Findings Of Fact Petitioner obtained bid specifications and submitted the lowest bid on Department of Transportation project No. 12075-3408 to construct rest station facilities on the I-75 in Lee County. The specifications established a goal of 15 percent of the subcontracts be let to Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (Exhibit 1). If the successful bidder failed to meet this goal, he must show a good faith effort to meet the goal was made else his bid would be deemed non-responsive and rejected. Rules 14-78.01 through 14-78.09, Florida Administrative Code, which became effective in June, 1984, were the controlling regulations at the time the bids for the project were solicited. These rules eliminate the former classification of Minority Business Enterprises comprised of minorities and women and replaces it with a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and a Women's Business Enterprise (WBE) classifications. In the instant contract a goal was established only for DBE. Actions to be taken by the bidder to meet these goals were contained in the bid package, as were the criteria by which the bidder's good faith efforts to meets these goals would be evaluated by DOT. The bid specifications required the contractor, if he failed to meet the DBE goal established, to submit all documentation to support his claim that a good faith effort had been made. With his bid Petitioner submitted only a list of 28 subcontractors from whom it had solicited bids, of which 6 were WBEs. That list showed the date request for bid was sent by certified mail by Petitioner, the date return receipt was received, whether a bid was received, and date back-up phone call was made. That document showed three listed companies submitted bids. DBE/WBE utilization form No. 1 (Exhibit 1) submitted by Petitioner showed no bids were received. Petitioner explained this discrepancy at the hearing, that he had rejected the three bids received because they were more than one percent higher than the bid submitted by another subcontractor. Documentation of this fact did not accompany Petitioner's bid. Upon receipt of Petitioner's bid showing no DBE subcontractor, the bid was submitted to the Good Faith Effort Committee at DOT to evaluate the information contained in the bid to determine if Petitioner had submitted documentation to support his good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal. That committee found Petitioner had not provided adequate documentation of its efforts and recommended the bid be declared non-responsive (Exhibit 8). Prior to Rules 14-78.01 through 14-78.09, Florida Administrative Code, becoming effective in June 1984, the rules allowed the contractor an additional ten days after bid opening to submit evidence that good faith efforts had been made to meet DBE goals. After June 1984 all documentation of good faith efforts are required to be submitted with the bid where DBE goals are not met. In the event the DBE goal is not met by the contractor in his bid submission, the bid specifications (Exhibit 1) require the contractor to submit sufficient information to demonstrate he made good faith efforts to meet the goal. Those bid specifications further list nine items the Department will consider in evaluating the contractor's good faith efforts. These include submitting written notice by certified mail to all certified DBEs which perform the type work which the contractor intends to subcontract; whether the contractor selected economically feasible portions of the work to be done by DBEs; whether the contractor provided assistance to DBEs in reviewing plans and specifications; whether DBE goals were met by other bidders; whether contractor submits all quotations received from DBEs and, for those not accepted, an explanation of why not; whether contractor assisted DBEs in obtaining required bonding, lines of credit or insurance; whether contractor elected to subcontract types of work meeting capabilities of DBEs; whether contractor's efforts were merely proforma; and whether contractor has, on other contracts within the past six months, utilized DBEs. A list of certified DBEs is contained in Exhibit 7, which was available to Petitioner. Therein are listed many DBEs other than those on the list submitted by Petitioner with his bid. At the hearing return receipts for certified mail soliciting bids from DBEs by Petitioner were admitted into evidence, over objection, as Exhibit 3. Since the rules require all documentation of good faith efforts be submitted with the bid, that exhibit is not relevant. However, that exhibit clearly shows all certified DBEs were not solicited by Petitioner. Of those nine items Petitioner was notified would be considered by the Department in evaluating his good faith efforts to obtain the DBE goal, the evidence submitted with Petitioner's bid showed compliance with none. This gas the first bid submitted by Petitioner to Respondent. Other bidders met the DBE goals and the bid was awarded to the second low bidder.
Findings Of Fact On April 5, 1985, the Department issued its Request for Proposal (RFP) for "Community Care for Disabled Adults - Home Delivered Meals/Homemaker Services." By May 16, 1985, the deadline established in the RFP, four proposals had been filed with the Department. A review committee consisting of three Department employees, James Gibson, Betty Gunter, and Aimee Lurkins, reviewed the proposals and rated each response, numerically, in accordance with the rating sheet which had been included in the RFP. The combined scores of the reviewers resulted in the bidders being ranked as follows: Visiting Nurse Association - 259 points Health Force of Broward - 212 points Professional Care, Inc. - 170 points Accredited Medical Services - 137 points Cathy D'Heron, contract manager for the program, reviewed the four proposals, as well as the committee's evaluations, and concurred that VNA was the most responsible bidder. Accordingly, the Department posted its recommended award of the bid to VNA. Petitioner filed a timely protest to the award. Petitioner contends that VNA's proposal was not responsive to the RFP and that the Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously in evaluating and awarding the bid. Petitioner's first contention is without merit. The evidence establishes that VNA's proposal was responsive to the RFP. Petitioner's second contention is equally without merit. The gravamen of Petitioner's charge is its disagreement with the points awarded by two members of the review committee. However, the record is devoid of any proof that the committee's evaluation was anything short of well reasoned and appropriate. Significantly, Petitioner concurs with Mr. Gibson's evaluation. Mr. Gibson awarded VNA 82 points and Petitioner 64 points.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Transportation (DOT), should award State Project No. 89030-3528 to The Cone Corporation, notwithstanding the bid protest filed by the Petitioner, The Murphy Construction Co., alleging that its bid was responsive and lower than The Cone Corporation's bid or, in the alternative, if its bid was nonresponsive, that The Cone Corporation's bid also was nonresponsive, and that the project should be re-bid. 1/
