Since Mrs. Richeson was one of two, she could not control the Board, and minority directors do not make up a majority of the Board. While the documents played an important part in Ms. Leon's determination, the telephone interview was also important. Here Ms. Leon found what she felt were many inconsistencies between what was stated in the interview and Mrs. Richeson's testimony at hearing. Therefore, Ms. Leon concluded at the time of her review that the business was jointly owned and operated. It was not sufficiently controlled by the minority party, to qualify for certification. Nothing she heard at hearing would cause her to change her opinion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order denying Minority Business Enterprise status to Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5913 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the last sentence which is rejected as a legal conclusion. Accepted that she ran the operation. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as a restatement of the testimony of Mrs. Richeson and a generalized agreement with the comments made. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein, 11. - 12. Accepted. 13. - 14. Accepted. 15. - 17. Accepted. 18. - 19. Not proper Finding of Fact, but accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. 20. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 25. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contradicted by the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that until after the application was filed, Mr. Richeson was paid more than Mrs. Richeson, but the difference was not great. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not consistent with the evidence of record except for the allegation concerning Mr. Richeson's authority to sign corporate checks, which is accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam L. Sumpter, Esquire 2700 North Dale Mabry Avenue, Suite 208 Tampa, Florida 33607 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 303 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Commission, was the state agency responsible for the certification of Minority Business Enterprises in Florida. Petitioner, Computer Service, was founded by Ronald E. Willett in January, 1987. It is a computer maintenance and repair company of which Brenda Willett is currently President and Chairman of the Board and owner of a 51 percent share of the capital stock issued on December 15, 1993. Ronald E. Willett is the Executive Vice-president, a Director, and owner of a 49 percent share of the capital stock. Mr. Willett was the sole owner and Chairman of the Board until May, 1994, at which time he gave 51 percent of the stock to his wife, Ms. Willett, and the Board elected her Chairman. Ms. Willett has been in the data processing field for 13 years. Before she began working with the Petitioner, she was a computer programmer for the State Attorney's office. She uses computer software to help with managing the affairs of the company, but she is neither a programmer nor a technician. She does not do any repair work for the company because she is not trained to do it. Most of the repair work is done by her husband and two computer engineers employed by the company. A fifth employee works in the warehouse and repairs printers. Of the non-family employees, Ms. Willett interviewed one and hired another. Now she is responsible for all interviewing and hiring. Because of the technical nature of the work, however, she does the initial screening interview after which either Mr. Willett or one of the engineers evaluates the candidates' technical qualifications. She completes the evaluations of her employees' performance by relying on her customers to evaluate the employees' technical performance. In addition, she notes when an employee orders an inordinate amount of parts for a job instead of doing repair work because that generally indicates the employee is not performing properly. Ms. Willett is paid $1,500 every two weeks. Her husband is paid $6,500 per month, and each of the engineers is paid $40,000 per year. Ms. Willett is primarily in charge of the business administration. The inventory of repair parts is maintained at the company warehouse and at the various work sites where the company has contracts to maintain the equipment. Each repairman notifies her of the parts needed. She gets prices and orders the needed parts. The company does not have a line of credit with suppliers. Ms. Willett has, in the past, personally signed for a line of credit which was used for the company. The company presently owes $18,000 to a power supply company under a contract which she negotiated. For the past year, she has been the only company official to sign to commit the company on loans. In addition, Ms. Willett negotiates the company's contracts with customers and she works as a team with the engineers on pricing. The company works on a basis of 35 - 50 percent off IBM prices for similar service. Though her husband helps her decide on what machines the company can buy and repair, she would not need to replace him if he should retire. He is currently working only 18 -20 hours per week. The company submitted its application for minority business enterprise certification on April 18, 1994. Ms. Willett indicated she did not know about the program until it was mentioned to her by an instructor in a course she was taking, and she felt it would help her secure business. As a woman, she was finding it difficult to be taken seriously by the male business officers and managers she dealt with in soliciting business, and she understood that the minority certification would help her qualify for state contracts. The initial review of Petitioner's application was accomplished by Mr. DeLaO, who requested and received from Petitioner matters needed in clarification or amplification of the information contained in the application. Mr. DeLaO also conducted a telephone interview with Ms. Willett to determine how the business was operated and to reaffirm the accuracy of the documentation. Mr. DeLaO did not look elsewhere for information. Based on the information listed above, he recommended denial of the Petitioner's certification. Mr. DeLaO's recommendation was based on several factors, all of which are listed in the recommendation submitted in writing to his supervisor. The problems he found included: The risk of the minority owner, as weighed against the risk of the non-minority owner indicated Ms. Willett, who had received her shares as a gift, had no investment in the corporation to lose. Mr. DeLaO felt the risk of the minority owner should