Findings Of Fact On or about March 17, 1994, Petitioner, T-B Services, Inc., filed an application for certification as a minority business enterprise with the Florida Department of Management Services. The Respondent, the State of Florida Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development, has subsequently been assigned responsibility for this matter. On May 3, 1994, Petitioner's application was denied. Petitioner's application was denied based upon Respondent's conclusion that Petitioner did not satisfy Sections 288.703(2) and 287.0942(1), Florida Statues, and rules governing minority business enterprises of the Department of Management Services. Mr. Anthony D. Nelson is the minority, 100 percent, owner of Petitioner. Mr. Nelson is an African-American. The business of Petitioner, fire protection consulting, and fabrication and installation services, requires the association of an individual holding a professional license to perform those services. There are two professional license holders associated with Petitioner. Neither of the professional license holders are members of any minority. Mr. Nelson does not hold a professional license necessary for the Petitioner to provide fire protection consulting, or fabrication and installation services.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent dismissing the Petition for Formal Hearing filed by T-B Services Group, Inc., and denying Petitioner's application for minority business enterprise certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, 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 26th day of May, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy A. Laquidara, Esquire Suite 1629, Riverplace Tower 1301 Riverplace Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Kenneth W. Williams Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Crandall Jones Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Executive Administrator Knight Building 272 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact By application dated February 6, 1998, Petitioner requested certification as a minority business enterprise. Respondent received the application on May 20, 1998, and denied the application on July 31, 1998. In denying the application, Respondent cited several reasons, including various rules, for why it was denying Petitioner's request for minority business certification. The letter cites Rules 38A-20.001(8) (statutory definition of "minority business enterprise") and (15) (lack of real control); and 38A-20.005(2) (ownership tests) and (3)(a) (control subject to restrictions), (b) (determining quorum of board of directors), (c) (minorities must be sufficiently capable and responsible to maintain control), and (d) (control may not be distributed among non-minority family members so that minority lacks dominant responsibility for management and daily operations, including purchase of inventory and equipment and financial control). Respondent does not dispute that Darlene S. Maki is a minority--i.e, female--and that Petitioner is a "small business concern." The application discloses that Petitioner is a Florida corporation in business as a machine shop. The application discloses that the only minority associated with the corporation is Ms. Maki, who at all times has owned 51 percent of the stock and serves as the president and treasurer. Initially, Mr. Maki's husband owned 14 percent of the shares; Mr. Rodhe owned 12.5 percent of the shares; Ms. Maki's other son, Michael Gritton, owned 12.5 percent of the shares; and Ronald Maki owned 10 percent of the shares. The application states that the initial board of directors consisted of three persons: Ms. Maki; her husband, Mark Maki; and one of Ms. Maki's sons, Randy L. Rodhe. In fact, the original board of directors consisted of Ms. Maki, her husband, her two sons, and Ronald Maki, the brother of Ms. Maki's husband. Petitioner is a family-owned and -operated business. Originally, Ms. Maki's husband served as vice-president, and Mr. Rodhe as secretary. The owners have had varying degrees of involvement in the corporation, ranging from Ms. Maki, who has been most involved, to Ronald Maki, whose involvement has been limited to his initial investment of $25,000. The only other persons to contribute cash for their shares were Ms. Maki and her husband. According to the application, Ms. Maki contributed $18,500, and her husband contributed $8000. The application understates their cash contributions. Individually, Ms. Maki contributed $32,000 in cash, which she raised by liquidating her Section 401(k) plan ($20,000) and bonds ($12,000). Individually, Ms. Maki's husband contributed $8000 in cash. Jointly, Ms. Maki and her husband contributed another $60,000 in cash, consisting of $30,000 in loan proceeds from a mortgage on their jointly owned home and $30,000 in charges on their joint credit cards. Prior to incorporating Petitioner in August 1997, Ms. Maki, who is 56 years old, had 20 years' experience working in a machine shop operating noncomputerized drill presses. She also worked five years as an assistant vice-president of a bank, supervising mortgage loan operations. Although Ms. Maki does not know how to operate the newer computer-assisted machines, her background would permit her to learn to do so with minimal training. However, due to a progressively debilitating disease that struck her in 1989, Ms. Maki is confined to a wheelchair and lacks feeling in her hands. Thus, she cannot efficiently operate the older manual machines or newer computer-assisted machines used in machine shops. Ms. Maki's husband lacks any experience in machining tools. He has worked over 25 years as an automobile mechanic. His brother has no experience in machining tools; he is in the construction business in Miami. Ms. Maki's sons have considerable experience in machining tools, including training and 14 and 20 years' experience in using the newer, more complicated computer-assisted equipment, which Petitioner owns. They received their stock in return for their agreement to work for wages well below what they could have earned elsewhere. Given the minimal cash flow and concerns about jeopardizing her Social Security disability payments, Ms. Maki did not withdraw money from Petitioner. However, her husband received a salary of an undisclosed amount until September 1998. Her sons also received a salary, but only about $100 weekly, mostly to cover their expenses. In May 1998, Mr. Rodhe terminated his involvement with Petitioner. At that time, he transferred his stock to Petitioner, apparently without any payment to him. The effect of this transfer was to increase Ms. Maki's percentage ownership of Petitioner. At the time of Mr. Rodhe's departure, his brother replaced him as secretary, and the board of directors were reduced to four members. These are the present officers and directors of Petitioner. Pursuant to the articles of incorporation, the board of directors directs the affairs of Petitioner. Nothing in the articles of incorporation overrides the provisions of Section 607.0824(1), Florida Statutes, which provides that a majority of directors constitute a quorum, or Section 607.0808(1), Florida Statutes, which provides that the shareholders may remove directors without cause. Ms. Maki and her husband are each authorized signatories of checks drawn on Petitioner's checking account. Each check requires only one signature. However, Mr. Maki does not typically sign the checks, consistent with his relatively little involvement with Petitioner. Someone at the bank suggested to Ms. Maki that Petitioner should authorize her husband to sign checks in case anything happened to Ms. Maki. Ms. Maki and her husband are the guarantors on a lease for a major piece of equipment used by Petitioner. In a later lease, the lender allowed only Ms. Maki to sign as a guarantor. Business has slowly been building. In July 1998, Petitioner hired a machinist and purchased another machine. When confronting a major decision, such as purchasing a new machine, Ms. Maki presents the issue to the board of directors, which then makes the decision. Ms. Maki solely handles hiring, firing, payroll, purchasing material, bidding, and scheduling jobs. She is present at the shop every workday from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM and supervises all of the activities in the shop.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 25th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene Maki Qualified Representative RGM Precision Machine, Inc. 18923 Titus Road Hudson, Florida 34667 Joseph L. Shields Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary B. Hooks Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should certify Petitioner as a minority business enterprise ("MBE").