Findings Of Fact State Project No. 89030-3528 (the project) is for work on SR Bridge No. 890941 over Warner Creek in Martin County. The DOT solicited bids for the work and established December 5, 1990, as the deadline for submission of bids. The DOT established, as its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for the project, a goal of ten percent participation by DBEs. The Petitioner, The Murphy Construction Co., submitted a bid for the work in the amount of $1,026,222.96. It was the apparent second lowest bid. The Tom Quinn Company, Inc., was the apparent low bidder, at $846,216.87, but it did not meet the ten percent DBE goal and did not demonstrate good faith efforts to achieve the goal. The next lowest bidder, after the Petitioner, was The Cone Corporation's bid of $1,083,672.95. There was one other bidder. The Petitioner asserted that $110,360, or 10.75%, of the work would be done by DBEs. The Petitioner alleged in its bid that $26,571 worth of DBE work would be done by Advance Barricades & Signing, Inc. (Advance Barricades). The Petitioner's DBE Utilization Form for Advance Barricades & Signing, Inc., identified the DBE by name but left blank the parts of the form designated "Item No." and "Description (note if item qualifies for SUPPLIER)". As a matter of agency policy, the DOT has required that the portion of the form designated as "Description (note if item qualifies for SUPPLIER)" be completed. A description of the work to be performed by the DBE has been considered essential. The DOT has required the description of the work to be performed by the DBE because: first, the DOT interprets the applicable rules to require it; and, second, because the purpose of the rule and policy is to enable the DOT's Minority Programs Office to monitor the performance of the contract to be sure that the representation as to DBE participation is carried out--i.e., not only that the representation as to the percentage of DBE work is met but also that the DBE does the work the contractor represents that the DBE will do. Monitoring is significant because it can prevent the bidder, if successful, from trying to take advantage of the DBE by asking the DBE to do work that the DBE is not prepared or equipped to do or by asking the DBE to do more work for the money than contemplated by the DBE at the time of the bid. It also can insure that bidders will not, in essence, pay a DBE for doing nothing. Although the Petitioner's DBE Utilization Form gave the name of the DBE, it did not purport to describe the work the DBE was going to do. Although listing the name Advance Barricades and Signing, Inc., identified some of the work Advance Barricades does, it did not identify all of the work Advance Barricades does and, more importantly, did not identify the work the Petitioner was proposing that Advance Barricades was to do on the project in question. The DOT could have assumed what work Advance Barricades would do for the Petitioner, but it could not effectively monitor based on the assumption. Sometimes a DBE subcontractor will complete and sign the DBE Utilization Form for the bidder. Sometimes, the DBE will telephone the bidder with its price, and the bidder will complete the form. In the latter case, if the form is completed, the DOT Good Faith Efforts Committee will, as a matter of policy, telephone the DBE to confirm the information. In this case, Advance Barricades provided the Petitioner with a written price for the work, but the Petitioner itself prepared and submitted a form for inclusion in its bid on the project and did not include Advance Barricades's written price. Because the Petitioner left blank the parts of the form designated "Item No." and "Description (note if item qualifies for SUPPLIER)", the Good Faith Efforts Committee did not telephone Advance Barricades to confirm or supplement the information submitted by the Petitioner with its bid. The Cone Corporation's bid also included the representation that Advance Barricades would be doing work on the job that would qualify towards the DBE goal. Under the part of the form designated "Description (note if item qualifies for SUPPLIER)," The Cone Corporation stated, "SEE ATTACHED." Attached to the form was a proposal from Advance Barricades giving specific item numbers and descriptions of temporary barricades and signing, advance warning arrow panels, flashing lights, temporary pavement markings, and special detour signing to be furnished at a price of $20,805.45. In this case, The Cone Corporation's bid included a copy of the Advance Barricades proposal, which provided an adequate description, including item numbers, of the work Advance Barricades would do for The Cone Corporation. Despite the reasons for the DOT policy described in the preceding finding, the DOT has slipped into a practice of not requiring that the portion of the DBE Utilization Form designated "Item No." be completed. In addition, one-word generalizations--such as "pipe" or "trucking"--in the part of the form designated "Description (note if item qualifies for SUPPLIER)"are accepted by the DOT even though they may be insufficient to enable the DOT's Minority Programs Office to determine what kind of pipe or trucking is meant. Indeed, the DOT would have accepted description "barricades and signing" in the Petitioner's case. But these descriptions are inadequate to serve the purpose of the rule that the DBE work be described in the bid documents. For example, the word "pipe," without item numbers, does not identify the type or quantity of pipe to be provided. Indeed, the DOT's DBE Utilization Form gives evidence that more of a description initially was contemplated by the DOT. The form provides a space designated "Item No." In addition, the part of the form provided for the description of the DBE work also states: "(note if item qualifies for SUPPLIER)." (Emphasis added.) The form infers that the description will include the item number. Otherwise, it would be very difficult, and in some cases impossible, for the Minority Programs Office to effectively monitor the progress of construction. In this case, The Cone Corporation's bid included a copy of the Advance Barricades proposal, which provided an adequate description, including item numbers, of the work Advance Barricades would do for The Cone Corporation. But its DBE Utilization Form for H.S. Thompson described $85,702 worth of DBE work as "concrete, rebar and pipe." Under the column marked "Item No.," The Cone Corporation put, "various." If H.S. Thompson were going to do all of the "concrete, rebar and pipe" on the project, it would have been doing more like $540,000 worth of work for The Cone Corporation. Like the Petitioner's DBE Utilization Form for Advance Barricades, the H.S. Thompson form was inadequate to serve the monitoring purposes of the DOT's policy. The DOT now is in the process of considering whether to amend its rules, perhaps to provide that all proposed DBE participation be confirmed by telephone in order to avoid outcomes like the one its Good Faith Efforts Committee, Technical Review Committee, and Contract Awards Committee recommended in this case--the rejection of a bid as nonresponsive in favor of a higher bid that proposes a smaller percentage of DBE participation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Transportation, enter a final order rejecting all bids on State Project No. 46090-3511. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1991.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case was whether Petitioner, F & M Concrete Company, Inc., should be recertified as a disadvantaged business enterprise, pursuant to Chapter 14-78, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, F & M Concrete Company, Inc., was a bridge and culvert construction company doing business in the State of Florida with principal offices in Plant City. Respondent, Department of Transportation, is the state agency responsible for certifying minority and disadvantaged business enterprises for bid award purposes with the Department. Prior to February 3, 1988, the Petitioner had been certified by the Department as a minority business enterprise, (women owned). Petitioner's stock is owned as follows: Jaretha Fletcher,. 43.3% Kathleen Fletcher,. 33.0% Jennifer Fletcher Prado,......21.67%, and Vesta Thomas,. 