be greater than that of the non-minority owner. Risk was defined as the amount of investment capital put in to start the company or to purchase ownership. The minority owner's wages were not commen- surate with her percentage of ownership. Here, Mr. Willett, the non-minority owner, was making more than she was, as were both engineers. The Board of Governors of the corporation was not controlled by the minority owner. At the time of the review, only Mr. Willett was on the Board. Now that she is on the Board, she still does not control it because she one of only two Directors. Ms. Willett does not appear to have the technical expertise and capability to control the business of the company. She does not appear to have the technical education or experience to do the work of the company herself or to properly evaluate how her employees are performing it - computer repair. Her contribution appeared to be only administrative. Ms. Willett admits her ownership of the 51 percent of the shares of the company was a gift from her husband who felt she deserved it. She claims, however, that the initial cash infusion to the company, when it was first started, came from jointly owned funds utilized to purchase the necessary tools to start Mr. Willett in business. From that initial investment the corporation grew. It should be noted, however, that the actual transfer of stock ownership to Ms. Willett took place just four months prior to the filing of the application for certification, and Ms. Willett's election to the Board came in May, 1994, after the application was filed. The allegation regarding Ms. Willett's salary relative to that of her husband and two of the three other employees is correct. By the same token, the comments regarding her Board membership are also correct. In addition, it is clear her technical competence is insufficient to permit her to accomplish a majority of the computer repair functions completed by her employees. Whether she must be qualified to perform all tasks done by each employee is debatable. She must, however, have a general knowledge of the business which would make her supervision and management meaningful, and it is not at all clear she possesses either those skills or that knowledge. She is quite correct in her claim, however, that if she did not get the contracts, the workmen would have no work to do. Mr. DeLaO's supervisor, to whom his recommendation for denial of certification was addressed, on August 24, 1994 concurred with his recommendation and notified Ms. Willett, on behalf of the Petitioner, that the request for certification as an MBE was denied. The letter of denial contained the Commission's basis for denial.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order in this case denying Computer Service Concepts, Inc.'s request for certification as a minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda J. Willett, pro se Computer Service Concepts, Inc. 7616 Industrial Avenue, Suite 3 New Port Richey, Florida 34668 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Suite PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Crandall Jones Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building 2727 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 General Counsel Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building 2727 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated March 2, 1982, Respondent, Department of Transportation, advised Petitioner that its application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise was denied on the basis that it "[l]acks minority ownership and control." By letter dated March 9, 1982, Petitioner, in the person of its Vice President, Charles J. Cedeno, appealed the Respondent's denial. Pursuant to a notice of hearing dated April 1, 1982, issued by Hearing Officer Charles C. Adams, a hearing on the denial of certification of Petitioner was held on July 7, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner did not have a representative at that hearing, although based upon a representation from Respondent's counsel, Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., indicating the possibility that Petitioner was considering the possibility of requesting a continuance of the July 7, 1982, hearing, the matter was in fact continued by Hearing Officer Adams and rescheduled for hearing by service of a notice of hearing dated July 19, 1982, scheduling the matter for hearing on September 15, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. Copies of the notice of hearing were sent to the parties of record and there was no showing that the notice of hearing was returned as being undeliverable. As noted herein, Petitioner did not appear at the subject hearing herein nor was any communique received from Petitioner indicating that a continuance was being requested. During the hearing, counsel for Respondent made an ore tenus motion to dismiss the Petition on the ground of default as Petitioner failed to appear at the time and place noticed for hearing. That motion was granted by the undersigned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Department of Transportation, issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 28th day of September, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was incorporated on November 17, 1980, and, since that time, has been primarily engaged in the base work and asphalt paving business. James L. Sauder and his wife, Annette, were the incorporators of Petitioner and continue to serve as Petitioner's two directors. From the inception of the corporation through the present time, James Sauder has been Petitioner's president while Annette Sauder has filled the offices of both secretary and treasurer of Petitioner. Additionally, at all times material hereto, James Sauder has been the registered agent for the corporation. Initially, James Sauder drew a salary of $220 a week, while Annette Sauder received no salary for her work. Thereafter, the Sauders decided to declare Petitioner a "subchapter S. corporation" for income tax purposes. At the end of Petitioner's first and second years of operation, all of the undistributed shareholders' profit of the company was drawn out by James Sauder only. Petitioner's income tax returns for both 1981 and 1982 reflect that James Sauder is the stockholder, that he owns 170 shares of Petitioner's stock, and that he devotes all of his time to the business. Petitioner's bylaws describe the duties of the officers of the corporation and provide that: The President shall be the chief executive officer of the corporation, shall have general and active management of the business