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for granting or denying applications for MBE certification in accordance with Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes,1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 60A-2.001 and 60A-2.005.2 Petitioner is an applicant for MBE certification. Petitioner is engaged in the business of installing traffic signal devices. Petitioner is a closely held Florida corporation that was organized in 1990. Minority Ownership All of Petitioner's stock is owned by Ms. Burita Allen. Ms. Allen is a minority person within the meaning of Section 288.703(3) (the "minority owner" or "minority shareholder"). The minority shareholder is majority shareholder. She owns at least 51 percent of Petitioner's stock within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(2)1. Financial Risk And Control The minority ownership of Petitioner is real, substantial, and continuing within the meaning of Rule 60A- 2.005(3)(d)3. The minority owner provided all of the $100,000 used for Petitioner's initial capitalization on April 4, 1995.3 Petitioner was inactive from 1990 until it began its first job on May 11, 1995. Petitioner now has completed or started a total of eight jobs. The minority owner has knowledge and control of Petitioner's financial affairs. She has sole control of the day to day operations of the company and its profit and loss. She contributed all of its initial capital, writes the checks, and contracts with employees, subcontractors, and customers. Operating And Management Control The minority owner has operating control of Petitioner and is technically qualified to manage and operate Petitioner's business. She has generated significant growth for Petitioner. Operating revenues have increased from zero to $170,736.28 in less than two years. Petitioner has another $90,268.08 in work performed but not billed. Petitioner's clients include the Florida Department of Transportation, the United States Navy, and Nassau County, Florida. Petitioner has also performed jobs for private companies such as Georgia Pacific, Target, and Haynes & Sons Inc. Affiliation Petitioner's minority owner gained the knowledge and experience needed to operate Petitioner successfully as an employee of J.W. Buckholz Traffic Engineering, Inc. ("Buckholz Engineering"). Buckholz Engineering is a closely held Florida corporation owned by five individuals. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. She owns 52 percent of the stock of Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner shares office space, equipment, and staff with Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner's minority owner allocates approximately 40 percent of the 70 to 102 hours she works each week to Petitioner. The remainder of her work week is allocated to Buckholz Engineering. The affiliation between Petitioner, its minority owner, and Buckholz Engineering does not impair the minority owner's ownership and control of Petitioner. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner's minority owner has an unimpeded legal right to share Petitioner's income, earnings, and other benefits in proportion to her stock ownership within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(2)(b). Neither the exercise of discretion by Petitioner's minority owner, her financial risk, nor her equity position in Petitioner is subject to any formal or informal restrictions within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(3)(a). There are no provisions in any purchase agreement, employment agreement, voting rights agreement, or the corporate by-laws that vary or usurp the minority owner's discretion. Buckholz Engineering assisted Petitioner in obtaining greater bonding limits than Petitioner could obtain on its own. Petitioner was capable of obtaining bonding on its own but increased the amount of bonding by adding Buckholz Engineering as co-applicant. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. Buckholz Engineering is a professional service corporation that provides design services by licensed professional engineers. Buckholz Engineering utilizes professional liability insurance. It is not a construction company and has no need to be bonded. Petitioner derived its name in part to benefit from the goodwill of Buckholz Engineering. However, the two companies are not engaged in the same business. Buckholz Engineering is a professional engineering firm that performs professional services including the design of traffic control systems. Petitioner installs traffic signal devices. Unlike Buckholz Engineering, Petitioner does not need a professional engineering license to conduct its business. Electrical License Petitioner does not offer a trade or profession to the state which requires a trade or professional license within the meaning Section 287.0943(1)(3)1.4 Unlike the professional engineers in Buckholz Engineering, no state statute requires the minority owner to be licensed in a particular trade or profession in order for Petitioner to install traffic signals. Petitioner's minority owner satisfies all certification requirements that are generally required for Petitioner to conduct its business. The minority owner is certified by the International Municipal Signal Association ("IMSA") and by the American Traffic and Safety Association ("ATSA"). In a particular job, Petitioner's customer may require that a licensed electrician pull the necessary permits for the job or that a licensed electrician approve the job. This customer requirement comprises only a de minimis portion of Petitioner's business. Of the eight jobs contracted by Petitioner, only one customer has required the permit to be pulled by a licensed electrician. Petitioner can satisfy these occasional customer requirements by subcontracting with a licensed electrician at a cost that is a small portion of the job cost.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and therein GRANT Petitioner's application for MBE certification. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was incorporated in July 1992. Petitioner is a graphic design firm specializing in strategic, market-driven design. Petitioner conducts market analysis of a client and, only after defining the corporate identity of the client, engages in the development of suitable graphic design. Mary Francis Weathington is the president and chief executive officer of Petitioner. Her experience in communications began in 1980 as a technical writer and editor. From 1989-92, Ms. Weathington served as an account supervisor for an advertising firm. In this role, Ms. Weathington supervised all junior account executives, developed marketing plans, presented proposals to clients, and communicated client needs to agency staff. Ms. Weathington started Petitioner with John LoCastro, who had worked with her at the advertising agency during the same period of time. Mr. LoCastro was responsible for concept development, management, and design direction at the advertising agency. A third person, David Miller, was also involved with the formation of Petitioner. Mr. Miller served as secretary and treasurer, Mr. LoCastro as vice president, and Ms. Weathington as president. Until December 31, 1993, when Mr. Miller resigned from Petitioner, the three principals each owned 50 shares of the 150 issued shares of Petitioner. The capital contribution of each principal was valued at $4500. When he left the company, Mr. Miller transferred his stock to Petitioner in a transaction that required him to pay money to the company due to its thin capitalization and performance. At the same time, Ms. Weathington purchased two more shares. In the summer of 1994, Ms. Weathington bought three more shares and Mr. LoCastro's wife bought two shares. Presently, Ms. Weathington owns 55 shares, Mr. LoCastro owns 50 shares, and Mrs. LoCastro owns two shares. Petitioner has not issued other shares. Petitioner's board of directors consists of Ms. Weathington, her husband, Mr. LoCastro, and his wife. However, Mr. Weathington is a nonvoting director. Besides the two principals, Petitioner employs only one other fulltime employee, an office manager who is responsible for answering the phone, bookkeeping, proofreading, and handling miscellaneous clerical duties. Petitioner also employs, as needed, freelance graphic designers. Petitioner has recently employed a freelance copywriter. In a small company like Petitioner, there is necessarily some sharing of responsibilities in order to secure and produce design work and ensure that payables and receivables are properly managed. However, there are clear areas of responsibility for Ms. Weathington and Mr. LoCastro. As his resume states, Mr. LoCastro is "[r]esponsible for overall creative management, with an emphasis on creative development, planning and design." He is in charge of visual graphics and does nearly all of the computer graphics work, unless it is assigned to a freelancer. Ms. Weathington is responsible for marketing in two respects. First, she markets for Petitioner. She has brought a large majority of the clients to Petitioner and continues to remain responsible for their use of the company. Second, Ms. Weathington assists the clients in developing advertising and design programs that will effectively market the products and services of the clients. Ms. Weathington conducts market research of a client's needs and prepares advertising and design strategies to maintain and enhance the client's business. Ms. Weathington also is chiefly responsible for the management and administration of Petitioner. The office manager's bookkeeping duties are performed under the supervision of Ms. Weathington, who handles personnel, purchasing, planning, and accounting. Although the signatures of both principals are required on checks over $500, this requirement reflects security concerns and does not have a bearing on the division of responsibilities between Ms. Weathington and Mr. LoCastro. Although Mr. LoCastro is responsible for the in-house visuals, Ms. Weathington is responsible for copywriting, which is performed in-house nearly in its entirety. Each principal has been required to guarantee personally the debt of Petitioner. But, given the greater assets of Ms. Weathington, the financial risk is actually borne by her, not Mr. LoCastro. Petitioner's lender would not have made the loan on Mr. LoCastro's guarantee alone, but would have on Ms. Weathington's guarantee alone. Ms. Weathington's control of Petitioner is evidenced in other respects. Petitioner pays for a cellular telephone for her, but not Mr. LoCastro. The marketing brochure prepared by Petitioner features Ms. Weathington in a superior role to the subordinate roles of Mr. LoCastro and Mr. Miller. Ms. Weathington's indispensable contribution to Petitioner is documented by gross sales figures for 1993, during which, for personal reasons, she was unable to work in the spring and fall. When she returned to work in the summer, gross sales increased from less than $10,000 per month to over $50,000 per month. When she left work again in the fall, gross monthly sales fell again to the $20,000 level. Profits have also increased by 16 percent since Ms. Weathington's return.