2.0%. All of the above, with the exception of Ms. Thomas, the retired bookkeeper, are members of the Fletcher family. Kathleen is W. Eddie Fletcher's mother, Jaretha is his wife, and Jennifer Fletcher Prado, is his sister. W. Eddie Fletcher is the President of F & M Concrete Company, Inc., and Chief Operating Officer. Kathleen Fletcher is Chairman of the Board of Directors. For approximately 15 years prior to the last 2 years, the stock owned by Jaretha Fletcher was owned in joint tenancy with W. Eddie Fletcher. Approximately 2 years ago, the ownership was transferred to Jaretha Fletcher alone. There is no evidence as to the consideration for that transfer. Mr. Fletcher claims he is not his wife's heir, and will not inherit her stock should she predecease him. Kathleen Fletcher, Mr. Fletcher's mother, has had tuberculosis for many years, and is incapable of taking a substantial, active part in the business. However, she comes to the office approximately once a week, and speaks with Jaretha by phone periodically. Jaretha is employed in the corporate office in a training capacity. Jennifer Fletcher Prado works for the Hillsborough County Road Department as an inspector, and in the course of her travels about the county, periodically sees Petitioner's crews at work. Though she does not interfere with or become involved in the supervision of those crews, if she sees something that causes her to question the crew's performance, she will phone Mr. Fletcher and demand an explanation. This is the extent of her participation in the operation of the business with the exception of serving as a member of the Board of Directors. When she retires from her position with the county, because of her experience, she will be eligible to work with Petitioner corporation but would have to spend some time gaining experience in the contracting end of the business before she could assume any managerial position. On November 1, 1988, Jaretha Fletcher, as Assistant Secretary of F & M Concrete Company, Inc., submitted the corporation's application for DBE certification. The application indicates that the firm was established in September, 1956, and is engaged in the business of building bridges, concrete pavements, curbs, sea walls, storm drainage systems, and culverts. It has 35 full time employees, of whom 57% are minority, and it serves the geographical areas incorporating numerous counties in the central part of the state. The firm is 100% woman owned in that the four individuals mentioned above own 100% of the 100 shares of stock authorized and issued. The firm is managed by a President, Vice President, Assistant Secretary, and Secretary-Treasurer. W. Eddie Fletcher is President. W. Randall Fletcher is Vice President. Jaretha Fletcher is Assistant Secretary, and Dori M. Keeler is Secretary- Treasurer. The Board of Directors is made up of the three Fletcher women. W. Eddie Fletcher received a salary of $33,800.00 in 1987; W. Randall Fletcher received $28,600.00; Dori Keeler received $20,800.00; Kathleen Fletcher received $13,520.00; Jaretha Fletcher received $7,800.00, and David L. Cox, General Manager, received $28,600.00. Question 18 of the application for recertification reflects that policy making and financial decisions are made by Kathleen Fletcher as Chairman of the Board, Jaretha Fletcher, and Jennifer Prado. Management personnel are hired and fired by the Board. Hourly personnel are hired and fired by Mr. Cox and the four job foremen. At question 19 of the application, Petitioner indicates that any decision to bid on a job is made by W. Eddie Fletcher as President and Jaretha Fletcher as Assistant Secretary. Since Mrs. Fletcher is currently serving the corporation as a trainee, her contribution to the decision making process must be minimal. Job estimating is done by W. Eddie Fletcher and David Cox. Purchases of equipment are approved by the Board upon the recommendation of W. Eddie Fletcher. Supervision of field operations is accomplished by Mr. Cox. Jaretha Fletcher, as Assistant Secretary, along with Randall Fletcher, shop foreman and Vice President; W. Eddie Fletcher, President; and Dori M. Keeler, Secretary-Treasurer, all sign the payroll checks. The application was mailed to the Department by certified package delivery on November 1, 1988 and was received by it on November 2, 1988. This was 94 days before the Petitioner's then current certification expired. On December 2, 1988, the Department mailed a letter to the Petitioner requesting additional information. This was 31 days after the date of receipt of the application, which exceeds the rule period of 30 days or requesting additional information. However, Petitioner responded to the request on December 7, 1988, one day after receipt. The additional information requested by the Department was forwarded to it by Petitioner on December 21, 1988, with the exception of two forms that had to be procured from the Department of State. After all the requested information was submitted, the Department set up an onsite review of the Petitioner's operation. According to Petitioner, though the rule governing MBE certification requires that the Department conduct the on- site review within 60 days of receipt of application, it was not done in this case until the 98th day after the application was submitted. The rule also states that approval or denial must be announced within a 90 day period from application. This was not done here until March 14, 1989, when Mr. Pete Davis, DBE Certification Coordinator for the Department, notified the Petitioner by certified mail that its application had been denied. Since the application was submitted on November 1, 1988 and received on November 2, 1988, March 14, 1989 terminates a period of 132 days from the date of receipt of application. Mr. Donnie Alford, an engineer, works for the Department's construction office and is a member of the DBE Certification Committee which considered Petitioner's application. This committee, which consists of three voting members and one nonvoting member, reviewed Petitioner's file. The application was reviewed by all committee members before a vote was taken and Mr. Alford, as a voting member, considered all the information in the file including such items as gross receipts, ownership, directorship, the officers, their salaries, the ethnic status and span of control of the ownership and other personnel, and all other matters mandated for consideration by Rule 14-78 F.A.C. Mr. Alford noted that Jaretha Fletcher, the majority stockholder, was paid the smallest salary of any salaried employee. This indicates to him that the rule in question, which dictates that salary should be consistent with ownership and job responsibility, was not followed. The committee also examined the resumes of the officers and directors with a view toward minority owners. Mr. Alford noted that prior to 1986, two years before the application in question, Mrs. Jaretha Fletcher had been a housewife, and he was concerned that her background did not qualify her to make business decisions. According to Mr. Fletcher, Jaretha signs all checks issued by the corporation though she does not prepare them. She has worked on the preparation of at least one bid. She has acted as signatory for insurance policies covering the operation of the business. She was a personal guarantor on the last capital loan taken out by the business. In addition, the company has developed a computer program which would enable Jaretha to prepare bids on all curb related projects. This, has not yet been implemented, and absent a showing of how much independent judgement and authority she would exercise, by itself, it is not particularly probative of anything. She is also assuming more responsibility in the bidding process though she is not yet qualified to prepare a bid. She has learned to take company owned equipment charges and the daily reports received from the field foremen to prepare reports for the comptroller. She works with the comptroller in determining who of the various business creditors get paid at any given time, and she has begun to serve as a liaison between the corporation and the various contractors who utilize its services. Further, she is in training to use the computer to prepare the weekly payroll. On the other hand, Jaretha is not qualified to go into the field by herself as a supervisor and by her own admission, is "afraid to drive outside the Plant City area." She works in the office daily from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM except on those days when she has to be with her children. There is substantial evidence to indicate that the participation in business control and operation by Kathleen Fletcher and Jennifer Fletcher Prado is minimal, other than as members of the Board. The Board of Directors' primary function is to set policy for the operation of the Petitioner's business. The business is operated by W. Eddie Fletcher who is employed by the Board as President. He makes the day to day business decisions and decides what matters should be taken to the Board for ratification and approval. It is quite clear from the evidence as presented and all the permissible inferences and presumptions which may be drawn therefrom, that the operation and control of F & M Concrete Company, Inc., is exercised by W. Eddie Fletcher, and the Board of Directors does what he requests of it and