and affairs of the corporation subject to the directions of the Board of Directors, and shall preside at all meetings of the shareholders and Board of Directors. The bylaws further provide, in addition to some specific duties, that the secretary and the treasurer are also required to ". . . perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Board of Directors or the President." Accordingly, Petitioner's secretary and treasurer work under the supervision and control of the president. Petitioner's articles of incorporation authorize Petitioner to issue 250 shares of stock with a five-dollar par value. On August 20, 1980, Petitioner's stock certificate No. 1 was issued to James L. Sauder for 125 shares of Petitioner's stock. No shares were issued to Annette Sauder until March 1, 1983, when 70 shares of James Sauder's stock were transferred to her using Petitioner's stock certificate No. 2. At the same time, an additional 55 shares of stock were issued to James L. Sauder using Petitioner's stock certificate No. 3. Accordingly, James Sauder owns 110 shares of Petitioner's stock, while Annette Sauder owns only 70 shares of Petitioner's stock. The occupational license issued to Petitioner by the City of Key West, Florida, for the 1982-83 year lists James L. Sauder as the owner of Petitioner. Decisions as to hiring and firing, the purchase and/or financing of equipment and other personalty, the jobs on which bids will be submitted and the amounts of bids, the supervision of Petitioner's employees, and even actual paving work are duties performed by both James and Annette Sauder. Although operating Petitioner's business appears to be a joint effort on the part of both James and Annette Sauder, it is clear that the ultimate decision maker, as well as chief executive officer, is James Sauder. In addition to testifying primarily using the word "we," the following is illustrative of the testimony given by Annette Sauder as to whether she or her husband controls the operation of Petitioner: (Tr. 72.) Q. If your husband told you that he didn't want a piece of equipment, but you wanted it, would you go out and get it? A. Not unless I wanted a divorce, I don't think I would. On November 28, 1983, Respondent denied Petitioner's application to be certified as a Minority Business Enterprise.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise and, specifically, Women's Business Enterprise. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 23rd day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Sutton, Esquire 7721 South West 62nd Avenue, First Floor South Miami, Florida 33143 Mark A. Linsky, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
The Issue Whether the Respondent properly rejected the Petitioner's bid for Board of Regents (BOR) project 658 because it did not comply with the good faith effort requirements of the General and Special Conditions of the project's specifications?
Findings Of Fact Call for Bids was issued by the Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, for Board of Regents ("BOR") project numbered 658, Southeast Campus Building - Davie at Broward Community College Central Campus, in Florida Administrative Weekly. (Stipulated). The Project Manual is the volume assembled which includes the bidding requirements, sample forms, and Conditions of the Contract and Specifications (Jt. Ex. 1 at pp. 8 of 106 pages). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that at least fifteen (15) percent of the project contracted amount will be expended with minority business enterprises (MBE) certified by the Department of General Services as set forth under the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. If fifteen percent were not obtainable, the State University System would recognize good faith efforts by the bidder (Jt. Ex. 2). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that the bidder be advised to review the Good Faith Efforts requirements in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual immediately, in order to schedule the necessary tasks to accomplish Good Faith Efforts. The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that all bidders must be qualified at the time of their bid proposal in accordance with the Instruction to Bidders, Article B-2. The Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2 at page 9 of the Project Manual, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides in pertinent part, that in order to be eligible to submit a Bid Proposal, a bidder must meet any special requirements set forth in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-23 at page 16 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the contract will be awarded by the Respondent for projects of $500,000 or more, to the lowest qualified and responsible bidder, provided the bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Respondent to accept it. The award of the contract is subject to the demonstration of "good faith effort" by any bidder whose Bid Proposal proposes less than fifteen (15) percent participation in the contract by MBEs (Minority Business Enterprise). Demonstrated "good faith effort" is set forth in the Special Conditions. The contract award will be made to that responsible bidder submitting the low responsive aggregate bid within the preestablished construction budget. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-25 at page 17, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes requires the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The Respondent/Owner has adopted a program for the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The application of that program is set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26 at page 17 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26, at page 15 provides that falsification of any entry made on a bidder's proposal will be deemed a material irregularity and will be grounds for rejection. The Project Manual, Special Conditions, Article 1, subparagraph 1.1.1, at page I-1 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that the SUS has established a Construction Minority Business Enterprise Program in compliance with the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. The expenditure of at least fifteen (15) percent of the Base Bid with certified MBEs is a requirement of this contract, unless Good Faith Effort, as identified in paragraph 1.7 can be demonstrated by the Bidder. MBEs not certified by Department of General Services will be deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, and evidence of Good Faith Effort in lieu thereof will be required as identified in subparagraph 1.1.2 and paragraph 1-7 of these Special Conditions. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article I, subparagraph 1.1.2 at page I-2 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that evidence of good faith efforts will be required as specified by the Respondent/Owner within two working days after the opening of bids. Incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of paragraph 1.7 of the Special Conditions shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the Bidder. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article 1, paragraph 1.6 at page I-3 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1) states that MBE's participating in the State University System Minority Construction Program must be certified as a MBE by the Florida Department of General Services (hereinafter referred to as DGS) at the time of bid submittal. Certification identifies and limits the Specialty Area of business the MBE can perform and still qualify as a certified MBE. Therefore, the trade service listed on the Proposal for each of the MBEs must be within the scope of the Specialty Area. The bidder is required to ascertain that a listed MBE is certified by the DGS in the appropriate specialty area to perform the services for which it is listed. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-15, at p. 13). On January 17, 1992, Petitioner, Centex-Rooney Consturction Company, Intervenor, State Paving Corporation, and ten other bidders submitted bids on BOR Construction Project No. BR-658. After review of the bids and preparation of the bid tabulatio it was announced by FAU that Centex-Rooney was the apparent low bidder, but that Centex-Rooney had failed to meet the fifteen percent (15%) MBE participation requirement, and therefore, would be required to submit evidence of Good Faith Efforts within two days. The bid submitted by Centex-Rooney listed four (4) subcontractors which Centex-Rooney represented as DGS certified MBE firms, for a total of $867,000 which was 9.56% of the base bid of $9,067,000. (Stipulated). Since the bid submitted by Centex-Rooney was less than fifteen (15) percent required participation in the contract by MBEs, the University Planning Office requested that Centex-Rooney submit documentation to demonstrate "good faith effort" as set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney timely submitted its good faith documentation on January 22, 1992. (Stipulated). The Board of Regents with representatives of Centex-Rooney on February 25, 1992 to give Petitioner an opportunity to clarity and submit any additional good faith evidence in support of its bid. After reviewing the additional evidence, the Respondent contended that Centex-Rooney was in non-compliance with paragraphs 1.1.1 and 1.6.1 of the Special Conditions of the Project Manual, requiring at least 15% participation by MBEs at the time of bid opening, and at least one good faith effort criteria, paragraph 1.7.4, Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney was informed of the Board of Regents decision to reject its bid for non-compliance with Respondent's MBE requirements, and on March 6, 1992, the Chancellor of the Florida Board of Regents awarded the contract to State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). ^ The Board notified by letter dated March 6, 1992, all bidders of its award of contract for BR-658 project to the next lowest responsive bidder, State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest on March 10, 1992. (Stipulated). On March 19, 1992, Petitioner timely filed its Petition for Formal Written Protest for BR-658. (Stipulated). A representative from Centex-Rooney attended the pre-bid/pre- solicitation meeting. (Jt. Ex. 10, R-115, 116). The minority business enterprise program was discussed and the Board of Regents' requirements for good faith efforts were reviewed. (R-116, 117, 131). Centex-Rooney submitted its bid proposal on January 17, 1992. (Jt. Ex. 13). On page 2, paragraph c., of the bid proposed form submitted by Centex- Rooney, it provides that expenditure with minority business enterprises shall be consistent with the requirements of Article 1. of the Special Conditions, Minority Business Enterprise Requirements. Centex-Rooney listed four subcontractors on its List of Subcontractors and MBE participation form as DGS certified MBEs for a total of 9.56% participation (Jt. Ex. 13, Jt. Ex. 31). The List of Subcontractors form is an integral part of the proposal (Jt. Ex. 13, List of Subcontractors Form page 1) and it is required of all bidders that MBEs must be certified at the time of bid opening for bona fide participation. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-3 of I-26 pages, R-163, 174). Two of the four subcontractors listed by Centex-Rooney, Quality Concrete and S&S Roofing, were not DGS certified MBEs at the time of bid submittal. (R-19, 150, 163, 164, 174). Therefore, the two non-DGS certified subcontractors were deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, so that the total DGS certified MBE participation of Centex-Rooney at the time of bid submittal was 5%. (Jt. Ex. 1, Spec. Conditions 1.1.1, page I-1, Jt. Ex. 13, R-19, 150, 163-4, 174). Therefore, Centex-Rooney was required to show a good faith effort to engage MBE's. See Paragraph 16 above. Ms. Patricia Jackson, MBE Coordinator for Respondent, testified that requiring the DGS certified MBEs to be named at the time of bid opening makes the contract bidding procedures consistent, and eliminates any unfair price differentials between contractors. (R-151). Centex-Rooney was pressed for time in responding to the bid. It called a large number of the MBEs listed the documentation provided, and wrote letters to those subcontractors who expressed an interest and to other subcontractors. Mr. Charles Federico was chairman of the MBE advisory committee at Florida Atlantic University (Jt. Ex. 6, R-115). The committee reviewed the good faith efforts submitted by Petitioner (Jt. Ex. 6, 25, R-115, 140). The good faith effort submittal to FAU from Centex-Rooney contained nine sections (Jt. Ex. 25) with the following consecutive headings: Pre-Bid Meeting Attendance, Advertisements for MBE Participation, Solicitation Letter to Minority Businesses, Follow-Up Contacts to Minority Businesses, Selected Items (or portions) of Work for Minority Businesses, Specific Project Bidding Information made available to Minority Businesses, Utilization of Minority Businesses in Bid, Solicitation of Available Minority Organizations to Recruit Minority Businesses, and a Table of Contents. Under the third heading in Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, Solicitation Letters to Minority Businesses, Petitioner provided 55 form letters in his submittal to FAU and a bulletin. The text of each form letter provided the following: Centex-Rooney is bidding as general contractor on the Southeast Campus Building for FAU and BCC, Central Campus, Davie, FL and invites your firm to submit a quotation for the materials and/or labor on any portion of said project which falls within your scope of work. Please review the attached notices with respect to pertinent information pertaining to the bid. If your firm will be unable to submit a bid on the project, please state your reasons on the enclosed unavailability certificate form, sign and return to the Office of C-R. By doing this, it will help maintain an active MBE directory at Centex-Rooney and continue to indulge you on our bid list. Centex-Rooney encourages that participation of MBE contractors will be more than happy to answer your questions regarding this project. Under the section heading, Follow-up Contracts to Minority Businesses, for Petitioner's good faith submittal to FAU Petitioner included a 14 page log gridded with subcontractor/ vendor names, telephone numbers, MBE designation, will bid, bid submitted, low bid, date contacted and remark sections. The FAU MBE advisory committee found Petitioner in non-compliance with 1.7.3, 1.7.4, 1.7.7 and 1.7.8 of the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual that contains the good faith efforts requirements of Respondent. (Jt. Ex. 6, Jt. Ex. 12). The committee based its findings on the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. (R-119). The committee found non-compliance with 1.7.3 because the 55 form letters submitted by Petitioner were dated January 9, 1992. The committee determined that a letter dated January 9 was too late to give MBEs time to respond to the January 17 bid opening date. (R.121). In regard to 1.7.4, the committee found the Petitioner in non- compliance because no follow-up letters, telegrams, or meetings notes were provided in the good faith documentation. (R-122, 124). Mr. Federico testified that the committee found non-compliance with 1.7.7 of the Good Faith Effort requirements (R-125, 126) and 1.7.8. (R-126, 127). The advisory committee determination was sent to the Vice-President of Administration and Finance at FAU, Ms. Marie McDemmond. (R-128). The University President recommended award of the contract to Centex- Rooney. (Jt. Ex. 2, R-129). The University President is not authorized to award Board of Regents contracts. The Board of Regents awards contracts for projects of $500,000 or more. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-23, at page 16). Centex-Rooney could not utilize the two additional subcontractors, Kings Plumbing and Eagle Electric Distributors, because they were not listed on the Subcontractor/MBE form submitted by Centex-Rooney at the time of bid opening. (R-129, 130, 131). The University reconsidered its recommendation (Jt. Ex. 29), and subsequently recommended State Paving for award. (Jt. Ex. 32). The Handbook distributed by FAU at the pre-bid/pre-solicitation meeting contains a disclaimer which states that it is not intended to replace or supplement any information in the Project Manual or conditions for contract award (R-31, 132). State Paving met and exceeded the 15% MBE participation requirements for BR-65 (Jt. Ex. 14, R-20). Centex-Rooney's bid plus three alternatives was $9,590,000, and State Paving's bid plus three alternates was 9,592,500, so that the two bidders were $2,500 apart. (Jt. Ex. 7). At least seven of the twelve bidders on BR-658 met the 15% MBE participation goal (R-19). The FAU committee has reviewed many bids and has had several that met good faith efforts and several where the low bidders had met 15% MBE goal. (R- 117, 142). Ms. Jackson received a telephone call from Centex-Rooney regarding the FAU advisory committee's determination of non-compliance. (R-149). Ms. Jackson contacted Mr. Federico and reviewed the bid proposal and good faith efforts of Centex-Rooney on behalf of the Board of Regents. (R-148, 149). Ms. Jackson reviewed Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts as submitted to FAU and found non-compliance with 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions in the Project Manual for BR-658. (R-149). The Special Conditions of the Project Manual at page I-5 for 1.7.4, provide that the State University System requires that a bidder shall make no less than one written follow-up contact per initial contact. In the event a positive response is obtained, the Bidder shall request, in writing, a meeting between the MBE and Bidder's staff. The documentation required in the Special Conditions for 1.7.4 are copies of letters, telegrams and/or meeting rates. Ms. Jackson testified that the telephone log submitted by Centex-Rooney to document compliance with 1.7.4 did not meet the Special Conditions requirements because it was not a letter nor a telegram or a meeting note. (R-149). Nor did the telephone log reflect one written follow-up per initial contact as required by the University implementation of 1.7.4 in the Special Conditions (R-149, 157). Ms. Jackson contacted Centex-Rooney by phone and informed it of her finding that Centex-Rooney's reversal of the telephone calls and letters did not conform to the requirements of 1.7.4. (R-152). Thereafter, a meeting was arranged between Ms. Jackson and other BOR staff to provide Centex-Rooney an opportunity to provide supplemental evidence of good faith effort. (R-152). The Special Conditions section, at I-2, paragraph 1.1.2 provides that incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of Paragraph 1.7 (good faith requirements) shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the Owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the bidder. (R- 152). Centex-Rooney supplemented its submittal with 55 form letters dated January 24, 1992. These form letters were not considered satisfactory by Respondent as a written follow-up to each initial contact or to meet any other requirements in 1.7.4 because the letters were dated after the date of the bid opening. (Jt. Ex. 27, R-157, 158). Pursuant to Centex-Rooney's request at the February 25, 1992 meeting, Ms. Jackson again reviewed the company's documentation of its good faith efforts, evaluating the January 9, 1992 letters originally submitted as documentation for 1.7.4, as documentation for 1.7.3, and evaluating the telephone log, originally submitted as documentation of follow-up contact for 1.7.4 as initial solicitation documentation for 1.7.3. (R-153, 154). Considering Centex-Rooney's efforts in their best light, it was still determined by BOR that Centex-Rooney was not in compliance with 1.7.4. because there was no initial written contact and no written follow-up for each positive response. The telephone log is deemed to be analogous to meeting notes; however, the documentation viewed most favorably for Petitioner does not meet the written requirements of the Special Conditions which cannot be waived. (R- 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171). Two spread sheets were provided to BOR as supplemental documentation (Jt. Ex. 26). The Summary (Jt. Ex. 37) and other spread sheets (Jt. Ex. 36) were not provided to FAU by Centex-Rooney nor to Respondent in its subsequent review or as part of its option to permit supplementary documentation for good faith compliance. (R-55, 70, 71). Petitioner did not obtain the 15% MBE participation for BR 658. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.1.1 of the Special Conditions. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-1). Two of the MBEs listed by Petitioner with its bid proposal were not certified by DGS at the time of bid submittal. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.6.1. (Jt. Ex. 2, I-3). The telephone log submitted by Petitioner was insufficient as required documentation. Petitioner did not meet the good faith efforts requirement set out in 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions (Jt. Ex. 2, page I-4). (R-175, Jt. Ex. 28, 29). The telephone log, as presented by Centex-Rooney was not a copy of a letter, a telegram or a meeting note. The telephone contact did not constitute a written follow-up contact per initial contact as required by the Special Conditions, nor did it suffice as a request in writing for a meeting between the MBE and bidder's staff if a positive response was obtained from an MBE. (R-149, 157). Conversely, as proposed by Petitioner, the telephone contact was not acceptable under the terms of the Special Conditions as an initial notice under 1.7.3 because the contact was not by letter as required. Also, there was not a letter for each initial telephone contact, and the January 9 letters did not request meetings with those MBEs who responded positively, nor did the letters provide evidence of any meeting notes. (R-157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Centex-Rooney's bid for project BR-658 was properly rejected by the Respondent, and that the Board of Regents may proceed with its award of the contract to the Intervenor, State Paving. DONE and ENTERED this day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of May, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-2272BID Board of Regent's proposed findings were read and considered. The findings of the BOR were adopted except for Paragraph 22 which was deemed a conclusion of law. State Pavings' proposed findings were read and considered. The following list indicated which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: 1 through 3. Adopted. Was not specifically adopted, but is correct and is subsumed in other findings. Subsumed in other findings. Rejected that Centex-Rooney "freely admits" their bid failed to meet 15% requirement, a contrary to the evidence. Subsumed Paragraphs 32, 33 and 34. Subsumed Paragraphs 44, 45, 46 and 47. Subsumed Paragraph 50. Subsumed Paragraph 29 re documentation. Comments re Mr. Hamlin are argument and rejected. Rejected in part a restatement of statutes and law, and subsumed in other findings. Adopted that Centex-Rooney complied with 1.7.1, 1.7.2, and failed to comply with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. Centex-Rooney did comply with 1.7.5 and 1.7.6 and 1.7.8. To the extent that the evidence in this case did not show Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, 1.7.7 was not proven. Rejected as argument. Subsumed Paragraph 35. Subsumed Paragraphs 39 and 41. Rejected as argument. Subsumed in Paragraphs 55, 56 and 57. Rejected as conclusion of law. The Petitioner's proposed findings were read and considered. The following list which of the findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. Paragraphs 1 through 11. Adopted. Adopted, Paragraph 23. True; adopted in part in Paragraph and in Paragraphs 23 and 28. 14 and 15. Rejected as irrelevant. True, subsumed in Paragraph 28. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32 and 46. True, but irrelevant. There was no allegation that Centex-Rooney failed to advertise. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28 and 33. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32, 48 and 52. True but irrelevant because Centex-Rooney had fewer than 15%. True but irrelevant. Subsumed in various paragraphs. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35. True subsumed in Paragraphs 36 and 37. Subsumed in Paragraphs 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51. Irrelevant because it does not establish compliance with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. BOR properly rejected this evidence which was presented after the bid opening. Copies furnished: Charles B. Reed, Chancellor Florida Board of Regents State University System 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 James E. Glass, Esquire 6161 Blue Lagoon Dr., Suite 350 Miami, FL 33126 Jane Mostoller, Esquire 325 W. Gaines St., Suite 1522 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 J. Victor Barrios, Esquire 1026 Ease Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact Wanda Forbess is an American woman. She is the president of the Petitioner corporation, Center Office Products, Inc. She owns 5l percent of that corporation's outstanding stock. The stock is full voting stock and there are no agreements in existence or anticipated which would cause any change in the percentage of ownership of Wanda Forbess, nor any change in the voting power of her stock. The Petitioner corporation and Wanda Forbess has no affiliation or relationship with any other business and Wanda Forbess is not an employee of any other business. The net worth of the Petitioner as of the date of hearing is less than one million dollars. It has also been stipulated that the Petitioner, that is, Wanda Forbess, has been performing a useful business function and operating the Petitioner's business since 1981. Wanda Forbess is the mother of Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess and the wife of Thomas D. Forbess. In 1981 her children were almost out of school, with her youngest child being about to enter college. She decided she wanted to start her own business. She had been