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for minority business enterprise certification. ENTERED on January 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 January 24, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 8, 9, and 12: adopted, although based on the facts and not a claimed concession or absence of dispute. 22: adopted, except that the evidence showed only that gross revenues went down during Ms. Weathington's absences. Nothing in the record addressed net earnings or profits during these periods. Remaining proposed findings: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1 (first sentence): adopted. 1 (remainder)-4 (except for last sentence): rejected as subordinate. 4 (last sentence): adopted. 5-6: rejected as subordinate. 7-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 10: to the extent not subordinate, adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: adopted or adopted in substance. 13 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 13 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, subordinate, and recitation of evidence. 20 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 20 (second sentence): rejected as legal argument. 21: adopted or adopted in substance, except for the implication that, as a practical matter, Mr. LoCastro's guarantee represents as real a financial risk as Ms. Weathington's guarantee. 22 (first sentence): adopted. 22 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Increased sales does not mean increased profits, and nothing in the record indicates increased profits. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 John S. Derr Bush & Derr, P.A. 2874-A Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, FL 32308 Attorney Cindy Horne Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated March 2, 1982, Respondent, Department of Transportation, advised Petitioner that its application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise was denied on the basis that it "[l]acks minority ownership and control." By letter dated March 9, 1982, Petitioner, in the person of its Vice President, Charles J. Cedeno, appealed the Respondent's denial. Pursuant to a notice of hearing dated April 1, 1982, issued by Hearing Officer Charles C. Adams, a hearing on the denial of certification of Petitioner was held on July 7, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner did not have a representative at that hearing, although based upon a representation from Respondent's counsel, Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., indicating the possibility that Petitioner was considering the possibility of requesting a continuance of the July 7, 1982, hearing, the matter was in fact continued by Hearing Officer Adams and rescheduled for hearing by service of a notice of hearing dated July 19, 1982, scheduling the matter for hearing on September 15, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. Copies of the notice of hearing were sent to the parties of record and there was no showing that the notice of hearing was returned as being undeliverable. As noted herein, Petitioner did not appear at the subject hearing herein nor was any communique received from Petitioner indicating that a continuance was being requested. During the hearing, counsel for Respondent made an ore tenus motion to dismiss the Petition on the ground of default as Petitioner failed to appear at the time and place noticed for hearing. That motion was granted by the undersigned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Department of Transportation, issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1982.
The Issue The issues in this case concern the question of whether the Petitioners are entitled to certification as a Minority Business enterprise within the meaning of Chapter 288, Florida Statutes and Rule 13-8.005, Florida Administrative Code. The basic question is whether Bonnie M. Mobley, who is the minority person in Council Enterprises, Inc., and majority stockholder controls the management and daily operations of that corporation.
Findings Of Fact On July 1, 1984 council Enterprises, Inc. was incorporated as a Florida corporation. From that date until the Fall of 1985 the corporation was engaged in the business of plumbing and mechanical services in Florida. At the inception Luther E. Council, Jr., who is also known as "Snipes" Council, was the president, a director and stockholder within the corporation. His mother Bonnie M. Mobley, a minority person, was the majority stockholder and a director in the corporation. At the commencement of the corporation, Bonnie Mobley was secretary/treasurer. Her percentage of stock ownership was 51 percent and the other 49 percent was held by the son. The money which was used to capitalize the corporation in its inception was provided by the mother in the amount of $50,000. On June 14, 1985 by action of the Board of Directors, namely the mother and son, Luther E. Council, Jr. submitted his resignation as president. As the minutes of that meeting state, he did this having secured jobs for employees of Council Enterprises, Inc. with a firm known as Hays Heating and Plumbing Company. Council took a job with that company as manager. On the same date of the Board of Directors meeting, Bonnie M. Mobley was appointed as president, secretary and treasurer, in furtherance of a concern that each of these corporate officers be installed during the life of this corporation. When Luther E. Council, Jr. left Council Enterprises, Inc. to go and work with Hays he was no longer a director. It was further recommended by the son that his mother secure a Leon County Mechanical Contractor's License and serve as a qualifying agent and gain registration with the State of Florida. Other recommendations pursuant to Article II of the Articles of Incorporation were that she consider brokering mechanical equipment as a livelihood and secure a wholesaler's license as well. The events that took place by the corporation was in recognition of the fact that the corporation had concluded its business of offering plumbing and mechanical services. In fact, Bonnie Mobley had gone to work with Hays Heating and Plumbing Company on February 1, 1985 and would remain in her position as office manager at that company until January 9, 1987. During that time she was responsible for secretarial and bookkeeping responsibilities for Hays. During part of that time, as an aside, through Council Enterprises, Inc., she sold supplies to Hays for its use in projects. She tried to gain other contracts for supplies from companies other than Hays, without success. Luther E. Council, Jr., while working at Hays as a manager, was his mother's supervisor. He stayed with Hays from February 1, 1985 until June 19, 1987. As a consequence of leaving Council Enterprises, Inc. to go and work with Hays, Luther D. Council, Jr. transferred his stock in Council Enterprises, Inc. to his mother and she continues to hold all the stock in that company. In August, 1987 and to the present, Bonnie Mobley and her son Luther E. Council, Jr. reconstituted Council Enterprises, Inc. for purposes of offering services in plumbing, mechanical, fire protection, underground utilities, pollutant storage and as builders. They opened an office at 110 Perkins Street, Tallahassee, Florida, which continues to be their business location. Following the August, 1987 restructuring of the business Bonnie Mobley made her son vice-president and named him a director. This meant from that point forward, that there were two directors, Ms. Mobley and her son, Luther E. Council, Jr. In the past, Ms. Mobley had some familiarity with the heating, ventilation and air conditioning and plumbing business which her ex-husband, father of Luther E. Council, Jr. began in 1959. This business was Council Brothers, a company which her former husband and his brothers had started. Her awareness of that business corresponded to about an 11 year period in which at times she was involved to some extent in doing "take offs", cost estimating on jobs for her husband's company. Her principal occupation during the course of this period related to working in the Lewis State Bank as a secretary, receptionist and in the personnel department associated with payroll. She had also done some bookkeeping work for a small business which her ex-husband had relating to an air conditioning and heating service. Ms. Mobley has a license with Council Enterprises, Inc. related to Leon County in the mechanical field. As such, she is the qualifying agent for the corporation. Her son, by contrast, holds certified licenses with the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, in the fields of plumbing contracting, mechanical contracting, building contracting, underground utility contracting, and pollutant storage contracting. In order to gain these licenses he had to have requisite experience in these fields and pass an examination. He also holds a First Class Fire Protection Contractor's License, and a Florida LP Underground Gas License issued by the State of Florida, Department of Insurance. Since the corporation returned to the active contracting business in August, 1987 Ms. Mobley's duties include giving instructions to an office secretary, Laverne Taylor, as needed, and generally keeping things running in the office. She is involved with final decisions about business choices to include an awareness of Dodge reports which advertise contract job opportunities and looking at the local newspaper to see about available work. She is involved in the purchase of equipment and has a say in those choices. She is involved with answering the phone at the office, paying bills, and taking care of the payroll. She sometimes goes to jobsites and stays a number of hours or even may stay all day. Luther E. Council, Jr. describes his position with the company as one of doing whatever needs to be done from running equipment, writing letters, raking and shoveling at jobs and doing job estimating. The mother and son and their field foreman, John W. Edwards, III, all involve themselves in bidding jobs which the company is interested in. The arrangement for hiring employees in the company is one in which a number of the employees who work for the company were associated with Hays and came to work at Council Enterprises, Inc. when Luther E. Council, Jr. returned from Hays to Council Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Edwards was an individual whom Luther E. Council, Jr. knew through their interest in law enforcement. Edwards as field manager is responsible for obtaining additional employees as needed in the field, subject to the approval