provides what he asks. There is evidence, for example, that though the Board must provide for the purchase of major equipment, it "gives approval for whatever Eddie wants." In fact, two contracts, introduced by Respondent, which were prepared and executed by Petitioner with others in the operation of its business, for substantial sums and major projects, failed to reveal the signature or participation of any of the minority owners. All execution was accomplished by W. Eddie Fletcher on behalf of the corporation. After considering all the available information, the Department's committee voted to deny Petitioner recertification. The vote of the committee is not, however, binding on the Director of Administration who has final discretion to approve or disapprove the application for certification. Here the application for recertification was disapproved primarily because it was evident to the committee members and the Director of Administration, that the minority owners did not exercise the requisite amount of control over the operation of the business required under the intent and language of the rule governing minority business enterprise certification. The Department does not claim that the arrangement between the minority owners of the Petitioner corporation and Mr. Fletcher is in any way inappropriate or improper, nor does it deny that Jaretha Fletcher is now learning to participate in the operate in the operation of the business. However, the degree of control over the day to day operations of the business by the minority ownership, notwithstanding the propriety of the delegation of management to Mr. Fletcher, is not sufficient to qualify Petitioner as a minority owned business enterprise. Rule 14-78, F.A.C., allows management to be contracted out, but it does not allow delegation of the policy making function. Here, the committee and the Director of Administration concluded, and it is so found, that the owners of F & M Concrete Company, Inc. did not exercise sufficient control over the business to qualify it for certification. It is abundantly clear from the evidence adduced at the hearing, that Mr. Fletcher is, in fact, F & M Concrete Company, Inc. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that he is closely related by blood and marriage to the three principal owners; that prior to 1987 he owned 43.3% of the stock in the corporation jointly with Jaretha; that none of the principal owners other than Jaretha participate in the decision making process except as members of the Board; and that the Board does not engage in operating the business. Bids are not approved by the Board and operating decisions are within the exclusive province of the management team headed by Mr. Fletcher. Notwithstanding that the terms of the employment agreement between Mr. Fletcher and the Board provide that it may be terminated by the Board at any time for cause, from a pragmatic standpoint, with the Board's makeup being so closely related to Mr. Fletcher, the likelihood of this happening is remote. Instead, it becomes abundantly clear that the attempt to divest Mr. Fletcher from ownership of the corporation and demonstrate a bona fide minority owned and operated business enterprise is in form only and a sham and while the organization is in no way illegal or improper, it is not, in reality, a minority operated business so as to qualify for certification as such.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, F & M Concrete Company, Inc.'s application for recertification as a disadvantaged business enterprise be denied. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of December, 1989, 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 7th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11.-13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17.&18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19.-21. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Eddie Fletcher President F & M Concrete Company, Inc. Post Office Box 938 Plant City, Florida 34289-0938 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel DOT 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 K.N. Henderson, P.E. Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Ruth B. Dillard, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is a formal protest by Sovran Construction Company, Inc. regarding the Florida Board of Regents' intent to award to Indus Construction Company a contract for construction of the student union building at the University of Central Florida. The protest is based on Petitioner's allegation that Indus Construction Company's bid should be rejected as non-responsive for failure to meet minority business enterprise (MBE) participation or good faith effort requirements.
Findings Of Fact These facts stipulated by the parties in their prehearing statement filed on March 5, 1993, are adopted here: A Call For Bids was issued by the Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, for Board of Regents ("BR") project numbered 452, University of Central Florida, Student Union Building, in Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 18, No. 44, October 30, 1992. A pre-solicitation/pre-bid meeting was held on November 17, 1992, at 2:00 p.m. at the University of Central Florida. Gregory Toepp and Shahid Nassir from Indus Construction, and Chuck Adair from Sovran Construction attended the meeting. Sealed bids were received on December 1, 1992, at which time they were publicly opened and read aloud. A total of ten construction contractors submitted bid proposals to the University of Central Florida for BR-452. Indus Construction Company was the low apparent bidder, at base bid plus alternates 1 and 2, for a total of $8,265,000.00. Sovran Construction Company was the second low apparent bidder, at base bid plus alternates 1 and 2, for a total of $8,310,900.00. The monetary difference between Indus Construction and Sovran Construction bids for BR-452 is $45,900.00. Indus Construction did not meet the 15% minority business participation requirement for BR-452. Indus did not have any minority business participation at the time of bid opening. Indus Construction timely submitted its good faith efforts documentation to the University of Central Florida on December 31, 1992. The University of Central Florida MBE Advisory Committee reviewed the Indus good faith effort documentation and determined compliance. The University of Central Florida recommended award of the contract for BR-452 to Indus Construction as the low responsive bidder. The Florida Board of Regents reviewed the recommendation of University of Central Florida and the good faith efforts submittal of Indus, concurred with the University, and awarded the contract to Indus Construction Company. The Board of Regents notified by letter dated 1/20/93, all bidders of its award of contract for BR-452 to Indus Construction. Petitioner, Sovran Construction timely filed a notice of protest on January 21, 1993. On January 29, 1993 Petitioner timely filed its Formal Written Protest and Request for Formal Administrative Hearing. In addition, these facts are found from the evidence presented at hearing: The bidding requirements, sample forms, contract conditions and specifications for state project no. BR-452 are compiled in a two-volume project manual. (Joint Exhibit #2) The manual provides: The expenditure of at least 15 percent of the Base Bid with certified Minority Business Enterprises is a requirement of this contract, unless Good Faith Effort, as identified in Paragraph 1-7 can be demonstrated by the Bidder. (Joint Ex. #2, p. I-1.) Of the ten bidders, three met or exceeded the 15 percent MBE goal. Seven failed the goal. Two, Indus and the third lowest bidder, had 0 percent participation; Sovran's bid reflected 14.5 percent participation. Over the last fiscal year the Board of Regents has awarded 21 competitive bid projects; 11 actually had full MBE participation and 10 met good faith effort requirements. Zero MBE participation does not disqualify a bidder so long as good faith effort is established. Good faith effort is described in paragraph 1-7 of the project manual described above. Paragraph 1-7 is broken into several sub-parts specifying eight statutory elements and the implementation and documentation required by the Board of Regents for each of the eight elements. 