Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the American Legion Post No. 4 on March 17, 1967 and remained so employed through November 15, 1972. During this period, American Legion Post No. 4 was under contract with the Polk County Tax Collector to sell automobile tags, hunting and fishing licenses, boat registrations, etc., as an agent of the Tax Collector; and to remit funds so collected to the Tax Collector. Although these collections were remitted to the Tax Collector, in many instances checks from American Legion Post No. 4 were made payable to the Department of Motor Vehicles. The contract between the Tax Collector and American Legion Post No. 4 was a five year contract which was renewed for an additional five years on June 1, 1972. At this time, Petitioner was the manager of the tax collection agency run by American Legion Post No. 4. Irregularities in the operation of this tag agency led to an FBI investigation which culminated in the Tax Collector cancelling the contract with American Legion Post No. 4 on November 15, 1972. Effective November 16, 1972, the former employees at the American Legion tag agency, including Petitioner, were employed by the Polk County Tax Collector and enrolled in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). While employed by American Legion Post No. 4, neither Petitioner, nor her employer, contributed to a retirement system; and Petitioner was not entitled to leave benefits prescribed for state or county employees.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petition of Betty Lou Brown for retirement credit for the period 1967 through 1972 while she was employed by the American Legion Post No. 4 be denied. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Lou Brown 2290 South Hunt Point Crystal River, FL 32629 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street Cedars Executive Center Building C Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian III Director Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street Cedars Executive Center Building C Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 John A. Pieno Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Respondent Charley O. Young & Sons Trucking, Inc. (Company) is engaged in the business of hauling United States Mail between various United States Postal Service's post offices in the State of Florida, and is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.10(7), Florida Statutes. Charley O. Young (Young), president of the Company, has been involved in the business of hauling United States mail for over 35 years. The mail which the Company hauls from post office to post office comes from places throughout the United States and the world. Such mail is considered to be in a continuous flow in interstate commerce from the moment it is mailed until it reaches its ultimate destination. Petitioner Dennis Bonville has been employed by the Company from time to time as an employee and as a subcontractor. Petitioner's last employment with the Company was as an employee driving a truck hauling mail from Tampa, Florida to Ruskin, Florida. The Company hired Petitioner with the full knowledge and understanding that Petitioner had a handicap known as monocular vision (vision capacity in one eye). Notwithstanding his handicap, Petitioner had been granted medical certification and was qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle in the State of Florida in intrastate commerce in accordance with Section 316.302(2)(j), Florida Statutes. The position held by Petitioner was created as a result of the Company being awarded an emergency mail hauling contract between Tampa, Florida and Ruskin, Florida by the U. S. Postal Service beginning February 10, 1990, for an indefinite period. At the time Petitioner was hired, he understood that his employment with the Company was indefinite since the contract for the Tampa to Ruskin run with the U. S. Postal Service was for an indefinite period. On or about April 27, 1991, the Company was audited by the United States Department of Transportation, Office of Motor Carrier Safety, Florida Division (USDOT). The USDOT agent reviewed, among other things, the personnel and medical files of all the Company's drivers. During the audit, the agent discovered that Petitioner had monocular vision. The contract for the Tampa to Ruskin mail run required the Company to comply with all state and federal regulations, including those promulgated by the USDOT. Under USDOT rules, monocular vision disqualified Petitioner from driving a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce. The agent demanded that Young immediately remove Petitioner from the Tampa to Ruskin run since it involved operating a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce. However, since Young had no qualified driver to relieve Petitioner, the agent agreed to allow Petitioner to complete the run for the day with the understanding that the Petitioner would be relieved upon his return. The agent then advised Young that he would return the next day to complete the audit, and if the Petitioner had not been relieved, he had the authority to, and would, put a padlock on the door and shut down the Company's business. It was the agent's position that the Company was engaged in interstate commerce due to its hauling mail that was in interstate commerce, notwithstanding that the Company's vehicles never left the State of Florida. Therefore, the Petitioner's monocular vision rendered him unqualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle operating in interstate commerce under the USDOT rules which governed drivers under mail contracts. When the Petitioner returned that night to the Company's office, Young informed