of Ms. Mobley. Ms. Mobley has on occasion fired a couple of foremen with the company. This was against the recommendation of the field foreman Edwards. Another example of hiring relates to Laverne Taylor whom Ms. Mobley hired. The basic arrangement for hiring and firing in the company is premised upon consultation among Ms. Mobley, her son and the field foreman Edwards. Although 95 percent of the checks in the bank account by the company have been signed by Ms. Mobley, her son has signed the other 5 percent of the checks and has the authority to sign checks on the company's single signature accounts. In the bidding process which has been alluded to, all three persons, namely Ms. Mobley, Mr. Edwards and her son, Luther E. Council, Jr. are involved. Edwards is not as experienced as the son and neither is Ms. Mobley. Luther E. Council, Jr. has a better grounding in the business and in the more complicated issues that may arise in the bidding process. Ms. Mobley has been involved in the financial end of the corporation's activities and is well-grounded in that aspect of the business, to include major purchases, heavy equipment, the payment of routine items such as phone bills, and other account activities. Ms. Mobley, Luther E. Council, Jr. and Mr. Edwards are full-time employees for Council Enterprises, Inc. In obtaining recent loans in the amounts of $60,000 and $22,500, the initial amount being for cash flow on accounts receivable and the second amount having to do with a line of credit, it was necessary for Ms. Mobley and her son Luther E. Council, Jr. to guarantee the loans. In a related matter in the purchase of major pieces of equipment, both Ms. Mobley and her son signed the financial agreements involving the lease purchase of equipment. Bonding for the company in its projects include references to the resume's of both Ms. Mobley and her son. Approximately 80 percent of the work of Council Enterprises, Inc. involves underground utility installation and 20 percent is related to plumbing. In this process, Luther E. Council, Jr. is an indispensable person in deciding the direction which the company will pursue in its business activities, most especially related to understanding of the technical aspects of this company's business and the necessity to rely upon his licensing credentials in order to pursue its business functions. For thin's reason, Bonnie Mobley is not in a position to independently control the corporation's affairs and, in fact, has not controlled it, independent of her son a non-minority person. In this connection, Article II, Section 1 of the By Laws of the corporation, Council Enterprises, Inc., speaks in terms' of the business of that corporation being managed and its corporate powers being reposed in its Board of Directors. Further, Article II, Section 6 of those By Laws requires that the majority of the directors shall be necessary as participants at a meeting to constitute a quorum and that it is the act of the majority of those directors present at the meeting where there is a quorum that constitutes the actions of the Board of Directors. Given this circumstance, there are only two directors and Luther E. Council, Jr. has as much authority as Ms. Mobley in his capacity as director. As a result, he necessarily shares in the management of the company. Against this background information concerning Council Enterprises, Inc. it had sought to gain certification as a Minority Business Enterprise by the State of Florida, Department of General Services. It was denied that opportunity by action of the Department on April 8, 1988 and sought a formal hearing under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to resolve the question of its entitlement to such certification. The basis of denial was briefly described in the issue statement to this recommended order and will be more specifically referred to in the Conclusions of Law section of the recommended order which follows.
Recommendation Based upon consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which denies the application of Council Enterprises, Inc. to be certified as a Minority Business Enterprise. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX The following disposition is made of the proposed fact finding of the parties: Petitioner's Facts The Petitioner's facts are subordinate to the fact found in the recommended order. Respondent's Facts 1.-6. Subordinate to facts found. Subordinate to facts found with the exception of the next to the last sentence which is not necessary to resolution of the dispute. Subordinate to facts found with the exception of the first sentence which is contrary to facts found. First sentence is contrary to facts found. The balance of the sentences within that paragraph are subordinate to facts found with the exception of the discussion of use of Luther E. Council, Jr.'s licenses as qualifying to allow the company to conduct certain business in the contracting field. Although it may be customary to use someone else's license as a qualifier for the benefit of the company, under the present circumstances the person who is the qualifying agent is a director who must be appeased before the corporation can conduct its affairs and who by the facts of thin case, is the dominant figure in the pursuit of the business of the corporation. Contrary to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald S. Modesitt, Esquire 320 West Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sandra E. Allen, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452 Larson Building 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services 133 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
The Issue Are Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, valid exercises of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1991, the Respondents made amendments to Rules 60A- 2.001 and 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code, related to the certification of a "minority business enterprise" to engage in business with the State of Florida. With the amendments, a definition for the term "regular dealer" was created, which states in pertinent part: 60A-2.001 Definitions. . . . (10) 'Regular dealer' means a firm that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the material or supplies required for the performance of the contract are bought, kept in stock, and regularly sold to the public in the usual course of business. To be a regular dealer, the firm must engage in, as its principal business and in its own name, the purchase and sale of products. . . . The amendments included other requirements that a "minority business enterprise", as defined at Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, must meet to be certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program. (The definition of "minority business enterprise" was changed by Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). The change does not effect the outcome in the case.) As promulgated December 22, 1991, Rule 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code states in pertinent part: The applicant business shall establish that it is currently performing a useful business function in each specialty area requested by the applicant. For purposes of this rule, "currently" means as of the date of the office's receipt of the application for certification. The applicant business is considered to be per- forming a useful business function when it is responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work of a contract and carrying out its responsibilities in actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. The useful business function of an applicant business shall be determined in reference to the products or services for which the applicant business requested certification on Form PUR 7500. When the applicant business is required by law to hold a license, other than an occupational license in order to undertake its business activity, the applicant business shall not be considered to be performing a useful business function unless it has the required license(s). In determining if an applicant business is acting as a regular dealer and that it is not acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non- minority business, the Office shall consider the applicant's business role as agent or negotiator between buyer and seller or contractor. Though an applicant business may sell products through a variety of means, the Office shall consider the customary and usual method by which the majority of sales are made in its analysis of the applicability of the regular dealer require- ments. Sales shall be made regularly from stock on a recurring basis constituting the usual operations of the applicant business. The proportions of sales from stock and the amount of stock to be maintained by the applicant business in order to satisfy these rule requirements will depend on the business' gross receipts, the types of commodities sold, and the nature of the business's operations. The stock maintained shall be a true inventory from which sales are made, rather than by a stock of sample, display, or surplus goods remaining from prior orders or by a stock main- tained primarily for the purpose of token compliance with this rule. Consideration shall be given to the applicant's provision of dispensable services or pass-through operations which do not add economic value, except where characterized as common industry practice or customary marketing procedures for a given product. An applicant business acting as broker or packager shall not be regarded as a regular dealer absent a showing that brokering or packaging is the normal practice in the applicant business industry. Manufacturer's representatives, sales representatives and non-stocking distributors shall not be considered regular dealers for purposes of these rules. In passing the rules amendments, the Respondents relied upon authority set forth in Sections 287.0943(5) and 287.0945(3), Florida Statutes. Those statutory sections are now found at Sections 287.0943(7) and 287.0945(6), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). Those provisions create the general and specific authority for the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office to effectuate the purposes set forth in Section 287.0943, Florida Statutes, by engaging in rule promulgation. As it relates to this case, the law implemented by the challenged rules is set forth at Section 287.0943(1)(e)3, Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.), which establishes criteria for certification of minority business enterprises who wish to participate in the Minority Business Program contemplated by Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. That provision on certification was formerly Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes. In assessing a minority business enterprise application for certification, the Respondents, through