1/ The good faith documentation from Indus contained a copy of the pre- bid solicitation meeting sign in sheet which indicated that Shahid Nassir, president of Indus attended the meeting on November 17, 1992. At that meeting, representatives from the University of Central Florida discussed the Board of Regents MBE program, handed out instructions and pointed out the requirements of the project manual. The meeting participants were given a packet with the MBE check list, a list of certified MBE's, and a list of minority organizations. Indus immediately placed notices in the Orlando Sentinel and Orlando Times (a minority newspaper) inviting MBE's to participate in their bid on the project. On November 17, 1992 Indus sent letters to the entire list of certified MBE's (over 200) soliciting their participation. Those letters state the project title and number, the bid opening deadline, the places where the specifications or plans may be viewed, and a phone number for inquiries and address for bid submittals. The letters also provide these scopes of work for the project: Clearing Paving Irrigation Cabinets Str/MiscSteel Earthwork Painting Electrical HVAC Alum/Glass Plumbing Carpentry Masonry Roof Trusses Doors/Frames Utilities Flooring Specialties Landscaping Concrete Work Tile Thermal and Moisture Protection Studs/Drywall (Joint Ex. 15) Follow up letters were sent to the same full list of MBE's by Indus on November 23, 1992. In addition to the letters to individual MBE's, similar letters were sent to eight minority business development organizations in the central Florida area and in Tallahassee. Between November 20 and November 30, 1992, Indus received telephone calls or letters from thirteen MBE's stating that they would not be bidding on the project. Three positive responses were received on November 30, 1992, two by telephone message and one by letter. Shahid Nassir spoke to each by telephone, briefly, on November 30, stating generally that Indus would be happy to accept their bids and wishing them good luck. The three sub-contractors did not ask for a meeting nor did Mr. Nassir suggest one at the time of the telephone conversation. Rather, he sent letters dated November 30 to each, inviting them to meet to go over the plans and specifications and answer questions. Since bid opening was December 1st, the following day, typically a hectic, busy time for contractors assembling last minute quotes for their bid submittals, the letters inviting a meeting were a meaningless formality. Indus received approximately eleven responses from MBE's on bid day, quoting figures for various parts of the projects. No MBE quote was low on any scope of work and none was incorporated by Indus in the bid it submitted at the bid deadline. Indus prepared a spread sheet describing the MBE bids received and an explanation why each was rejected, with the low quote included. Evidence of each step in the MBE solicitation process and its rejection of quotes was submitted by Indus to the University of Central Florida. The university's MBE Advisory Committee reviewed Indus' documentation and recommended that the Board of Regents find good faith effort compliance. Patricia Jackson, Projects Administrator with the Board of Regents, a ten-year veteran of the Board of Regents' MBE program, performed her independent review of Indus' documentation. She concurred that the good faith efforts complied with the criteria in the project manual and she recommended award to Indus as the low bidder for the project. In particular, Ms. Jackson considered that Indus properly had a breakdown of scope of work when it sent notice letters to all of the MBE's selected by the university in various categories of work, and it also included a breakdown of scope in its solicitation letter. Ms. Jackson did not have a problem with the fact that the letters suggesting a meeting were mailed one day before bid opening because Indus was contacted by the three MBE's at the last minute, and there was no time left. She did not expect Indus to "negotiate" better quotations from the MBE's as the agency discourages what it terms "bid shopping". That is, the agency expects that an MBE quotation will be rejected if it is not the low quotation. It discourages the practice of approaching an MBE with another firm's lower bid and giving the MBE an opportunity to go lower. As Indus' president, Shahid Nassir, explained, the practice of soliciting a lower bid from an MBE, or giving the MBE the last opportunity to make a lower bid, is considered favoring one subcontractor over another with the negative effect of assuring higher bids from these subcontractors on the next project. That is, when a contractor is known to "shop the number", subcontractors either stop bidding to that contractor or they bid high with the anticipation that they will have to cut their numbers later. The "negotiation" requirement of the statute is not, therefore, interpreted by the Board of Regents to mean negotiation on price. The university staff and the Board of Regents conducted separate thorough reviews of Indus' good faith efforts and reasonably determined that it met the requirements of the MBE program. Although it is always preferable to achieve MBE participation in construction projects, and, even though one step in Indus' process (the letters inviting a meeting) was merely pro forma, there is no evidence in this proceeding that the Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily or illegally in determining the bid should be awarded to the lowest bidder, Indus.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED That the petition of Sovran Construction Company, Inc. be dismissed and a final order entered awarding the bid in project BR-452 to Indus Construction Company, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 7th day of May, 1993.
Findings Of Fact At some point in late 1984 or early 1985, Respondent, DOT, solicited bids for its Project Number 77030-3510 to be accomplished in Seminole County, Florida. Three bids were submitted. The bid by Petitioner, Macasphalt, was in the amount of $186,367.05. The two other bidders were Martin Paving Company, whose bid was for $196,391.99 and Orlando Paving whose bid was in the amount of $213,054.56. Petitioner's bid was the lowest by approximately $10,000.00. This particular project required the contractors to meet certain goals in the area of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (WBE). The goals for this project were 7% for DBE and 3.05% for WBE. In its bid, Macasphalt showed that it would award 20.14% of the contract to DBE's but only 2.01% of the contract to WBE's. Martin Paving Company, on the other hand, whose bid was approximately $10,000.00 higher, indicated that it would award 19.19% of the contract to DBE's and 3.04% of the contract to WBE's. Orlando Paving, which was the highest bidder, showed 2.4% WBE. As a result of the fact that Petitioner failed to achieve 3% WBE, whereas the second lowest bidder exceeded the 3% WBE goal, Respondent declared Petitioner's bid nonresponsive for failure to meet the WBE goal and recommended award of the contract to the second lowest bidder, Martin Paving, even though Martin's bid was approximately $10,000.00 higher. The goals set by DOT must be met at the time of letting of the contract. If a contractor cannot meet these goals, he must submit satisfactory evidence of his good faith efforts to meet them in order to be considered responsive. In regard to the goals, DOT issues a monthly list of certified DBE/WBE contractors listed by the type of work they are qualified to do and the geographical area in which they operate. According to Mr. LaLonde, Macasphalt routinely sent out letters to a majority of the subcontractors they feel could do the work generally and a follow-up letter is sent monthly to those subcontractors who do the type of work needed in a particular contract. These letters are sent monthly because Macasphalt bids frequently on DOT contracts and bid lettings are done on a monthly basis. This procedure gives, they feel, DBE's and WBE's information on jobs on which the Petitioner is bidding and keeps them informed. In the instant case, to solicit WBE's, on January 9, 1985 Petitioner sent out letters by certified mail to 47 DBE/WBE's requesting bids