Findings Of Fact Petitioner in this proceeding is Lykes Memorial Hospital, Inc., (Lykes) a separate, albeit subsidiary, corporation from its parent, Lykes Health Systems, Inc. Lykes is a 166 bed, not-for-profit general acute care community hospital located in Brooksville, Florida. On or about May 30, 1990, Lykes timely filed CON Application No. 6266 to add 30 hospital-based, extended care beds through renovation of existing space. On or about June 14, 1990, Respondent requested Lykes to provide certain items of information omitted from the original application. One of the items requested in Respondent's written omissions request was an audited financial statement of the applicant for Lykes' most current fiscal years, 1988 and 1989. Lykes responded by providing two audits: an audit of Lykes Memorial Hospital, Inc., for the year ending September 30, 1988, and an audit of Lykes Health Systems, Inc., for the years ending September 30, 1989 and 1988 (the consolidated audit). By letter dated July 25, 1990, Respondent notified Lykes that its CON application was being withdrawn from consideration due to the failure of Lykes to submit audited financial statements of Lykes for the most recent fiscal year of operation which ended September 30, 1989. The submission of an audit containing the most current audited financial information is necessary for Respondent to determine an applicant's current financial condition and assess the proposed project's financial feasibility. Such analysis is crucial to a determination of whether the applicant will continue to be an ongoing corporation providing its best services to patients over a long-term period. Respondent's analysis is limited to the audited financial statement of the applicant. To permit an applicant to meet the requirement for an audited financial statement by providing an audited financial statement from an entity different than the applicant opens the door to submission of varying and discretionary types of financial information. Such a practice could result in unfair comparisons of financial information in the process of comparative review with regard to financial information analysis. There are three essential parts to an audited financial statement. Those parts are an independent auditor's opinion; financial statements; and notes to the financial statements. Although Lykes' submission of an audited financial statement for the year ending September 30, 1988, meets requirements contained in Section 381.707(3), Florida Statutes, mandating submission of such a statement by an applicant, the submitted audit was not for the most current fiscal year of operation. Rather, the audit submitted is for the year before. For existing health care facilities such as Lykes, Section 381.707(3), Florida Statutes, also requires the submission of a balance sheet and a profit- and-loss statement for the previous two fiscal years' operation. Respondent has interpreted Section 381.707(3), Florida Statutes, to require an applicant's submission of the most current year's audit. When the application is submitted by an existing health care facility, Respondent requires submission of an audited financial statement for the two most current fiscal years. This requirement is contained in Chapter 11-3, part 6, of Respondent's Certificate of Need Policy Manual. Personnel involved in the preparation of Lykes' application were aware of this requirement. While the audited financial statement of Lykes for the year ending September 30, 1988, provides an auditor's opinion on the financial condition of Lykes, the applicant, at that time; no such opinion is contained in the audit of Lykes Health Systems, Inc., for the years ending September 30, 1988, and 1989, which is specific to Lykes apart from the parent corporation. Respondent does not have access to an applicant's financial records and is therefore dependent upon disclosures or notes to an audited financial statement to provide fair disclosure of the financial statements and identify specific areas of concern. Without such note disclosures, a proper financial analysis cannot be performed. Notes in the consolidated audit of Lykes Health Systems, Inc., are not complete note disclosures for Lykes, the applicant. Further, notes in the consolidated audit were prepared for the consolidated group of businesses operating under the umbrella of Lykes Health Systems, Inc., and not for any individual entity within the group. It is not possible to isolate information applicable to Lykes from the auditor's notes to the consolidated audit. The consolidated audit included statements of revenues and expenses, fund balances, and a balance sheet for Lykes for the fiscal years ending September 30, 1989, and September 30, 1988. However, no decision should be made with regard to those financial statements in the absence of note disclosures specific to Lykes, assuring that an auditor has specifically analyzed that entity and reached an opinion with regard to it. While a note to the consolidated audit contains a breakdown of capital assets for the consolidated group, this is not a specific breakdown of capital assets for Lykes, the applicant. Hence, Respondent cannot determine the applicant's capital assets breakdown. Further examples of the lack of specificity afflicting the consolidated audit include notes which fail to provide a specific breakdown of bonds payable for Lykes; a specific breakdown of or disclosure of contributions by Lykes to the pension plan; and no specific breakdown for Lykes with regard to patient service revenues. Instead, everything is grouped together. The consolidated audit does not contain all of the notes which would appear in an audit of Lykes, the applicant. Additional financial statements included with the consolidated audit contain no notes. The report must be interpreted in relation to Lykes Health Systems, Inc., taken as a whole. The audit of Lykes Health Systems, Inc., cannot be considered a specific audit of Lykes, the applicant. 1/ Rather, the consolidated audit expresses an opinion with regard to the parent corporation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered withdrawing Petitioner's application for CON No. 6266 from further consideration. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 14th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 7-9. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted by reference. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, argumentative. 1st sentence addressed, remainder rejected as unnecessary. 16-17. Rejected, argument. 18-19. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 20-22. Rejected, argument. 23. Rejected, relevance. 24-25. Rejected, unnecessary and argumentative. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3. Adopted in substance, not verbatim. 4. Adopted by reference. 5-15. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 16-17. Adopted by reference. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Ecenia, Esq. Suite 400 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 Edward G. Labrador, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Dr., Suite 103 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent Department of Corrections (the Department) properly determined that there were no responsive proposals to the Request for Proposals entitled Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV, RFP #08-DC-8048 (the RFP); (b) whether the Department's intended award of a contract to provide mental healthcare services to inmates in Region IV to Intervenor Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (CMS), pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), is unlawful; and (c) whether Petitioner MHM Correctional Services, Inc. (MHM), has standing to challenge the Department's intended award of a contract to CMS pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact The RFP Process The Department issued the RFP on February 5, 2009. Two addendums were issued to the RFP, the first on February 6, 2009, and the second on March 11, 2009. The Department did not receive any protest of the RFP or addendums from MHM or any other proposer within the statutorily set time limit of 72 hours from the issuance of the RFP. At the time of issuance of the RFP, MHM was the incumbent provider of mental health services to inmates in Region IV. At that time, MHM was providing the services at a rate of $77.62 per month/per inmate. MHM's contract to provide mental health services in Region IV was the result of a prior vendor being financially unable to perform the contract at its agreed rate. The RFP sought proposals from vendors to provide comprehensive mental healthcare services for inmates located at 14 correctional institutions located in the southern part of the State beginning on July 1, 2009. The Department’s contract with MHM for those services was set to expire on June 30, 2009. The Department had previously attempted another procurement for replacement of those services in late 2008. Proposals to the RFP were received and opened in a public meeting on March 23, 2009, from CMS, MHM, the University of Miami's Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences (the University of Miami), and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Wexford). The Department’s Bureau of Procurement and Supply (BPS) was responsible for overseeing the RFP. The Procurement Manager for the RFP was Ana Ploch. Ms. Ploch’s duties included drafting the proposal with the assistance of the Office of Health Services, managing the procurement process by coordinating release of documents, conducting related meetings (such as proposers’ conferences, proposal opening, and price opening), conducting site visits, supervising the evaluation process, and keeping records of the process through completion of a summary report of the procurement. Once the Department received the proposals, it began the eight-phased review and evaluation process as set forth in Section 6 of the RFP. Phase 1 of the review and evaluation process began with the public opening of the proposals that took place on March 23, 2009. Phase 1 also included the review of the proposals to determine if they met mandatory responsiveness requirements. Determination of meeting mandatory responsiveness requirements was made by BPS staff. Mandatory Responsiveness Criteria or “fatal criteria” is described in Section 5.1 of the RFP as requirements that must be met by a proposer for the proposal to be considered responsive. A failure to meet any one of the three following criteria would result in an immediate finding of non- responsiveness and the rejection of the proposal: (a) the subject proposal must be received by the Department by the date and time specified in the RFP; (b) the proposal must include a signed and notarized Certification Attestation Page for Mandatory Statements; and (c) the price proposal must be received by the Department by the date and time specified in the RFP and must be in a separate envelope or package in the same box or container as the project proposal. There is no dispute that all four proposals met these mandatory responsiveness/fatal criteria. In addition to the fatal criteria, a proposal could be found to be non-responsive for failing to conform to the solicitation requirements in all material respects. The RFP, Section 1.20, clearly set forth the definition of a “material deviation” and the basis for rejecting a proposal as follows: 1.20 Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to proposals to be submitted by vendors. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where any deviation therefrom is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient proposal is not in substantial accord with this RFP’s requirements, provides an advantage to one proposer over other proposers, or has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items or services proposed, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a proposal. (Emphasis in original.) A Responsive Proposal is defined in the RFP Section 1.29 as “[a] proposal, submitted by a responsive and responsible vendor that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation.” A minor irregularity is defined in Section 1.26 of the RFP as: 1.26 Minor Irregularity: A variation from the RFP terms and conditions which does not affect the price proposed or gives the proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other proposers or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. Phase 2 consisted of a review of the business/corporate qualifications and technical proposal/service delivery narratives contained in the proposals. This phase was completed individually by evaluation team members. The evaluation team, which consisted of 5 employees from the Department’s Office of Health Services, met with Ms. Ploch on March 24, 2009, for instruction on how to proceed with the evaluation. The team members were given the evaluation materials on that date. Evaluation and scoring of the proposals was done separately by each individual without discussion among the members. At the March 31, 2009, bid tabulation meeting, which occurred after the team members scored the proposals, Ms. Ploch told the team members that MHM and the University of Miami were non-responsive to the RFP. Then the scores for the different categories were recorded as announced by each member of the evaluation team. All four proposals were scored for the three categories listed in RFP Section 5.3 (business/corporate experience), Section 5.5 (project staff) and Section 5.6 (technical proposal and service delivery narrative). There is no allegation that the scores assigned to the proposals were done in error or that they were not in compliance with Department rules or procedures. Phase 3 of the review and evaluation process was completed at the same time as Phase 2 and 4, by Ms. Ploch and the BPS staff. That review of the proposals included a determination as to whether the proposers were in compliance with Section 5.3 “Business/Corporate Qualifications.” At that point in the review process, BPS determined that the University of Miami’s proposal was non-responsive in that the proposer did not have the necessary business experience. This finding has not been disputed by any party. An independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) completed Phase 4 of the review and evaluation process. The Department hired the CPA to review the financial requirements of Section 5.4 of the RFP. The CPA, Richard Law, was given all the proposals, including the financial documentation, on March 24, 2009. He conducted his review separately from the Department's reviews in Phases 2 and 3. Mr. Law has been a licensed CPA for over 30 years. His major practice area is conducting audits for state governments, as well as private businesses. With more than 10 years of experience reviewing financial documentation for the Department and assisting on the setting of financial benchmarks for numerous procurements, he is highly qualified to perform the evaluation and assessment of these basic financial criteria. The financial requirements and the financial documentation and information that the proposers had to submit are set out in Section 5.4 of the RFP. That section is entitled “Financial Documentation,” and provides as follows in pertinent part: Tab 4-Financial Documentation The Proposer shall provide financial documentation that is sufficient to demonstrate its financial viability to perform the Contract resulting from this RFP. Three of the following five minimum acceptable standards shall be met, one of which must be either item d, or item e, below. The Proposer shall insert the required information under Tab 4 of the Proposal. Current ratio: = .9:1 or (.9) Computation: Total current assets ÷ total current liabilities Debt to tangible net worth: = 5:1 Computation: Total liabilities ÷ net worth Dun and Bradstreet credit worthiness (credit score): = 3 (on a scale of 1-5) Minimum existing sales: = $50 million Total equity: = $5 million NOTE: The Department acknowledges that privately held corporations and other business entities are not required by law to have audited financial statements. In the event the Proposer is a privately held corporation or other business entity whose financial statements ARE audited, such audited statements shall be provided. If the privately held corporation or other business entity does not have audited financial statements, then unaudited statements or other financial documentation sufficient to provide the same information as is generally contained in an audited statement, and as required below, shall be provided. The Department also acknowledges that a Proposer may be a wholly-owned subsidiary of another corporation or exist in other business relationships where financial data is consolidated. Financial documentation is requested to assist the Department in determining whether the Proposer has the financial capability of performing the contract to be issued pursuant to this RFP. The Proposer MUST provide financial documentation sufficient to demonstrate such capability including wherever possible, financial information specific to the Proposer itself. All documentation provided will be reviewed by an independent CPA and should, therefore, be of the type and detail regularly relied upon by the certified public accounting industry in making a determination or statement of financial capability. To determine the above ratios, the most recent available and applicable financial documentation for the Proposer shall be provided. This financial documentation shall include: The most recently issued audited financial statement (or if unaudited, reviewed in accordance with standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountant). All statements shall include the following for the most recently audited (immediate past) year. auditors’ reports for financial statements; balance sheet; statement of income; statement of retained earnings; statement of cash flows; notes to financial statements; any written management letter issued by the auditor to the Proposer’s management, its board of directors or the audit committee, or, if no management letter was written, a letter from the auditor, stating that no management letter was issued and that there were no material weaknesses in internal control or other reportable conditions; and a copy of the Dun & Bradstreet creditworthiness report dated on or after February 5, 2009. (Emphasis in original) The RFP provided as follows in Section 5.4.2: If the year end of the most recent completed audit (or review) is earlier than nine (9) months prior to the issuance date of this RFP, then the most recent unaudited financial statement (consisting of items b, c, d and e above) shall also be provided by the Proposer in addition to the audited statement required in Section 5.4.1. The unaudited financial data will be averaged with the most recent fiscal year audited (or reviewed) financial statement to arrive at the given ratios. Throughout Section 5.4 of the RFP, the emphasis is on the need for audited financial statements. The use of unaudited financial statements alone does not apply to MHM pursuant to the terms of the RFP, but they did apply to other proposers. Both audited and unaudited financial statements were averaged to determine ratios for CMS and Wexford, where their audited financial statements were older than 9 months. This was clearly permissible under Section 5.4.2. MHM’s proposal included audited financial statements dated September 30, 2008, and also additional information, including unaudited financial statements and a financial narrative in which it admitted that its current ratio as of September 30, 2008, was 0.82 and that it had a negative equity of $24.8 million dollars. MHM was fully aware that it could have difficulty meeting the financial ratios before the Department issued the RFP. As early as January 2008, MHM was considering a stock repurchase. MHM knew its existing contract would come up for rebid. MHM also knew that the Department sometimes used financial criteria and financial ratios as pass/fail ratios. MHM was concerned that the stock repurchase would trigger one of those ratios, causing them to lose the contract. In January 2008, Susan Ritchey, MHM's Chief Financial Officer, and Steve Wheeler, MHM's President and Chief Operating Officer, contacted Mr. Law. Ms. Ritchey and Mr. Wheeler wanted to discuss their concerns regarding financial ratios that the Department might require in the future. During the hearing, Mr. Wheeler denied that the contact with Mr. Law had anything to do with the instant RFP. There is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Law gave Ms. Ritchey and Mr. Wheeler inappropriate advice. The independent review by Mr. Law of MHM’s financial documentation resulted in the finding that MHM only met two of the minimum acceptable standards required by Section 5.4 of the RFP. Mr. Law