that statutory provision: [R]equire that prospective certified minority business enterprises be currently performing a useful business function. A 'useful business function' is defined as a business function which results in the provision of materials, supplies, equipment, or services to customers other than state or local government. Acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non-minority business does not constitute a useful business function unless it is done so in a normal industry practice. Petitioners, Expertech and Mechanical, had been certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program, but were denied re- certification through the application of Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code. Marsha Nims is the Director of Certification for the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office. In her position, she develops policy on minority business enterprise certification. As such, she was principally responsible for developing the subject rules. In particular, as Ms. Nims describes, the purpose in developing the rules was to address the meaning of a "conduit" set forth at Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes, in an attempt to insure that improper advantage was not taken by persons using certified minority businesses to enter into contractual opportunities with the State of Florida. In promulgating the rule, the Respondents spoke to representatives who were involved with unrelated minority business enterprise certification programs. One person from whom the Respondents had obtained ideas was Hershel Jackson, who processed certifications for the Small Business Administration in its Jacksonville, Florida office. This individual indicated that the Small Business Administration had developed a "regular dealer rule" that required individuals who sought minority certification from the Small Business Administration to make sales from existing inventory. This conversation led to the utilization of federal law as a guide to establishing the rules in question. At 41 CFR 50-201.101(a)(2), the term "regular dealer" is defined as: A regular dealer is a person who owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. It can be seen that the definition of "regular dealer" set forth in Rule 60A-2.001(10), Florida Administrative Code, is very similar to the federal definition. In addition, the Respondents used the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act Interpretations at 41 CFR 50-206 for guidance. The provision within the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act that was utilized was 41 CFR 50-206.53(a). It states: Regular Dealer. A bidder may qualify as a regular dealer under 40 CFR, 50-201.101(b), if it owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the commodities or goods of the general character described by the specifi- cations and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. . . . The Petitioners presented witnesses who established the manner in which their respective industries carried out normal industry practices involving fund transfers to non-minority businesses from minority and non- minority businesses. Joseph H. Anderson is the President of Suntec Paint, Inc. (Suntec), which does business in Florida. Suntec is a non-minority corporation. It manufactures architectural coatings (house paints). Suntec sells and distributes its paint products through its own stores, through other dealers who have stores, and through sales agents. The sales agents would also be considered as manufacturers' representatives. Suntec's relationship with its manufacturer's representatives is one in which Suntec has an agreement with the representatives to sell the paint products to the representatives at negotiated prices which may be discounted based upon volume of sales. The representatives then sell the products to end users at a price that may be higher than the price between Suntec and the representatives. The representatives are responsible for marketing the product to customers. The products manufactured by Suntec are inventoried for distribution, or in some instances, made to order for distribution. The maintenance of inventory is principally for the benefit of the retail outlets controlled by Suntec. Suntec prefers not to maintain inventory because it ties up raw materials, warehousing space, and requires personnel to be engaged in the management and shipment of those products. If the product is "picked up" more than once in the process, it costs more money. Therefore, Suntec distributes inventory through the representatives by direct shipping from the manufacturer to the end user. Suntec's arrangement with its representatives is one in which the customer pays the representative for the product and the representative then pays Suntec. The representatives for Suntec do not ordinarily maintain inventory of the paint products, because this avoids having the representatives handle the product and then reship the product to the end user. By the representative handling the product, it would add expense to the transaction. Suntec, in selling its products through representatives and shipping directly from the manufacturer to the end user, is pursuing a practice which is normal in its industry. Suntec's arrangement with dealers unaffiliated with Suntec who have stores, provides the independent dealers with inventory. Nonetheless, there are occasions in which the independent dealer will place a large order with Suntec; and Suntec will ship the product directly to the end user. That practice is a frequent practice and one that is standard in the industry. Suntec has two minority businesses who serve as manufacturers' representatives and other manufacturers' representatives who are non-minorities. The minority representatives are Expertech, located in Gainesville, Florida, and All In One Paint and Supply, Inc. (All In One), also located in Gainesville. The two minority representatives for Suntec maintain some stock of paint. The inventory amount which All In One maintains was not identified. Within a few months before the hearing, Expertech had purchased 60 gallons of paint from Suntec. It was not clear what the intended disposition was for the paint. Thomas Rollie Steele, the Branch Manager for Bearings and Drives, serves as Sales Manager for that company in its Florida operations. Bearings and Drives has its corporate offices in Macon, Georgia. The company has thirty locations throughout the southern United States, with five different divisions. It specializes in industrial maintenance products and some services. Bearings and Drives is a non-minority firm. In its business Bearings and Drives has manufacturing arrangements or agreements to represent other manufacturers. As representative for other companies who manufacture the products which Bearings and Drives markets, Bearings and Drives is expected to solicit sales. The agreements with the manufacturers which Bearings and Drives has, establish price structures, terms and conditions, and shipping arrangements. Bearings and Drives serves as representatives for the manufacturers in a distinct service area. Bearings and Drives buys products from the manufacturers and resells the products to Bearings and Drives' customers. Bearings and Drives derives compensation by selling to customers at a price higher than the product was sold to them. The price at which products are resold by Bearings and Drives is controlled by market conditions. Bearings and Drives maintains some product inventory; however, in excess of 50 percent of the products sold are shipped directly from the manufacturer to the customer. The direct shipment improves the profit margin for Bearings and Drives by not maintaining an inventory and saving on additional freight expenses, taxes paid on existing inventory and labor costs to be paid warehouse personnel. Bearings and Drives uses a direct delivery system to its customers that is scheduled around the time at which the customer would need the product sold by Bearings and Drives. This arrangement is a standard industry practice. Aileen Schumacher is the founder, President, and sole owner of Expertech. This Petitioner had been certified through the Minority Business Program prior to the rule amendments in December, 1991. When the Petitioner, Expertech sought to be re-certified, it was denied certification in some business areas for failure to maintain sufficient levels of inventory. Expertech sells and distributes technical supplies, such as pollution- control equipment, laboratory equipment, hand tools, and other technical supplies. It specializes in the sale and distribution of safety equipment. Expertech does not provide services. The areas in which Expertech has been denied re-certification relate to the sale of laboratory supplies, paint, and pollution-control equipment. In marketing products Expertech buys directly from manufacturers, except in the instance where they cannot access the manufacturer directly and must operate through a distributor. Expertech tries to maintain as little inventory as possible and to have the commodities it sells shipped directly from the manufacturer to the end user. In addition to ordinary sales, Expertech takes custom orders for products not maintained in inventory by the manufacturer, which are directly shipped from the manufacturer to the customer. In Expertech's business dealings as a manufacturer's representative, wherein it arranges for direct shipments, it is performing in a manner which is standard in the industries in which it is engaged. Otto Lawrenz is the sole proprietor of Mechanical. Prior to the rules changes in December, 1991, Mechanical had been certified as a minority business enterprise. The attempt to re-certify was denied based upon the fact that Mechanical did not stock products and was serving as a manufacturer's representative in selling heating and ventilation equipment. Mechanical sells to mechanical contractors and sheet-metal contractors as a representative for the manufacturer. Mechanical bids on construction jobs and "takes off" the amount of equipment needed in setting its price quotes. If the submission of the price quotation is successful, Mechanical receives a purchasing order from the contractor, as approved by the project engineer. The equipment is then ordered by Mechanical, and delivered by the manufacturer to the job site or the contractor's home office. Mechanical does not maintain a warehouse or a store. The end user pays Mechanical within 30-60 days from the time that the equipment is delivered to the end user. Mechanical then pays the original manufacturer an agreed upon price. Generally, Mechanical sells special-order equipment. This type of equipment would be difficult to inventory since it is being custom-ordered and the units that are ordered are large in size. In addition, the variety of parts involved in these projects makes it difficult to stock them.