on several projects including the one in question here and naming areas in which it anticipated issuing subcontracts. Items to be subcontracted on the instant project included. barricades and signs guard rails landscaping painting and striping trucking, and concrete. No solicitation was made of DBE/WBE's for quotes on asphalt work because that is Petitioner's prime business and it is, in the opinion of its officers, not feasible to subcontract work they do themselves. When it became obvious that Petitioner could not achieve the 3.05% WBE goal, Petitioner, pursuant to the terms of the contract documents, submitted a summary of its good faith efforts to achieve the WBE goals with the contract bid. The Petitioner's summary of good faith effort includes a "remarks" sheet on which the following comments exclusively are made: "We have exceeded DBE goal with a total of 20.14%. However, have only attained 2.01% FBE goal. All subcontract items except guardrail were reflected in DBE or FBE quotes received. No DBE or FBE quote was received for guardrail item." In addition, Petitioner submitted a form letter entitled, "Good Faith Efforts" apparently used in numerous contracts, which requires only the insertion of two numbers and two dates and copies of two different letters in blank sent to subcontractors on apparently a routine basis. In addition to the above, Petitioner submitted two copies of DOT's DBE/WBE Directory, one dated September, 1984 and the other dated January, 1985 in which various subcontractors are identified with check marks, the explanation for which is contained in the form letter referenced above. No explanation was made as to why some WBE's were not solicited. Upon receipt of Petitioner's bid with the good faith explanation included, it was submitted to Respondent's Good Faith Efforts Review Committee. This committee deals only with an analysis of the good faith efforts made by bidders. It has been in operation since its creation in August, 1984 and applies the standards established in Rule 14-78, F.A.C. Here, the committee evaluated Petitioner's good faith effort as outlined in the material submitted with the bid and, based on Petitioner's submission, concluded that Petitioner was non-responsive because its good faith efforts, as documented, were insufficient. The committee based its conclusion on the following considerations: Petitioner did not meet the seven day requirement for notice by certified mail. The sample letter indicated "certified mail" but no copies of receipt showing it was sent by certified mail or to whom it was sent by certified mail were included. All potential subcontractors (WBE's) were not contacted. The ability of the contractor to do the work himself "asphalt) will not justify failing to achieve the goal. Whether or not other bidders met the goal. The remarks sheet was inaccurate and inadequate. The explanation about failing to solicit from those subcontractors who did not do business in Seminole County is inconsistent. Some were solicited and some were not. One contractor (Fran) who operates in three categories and who works statewide, was not solicited by the Petitioner in any category. The criteria as set forth in Rule 14-78 are not exclusive or necessarily determinative. There is no specific definition of good faith efforts. The committee is given the latitude to make a judgment measure of the bidder's efforts opposed to the criteria set forth in the rule. Mr. Pitchford, Chairman of the committee, indicated that after the committee had been in operation for a while, the approach taken toward looking at the criteria set forth in the rule was more strictly and severely applied. No notice of this change in approach was set to any bidder, however Petitioner contends that this was misleading and that it submitted them on a previous successful demonstration of good faith efforts. In October, 1984 it submitted a bid on a contract which did not meet the DBE goal. Nonetheless, the evidence of good faith which it submitted at that time was not questioned and Petitioner was awarded the contract. This good faith information was the same kind of information as submitted here which was considered inadequate. No documentation to support any of this was forthcoming, however. Since each case must be taken and considered on its own merits, even if true, this is not necessarily inconsistent. Petitioner readily admits that it did not submit requests for bids to al; DBE/WBE subcontractors in the directory. However, it does claim that for the most part, it submitted solicitations to every WBE listed in the directory that worked in the specialty needed and in the geographical area of the project. Petitioner defends its exclusion of potential subcontractors on the basis that, for example, they had no experience with those subcontractors and were not familiar with them. In most cases, Petitioner left out companies that were not known to it. Mr. LaLonde could not be sure whether Petitioner solicited any potential subcontractor not solicited by Petitioner previously. He is certain, however, that Petitioner did solicit all subcontractors on the list who had been solicited previously. In any event, it is important to the Petitioner to know the subcontractors and how they perform because Petitioner, as the prime contractor, is responsible for the work whether it or its subcontractor accomplishes it. It is for this reason, the lack of familiarity with a subcontractor and its performance, that it did not solicit some WBE's which operate statewide. Petitioner has used many WBE's before and has never failed, it claims, to meet WBE goals prior to this occasion. It has previously failed to meet DBE goals, however, but still was awarded the contract if it was the low bidder. It is apparent, then, that if the above is true, Petitioner's demonstrated good faith efforts were considered satisfactory on those occasions. Based on that experience, Petitioner felt that the procedures used here which it claims had previously been demonstrated to be satisfactory, were again sufficient. It is significant to note that while the fact of the bid submissions reflects a difference of approximately $10,000.00 between Petitioner's bid and that submitted by the next lowest bidder, a computer analysis run on this solicitation reflects a different figure. On the computer analysis, Martin Paving's bid is listed at slightly over $203,000.00 as opposed to the bid face of slightly over $196,000.00. If the $203,000.00 figure is used, the 3.05% goal would not be met. This discrepancy was explained by Mr. Haverty who indicated that the initial figure submitted by the contractor on the bid form is used to assess whether the DBE/WBE goals are met. The issue of good faith effort is raised at a later date. Where, as here, it is determined that the original price is in error and the actual price means that the bidder has failed to meet the goal, if the error is less than 10%, the bid may still be considered responsive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's bid on State Project Number 77030-3510, in Seminole County, Florida, be rejected as non-responsive for failure to meet the WBE goal. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 20th day of June, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Miller, Esquire Tower Place, Suite 600 3340 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30326 Larry D. Scott Staff Attorney Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent is guilty of obtaining a real estate license by means of misrepresentation or concealment by failing to disclose a plea to a charged crime in her past, in alleged violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the state of Florida charged with licensing and regulating the entry into practice and the practice of real estate sales. Including within its responsibility is the duty to prosecute administrative complaints for alleged violations by licenses of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and related rules. Respondent, Patricia D. Mackovic, at all times pertinent hereto, has been a licensed Florida real estate salesperson. She was issued license number 0640501 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in the later part of 1996. On or about January 25, 1984, the Respondent plead nolo contendre to a charge involving welfare fraud (failure to disclose a material fact). She was ordered to pay restitution and placed on probation for two years by the circuit court of Escambia County, Florida, but adjudication was withheld. As a result of her discussions with the prosecution in that case and the welfare case worker involved, she was of the belief that she had mistakenly obtained welfare benefits that she was not entitled to (apparently because her income was higher than the relevant limit). She was of the belief that the matter was ultimately dismissed and that, upon paying restitution nothing else remained of the charges. She had a genuine, good faith belief that there was not actually a conviction. She also believed at the time, based upon her reading of the judge's order and discussing the matter with her attorney and the prosecutor, that the record involved in the matter would be under seal in any event. On or about July 18, 1996, the Respondent submitted an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson to the Petitioner agency. When she applied for that license she was asked on the application form whether she had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty or entered a plea of nolo contendre, even if adjudication was withheld. If she answered in the affirmative, she was required to attach an explanation of the circumstances and facts. The question applies to any violation of law without regard to whether the applicant for licensure had been placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, was paroled or pardoned. The Respondent responded "no" to this question. She signed the certification at the end of the application, swearing that all answers and information contained in the application were true, correct and complete. Respondent remembered being arrested at 6:30 a.m., by two sheriff's deputies, finger-printed concerning the above charge and going to court. She remembers entering a discussion with the judge and ultimately pleading nolo contendre and being given two years of probation, making restitution of the disputed amount of money concerning the subject welfare payments. The Respondent believed the matter had been dismissed and that it did not constitute a conviction on her record at the time she answered the subject question on the application for licensure. The Respondent believed at the time she answered the question that the charge against her had been dismissed as a consequence of her serving probation (which was shortened by the judge to less than two years), and as a consequence of her making restitution of the moneys involved. The language of the judge's order supports her in that belief to the extent that the judge recites that the "ends of justice and the welfare of society, do not require that you should presently be adjudged guilty and suffer the penalty authorized by law. . .". The Respondent testified that she now understood that question nine required disclosure of a conviction, an "adjudication withheld" or a plea, including a plea of nolo contendre. She had answered in the negative, however, because, at the time she answered the question, she believed, based upon the language in the judge's order, her discussion with the judge and her efforts to have the matter resolved after the initial hearing, which resulted in the probation time being reduced, that the matter had been dismissed on the basis of her restitution and serving the reduced probationary period. Thus she had an honest belief at the time she answered the question that she had not been convicted. Because she had an honest belief at the time, even if mistaken, that she had answered the question accurately, she cannot be determined to have committed a fraudulent act or representation, or an act of misrepresentation or concealment in order to obtain her real estate license. In making this factual finding, the undersigned has observed the Respondent's candor, demeanor, and apparent contrition in describing the incident and circumstances involved. The undersigned determines her version of events to be credible and that she never intended to falsely answer the subject question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that that Administrative Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Mackovic 5796 Utica Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32507 Ghunise Coaxum, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite N-308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1999. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32302-1900
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is required by state and federal law to ensure that a certain percentage of funds available for construction, design and consulting service contracts be provided as opportunity for utilization by small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (DBEs). DBE contract goals are established by the DOT for each construction contract. Every bidder must submit a form to the DOT which either documents compliance with the DBE contract goal or, if compliance is not met, must provide sufficient information to demonstrate that good faith efforts were made by the bidder to meet the goal. Prior to June of 1984, it was the practice of the DOT to allow contractors ten days after the bid letting to correct their DBE forms or to submit their good faith effort documentation. After holding numerous workshops throughout the State, the DOT amended its rules relating to participation by disadvantaged business entities. As pertinent to this proceeding, the amendment requires that all DBE documentation be submitted at the time of the submission of the bid proposal. Bidders are notified that: ".... Failure to satisfy these requirements shall result in a contractor's bid being deemed nonresponsive and the bid being rejected." Rule 14-78.03(2)(b)4, Florida Administrative Code. This rule became effective on May 23, 1984. All prequalified bidders were mailed a copy of the rule amendments prior to their effective date. Petitioner received a copy of the new rule prior to May 23, 1984. By notice dated June 28, 1984, contractors were advised that sealed bids would be received on July 25, 1984, on various road projects. The bid documents advised that the DBE goal for Project Number 50020-3516 was 10 percent. Form 932-10 entitled "Disadvantaged/Women Business Enterprise Utilization Affirmative Action Certification" advised bidders that Form 1 is required to accompany the bid documents. The specifications for Job Number 50020-3516 contain extensive provisions with regard to compliance with the DBE contract goals. Among these provisions is the following language contained in Section 2-5.3.2: "... Award of the Contract shall be conditioned upon submission of the DBE and WBE participa- tion information with the bid proposal and upon satisfaction of the contract goals or, if the goals are not met, upon demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals." (Emphasis added.) The specifications lists as grounds for disqualification of bidders "failure to satisfy the requirements of 2-5.3." On July 25, 1984, Petitioner submitted a bid in the amount of 8171,370.51 for Job Number 50020-3516. Attached to the bid was Form 932-10 and Form No. 1, the latter indicating that petitioner's proposed utilization of DBEs was 7.6 percent of the total contract amount. While noting that two other DBEs were contacted without success, petitioner provided no further documentation regarding its good faith efforts to comply with the 10 percent contract goal. Three contractors submitted bids on this project. The next lowest bidder was Baxter Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., which submitted a bid of $191,540.92 and demonstrated compliance with the DBE contract goal. The third bidder, Capital Asphalt, Inc., submitted a bid of $204,651.35, fell below the 10 percent DBE contract goal and, like the petitioner, failed to demonstrate that it made a good faith effort to comply. The DOT engineer's estimate on this project was approximately $147,000.00. By notice dated August 17, 1984, the DOT advised that all bids received on Job Number 50020-3516 had been rejected. Two reasons were given for the rejection: that "the low bidder failed to meet DBE Contract Requirements" and that "awarding to the second low