the Petitioner that due to the agent's position and his threat to shut down the Company's business if Petitioner continued to make the Tampa to Ruskin run, he had no alternative but to relieve the Petitioner of the Tampa to Ruskin run. When the agent returned to complete the audit the next day, the Petitioner had a heated discussion with the agent concerning the agent's position and its effect on the Petitioner's employment. The agent maintained his position that Petitioner was not qualified to drive the vehicle being used in the Tampa to Ruskin mail run which was considered to be in interstate commerce. At the conclusion of the audit, the Company was issued, among others, citations for violating 49 C.F.R. 391.11(b)(6), using a physically unqualified driver, and was fined $6,000. At this time, the Company had no other positions which it could offer the Petitioner that would accommodate his handicap. Therefore, as a result of the audit and the agent's threat to "shut down the business", the Petitioner was terminated by the Company effective April 27, 1991. At the time Petitioner was terminated he was earning $11.19 per hour and working 40 hours per week. Petitioner's job performance was not an issue in the Petitioner's termination. The Company's bid for the renewal of the Tampa, Florida to Ruskin, Florida contract was unsuccessful, and on April 30, 1991, the Company's contract for the Tampa to Ruskin mail run expired. Petitioner was replaced by a Company employee who was qualified under the USDOT rules to operate the vehicle used on the Tampa to Ruskin run for the three days remaining on the contract. After Petitioner's termination, sometime around October, 1991, the Petitioner was offered employment with the Company driving a van, which Petitioner was qualified to drive, delivering special delivery mail. However, this employment offered less money than Petitioner's previous employment with the Company and was turned down by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition For Relief filed by the Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this day 29th of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 29th day of August, 1994.
The Issue This matter is a bid protest filed by STATEWIDE challenging the DEPARTMENT's decision to award a contract for service of process services to All American Legal Service, Inc., (herein after All American). The DEPARTMENT's position was chat a company could meet the two years of experience in serving legal process requirement if key personnel had at least two years of experience. All American was the lowest bidder on ITB-DOT-95/96-9003. STATEWIDE was the second-lowest bidder. STATEWIDE protested, claiming the DEPARTMENT should have rejected All American's bid on the grounds that All American did not have two years of experience and had not identified its key personnel or provided the DEPARTMENT with copies of circuit court issued certifications to serve process. During the formal hearing on October 23, 1995, testimony was received that All American is the corporate successor of a firm that was formed approximately 23 months prior to the bid being submitted and had as part of its organization an independent contractor, Robert Simmons, who was a licensed process server and who lacked two years of experience in serving process at the time the bid was submitted. All American also retained the services of the founder and former owner, Jon C. Martin, to act as an advisor. Mr. Martin lacked two years of experience in serving civil process at the time the bid was submitted. The DEPARTMENT offered testimony that it did not require the bidding entity to have been in existence for more than two years so long as the company had employees (either direct employees or independent contractors) with the requisite experience. DEPARTMENT officials also testified that no personnel were considered key personnel by the DEPARTMENT. DEPARTMENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The DEPARTMENT's first exception is rejected as irrelevant. The DEPARTMENT's remaining exceptions are rejected and need not be individually reached inasmuch as the conclusion of this Order is chat a decision to waive the two years of experience requirement in the bid documents would be an abuse of discretion. To describe a requirement as so essential as to require no consideration of the bid when it is not met, and later construe the bid documents as allowing waiver of the requirement is, by definition, without reason and arbitrary
Findings Of Fact The DOT issued ITB-DOT-95/96-9003 (the ITB) soliciting bids from contractors to provide for one year on an as-needed-basis to its General Counsel all services necessary to effectuate service of process, service of subpoenas, and service of other papers statewide in accordance with the applicable laws to be submitted on August 16, 1995. AALSI submitted the lowest bid for the ITB. Statewide submitted the second lowest bid for the ITB. Section 1.5 of the ITB, Joint Exhibit 1, stated as follows: GENERAL Bidders should meet the following minimum qualifications. Have been actively engaged in the type of business being requested for a minimum of two years. When submitting the bid, each bidder shall submit a written statement, (FORM D), detailing their qualifications which demonstrate they meet the minimum qualifications contained in Subparagraph 1.5.1.1. Bidders' failure to prove the above item(s) will constitute a non-responsive determination. Bids found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. (Emphasis in original.) A representative of the DOT testified and both parties agree that the word "should" in the provision above is mandatory and in context means "shall." It was important to