active as a homemaker, a volunteer and active member of civic organizations. She decided to enter the office supply retail business in 1981 because of the low initial investment required due to the presence of two wholesale suppliers in Jacksonville who could supply goods for inventory on a rapid basis. She also chose to enter this business because there were no particular special skills, training or licenses required and because she knew something about it, since her husband worked for twenty-five years in one phase of the business, that of sales of paper products. This decision being made, Ms. Forbess approached her sons, Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess, to persuade them to enter into the business with her. They agreed to join her in the venture and she set about to form the Petitioner corporation. She desired to incorporate in order to limit the liability which she and her sons would be exposed to in operating the business. She retained an attorney to incorporate the business, but paid no particular attention herself concerning how the shares were to be issued and held or as to the manner of appointment of the members of the board of the directors. She simply followed her attorney's instructions who advised her to do the "standard type" of incorporation. The corporation estab- lished by her attorney provided, in its by-laws, that there would be three directors. Wanda, Ray and Thomas Forbess were each named as directors since they were the only three individuals involved with the Petitioner at its formation. The attorney also issued stock certificates for 200 shares each to the three directors. Wanda Forbess was appointed as president and chief executive officer of the Petitioner corporation. This was because the formation of the business and the company was Mrs. Forbess' idea and she had provided more than five times the amount of capital of each of the other two owners, her sons. In fact, she had provided $11,000 of her own money as initial capital and her two sons provided $2,000 each. Notwithstanding their equal ownership status and the equal vote each of the three has on the Board of Directors, as well as the requirement in the bylaws that a majority vote of the Board is controlling, Mrs. Forbess has been in control of the Petitioner corporation's operations from the day of its inception. Her sons do not question that control and established the fact of it in their own testimony at the hearing. The vice- president is Raymond D. Forbess and the secretary treasurer is Thomas J. Forbess. The bylaws provide that the property and business of the corporation is managed by its Board of Directors and that a majority of those directors shall be necessary and sufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The act of the majority of the directors present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be deemed to be the act of the board. It is also provided in the bylaws that the holders of the majority of shares of stock may remove a director at any time, with or without cause, at a duly called meeting. The president of the Petitioner is empowered to call such a meeting at any time. Any vacancy occurring as a result of removal of any director by the majority shareholders may be filled by the affirmative vote of the majority of remaining directors, even if less than a quorum shall be present. Directors are not required to be shareholders. Therefore, as a holder of 51 percent of the shares of the Petitioner, Wanda Forbess has control over the board of directors by the power to elect or remove any director by voting shares accordingly at a meeting which she may call at any time, with or without notice, as the president of the Petitioner corporation. Replacement directors could then be appointed by her vote alone and could be any person she elects, including, for example, an employee over who she has authority and who she may direct to vote a certain way. In any event, from 1981 through 1987, the Petitioner grew from a company with three employees to a company of 18 employees and more than $280,000 gross monthly sales. During this time, the Petitioner enjoyed some State of Florida contract business. Some time in 1987, Mrs. Forbess became aware that she would soon be unable to continue doing business with the state because her business was not a certified minority business enterprise. In fact, however, the Petitioner had been, from its inception, an American woman-controlled corporation in actual practice. On June 1, 1987, Mrs. Forbess directed her sons to convey sufficient stock to her so that she could become a 51 percent shareholder of the Petitioner corporation. This transfer was done to comply with section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, concerning the definition of "minority business enterprise." It was also done to formally reflect what had been the case, as a practical matter, since the inception of the corporation: that Wanda Forbess controlled the Petitioner corporation. The company by that time had significant value reflected in the value of its stock, but neither son required payment for his stock which he conveyed to Mrs. Forbess. They considered that she was the controlling owner of the corporation from its inception anyway due to the fact that the business was her idea and that she had contributed by far the most significant amount of initial capital. Mrs. Forbess spends a majority of her time conducting the financial affairs of the Petitioner. She is more familiar and more involved with the financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation then any other owner, officer, director or employee. In that capacity, she sets all the salaries, including the salaries of her sons and her husband. All salaries are set completely at the discretion of Mrs. Forbess and always have been. She pays her two sons and her husband a higher salary than she pays herself because their financial requirements are greater, but the salient point here is that she is the manager with the discretion to set their salaries. In 1985, after the Petitioner had been operating successfully for four years, Thomas J. Forbess, the husband of Mrs. Forbess, retired from his position with Jim Walter Paper Company after 25 years of employment with that firm. Prior to that time he had no involvement with the formation, operation or management of the Petitioner corporation. He has never had an ownership interest in the Petitioner. He is an employee of the corporation and assists in some of the operations, including preparation and submittal of bids for some of the work the corporation undertakes. Mrs. Forbess