The Issue Whether Expedient Services, Inc. should be certified as a minority business enterprise by the Respondent, pursuant to Section 288.703(1) and (2), Florida Statutes and the applicable rules implementing the statute.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation founded prior to 1978 by five minority owners who purchased all of the stock originally issued. The primary business of the corporation was to provide janitorial services for corporate and governmental clients. In 1978, Harvey Hughes was hired as president and CEO. As part of his compensation package, Hughes purchased a minority interest in the corporation at par value. Hughes continues to serve in that capacity to the present day. Beginning after 1983, the five original stockholders, on separate occasions, sold their shares back to the corporation leaving Hughes as the sole stockholder with 833 shares outstanding. In the late 1980's, Hughes' son, Carl Hughes, joined the company as Vice-President and began the process of changing the type of services the corporation provided. He became a minority shareholder in 1991. Sherry Hughes has served as a member of the Board of Directors and Secretary/Treasurer to the Corporation for many years. In addition, she is employed by the Corporation as its Human Resources Director. In 1992, for past services rendered and no additional consideration, Horace Hughes transferred 450 shares, or 54 percent of the outstanding shares, to Sherry Hughes, his wife. Fifty-Four percent of the Petitioner/applicant is presently owned by Sherry Hughes, a woman. The Petitioner's current business is the repair and sales of computers and peripheral equipment. The majority owner, Sherry Hughes, is not a computer technician. She cannot diagnose a computer which needs repairs. The corporation hires computer technicians. Sherry Hughes does not hire technicians, as that duty has been delegated to the Service Manager, Vincent Schneider. Additionally, Schneider usually does the firing when needed. Payroll for Petitioner is done by an employee, Kathy Levann. Mrs. Hughes purchases office supplies and leaves the purchasing of technical supplies to a buyer. The company presently has three male Directors and two women Directors, including Sherry Hughes. All the Directors are authorized to sign corporate checks. For their work, Sherry Hughes is paid $5.00 hourly; Horace Hughes is paid $12-14 hourly and Carl Hughes is paid $12-15 hourly. All are stockholders. Horace Hughes, as President, signed the lease for the business location. Horace Hughes signed the affidavit for insurance on the business vehicles. Horace Hughes signed for a business loan in the financed amount of $70,302.71, both as President and Guarantor at SunTrust Bank. Horace Hughes is authorized by corporate resolution to borrow money on behalf of the corporation. Carl Hughes entered into the agreements with various computer dealers on behalf of the Petitioner. Sherry Hughes does not handle invitations to bid. Carl Hughes handles all invitations to bid, cost estimating and negotiations. Applicant has not established by competent evidence that Sherry Hughes exercises a real, substantial continuing ownership and control of the applicant corporation. Other than her salary, no evidence was introduced to establish that Sherry Hughes receives income commensurate with the percentage of her ownership in the company. Sherry Hughes failed to establish that she shares in all of the risk through her role in decision-making, negotiations, and execution of documents as either an individual or officer of the corporation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed by Expedient Services, Inc. on April 7, 1995, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5067 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-18. COPIES FURNISHED: Horace Hughes, President Expedient Services, Inc. Post Office Box 5400 Titusville, Florida 32783-5400 Joseph L. Shields General Counsel Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000 Veronica Anderson Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000
The Issue The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Reguest for Statement of Qualification for Petroleum Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. Attachment F to the solicitation sought information related to utilization of minority business enterprises as subcontractors. Points were available for said utilization. The Department awarded zero points to parties which failed to include the three pages of the attachment in the responses to the solicitation. The issue in this case is whether the Department acted in accordance with law in awarding zero points for failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F.
Findings Of Fact On March 1, 1991, The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSOQ) for Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. As stated in the RFSOQ, the DER's objective is to enter into approximately ten contracts for petroleum cleanup services with contractors most qualified to perform the services. It is in the best interests of the state and the DER to enter into such contracts with the most qualified contractors available. Selected firms will be placed under contract with the DER to respond to task assignments. There is no work guaranteed to any contractor as a result of being selected and placed under contract. The cover sheet to the DER Solicitation #9111C identifies Attachment B as "General Instructions", Attachment C as "Instructions for Preparation of an SOQ", Attachment F as "Minority Business Certificate" and Attachment N as an "SOQ Checklist." In the RFSOQ, the DER specifically reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. The general instructions set forth at Attachment B provide, that the DER "may waive minor informalities or irregularities in the SOQs received where such are merely a matter of form and not substance, and the corrections of which are not prejudicial to other contractors." The DER is not required to waive all minor irregularities. The ability to waive such defects is within the jurisdiction of the agency. The evidence establishes that the DER applied such discretion consistently. There is no evidence that, at any time prior to the SOQ opening, did the Petitioner or Intervenors seek additional information from the DER regarding the agency's discretion to waive minor irregularities. Attachment C provides that "ANY AND ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY A CONTRACTOR IN VARIANCE WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE REVIEWED OR EVALUATED (e.g. pages beyond the 20-page SOQ limit will not be reviewed) or may result in the response being deemed non-responsive and rejected as noted." The purpose of the statement was to discourage responders from submitting information beyond that required by the RFSOQ, in order to provide a common basis for the evaluation of all SOQs submitted. The provision also provided the DER with the ability to reject an SOQ which failed to substantially comply with the agency's solicitation. Attachment C states that an SOQ shall consist of three parts, a one- page transmittal letter, a 20-page SOQ, and "other required information". According to Attachment C, the SOQ was to contain an introduction, a section on the company's background, a statement of experience and knowledge related to the qualifications required by the RFSOQ, a description of project organization and management appropriate to the tasks assigned, a list of personnel responsible for completion of assigned task, a list of "a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the FDER" and related information. Work performed for the DER was to be set forth separately in addition to the ten non-DER clients. "Other required information" included minority business utilization information. Attachment C provides as follows: Contractors submitting SOQs under this solicitation must identify intended minority subcontractors and estimated percentage of total contract amount to be awarded to minority firms on Attachment F of this Request for Statement of Qualifications. Use of any document other that Attachment F shall result in disallowance of any credit for use of minority subcontractors. (emphasis supplied.) Evaluation points were available on a scaled basis to contractors based upon their commitment to utilization of minority businesses enterprises in their SOQs. Attachment B provides that "Minority Business Utilization will be evaluated. provided that the responder complies with the reporting requirements contained in Attachment F...." (emphasis supplied.) Attachment F, page 1 of 3, provides as follows: Directions: Each contractor and/or subcontractor which meets the definition of a certified small minority business, as described below, shall submit an originally signed copy of page 1 of this Attachment in the response package to this solicitation. If more than one minority business is to be used, the prime contractor shall copy this page and have each minority business complete that copy as though it were an original. A prime contractor which intends to utilize subcontractors meeting the definition of small minority business is responsible for completing page 2 of this Attachment. A prime contractor which meets the definition of a small minority business is responsible for completing page 3 of this Attachment. If a particular page of this Attachment is not applicable, the prime contractor shall so indicate on that page and include the page as part of the response package. At a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit-- this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization. (emphasis supplied.) Attachment N, the "SOQ checklist," provides a list of items which are to be "properly completed, signed and enclosed" in order to "ensure that your SOQ is responsive to FDER Solicitation No. 9111C...." Item 3.b. of Attachment N reads: "Minority Business Utilization Form - if applicable (Attachment F)". As stated in Attachment B to the RFSOQ, on March 13, 1991, a mandatory pre-bid meeting was held in Tallahassee, Florida, at the DER's offices for all contractors wishing to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ). Failure to attend the meeting would have resulted in rejection of SOQs submitted by non- attending contractors. The Petitioner and Intervenors were represented at the pre-bid meeting. The meeting provided an opportunity during the solicitation process to have technical, legal or administrative questions answered. Accordingly, potential responders are expected to have read the complete RFSOQ prior to the meeting. At the pre-bid meeting, the DER did not review every part of the solicitation, but invited questions from participants. The DER official conducting the meeting stated that "any and all information submitted by a contractor in variance with these