DOT that bidders have at least two years experience in the business of serving process, and DOT intended to reject any bids which did meet this requirement. Exhibit "A" to the ITB, "Scope of Services," Section B.1, "Services Required," and B.5, "Who Shall Provide Services," provided respectively that: B.1 Services Required The contractor shall provide all services necessary to effectuate service of process, subpoenas and other papers throughout the state of Florida, and shall provide such services in accordance with the laws of the state of Florida. . . B.5 Who Shall Provide Services Services shall be provided by individuals in compliance with Chapter 48, Florida Statutes, and other applicable law. Section 48.29, Florida Statutes, requires that persons serving process be certified by the chief judge of each judicial circuit. The business being requested, as the term is used in the ITB, is all services necessary to effectuate service of process, subpoenas, and other papers throughout the State of Florida for civil actions in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. No evidence was received that the DOT is involved with the service of arrest or search warrants. Paragraph 1.5.2, "Qualifications of Key Personnel," provides that: Those individuals who will be directly involved in the project should have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise excepted by the Department's Project Manager. Where State of Florida registration or certification is deemed appropriate, a copy of the registration of certificate should be included in the bid package. The ITB required that a bidder demonstrate that its key personnel had experience in providing all services necessary to effectuate service of process, subpoenas, and other papers throughout the State of Florida in accordance with the law. Form D asked bidders to answer the following questions: How many years has your business been serving process? In what counties are your currently serving process? Describe your current capabilities to serve process in the State. If you do not have the current capability to serve process in all counties of the State of Florida, describe the changes that you will make in order to be able to serve process in all counties. Describe the means by which your business would accomplish routine services of process on a statewide basis under the Scope of Services of the Invitation to Bid. Describe the means by which your business would accomplish priority service of process on a statewide basis under the Scope of Services of the Invitation to Bid. The ITB contained a provision which permitted it to waive minor informalities or irregularities in bids received which were a matter of form and not substance. The requirement that the bidder have two years experience is not, under the terms of the ITB, a waivable provision, but was part of the essential minimal requirements which the bidder must have. In response to the first question on Form D, AALSI responded: All American Legal Service, Inc. and its predecessor firm, Jon C. Martin & Associates, have been in business over two years and provides nationwide service for its existing clients. DOT accepted the representation of AALSI in evaluating whether it possessed the required two years of experience, and concluded AALSI was qualified. DOT also evaluated the other responses by AALSI to Form D to assess its approach to providing the scope of work required by the ITB, and concluded it was qualified. Evidence presented at hearing revealed that Jon C. Martin, a former law enforcement officer, had begun a private investigation business as a sole proprietorship in September, 1993. Mr. Martin, who testified at hearing, found that it was more profitable to serve process than to conduct investigations, and changed the emphasis of the business; however, Mr. Martin was not personally authorized to serve process nor did he serve any process until May, 1994, although he had served arrest warrants as a law enforcement officer. Mr. Martin used the services of qualified process servers to serve process in the central Florida region; however, these personnel were not employees of Martin. Mr. Martin was a member of the National Association of Professional Process Servers (NAPPS), whose members are qualified to serve process; and Mr. Martin used this service to find the names of persons qualified to serve process in those counties and jurisdictions in which he did not have employees or contract personnel. Mr. Martin changed the name of his business to All American Process, and ultimately incorporated under that name. Mr. Martin sold All American Process in May, 1995 to Andrew Forness and Forness' father, who changed the name of the corporation to All American Legal Service, Inc. Mr. Martin agreed to be an unpaid advisor/consultant to Mr. Forness after the sale. Mr. Forness has virtually no experience as a process server, and had never been qualified to serve process or served process until after May, 1995. Mr. Forness is dependent upon Robert Simmons, an independent contract process server, for daily advice on service of process. Mr. Forness has continued to use the network of personnel used by Mr. Martin, who are not employees of the business, and NAPPS to serve process. The business does employ two full-time, paid certified process servers, who reside and work in central Florida area. One of these employees, Noah Medeiros, was first authorized to serve process in Orange County in September 1995, and is not authorized to serve process in any other county in Florida. No information was provided on the other employee. Mr. Forness did not identify anyone as a key individual in the bid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That DOT not award the bid to AALSI which was determined to have been a nonresponsive bidder, and that it consider awarding the bid to the next lowest, responsive bidder, Statewide. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 18th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-5035BID Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1,2 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 4 Paragraphs 6,7 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 10 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 11 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 12 Conclusion of Law Paragraphs 13,14 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 Paragraphs 15-20 Subsumed in Paragraphs 16-18 Paragraphs 21-26 Subsumed in Paragraphs 18-19 Paragraph 27 Subsumed in Paragraphs 7,8 Paragraph 29 Ultimate finding Paragraph 30 Paragraph 14 Paragraph 31 Irrelevant Paragraph 32 Ultimate finding Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1,2 Subsumed in Paragraph 1 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 11 Paragraph 6 Subsumed in Paragraph 5 Paragraph 7 Subsumed in Paragraph 12 Paragraph 8 Not necessary Paragraph 9 Paragraph 13 Paragraph 10,11 Subsumed in Paragraph 14 Paragraph 12-16 Irrelevant or argument Paragraph 17 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 18-25 Irrelevant or argument Paragraph 26,27 Subsumed in Paragraphs 2,3 Paragraph 28-33 Subsumed in Paragraph 16 Paragraph 34-41 Subsumed in Paragraph 19 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Layne Smith, Esquire 2804 Remington Green Circle, Suite 4 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Thomas H. Duffy, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Douglas L. Adams, has been an inmate in the DOC system since prior to his arrival at UCI in January, 1984. Before coming to UCI he was confined at Baker Correctional Institution. When he was transferred to UCI he was expecting legal mail from the Florida Attorney General's Office which was to contain certain transcripts relating to a case he had before the courts. The package was received at Baker Corrections Institution after his departure and was forwarded to him at UCI. When it arrived, because it was not first class mail, there was postage due for the forwarding in the amount of $2.85 and the package was held at the Post Office in town for payment. He did not have the money to pay to pick it up at the time or for several weeks and prison scrip was not acceptable. Because he was unable to arrange to pick up the package within a reasonable time, the package was returned to the sender from which it was ultimately again sent with sufficient postage. By the time it got to him, however, the brief for the preparation of which he was going to use the transcript had already been filed. Because of the lack of the transcript, the brief was inadequate, however, and his appeal was unsuccessful. Prior to April 15, 1986, officials of DOC developed a proposed rule to be incorporated in Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with the handling of inmates' legal mail. This rule was proposed because the DOC had received a complaint from a court of this State that some legal mail sent by the court to inmates was not being forwarded to the inmate who had been reassigned and was being sent back) to the court to the detriment of the inmate. This was a situation similar to that described above relating to the Petitioner herein. To correct this situation, this rule was developed calling for the forwarding of all legal mail, whenever received, to the inmate addressee wherever the inmate is located. Now, all legal mail will be forwarded by the receiving institution to the inmate at his new institution. Non legal mail is not. Since legal mail is generally first class mail, which is, under current DOC regulations, not opened before delivery unless contraband is suspected, there is no additional cost for the forwarding of this mail. There are certain cases, however, when the legal mail is in the form of a package containing a transcript or something of a similar nature, which cannot go first class mail, and in that case, additional postage is required. In that case, it has been the policy of the DOC, which is now formalized in the proposed rule, to forward the mail to the new installation through the postal system, with the result that postage due is to be collected from the inmate at the new institution. Even if the legal mail were to be collected, placed in a DOC envelope, and then forwarded to the new institution, it would still have to go through the U.S. mail system since DOC does not operate an internal courier system. This has constituted a problem for some inmates who do not have access to funds with which to pay postage due fees. Mr. Singletary, DOC's Assistant Secretary for Operations, when made aware of this situation at the hearing, committed the Department to amend the proposed rule immediately to provide that if postage becomes due as the result of forwarding legal mail, the DOC will assume the cost of that additional postage. DOC will not assume the cost of postage due if the legal mail is sent originally with insufficient postage, however. As a result of this stipulation, therefore, the policy now to be followed in DOC, which will be formalized immediately in an amendment to the proposed rule, will be that all legal mail addressed to inmates who have been transferred from one institution within the Department to another will be forwarded to the gaining institution without any limitation as to time and any additional postage due on the bona fide legal mail arising solely because of the forwarding will be assumed by DOC and not the inmate to whom the mail was addressed.