set out his conclusions on a Department form entitled “Phase IV, Financial Documentation Review to Be Completed by Independent CPA.” That sheet reflected that MHM had failed the current ratio with a score of .819, when a ratio of = 9:1 or (.9) was required (item a). Likewise, MHM failed the “Debt to tangible net worth” and the “total equity” criteria (items b and e, respectively), since MHM had a negative equity of $22 million dollars. MHM passed the two remaining criteria. First, it met the minimum existing sales (item d) with sales at $217 million (greater than or equal to $50 million). Second, it met the requirement of the Dun & Bradstreet creditworthiness score (item c), which needed to be less than or equal to 3, with a score of The Dun & Bradstreet score was not noted on the Department review form because MHM had already failed three of the financial minimum acceptable financial standards. MHM disputes the finding that it failed the “Debt to tangible net worth” requirement (item b) which was a ratio of = 5:1 or “less than or equal to 5 to 1, a whole number.” Net worth is the same as equity. Following proper accounting practices and a commonsense reading of this mathematical phrase required that both numbers be whole numbers, neither could be a negative. Put simply, a proposer could only have a maximum of five dollars in debt for every one dollar in net worth to pass this minimum acceptable standard. So, for purposes of evaluating this ratio, once it was determined that MHM had a negative equity of $22 million dollars, there was no way for MHM to pass this critical requirement. The “Debt to tangible net worth” criteria, was meant to be “Debt to net worth.” The computation set out below the criteria reflects the proper calculation needed to find debt to net worth, not debt to tangible net worth. Mr. Law performed the computation for debt to net worth as set out in the description of the computation, which was more advantageous to proposers than debt to “tangible net worth,” and resulted in a more favorable ratio. The ratio of “-1.77,” reflected on MHM's financial documentation review sheet is a mistake because Mr. Law used the number he reached averaging the audited and unaudited financial statements. The correct number is “-2.16,” which is based only on MHM's audited financial statement of September 30, 2008. That is, it was a greater negative number, but still negative. Either way, MHM fails this criteria. MHM had no dollars in net worth as of the issuance date of the RFP. Instead, MHM had a negative net worth of $24,785,000.00 as of the end of its fiscal year on September 30, 2008, as reflected in its audited financial statement. As to item “a”, “Current ratio,” a finding of .819 was reached by taking the total current assets ($23,493) and dividing into that number the total current liabilities ($28,692), both reflected on the MHM’s audited financial statement of September 30, 2008. These numbers taken from MHM’s audited financial statements for total current liabilities; total current assets and total equity represent millions, rounded for accounting purposes. MHM reached a similar finding of .82 using its September 30, 2008, audited financial statements. On the date the RFP was issued, February 5, 2009, MHM’s audited financial statement of September 30, 2009, was indisputably less than 9 months old and was the only financial statement under Section 5.4.2 of the RFP that could be used to compute the ratios in Section 5.4.2. Even if the unaudited financial statement submitted by MHM were averaged with the most recent audited financial statement, as demonstrated by Mr. Law’s attempts to do so, MHM would still not have met the current ratio. Nowhere in the RFP does it allow for the use of unaudited financial statements alone when there are existing audited financial statements. Mr. Law’s completed Phase 4 review of the financial documentation. He returned it to the Department on March 30, 2009. The Department conducted Phase 5 of the review and evaluation process, the Public Opening of the price proposals, on April 2, 2009, in a properly noticed meeting. At that time, the Department knew that there were only two responsive proposals (CMS and Wexford). No public announcement regarding the status of the other proposals had been made at that time. The RFP contained a price cap of $70.00 per inmate per month as reflected in Section 5.11.2 of the RFP and the Price Information Sheet. The intent of the price cap of $70 per month was to achieve a price savings for the Department over what it was then paying for mental healthcare services in Region IV, which was nearly $78.00. The goal of $70 was considered to be possibly unrealistic, but the true intent was to keep from exceeding the current rate of $78.00. At the price opening, the following prices were announced: (a) MHM’s price was $70.00 per inmate per month; (b) the University of Miami’s price was $69.49 per inmate per month; (c) CMS’s price was $74.49 per inmate per month; and (d) Wexford’s price was $95.00 per inmate per month. It was later determined that CMS had also submitted an alternative price sheet. However, the alternative price sheet did not affect the responsiveness of CMS's proposal or the Department's subsequent decision. Based on the fact that CMS’s and Wexford’s proposed prices exceeded the amount set by the RFP, their proposals were deemed non-responsive to the RFP. Consequently, as of April 2, 2009, there were no responsive proposers to the RFP. BPS staff prepared a final score and ranking sheet as required by Section 6.2.7 of the RFP. The scoring and ranking included just the two proposals, CMS and Wexford, that were responsive going into the Phase 5 Price Opening. BPS staff did not perform further scoring and ranking of the two proposals that were non-responsive prior to the Price Opening. Department of Corrections’ Procedure 205.002, entitled “Formal Service Contracts,” addresses the Department’s procedures, terms, and conditions for soliciting competitive offers for certain types of services. The Procedure has separate sections for Invitations to Bid, Requests for Proposals, Invitations to Negotiate and general sections that address all three. There is no requirement in the procedure that addresses the specific situation facing the Department in the mental healthcare procurement. The section of Procedure 205.002 that Petitioner points to, Section (5)(r)3., applies only to instances when the Department is seeking to single source a procurement or negotiate with a single responsive bidder. The section reads as follows in pertinent part: (r) Receipt of One or Fewer Responsive Bids, Proposals or Responses: * * * 3. If the department determines that services are available only from a single source or that conditions and circumstances warrant negotiation with the single responsive bidder, proposer, or respondent on the best terms and conditions, the department’s intended decision will be posted in accordance with section 120.57(3), F.S., before it may proceed with procurement. This section of the procedure is clearly inapplicable in the instant case since there were no responsive proposals. Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008) Faced with no responsive proposers, the Department considered its options. The Department then decided to negotiate for a contract on best terms and conditions pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), in lieu of going through a third competitive solicitation. The Department’s decision to negotiate was ultimately made by the Assistant Secretary for Health Services in the Department's Office of Health Services. The BPS staff and legal counsel advised Assistant Secretary Dr. Sandeep Rahangdale about the options available to the Department. Dr. Rahangdale had the following three options: (1) to reject all proposals and begin what would be the third competitive procurement for mental healthcare services in less than 8 months; (2) to negotiate a contract on best terms and conditions under Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), since there were less than two responsive proposals to the RFP; or (3) to use the statutory exemption for health services under Section 287.057(5)(f), Florida Statutes (2008), and enter into a contract with any vendor the Department selected. Option 1, to begin a new procurement was time-barred because the Department needed a new contract in place by July 1, 2009. Dr. Rahangdale’s primary concern was to insure that the Department provided constitutionally mandated health care, including mental healthcare to all inmates in its custody. In making the decision to negotiate, Dr. Rahangdale reasonably chose to begin negotiations with CMS. He made this decision because, of the two proposers who were responsive except for exceeding the price cap, CMS’s price was closest to the $70.00 per inmate per month goal. Wexford, the other proposer that was responsive except for price, had submitted a price of $95.00 per inmate per month. Thus, the Department had a reasonable belief there was a better chance of reaching its $70 goal through negotiations with CMS. Additionally, CMS was the highest scored technical proposal of the only two responsive proposals prior to the Price Opening. Thus, CMS was a better choice for the Department from a delivery of services standpoint. The Department made a reasoned decision to not abandon all the criteria of the RFP that had to do with qualifications, such as business experience (failed by University of Miami) or financial viability (failed by MHM). Dr. Rahangdale considered and determined that the nature of MHM’s and the University of Miami’s failure to be responsive could not be changed or cured in the negotiation process unless the Department lowered its expectations regarding performance and corporate viability. Negotiations were conducted between April 7, 2009, and April 9, 2009, by Jimmie Smith of the Office of Health Services. Dr. Rahangdale instructed Mr. Smith to undertake negotiations with CMS on best terms and conditions, and to strive to get as close as possible to a price of $70.00 per inmate per month in the negotiations. Mr. Smith is a Registered Nurse working in the Department’s Office of Health Services. His working job title is Assistant Program Administrator/Contracting. He has the responsibility to contact potential vendors for health-related services and commodities and to ensure that formal contracts or purchase orders are issued for