instructions will not be reviewed or evaluated," however, the other directions provided in the RFSOQ were otherwise reviewed only upon request. Although there was a specific discussion of the requirements for reporting proposed minority business utilization, there were no questions asked with regard to the requirements for completion of Attachment F. There were no questions asked regarding the DER's right to waive irregularities, or whether the failure to submit Attachment F in accordance with the directions would be regarded by the agency as a minor irregularity. Potential responders also had an opportunity to submit written questions prior to a time certain. There is no evidence that questions were raised related to the requirements of Attachment F or to the DER's application of it's discretionary authority to waive minor irregularities. On March 22, 1991, the DER issued an addendum, not material to this case, to the Request for SOQs. The addendum was sent by certified mail to each contractor represented at the March 13, 1991 meeting. On March 27, 1991, a second addendum was sent to each contractor. The addendum, among other things, changed the date for submission of an SOQ from April 1, 1991 to April 15, 1991 at 2:00 P.M. On April 15, 1991, SOQs were submitted by the Petitioner and Intervenors in this case. The bids were opened at 2:00 P.M. or shortly thereafter, and subsequently evaluated and scored by DER personnel. In some categories, points were awarded on a weighted basis, which provided a relative ranking of responders. For example, the prime contractor with the highest minority business enterprise subcontractor utilization received 13 points, with lesser ranked contractors receiving fewer points. On June 3, 1991, at 10:05 A.M. bid tabulation results were posted in the DER's contract office. The Petitioner and Intervenors in this case submitted responsive SOQ's to DER solicitation #9111C. The result of the DER's evaluation was the development of a short list of contractors permitted to make oral presentations to agency officials after which the DER will initiate contract discussions with approximately ten contractors. The SOQs were reviewed by DER officials who initially identified information submitted which did not comply with the requirements of the RFSOQ. Irregularities were identified and discussed with DER legal counsel to determine the materiality of the irregularity and to ascertain the appropriate treatment of the defects. The DER officials did not disclose the identity of the responder during the discussions, although the person identifying the defect was aware of the related responder. However, there is no evidence that the three DER officials were aware of an individual non-complying contractor's identity, or that the decision to waive such irregularities was based upon the identity of the participants. The DER determined that, in order to be equitable to all participants, it would not waive irregularities where the directions were clear and the consequences for noncompliance were specifically set forth. If the solicitation were less clear, or the consequence of noncompliance with the requirement was not specifically identified, the Department attempted to be more lenient regarding the waiver of such irregularities. Where the DER waived irregularities, such waivers were awarded on a consistent basis without regard to the individual responders involved. Information which was not to be reviewed or evaluated was concealed by either covering the information with white paper, or stapling excess pages together. The DER waived several types of minor irregularities in the SOQs received for Solicitation #9111C. Some contractors submitted transmittal letters consisting of multiple pages rather than the one page letter specified in the RFSOQ. The transmittal letter received no evaluation points. The DER stapled multiple page letters together and considered only information contained on the first page. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the one- page limit was not reviewed or evaluated. The DER did not waive the failure to attach a transmittal letter. DER waived some irregularities related to subcontractor letters. Multiple page letters were stapled together and only page one information was reviewed. The DER decision to waive such defects was based upon the fact that such subcontractors were less familiar with the DER's submission requirements than were the prime contractors, that such letters were submitted by the subcontractors, that it was unfair to penalize the prime contractors for the minor irregularities of the subcontractor letters, and that the tasks to be performed by subcontractors were generally not critical to the successful completion of the prime contractor's assigned responsibilities. There was sufficient information to permit the DER to conclude that the subcontractor and prime contractor were committed to the project. There is no evidence that the identities of the subcontractors was considered in determining whether such defects should be waived. The DER waived other irregularities related to subcontractor letters, including the failure of a subcontractor to sign the letter. There was no specific requirement that the subcontractor sign the letter. However, the DER did not waive the failure to submit subcontractor letters. In instances where no letters were submitted, the DER awarded zero points and references to the subcontractor in the SOQ were deleted. The DER's actions related to subcontractor letters was reasonable and appropriate. Another irregularity waived by the DER was the failure to supply a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the DER, with work performed for the DER set forth separately. The DER did not waive the failure to submit ten references, however, in some cases, not all ten references were acceptable. Attachment C does not state that the failure to submit ten acceptable references shall result in an award of zero points. In such instances, the DER reduced the number of points available to reflect the percentage of acceptable references provided. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the requirements, such as unacceptable references, was not evaluated. The DER acted reasonably and consistently with the provisions set forth in the RFSOQ. The DER requested that responders identify three "deliverables" required through an ongoing contract which had been effective within the past year. The DER did not consider deliverables related to contracts which had not been effective within the past year. The DER checked the references and awarded no points for unacceptable references. Several SOQ's did not appropriately identify key personnel as required. The DER did not consider information which was not reported as required by the RFSOQ. Where minor irregularities were waived, the waiver was applied consistently to all responders. The DER did not waive the failure of any responder to submit the three pages of Attachment F, as clearly required by the directions to the attachment. All parties which failed to submit all three pages of the attachment received a score of zero. There is no evidence that the DER, at any time, indicated that the directions set forth on Attachment F were optional. Approximately 20 of 45 of contractors submitting SOQs failed to include all three pages of the MBE utilization form, Attachment F to the Request for SOQs. Most failed to include page three of the attachment. The Petitioner, as well as Intervenors ERM-South, ITC and Westinghouse, were included in the 20 responders which failed to submit all three pages of Attachment F. As provided in the directions to Attachment F, failure to include all three pages of the attachment resulted in a score of zero points for MBE utilization. The DER could have made certain assumptions about the applicability of Attachment F to specific responders to the solicitation. However, given that the directions were clear and the penalty for not complying with the directions was equally clear, the DER did not waive the failure to submit all three pages of the attachment as part of the SOQs. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the DER's action was outside the agency's discretion or the requirements of law. Extensive testimony was offered in support of the assertion that the directions related to reporting of minority business utilization were confusing and ambiguous. However, the directions to Attachment F are clear and provide that, "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." There is no credible evidence to establish that such directions are confusing or ambiguous. The instructions to the RFSOQ consistently refer to Attachment F as being the only acceptable means of reporting minority business utilization information. Attachment F consists of three pages, with the "Directions" for completing and submitting the attachment set forth at page one, paragraph one. The Petitioner and Intervenors timely filed SOQ's and are substantially affected by the DER's determination that responders failing to submit all three pages of Attachment F were awarded zero points for minority business utilization. There is no evidence that the Petitioner or Intervenors are unable to perform the tasks identified in the RFSOQ.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (Case No. 91-4318B1D), as well as Cases No. 91- 43I6BID and 91-4317B1D, as set forth in the preliminary statement to this Recommended Order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-4316B1D, 90-4317B1D, and 90-4318B1D The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected as to the implication that DER had no right to waive minor irregularities, contrary to the evidence. 12, 16, 19. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected. Such additional points appear to have been awarded to M&E in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 24-25. Rejected. Although the specific waivers are factually correct, the implication of the proposed finding is contrary to the weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER waives such irregularities, even though the instructions were clear, where the consequences for failing to comply with each specific instruction were unclear. There was no penalty set forth at the requirement that a document be signed or not exceed one page in length. The evidence establishes that the DER's actions were reasonable, logical, and within the authority of the agency. 29-32. Rejected. Contrary to the clear "Directions" of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." Responders were referred to Attachment F by the instructions cited in the proposed finding. 33-34, 36-38, Rejected, irrelevant. 39. Rejected, immaterial. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by M&E and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40-41 Rejected. A logical reading of the checklist reference to Attachment F would be that, if the attachment were applicable, the attachment should be included. The clear and specific directions to Attachment F require the submission of the three page package to receive points. 42-43. Rejected, irrelevant. 44. Rejected. The failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F resulted in zero points, as provided in the directions to the attachment. The DER policy related to waiver of irregularities does not include the waiver of irregularities where the instructions are clear, the penalty for noncompliance is specific, and a responder fails to comply. The policy is reasonable and was applied consistently. 47. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. It appears that M&E's assertion that it would be included in the "short list" requires addition of points awarded by the DER in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 49-50. Rejected. While "instructions in a competitive bidding solicitation can be rendered ambiguous by their location," in this case, the instructions contained in the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. Attachment F's directions are not ambiguous or confusing. 51-53. Rejected, immaterial. This proposed finding is also contrary to the suggestion that the instructions were unclear, and indicates, not that the instructions were unclear, but that the M&E representative did not read the RFSOQ. It is not possible to find that a careful and intelligent reader of the directions to Attachment F could misunderstand the meaning of "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 54-61. Rejected, immaterial. The fact that a substantial number of responders failed to comply with the clear directions of Attachment F does not establish that the directions are confusing. The instructions to the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. The first paragraph of Attachment F is entitled and contains "Directions" which are clearly set forth. There is nothing at all ambiguous about the requirement that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 62-65. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no requirement that the DER waive all irregularities. Such irregularities may be waived at the Department's discretion. The DER chose not to waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for failure to comply with said requirements, were clear. The DER applied this policy appropriately and consistently. There was no appearance of favoritism when the agency's policy is fairly and consistently applied. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER expects potential responders to have read the RFSOQ prior to the pre-bid meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to answer questions and provide clarifying information. The fact that no questions were asked regarding the requirement to submit all three pages of Attachment F indicates that participants either clearly understood the requirement or had not read the RFSOQ prior to the only mandatory opportunity to obtain clarification. In any event, the DER is not obligated to read every sentence of the RFSOQ aloud at a pre-bid meeting in order to make certain that responders who fail to read the document will submit responsive SOQs. Rejected, cumulative. 68-69. Rejected, immaterial, unnecessary. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 23. Rejected as to the implication that Attachment C, Page 1, indicated the DER could not waive any irregularities. Cited language states that information submitted in variance with instructions would not be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence establishes that information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated, but was disregarded. 28. Rejected. It is not clear what is meant by this proposed finding. 37-39. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. 41. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. 42-43. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible, especially given M&E/PIECO's correct submission in response to similar requirements of RFSOQ #9003C. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. The fact that the cited witness understood the directive and failed to comply due to oversight does not suggest that the directive was unclear. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. The reason for the cited witnesses failure to comply is unclear. Rejected, cumulative. 48. Rejected, unnecessary. 50-51. Rejected, immaterial. The issue in this case is not whether to goals of the minority business utilization program are met, but whether the DER acted inappropriately in reviewing SOQs submitted in response to the DER RFSOQ #9111C. 52-53. Rejected, unnecessary. 54-56. Rejected, unnecessary, cumulative. Intervenor ERM-South The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, cumulative. 14-19. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. 21. Last sentence rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER applied the language of the RFSOQ in a reasonable way, and that material information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated. 32-39, 41. Rejected, immaterial. The issue is whether the failure to follow the clear directions of Attachment F should result, as the directions provide, in zero points being awarded. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by ERM-South and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. There is no evidence that the omission of Attachment F, page three, is the sole basis for exclusion of a contractor from the short list. The short list was determined by ranking scores awarded. As stated in the directions to Attachment F, the result of noncompliance with said directions was an award of zero points for minority business utilization. 42-46. Rejected, cumulative, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER's action in reviewing the submitted Attachment F was reasonable, logical, and was applied in a consistent manner. As to whether the DER should have contacted other agencies to determine MBE status, the agency is under no obligation to do so. 47-49. Rejected, contrary to the clear directions of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." It is simply not possible to find, as suggested in the proposed finding, that such language cannot be relied upon to put contractors on notice that the failure to submit the three pages would result in zero points. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. Rejected, irrelevant. 52-54. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. 55-57. Rejected, irrelevant. 59-64. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. Intervenor ITC The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Proposed findings of fact #7, #10 and #14-16 relate to evidence introduced at hearing by ITC to support it's position that it had been excluded from the "short list" due to DER's clerical error. As stated in the preliminary statement, ITC failed to timely file a notice of protest subsequent to the posting of the bid tabulation results challenging the DER's clerical error. Accordingly, this Recommended Order does not set forth Findings of Fact related to the clerical error due to ITC's failure to timely file a written notice of protest as required by Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes. 12. Rejected. The M&E formal written protest does not allege that the DER had improperly drawn the line for the "short list." 18-20. Rejected. Although likely correct, the proposed findings are irrelevant to the issue in this case. Rejected. Such additional points awarded to M&E by the DER appear to have been awarded contrary to Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. Rejected, cumulative. ITC had an opportunity to timely file a written notice of protest subsequent to the bid tabulation posting, but failed to do so. An intervenor takes the case as it is found. Rejected, cumulative. 25. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The evidence does not establish that the failure to complete all of Attachment F was based on it's inapplicability. Attachment F clearly states that inapplicable pages should be so marked and submitted with the response package. If such pages were not returned, as suggested, because there did not apply, then it is reasonable to conclude that the responder failed to read the clearly stated directions to Attachment F. 26-29. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER did nothing more than apply the clearly stated direction that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package" and imposed the clearly stated penalty, stating that "[f]ailure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 32-33. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence that the DER did not waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for noncompliance with said requirements, were clearly stated. The DER did waive other irregularities where the instructions were ambiguous or confusing, or where there was not a specific penalty attached for the failure to follow a specific requirement. The evidence establishes that the DER actions were appropriate. 34. Rejected, immaterial. All three pages of Attachment F were clearly required to be submitted or a score of zero would be awarded. Intervenor E&E The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-3. Rejected, cumulative. 12. Rejected, contrary to the cited evidence. Although Attachment F was discussed in terms of reporting requirements, there were no questions asked related to the directions for completing or submitting the attachment. 21. Rejected, cumulative. Intervenors EBASCO, ABB, OHM, Cherokee and Westinghouse jointly filed a proposed recommended order. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 13, 16-17, 43-45, 47. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esq. Carlos Alvarez, Esq. 123 S. Calhoun Street Post Office Drawer 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 M. Christopher Bryant, Esq. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George N. Meros, Esq. 101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barrett G. Johnson, Esq. 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rex D. Ware, Esq. 106 East College Avenue Highpoint Center, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Robert Venzina, III, Esq. Mary M. Piccard, Esq. 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0589 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esq. Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's application for certification as a Women Business Enterprise be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 29th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Diann Criss Atkinson, Qualified Representative Shurly Contracting, Inc. P. O. Box 15267 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