controls the purchase of goods, equipment and business inventory and services used and needed in the day- to-day operation of the business. She frequently purchases significant items used in the business, such as computers, trucks, and postage machines, as well as inventory. In addition to this, the major purchases made by the business by any co-owner or employee must be made only with her approval. Evidence was offered showing the lease agreements and notes evidencing that corporate debts related to large purchases were signed by all corporate officers as a basis for an attempt to show that decisions are made by "consensus" or are joint decisions. However, the fact that lenders and lessors require all corporate officers to sign documents evidencing leases or debts does not mean each corporate officer had an equal part to play in making the decision involved. The record is replete with evidence and testimony from employees and the other owners that Wanda Forbess has a veto power on all decisions concerning purchases, loans, leases of real property and every other major business decision the Petitioner confronts. Further, the fact that discussions are had amongst the owners and officers of the business prior to making major decisions is really a sound business practice and does not mean that one of the owners, directors or officers does not have final authority to make a binding decision. The person who has final authority for such major decisions is Wanda Forbess. Mrs. Forbess also has the authority to hire and dismiss employees, a requirement of subsection 3(b) of Rule 13-8.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. She herself has interviewed employees from time to time and also has final authority to approve all hiring and discharge decisions or to veto them in those instances where she has delegated that authority. She controls which professional services are obtained by the Petitioner corporation, as shown by her decision to discontinue the services of the former company accountant. Indeed, she has delegated some of the hiring processes, given the fact that the Petitioner corporation has grown to be a business with 18 employees. That however, is a normal, acceptable business decision. The delegation of the advertising of a position, the interviewing of prospective employees and the conveying of offers of employment to prospective employees in no way indicates that the delegator does not have the final authority to hire or dismiss the employees. Wanda Forbess also controls all financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation. She thus has unsurpassed knowledge in relation to the other owners, officers and directors, of the financial structure and operations of the business. In fact, the bulk of her time spent working for the Petitioner, corporation since its inception, has been in the field of financial matters. She makes the decisions concerning debt to be incurred by the Petitioner, and approves any major expenditure, without which approval expenditures may not be made. It is significant that Mrs. Forbess has veto authority over the extension of credit to customers and establishment of credit accounts by customers. One instance was described by Jeannine Silcox and Raymond Forbess concerning Raymond Forbess' attempt to open an account to service a particular customer on a credit basis. Mrs. Forbess opposed that procedure and ordered that the account not be opened. The account was not opened. This demonstrates effectively that not only does Mrs. Forbess control the financial affairs of the company, but also wields ultimate authority amongst the co-owners of the Petitioner. Additionally, it is undisputed that Mrs. Forbess writes the vast majority of checks on the Petitioner's two checking accounts, in terms of the requirement, at subsection 3(D) of the above-cited rule, that she control the accounts of the business. She estimates that she writes 97 percent of the checks and there is no evidence to refute that estimate. Thomas J. and Raymond B. Forbess are each authorized signatories on the accounts, but their names are simply there as a matter of convenience and the only instances in which they sign checks are when there is an immediate need for the check to be paid and Mrs. Forbess is unavailable to sign herself. There is no question that Mrs. Forbess is the ultimate authority controlling the Petitioner's bank accounts. In order to comply with subsection 3(e) of the above cited rule, the minority owner must demonstrate capability, knowledge and experience in making decisions concerning the business involved. At the time of the business's inception, neither Mrs. Forbess nor her co-owner sons had the capability, knowledge or experience required to make many of the decisions concerning the retail office supply retail business. Over seven years of operation however, Mrs. Forbess has actively supervised and managed the business of the Petitioner and has developed to a high degree those attributes, in making decisions involved in operating that business successfully. She has delegated certain aspects of the company's business to the supervision of her sons. Thomas J. Forbess, for example, is involved in developing additional retail operations. Raymond B. Forbess is more actively involved in the delivery of merchandise to customers and the monitoring of customer accounts, as well as maintaining and accounting for inventory. Nonetheless, neither of the other owners effects any significant decisions without consulting Mrs. Forbess first and gaining her approval or veto. Through this supervision and control over the past seven years, as well as her current direct involvement in managing the Petitioner's affairs, Mrs. Forbess has developed the capability, knowledge and experience required to make decisions regarding the office supply business involved herein. Her operational and managerial capabilities are demonstrated by the fact that under her leadership the business started with three employees and has grown to an 18 employee business with gross sales in the neighborhood of $280,000 per month in just over seven years. Finally, Mrs. Forbess has displayed independence and initiative in conducting all major operations and details of the Petitioner since its inception, (as required by subsection (f) of the above rule). Although she has done little bid negotiating directly, she has the ability to do so and has some experience in that activity. Further, bid proposals are submitted to her for approval and are not made without her knowledge and assent. Further, she herself negotiates leases and other contracts on behalf of the Petitioner.