the required health-related services and commodities. Mr. Smith typically is charged with making initial contact with vendors, handling negotiations for exempt health service contracts, and coordinating the procurement of the services with BPS. He is also a contract manager for healthcare services and advises other contract managers. Mr. Smith was eminently well qualified to negotiate this contract for mental healthcare services on behalf of the Department. Prior to beginning his negotiations, Mr. Smith obtained a complete copy of CMS’s proposal, including the price proposal. He contacted CMS'S Senior Director of Business Development, Frank Fletcher, by telephone to conduct the negotiations. Emails dated April 9, 2009, between the Department and CMS’s representative reflect an offer by CMS to perform the scope of work described in the RFP at a capitated rate of $70.00 for the first year of service, with a $2.50 escalator per year for a five-year non-renewal contract term. CMS also proposed adding a 30-day period for correction of performance measures, prior to the imposition of liquidated damages. The Department counter-offered with a requirement that any failure to correct the performance measure violation within the 30-day period would result in retroactive imposition of liquidated damages to the day of the violation. These terms and conditions were presented to Dr. Rahangdale who approved them. Dr. Rahangdale considered the $2.50 escalator, but decided he was satisfied with the initial year price of $70, a 10% savings for the Department over its current contract and a savings of three million over the life of the contract. On April 10, 2009, Mr. Smith confirmed the tentative agreement to Mr. Fletcher by email. CMS understood that the agreement was tentative until the Department posted a notice of agency decision. The BPS staff prepared an Agency Action Memo, the Summary Report, and the Notice of Intent to Award. The Agency Action Memo contained a recommendation for award and an option of non-award. The Agency Action Memo stated as follows in part: The Department made the determination that it was in the best interest of the State to proceed with negotiations as authorized by Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes. The Department negotiated with the highest- ranked Proposer on the best terms and conditions for the resulting Contract. Based upon the results of the negotiation conducted, it is recommended that the Department awards a Contract to Correctional Medical Services, Inc. A Summary Report was attached to the Agency Action Memo. The report explained the RFP process in detail. It explained the reasons for finding MHM and the University of Miami non-responsive. It explained that CMS and Wexford were non-responsive because they exceeded the price cap. 55.. The report charted the results of the Phase 5--Public Opening of Price Proposals as follows in abbreviated form: PROPOSER UNIT PRICE ANNUAL COST FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE CMS $74.59 $16,536,780 Passed Passed Wexford $95.00 $21,090,000 Passed Passed U. of M. $69.49 $15,426,780 Passed Failed MHM $70.00 $15,540,000 Failed Passed The report set forth the Department's reasons for negotiating on best terms and conditions pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), in pertinent part as follows: Phase 8--Notice of Agency Decision The procurement of Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV was under competitive solicitation for over eight (8) months, via two (2) different solicitations (ITN and RFP). The companies that submitted proposals in response to this RFP also submitted responses to the previous ITN. Pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes, the Department negotiated with the highest-ranking proposer on the best terms and condition and in the best interest of the state, in lieu of resoliciting competitive proposals for a third time. The last page of the report charted the Final Score and Ranking for CMS and Wexford. The first chart showed the actual points received by the proposers, the highest points received by any proposal, and the awarded points. The second chart showed the proposed unit price, the lowest verified price, and the awarded points. The third chart showed the total response points, with CMS having 500 and Wexford having 454.64. MHM and the University of Miami were non-responsive as to RFP requirements that the Department, in its sole discretion, determined were non-negotiable. Therefore, the Department properly determined that CMS was the highest-ranking proposer after the Price Opening. As Bureau Chief, Mr. Staney was ultimately responsible for verifying that the four proposals were non-responsive. He and Dr. Rahangdale signed the Agency Action Memo, recommending an award to CMS. On April 15, 2009, Mr. Staney sent the documents to his supervisor, Director of Administration Millie J. Seay. The BPS staff briefed Ms. Seay regarding the Agency Action Memo. Ms. Seay questioned whether the Department should negotiate with Wexford. The BPS staff explained that Dr. Rahangdale had considered negotiating with Wexford but that he was satisfied with the negotiated rate and the higher technically-scored proposal from CMS. On Monday, April 20, 2009, Ms. Seay signed the Agency Action Memo. The next day the Department posted its intent to award a contract to CMS. The Department's Notice of Agency Decision announced the intent to award a contract for Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV to CMS as follows: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NOTICE OF AGENCY DECISION RFP #08-DC-8048 MENTAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES IN REGION IV Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 287.057(6), Florida Statutes, the Department of Corrections announces its intent to award a contract for MENTAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES IN REGION IV to the following vendor: Correctional Medical Services, Inc. This announcement gave all interested parties notice that the Department was taking some action with regard to the referenced RFP. The Notice also contained the statutorily required language giving all interested parties a point of entry to challenge the Department’s intent to award. Accordingly, no proposers were denied an opportunity to inquire into the details of the process that led to an award under the referenced statute, including the evaluation of the proposals and the Department’s decision to wait until it had completed Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), negotiations to post the intended agency decision. 63 MHM timely filed its Formal Bid Protest Petition with the Department on May 4, 2009.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended: That the Department enter a final order awarding the contract for Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV to CMS and dismissing the protest of MHM. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2009.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 5, 1999, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The Respondent maintains that the instant action is barred by laches and violates Section 455.225, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of certified public accountants licensed within the state. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Robert Jarkow, has been licensed in Florida as a certified public accountant, license number AC0010963. On or about December 1996, the Respondent orally agreed to provide accounting services for an individual named Kasman who was doing business as Traditions Workshop, Inc. (Traditions). Traditions manufactured uniforms and listed the federal government among its clients. Revenues to the company from the sale of uniforms were presumably posted in accordance with written contracts. Although the Respondent participated in the monthly completion of financial records for the company, the exact description of his responsibilities for the company and the individual are not known. It is undisputed that Ms. Kasman asked the Respondent to provide a financial statement for the company as part of an effort to secure a line of credit from a bank in New York. It is also undisputed that Ms. Kasman refused to pay for the statement. According to the Respondent, based upon that refusal, he declined to prepare the instrument. Nevertheless, a document entitled "Financial Statements" was generated with a notation "MANAGEMENT USE ONLY-NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION." The Respondent maintains that the document was not prepared as a financial report and that if generated using his data disk it was done without any intention on his part for the product being used to secure a line of credit. The document did not comply with provisions of accounting practice. The Respondent admitted that when his relationship with the party deteriorated, and payment for services was not rendered, he did not release information to a succeeding accountant. Ms. Kasman needed the information, depreciation schedules, in order to accurately complete tax records for Traditions. The Respondent attempted to locate Ms. Kasman and her bookkeeper for hearing but was unable to do so. Ms. Kasman filed a complaint with the Petitioner against the Respondent that was not investigated until several months after it was filed. The Respondent obtained a civil judgment against Traditions for unpaid accounting fees. The Administrative Complaint filed in this case was submitted over a year after the consumer complaint. Neither party presented testimony from the complainant, her bookkeeper, or her succeeding accountant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding the Respondent violated Rule 61H1-23.002, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in Count II of the Administrative Code; imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000; and placing the Respondent on probation for one year subject to terms as may be specified by the Board of Accountancy. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 4th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Victor K. Rones, Esquire Law Offices of Rones & Navarro 16105 Northeast 18th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Martha Willis, Division Director Division of Certified Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 240 Northwest 76 Drive, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is University General Hospital, Inc. (hereinafter "UGHI"), the present license holder of University General Hospital (hereinafter "University Hospital"), a 140-bed general acute-care hospital located in Seminole, Florida. During calendar years 1989 and 1990 and until July 30, 1991, University Hospital operated as a division of Community Health Investment Corporation f/k/a/ CHS Management Corporation (hereinafter "CHIC"). On July 30, 1991, UGHI was incorporated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of CHIC and became the license holder of University Hospital. University Hospital's change in licensure on that date did not change its ownership, control, management, reporting, or operation. On or about December 2, 1991, UGHI timely filed Certificate of Need (hereinafter "CON") Application No. 6851 to convert 12 general acute-care beds to hospital-based skilled nursing beds. In a letter dated December 19, 1991, the Department (hereinafter "HRS") identified certain items of information omitted from UGHI's initial application (commonly referred to as an "Omissions Letter"), including, among other items, audited financial statements of the applicant. On or about January 15, 1992, UGHI timely filed its response to the Omissions Letter and included a document entitled "UNIVERSITY GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC. (A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF COMMUNITY HEALTH INVESTMENT CORPORATION) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1990 AND 1989 TOGETHER WITH REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS." In a letter dated January 28, 1992, HRS notified UGHI that its CON application was being administratively withdrawn from consideration for the sole reason that it did not contain audited financial statements of the applicant, University General Hospital, Inc. The purpose of audited financial statements from the standpoint of HRS' review of CON applications is that they provide HRS with a basis to determine the overall financial strength and financial position of the applicant and the applicant's ability to carry out the project being proposed. HRS requires that the financial statements be "of the applicant" because it looks to the source of funding and financial strength of the entity responsible for funding the project--the party submitting the CON application. The audited financial statements submitted by UGHI reflect the resources available to it for the CON project proposed in CON Application No. 6851 and are appropriate to demonstrate the financial strength of UGHI. The audited financial statements filed by UGHI contain financial documentation for years ending December 31, 1990 and 1989, as well as information through November 13, 1991. The issuance of audited financial statements for an entity incorporating a period of time before that entity's corporate existence (known as "reissuance") is a common practice in the accounting profession and, subject to the entity's ability to satisfy the specified prerequisites, is consistent with pronouncements and standards under generally accepted auditing standards (hereinafter "GAAS") and generally accepted accounting principles (hereinafter "GAAP"). The prerequisites for reissuance of an audited financial statement are adequate disclosure made in the notes of the financial statement and continuance of common ownership, control, management, reporting, and operation of the entity's activities. Prior to issuance of the audited financial statements for UGHI, Arthur Andersen & Co. conducted an extensive post-audit review of UGHI and concluded that the financial statements previously issued to University Hospital could be reissued as audited financial statements of UGHI. Had Arthur Andersen & Co. found that the previously-issued audited financial statements were misleading or that the requirements set forth in GAAS and GAAP were not satisfied, it would not have reissued the audited financial statements on behalf of UGHI. The audited financial statements submitted by UGHI to HRS constitute a valid document prepared in accordance with the pronouncements and standards under GAAS and GAAP. It is the policy of HRS that, if an entity has been in existence for less than one year, HRS will accept only a balance sheet audit as of the date of incorporation, or a short period audit from the date of incorporation through an undefined period of time. HRS' policy is not reflected in any of the statutes, rules, or HRS Manual provisions regarding audited financial statements, and HRS is not in the process of promulgating a rule regarding this policy. HRS' policy applies to all entities submitting CON applications that have been in existence for less than one year. Balance sheet and short period audits are not appropriate documents to assess an entity's financial condition. In many cases, HRS would prefer a reissued audited financial statement to a balance sheet audit in analyzing a CON application. In determining whether an applicant complies with Section 381.707(3), Florida Statutes, HRS will, with certain exceptions, look at whether the definition of "Audited Financial Statement" set forth in Rule 10-5.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, is met. HRS does not apply the definition of "Audited Financial Statement" set forth in Section 10-5.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, to applicants in existence for less than one year. The definition it applies to these entities is not set forth in any rule, statute, or HRS Manual provision. A balance sheet audit does not comply with the definition of "Audited Financial Statement" set forth in Rule 10-5.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. The audited financial statements filed by UGHI comply with the definition of "Audited Financial Statement" set forth in Rule 10-5.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.008(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code, identifies those audited financial statements satisfying the rule definition of "Audited Financial Statement" that HRS will not accept. HRS explains the exceptions set forth within Rule 10-5.008(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code, on the basis that these audited financial statements reflect financial documentation of an affiliate entity. The audited financial statements submitted by UGHI are not a combined audit, a consolidated audit, or an audit of a division, as prohibited under Rule 10-5.008(5)(g). From an accounting standpoint, the audited financial statements submitted by UGHI are those of UGHI. An accounting firm typically identifies the entity being audited on the title page of the audited financial statements and in the audit report and financial statements contained therein. The title page of, and audit report and financial statements in, the audited financial statements prepared by Arthur Andersen & Co. for UGHI all reflect that the entity being audited is UGHI. An accounting firm faces significant liability if the audited financial statements it prepares are found to be inaccurate or misleading. HRS does not dispute, and in fact agrees, that the audited financial statements prepared by Arthur Andersen & Co. for UGHI were correctly issued and are consistent with GAAS and GAAP.
The Issue Whether respondent's proposed amendment to Rule 59C-1.008(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact 1. The proposed amendment under challenge would repeal or delete the fourth numbered paragraph of a provision in one of the respondent's rules, entitled "Certificate of Need Application Contents," Rule 59C-1.008(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent has succeeded the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as administrator of the certificate of need program. The provision now reads: (g) With respect to paragraph 408.037(3), F.S., which requires an audited financial statement of the applicant the following provisions apply: The audited financial statement of the applicant must be for the most current fiscal year. If the most recent fiscal year ended within 120 days prior to the application filing deadline and the audited financial statements are not yet available, then the prior fiscal year will be considered the most recent. Existing health care facilities must provide audited financial statements for the two most recent consecutive fiscal years in accordance with subparagraph 1. above. Only audited financial statements of the applicant will be accepted. Audited financial statements of any part of the applicant, including but not limited to subsidiaries, divisions, specific facilities or cost centers, will not qualify as an audit of the applicant. Nor shall the audited financial statements of the applicant's parent corporation qualify as an audit of the applicant. Audited financial statements that are a combination of legal entities shall not qualify as an audit of the applicant. As construed by respondent, the sentence proposed for deletion prohibits combining information from separate legal entities in financial statements used to support certificate of need applications (in any circumstances other than those in which generally accepted accounting principles dictate the use of an applicant's consolidated financial statements.) The repeal proposed by the amendment would permit the use, in appropriate circumstances, of combined, as well as of consolidated, financial statements. Testimony at hearing identified situations in which a flat prohibition against combined financial statements may inhibit fair and meaningful statements concerning an applicant's financial position, and meaningful comparison with competing applicants. In the case of a partnership subject to financial control by a corporation, generally accepted accounting principles do not permit consolidated statement of the corporation's revenues, costs, income, expenses, assets, liabilities or cash flows with the partnership's. Generally accepted accounting principles do require that a corporation exercising financial control over (an)other corporation(s) present financial information on a consolidated basis, however. The consolidation requirement prevents shifting assets or other items among parent and subsidiary corporations in a way that might mislead. Of course, separate financial statements for a corporation and a partnership over which it exercises financial control create similar possibilities for misleading shifts of assets and other items. To preclude