bidder is not in the best interest of the State." During June, July, and August following the adoption of the new rules regarding DBE requirements, it was the general policy of the DOT Awards Committee to reject all bids on a project if the low bidder failed to meet DBE requirements and there was more than a one percent difference between the first and second low bids. Beginning in September or October, 1984, this policy was changed to one of awarding to the second or third most responsible bidder as long as the bid was within the State estimate. Consequently, the DOT has now determined to award this challenged bid to Baxter Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. In another bid letting occurring on May 30, 1984, on Project Number 55160-3517, petitioner failed to submit with its bid proposal the forms for demonstrating compliance with the DBE requirements. By letter dated May 30, 1984, and received on June 4, 1984, petitioner was advised to forward, without delay, the necessary Form No. 1. The Form returned by petitioner showed 8 percent DBE participation. Since the contract goal was 10 percent, petitioner was afforded another opportunity to comply, did comply and receive approval on June 11, 1984, and was later advised that yet another DBE form needed to be completed. On July 17, 1984, petitioner received a letter from the DOT advising that the contract had been awarded to petitioner as of July 16, 1984. For all bid lettings occurring since June or thereafter, the DOT has rejected bids from contractors who have not submitted evidence with their bid proposal of either DBE compliance or a good faith effort to comply. New forms have been utilized to require such submittals with the bid proposal and removing the prior 10 day grace period language. Also, on August 22, 1984, the DOT sent a "Notice to All Contractors" that: "... all submittals for evaluating Good Faith Efforts in meeting DBE/WBE goals must be submitted with the bid proposal in order to be considered for award of the contract. Failure to submit the Good Faith Effort documentation with the bid may result in rejection of the bid."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered rejecting as non-responsive the bid submitted by petitioner on Job Number 50020-3516, and awarding the contract to Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 27th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Bist, Esquire 300 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Frank A. Baker, Esquire 204 Market Street Marianna, Florida 32446 Paul Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a building inspector should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted an application for licensure as a building inspector on August 6, 2003. The application was reviewed by Respondent and subsequently denied on the basis that it contained “materials which questions [sic] the good moral character of Petitioner,” and that Petitioner’s application "failed to provide complete supporting documentation relating to all previous disciplinary actions which could also impact a determination concerning [Petitioner's] moral character." No notification that Petitioner’s application lacked supporting documentation was sent by the Department to Petitioner. Petitioner’s application lists prior convictions for traffic-related offenses, such as careless driving, driving with a suspended license, and DUI. Petitioner has never been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, false statement, fraud, or theft. Petitioner has never been convicted of a felony. Petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time that all of the traffic-related offenses were committed. Petitioner is now a recovering alcoholic who has been actively involved with Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) for over three years on a voluntary basis. His sobriety date is May 25, 2001. The sobriety date is important because it marks the date when an alcoholic makes and implements a commitment to a new way of life. AA operates on the principle generally accepted by the medical community that alcoholism is a disease, and not a moral issue. AA operates on the principle that although there is no cure for alcoholism, there is a daily reprieve. AA is a 12-step program providing guidelines to living. AA works only if the alcoholic follows the twelve steps to the best of his or her ability. A person who is not willing to change his or her life cannot be helped by AA. AA is an ongoing lifetime process of personal improvement, the pinnacle of which is service to others. Petitioner is a totally different person now as compared to the way he used to be. Petitioner admits that his alcohol-related impairment was the primary cause of the episodes of misconduct prior to his commitments to a life of sobriety and to the principles of the AA program. Petitioner’s last criminal conviction was in 1998. Since becoming sober, Petitioner purchased his own home and recently married. Petitioner is an officer in his AA home group, with responsibilities that include overseeing the group’s activities, setting up meetings, chairing meetings, providing coffee, and paying rent for the meeting site with monies that the group has entrusted to him. Petitioner regularly chairs his home group meetings, and has spoken on alcohol-related issues to several other community groups, including the Salvation Army and the Comprehensive Alcohol Rehabilitation Program. Petitioner has become a person of integrity who cares about others, reaching out to new AA attendees as a mentor. Petitioner has been regularly employed since he stopped drinking. Joe Iagrossi has known Petitioner for a little more than two years. Petitioner is employed by Iagrossi’s company, Construction Inspections of the Palm Beaches. Iagrossi considers Petitioner to be a reliable, honest, and truthful employee, trusts Petitioner’s judgment, and has confidence in his work. Iagrossi believes that Petitioner has the ability to distinguish right from wrong, as well as the character to observe the difference. There have never been any conduct issues with Petitioner, and he possesses a good reputation within the company. Iagrossi is of the opinion that Petitioner can practice building inspection with reasonable skill and safety to the general public. Richard Sussan is Petitioner’s AA sponsor and has known Petitioner for two years. Sussan considers Petitioner a person of integrity, who cares about others, is reliable and honest, and is very committed to AA. Petitioner is a member of, and is actively involved with the activities of, Christ Fellowship Church. Petitioner is a regular volunteer in the church’s Special Needs Ministry. The Special Needs Ministry is a program which allows families of children with special needs to attend regular church services by providing volunteers to watch the special needs children during that time. For the past two years Petitioner has volunteered every other Sunday to watch a special needs child so that the child's parents can attend church services. Petitioner is highly regarded by church officials and church members who know him, and in that group he enjoys a reputation of being very reliable, honest, and a person of integrity and good morals. Petitioner worked for the architectural firm of Ames Bennett & Associates, P.A. for fifteen years. Petitioner’s duties included field inspections for residential and commercial projects, for code and contract compliance, from geotechnical and foundation through trim work, ADA, and fire safety oversight. Petitioner also managed the office, paid bills, interviewed job applicants, and showed new employees inspection techniques. Petitioner passed the Southern Building Code Congress International certification examination for Building Inspector on November 20, 2001. Petitioner passed the International Code Council certification examination for Building Inspector on September 18, 2003. Chapter 11 of the Florida Building Code governs enforcement of the Florida Americans with Disabilities and Accessibility Implementation Act. The Act defines “disability” as “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, and includes alcoholism."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a building inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2004.