this, generally accepted accounting principles require combined statements, in certain circumstances. Forbidding combined statements, as respondent's rules now do, creates the possibility that corporations in economically identical postures will appear otherwise depending solely on technicalities concerning the legal form in which entities they control are organized. If two corporations are competing for certificates of need, one may receive an unfair advantage, unless combined statements are permitted to put the parent of a corporate joint venturer on the same footing as the parent of a corporate subsidiary with minority stock ownership equivalent to the unaffiliated partners' share in the joint venture. A joint venture might itself be an applicant for a certificate of need. In that event, according to petitioners' expert, combined financial statements would be appropriate, in support of the application. Deleting the language proposed for repeal by the amendment under challenge would have no bearing on "combined financial statements" in the sense of a combination of governmental funds required by law to be maintained in separate accounts, although belonging to a single governmental entity, since the provision at issue concerns only "a combination of legal entities." For the same reason, a combination of one legal entity's assets, liabilities, revenues, costs or the like with only selected assets, liabilities, revenues, costs or the like of another entity would not be condoned by the proposed amendment. As the notice published in the Florida Administrative Weekly and Rule 59C-1.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, make clear, the proposed amendment is not a retreat from respondent's insistence on audited financial statements, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Respondent does not propose to repeal the fundamental requirement that "[o]nly audited financial statements of the applicant will be accepted." Rule 59C-1.008(5)(g) 3., Florida Administrative Code. (Emphasis supplied.) The proposed amendment cannot be construed to countenance combining an applicant's assets or revenues with the assets or revenues of an unrelated entity, not legally responsible for complying with conditions that may be placed on a certificate of need.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a certificate of need was complete.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Intervenor each filed applications in the same batching cycle for certificates of need to establish Medicaid-certified home health agencies in Collier County, District 8. By letter dated October 6, 1994, Respondent advised Petitioner that its application omitted certain elements. The letter requests, among other things, an "audited financial statement," including a balance sheet and profit-and-loss statement for the previous two years' operation. Petitioner's application contained an unaudited financial statement for the part of the year that it had been operation. Incorporated in 1994, Petitioner had been receiving patients only since September or October 1994. Petitioner's agent contacted a representative of Respondent and discussed the omissions letter. A misunderstanding ensued in which Petitioner's agent thought that Respondent's representative said that Petitioner would not be required to submit an audited financial statement because Petitioner had not been in operation for a full fiscal year. In fact, Respondent's representative did not say that. Respondent's policy is to permit applicants to file audited financial statements for a partial year, if that is how long they have been in business. For example, Intervenor included with its application an audited financial statement covering the six-week period that it had been in existence. In this case, it would have been possible for Petitioner to obtain an audited financial statement for a period of time including at least its first month of operation.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the administrative withdrawal of the subject application for a certificate of need. ENTERED on April 24, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on April 24, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: rejected as subordinate. 7-8: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 9: adopted or adopted in substance. 10-11: rejected as not finding of fact. 12-14: rejected as recitation of evidence. 15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent and Intervenor All are adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold D. Lewis, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Attorney Robert E. Senton P.O. Box 963 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Richard A. Patterson Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road Suite 301--The Atrium Tallahassee, FL 32303 Attorney Alfred W. Clark 117 South Gadsden Street Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kye Harris, was president of respondent, University Prep, Inc., at all pertinent times. The corporation was originally organized for profit, as a vehicle for the establishment of a private school in Orlando, Florida. On the advice of a lawyer and an underwriter, however, Dr. Harris caused the corporation to be reorganized on a non-profit basis, so as to qualify bonds respondents proposed to issue for an exemption from certain registration requirements. Thereafter University Prep, Inc. did in fact issue bonds, including series A and B sinking fund revenue bonds dated January 1, 1976, in the aggregate principal amount of one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000.00). Accompanying this issue was an offering circular dated December 23, 1975, which stated the corporation's net income for the period August 1, 1975, to September 30, 1975, as seven thousand four hundred seventy dollars ($7,470.00) and valued certain land and improvements at one hundred twenty thousand dollars ($120,000.00). According to the circular, the unaudited statements presented in the circular were "certified by the President/Treasurer and the Secretary. . ." Petitioner's exhibit No. 6, p. 5. According to the minutes of the corporation's board of directors meeting on September 28, 1975, however, the corporation was experiencing "a per month loss of $7,630." Petitioner's exhibit No. 7. Investors purchased some of the bonds dated January 1, 1976. On behalf of the corporation, Dr. Harris contracted for the purchase of an improved, 22 acre tract of real estate on Semoran Boulevard in Orlando, for six hundred fifty thousand dollars ($650,000.00). The transaction, which closed on June 22, 1976, was the result of arm's length negotiations. Respondents gave ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and a separate parcel of real estate (variously valued at from $35,000 to $63,000) as a down payment. The improvements on the property respondents acquired consisted of "approximately 52 units. . .in various stages of completion." (T.24) A few days later, G. E. Naumann, the real estate broker who had represented respondents in this acquisition, prepared an "appraisal" of the property assuming, contrary to fact, that most of the buildings were completed. Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. Mrs. Naumann was not compensated for this "appraisal," which set the value of the property at two million one hundred fifty-five thousand dollars ($2,155,000.00). Although she was aware that respondents "had a bond issuance that they were going through" (T.27), Mrs. Naumann did not expressly authorize the use of her "appraisal" in that connection. University Prep, Inc. issued another series of sinking fund revenue bonds dated July 1, 1976, this one in the aggregate principal amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). Accompanying this issue was an offering circular dated July 1, 1976, which included an unaudited balance sheet "as of June 24, 1976." The value of the 22 acre tract of improved real estate on Semoran Boulevard acquired on June 22, 1976, was stated as two million one hundred fifty-five thousand dollars ($2,155,000.00) more than one and one half million dollars in excess of the land's purchase price. This statement was false and misleading and resulted in a grossly exaggerated statement of net worth. Investors also purchased some of the bonds dated July 1, 1976.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner continue its cease and desist order in force and effect. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip J. Snyderburn, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 University Prep, Inc. 2000 North Semoran Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32807 Kye Harris Post Office Box 102 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for self-insurance for workers' compensation should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of the witnesses' testimony and the documentary evidence received into evidence, the following relevant and material facts that follow are determined. The Florida Self-Insurers Guaranty Association, Inc. (Association), is established by Section 440.385, Florida Statutes (2003), and is an organization that provides a guarantee for workers' compensation benefits for companies that are self-insured. The Association pays injured workers their benefits, if the self-insurer becomes insolvent. An insolvency fund is established and managed by the Association, which funds the workers' compensation benefits for insolvent members. The insolvency fund is funded by assessments from members of the Association. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-5.102 (formerly Florida Administrative Code Rule 4L-5.102), in order for an employer to qualify for self-insurance under the relevant provisions of law, the applicant must meet the following requirements: (1) have and maintain a minimum net worth of $1,000,000; (2) have at least three years of financial statements or summaries; (3) if the name of the business has changed in the last three years, provide a copy of the Amended Articles of Incorporation; and (4) have the financial strength to ensure the payment of current and estimated future compensation claims when due, as determined through review of their financial statement or summary by the Department. Of the general requirements noted in paragraph 3, above, the only issue in this proceeding regards N.C.M.'s financial strength. An applicant for self-insurance is required to submit in its application audited financial statements for its three most recent years. All financial statements, audits, and other financial information must be prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Association is required to review each application and the financial documents which are submitted as part of that application to determine if the applicant has the financial strength to ensure the timely payment of all current and future workers' compensation claims. After the Association reviews the application, it makes a recommendation to the Department as to whether the application for self-insurance should be approved or denied. The Department is required by law to accept the Association's recommendations unless it finds that the recommendations are clearly and convincingly erroneous. N.C.M. submitted its application for self-insurance on or about May 6, 2003, and included in its application audited financial statements for its three most recent fiscal years. The statement contained an unqualified opinion from N.C.M.'s accountant. N.C.M. provided information in its application regarding the number of employees, the worker classifications of these employees, and a payroll classification rating that has been established by the National Council on Compensation Insurance. The application made it clear that the Department could use this information to calculate a manual annual rate premium for each worker classification to determine an overall workers' compensation premium based on statewide manual rates. The Association calculated a standard premium of $507,088.75 for N.C.M., after giving credit for its experience modification of .71. N.C.M. confirmed in its application that it was a corporation duly organized and existing in the State of Florida. N.C.M. also supplied information on its corporate officers and copies of its Articles of Incorporation confirming its corporate existence. In its application and at the hearing, N.C.M. agreed that, if accepted for membership, it will maintain security deposits and excess insurance as required by the Department's administrative rules. Upon receipt of N.C.M.'s application, the Association thoroughly reviewed the application and financial statements for the three most recent years. The Association examined the balance sheets to analyze the Company's assets, liabilities, working capital, and equity structure. Additionally, the Association examined N.C.M.'s income statements to analyze the Company's revenues, profits and/or losses, and expenses. The Company's cash flows were examined. The Association calculated various financial ratios for N.C.M. in order to examine, among other things, the company's asset structure, liquidity, total debt to equity structure, and net income or loss as it relates to the company's equity. The analysis and review performed by the Association, as described in paragraph 12, is the same type of analysis the Association performs on every applicant for self-insurance. Because applicants for self-insurance come from various types of industries, it is not useful to establish specific threshold values for various financial ratios in determining financial strength. However, the Association reviews and analyzes the financial statements of each applicant to determine the financial condition of that applicant. The Association's review of N.C.M.'s audited financial statements revealed that the Company had a net loss of $60,937 in the year ending December 31, 2002. The Company also had a loss from operations in its most recent year in the amount of $74,897, or negative .62 of its revenues. This was a significant factor to the Association because it revealed N.C.M.'s lack of profitability for its most recent year. Petitioner's tax return of 2002 showed a profit for the Company. However, the tax returns are not meant to reflect the economic profit of a business and are not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Rather, the audited financial statements provide more accurate information about the Company’s financial health. N.C.M.'s 2002 net worth was $1,218,895, which exceeded the $1,000,000 minimum net worth requirement established in the applicable rule cited in paragraph 3 above. However, the Association was concerned about N.C.M.'s net worth when taken as a percentage of its workers' compensation premiums, calculated by using the payroll classification information in N.C.M.'s application. The analysis of N.C.M.'s net worth as a percentage of workers' compensation premiums is important because workers' compensation claims can accrue each year and be paid out over a long period of time by the self-insurer. A company with equity that is relatively low in comparison to its workers' compensation exposure might, over time, owe its injured workers as much as, or more than, the equity in the company. This would increase the risk for the injured worker. Upon completing its financial analysis, the Association recommended that N.C.M.'s application for self- insurance be denied. Brian Gee, the executive director of the Association, conveyed the recommendation of denial to the Department in two letters, one dated May 12, 2003, and the other one dated June 19, 2003. The letters were virtually identical, except that the June 19, 2003, letter referred to the specific statute at issue and statutory language that N.C.M. did not have the financial strength necessary to ensure timely payment of all current and future claims. Attached to both the May 12, 2003, and June 19, 2003, letters was a copy of the Association's summary of N.C.M.'s audited financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000. Based on the review of the financial data, the Association made the following four findings, which it listed in both letters: The Company received unqualified audit opinions on its December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000 financial statements from Rust & Christopher, P.A. Liquidity - The current ratio has decreased from 1.34 at December 31, 2000 to 1.13 at December 31, 2002. Capital Structure - The total liabilities to book equity ratio has increased since December 31, 2000 from 1.39 to 1.99 at December 31, 2002. Results of Operations - The Company's gross profit margin has negative 0.62 for the year ended December 31, 2002. The Company reported a net loss of $60,937 for the year ended December 31, 2002. Although the above-referenced letters listed findings relative to the Company's liquidity and capital structure, Mr. Gee did not believe that those findings were of "major significance." The Association's letters and accompanying financial data were submitted to the Department for a final decision to be made by the Department. The Department received and reviewed the Association's letters of recommendation and the accompanying documentation. Based on its review of the letter, the Department noted that the Association appeared to have concerns about the Company's liquidity, liabilities, and profitability. However, there was nothing in the letters which indicated that the Association did not consider the findings related to the Company's liquidity and liabilities (capital structure) to be of major significance. The Department sent N.C.M.'s application, which included the financial statements, to an outside CPA firm for review. The outside CPA performed a financial analysis, calculated various financial ratios on N.C.M., and provided a report to the Department. The outside CPA correctly noted in her report that N.C.M.'s gross profit margin for the year ended December 31, 2002, was 15.4 percent. In Finding No. 4 of its letters of recommendation to the Department, the Association had mistakenly mislabeled the Company's net profit margin as the gross profit margin. As a result of that mislabeling in the letters, the finding incorrectly stated that N.C.M.'s gross profit margin was a negative 0.62 percent for the year ending December 31, 2002. In fact, it was the Company's net profit margin for the year ending December 31, 2001, that was negative 0.62 percent. Notwithstanding the incorrect mislabeling of this item in the letters, the financial summary attached to the letters accurately reflected the Company's gross profits and revenue. The financial statement of N.C.M. also reflected that for the year ending 2002, the Company had a gross profit of $1,877,076, and for that same period had a loss from operations of $74,897, or negative .62 percent. The outside CPA also compared various financial information on N.C.M. to an industry average and concluded that "some of the Company's ratios are below the industry ratios." In making these comparisons, the outside CPA researched two companies she believed were in a business similar to N.C.M. The research on these companies provided an industry average for various financial information on companies in the same industry as the two reference companies. In this case, the two reference companies were primarily producers or sellers of concrete products, as opposed to construction companies like N.C.M. Accordingly, the industry ratios contained in the outside CPA's report may be different than the construction industry and not an appropriate basis with which to compare N.C.M. The report of the outside CPA stated that N.C.M. pays approximately $1,000,000 a year in workers' compensation insurance. That figure is higher than the premiums calculated by the Association using statewide manual rates. Instead of using those rates, the outside CPA based her figure on a newspaper article, which stated that Mr. DelDuca, president of N.C.M., pays $1,000,000 for workers' compensation insurance. In her report, the outside CPA cited N.C.M.'s lack of profitability for the year ending 2002 and correctly noted that for that year, the Company reported a net loss of $60,937. The outside CPA notified the Department that she concurred with the Association's recommendation to deny N.C.M.'s application to become self-insured because the Company had not demonstrated it has the financial strength to ensure timely payment of workers' compensation claims. The Department reviewed the outside CPA's report and noted the concerns about the company's debt equity and lack of profitability. Based on the outside CPA's report, the Department correctly determined that the report contained no information that the Association's recommendation was clearly and convincingly erroneous. As a result of its determination that the Association's recommendation to deny N.C.M.'s application for self-insurance was not clearly or convincingly erroneous, the Department denied the application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying N.C.M. of Collier County, Inc.'s application for self-insurance. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 26th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Alford, Esquire 542 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Mark B. Cohn, Esquire McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman Co., L.P.A. 1800 Midland Building 101 West Prospect Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1088 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated February 29, 2012, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that OFR is the state agency authorized and charged with licensure and regulation of Florida state-chartered financial institutions pursuant to section 20.121(3) and chapters 655 and 658, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto contained in Florida Administrative Code chapter 69U. No dispute exists that Marine Bank is a Florida state- chartered bank operating under Charter Number 251-T, with its principal place of business located at 571 Beachland Boulevard, Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida. OFR began a full scope safety and soundness examination of Marine Bank on August 23, 2010 (August Examination). The August Examination was conducted concurrently with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). In essence, both OFR and FDIC determined that Marine Bank's financial condition had deteriorated; that unsafe and unsound practices existed, including operating with an excessive level of classified assets, inadequate capital in relation to classified assets, poor earnings, and ineffective management oversight; and that an initiation of a corrective action plan was needed. Additionally, among other things, the August Examination revealed that Marine Bank had not obtained current appraisal reports on two properties that were acquired by Marine Bank through foreclosure, referred to as Other Real Estate Owned (OREO). The last appraisal on the two properties was December 4, 2008, and the properties were acquired on June 28, 2010. OFR determined that such failure by Marine Bank was a violation of section 658.67(9)(a), Florida Statutes. Marine Bank, through its Board of Directors, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the FDIC, through the Regional Director of the FDIC's Atlanta Regional Office, and OFR, through the Director, Division of Financial Institutions of the Florida OFR. The effective date of the MOU was September 17, 2010. The MOU provided, among other things, that, as a result of the FDIC Report of Examination of Marine Bank, dated August 10, 2009, which showed that less than satisfactory conditions existed at Marine Bank, which, if not corrected, could result in a more severe situation, corrective action needed to be taken; that the MOU was an agreement; and that Marine Bank would, in good faith, comply with the requirements of the MOU and eliminate the problems at Marine Bank. The MOU required, among other things, Marine Bank to maintain a Tier 1 Leverage Capital ratio of not less than 8 percent and a Tier 1 Risk Based Capital ratio of not less than 12 percent during the existence of the MOU. Further, the MOU required that, if the capital ratios are less than required as determined as of the date of any Report of Condition and Income (Call Report) or any OFR examination, Marine Bank will, within 30 days, present a plan to OFR to increase the capital ratios or bring them within compliance; that, after OFR provides comments to Marine Bank regarding the plan, the board of directors of Marine Bank will adopt the plan, including amendments or modifications requested by OFR; and that, after adoption of the plan, Marine Bank will implement the measures of the plan, which have not been utilized previously, to increase the amount of Tier 1 Capital sufficient to comply with the capital ratios. Additionally, the MOU required, among other things, Marine Bank to reduce the balance of assets classified Substandard in the FDIC Report in relation to Tier 1 Capital and the allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL) through specific methods within a certain time-period and a certain percentage. OFR considers the MOU to be an agreement which is in writing and is, therefore, a written agreement. The MOU is a written agreement.1/ When a memorandum of understanding is presented to the board of directors of a financial institution, generally, the board of directors is informed that a memorandum of understanding is an informal enforcement or corrective action. OFR considers the MOU to be enforceable through an administrative complaint. OFR considered the MOU to be a written agreement with it and that Marine Bank had breached the written agreement. As a result, OFR considered the MOU to be enforceable through a complaint pursuant to section 655.033(1)(e), which provides that OFR may file a complaint for a breach of any written agreement with it. During the discussions of the MOU and before it was finalized, Marine Bank realized that it would fall short of compliance with the capital levels presented. Before the effective date of the MOU, in August 2010, Marine Bank presented a capital plan to OFR and FDIC. OFR did not provide comments to Marine Bank regarding its capital plan. In November 2010, Marine Bank commenced an offering to raise capital. The offering expired in June 2011, with insufficient capital being raised. Also, in April 2011, Marine Bank revised the capital plan and provided it to OFR. Again, OFR did not provide comments to Marine Bank regarding its revised capital plan. Marine Bank agrees that it needs to raise capital. It has made efforts to raise capital, and its efforts have been ongoing. However, Marine Bank's efforts have been insufficient to raise the capital needed. Marine Bank prepared and provided progress reports on its compliance with the MOU. OFR reviewed and considered Marine Bank's progress reports. Also, among other things, Marine Bank was required, as a federally insured bank, to file a quarterly Call Report, which included Marine Bank's assets, liabilities, income, and the interest rate risk. Call Reports are prepared and submitted by the bank, and, therefore, Marine Bank's Call Reports were prepared and submitted by it. The quarterly Call Reports formed the basis for OFR's financial assessment of the financial health of Marine Bank. Among other things, the quarterly Call Reports reflected Marine Bank's Tier 1 Leverage Capital ratio and Tier 1 Risk Based Capital ratio. The FDIC commenced another examination of Marine Bank on September 19, 2011 (September Examination). The FDIC provided a copy of its report to OFR. OFR is authorized to accept an examination by an appropriate federal regulatory agency. OFR considered the September Examination in evaluating Marine Bank's condition. Exam and visitation documents showed, among other things, that Marine Bank's management oversight remained ineffective and needed improvement; that Marine Bank's volume of adversely affected assets was high and reflected additional deterioration in its loan portfolio and Other Real Estate; that Marine Bank's earnings remained weak; and that Marine Bank's capital levels were deficient and below the minimum levels required by the MOU. Further, the exam and visitation results showed, among other things, that Marine Bank's risk management processes were not adequate in relation to economic conditions and Marine Bank's asset concentrations; that Marine Bank's risk management processes were not adequate in relation to and consistent with Marine Bank's business plan, competitive conditions, and proposed new activities or products; and that Marine Bank's internal controls, audit procedures, and compliance with laws and regulations were inadequate. Also, the exam and visitation results noted, among other things, that Marine Bank should amend its June 30, 2011, Call Report due to significant errors that were identified during the September Examination. Subsequently, Marine Bank amended the June 30, 2011, Call Report, correcting some, but not all, of the errors noted. OFR began a visitation of Marine Bank on January 30, 2012, to determine Marine Bank's current financial condition and to evaluate Marine Bank's compliance with the MOU. The exam and visitation documents showed that, overall, Marine Bank's financial condition remained weak. Adversely classified assets remained high, totaling $19,338,000.00 or 14.13 percent of total assets, and could jeopardize Marine Bank's viability. Marine Bank's concentration in non-owner occupied commercial real estate (CRE) loans and land loans totaled $32,032,000.00 or 314 percent of the Total Risk Based Capital. Marine Bank's earnings for the twelve months ending December 31, 2011, were unsatisfactory with a pre- tax net loss of $194,000.00 or a pre-tax return on average assets of a negative 0.13 percent. Further, the exam and visitation documents and Call Report showed that, as of December 31, 2011, Marine Bank's Tier 1 Capital was $8,813,000.00 (Tier 1 Capital ratio of 6.52 percent) and Total Risk Based Capital was $10,224,000 (Total Risk Based Capital ratio of 9.60 percent). Marine Bank failed to meet the minimum ratio levels required in the MOU. The exam and visitation documents showed that Marine Bank had complied with all of the requirements of the MOU, except for the Tier Capital ratios. Moreover, no dispute exists that, since the effective date of the MOU, Marine Bank has failed to meet or exceed the minimum ratio levels (Tier 1 Capital ratio of 8 percent and Total Risk Based Capital ratio of 12 percent), as required by the MOU, for any quarter period. OFR examiners determined that, based on the results of the visitation, the assessment of Marine Bank's financial condition, risk management processes, operations, and management during previous exams was justified. No evidence was presented demonstrating that Marine Bank was on the verge of insolvency or substantial dissipation of assets or earnings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation may issue and is authorized to issue a cease and desist order against Marine Bank for engaging in unsafe and unsound practices and for violating laws relating to the operation of a financial institution. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 20th of November, 2012.