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") should sustain Petitioner's challenge to the Department's decision to deem Petitioner's bid non-responsive and to award the contract advertised in ITB Number 11-95-001 to Intervenor, as the "lowest responsive bidder?"
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Invitation to Bid Through Invitation to Bid Number 11-95-001, entitled "Armed Security Guard Service, Food Stamp Offices," (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"), the Department solicited the submission of bids from prospective providers interested in providing the Department with armed security guard services at the Department's Dade County (District 11) food stamp offices. The ITB was prepared by the Department's District 11 Purchasing Director, Selma Speakman. Speakman was also involved in the advertising and distribution of the ITB, which began on or about February 10, 1995. The ITB was a 12-page document. The first page of the ITB contained a "Bidder Acknowledgment" form to be completed by the bidder and signed by the bidder's authorized representative. The form advised prospective providers that bids would be opened at 1:00 p.m. on March 14, 1995, and that "bid tabulations with recommended awards" would be posted on or about March 21, 1995. General Conditions The remaining portion of the first page and the second page of the ITB set forth the "general conditions" that would govern all bids submitted in response to the ITB. General Condition 3 addressed the subject of "bid opening." It provided as follows: BID OPENING: Shall be public, on the date location and the time specified on the bid form. It is the bidder's responsibility to assure that his bid is delivered at the proper time and place of the bid opening. Bids which for any reason are not so delivered, will not be considered. Offers by telegram or telephone are not acceptable. A bid may not be altered after opening of bids. Note: Bid tabulations will be furnished upon written request with an enclosed, self addressed, stamped envelope and payment of a predetermined fee. Bid files may be examined during normal working hours by appointment. Bid tabulations will not be provided by telephone. General Condition 5 addressed the subject of "interpretations/disputes." It provided as follows: INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. Any person who is adversely affected by the agency's decision or intended decision concerning a procurement solicitation or contract award and who wants to protest shall file a protest in compliance with Rule 13A-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. General Condition 7 addressed the subject of "awards." It provided as follows: AWARDS: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved to make award(s) by individual service, group of services, all or none, or a combination thereof; to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received. Bidders are cautioned to make no assumptions unless their bid has been evaluated as being responsive. General Condition 10 addressed the subject of "legal requirements." It provided as follows: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS: Applicable provision of all Federal, State, county and local laws, and all ordinances, rules and regulations shall govern development, submittal and evaluation of all bids received in response hereto and shall govern any and all claims and disputes which may arise between person(s) submitting a bid response hereto and the State of Florida, by and through its officers, employees and authorized representatives, or other person, natural or otherwise; and lack of knowledge by any bidder shall not constitute a cognizable defense against the legal effect thereof. Purpose and Scope of Work On page three of the ITB, the purpose of the ITB and the "scope of work" to be performed pursuant to the advertised contract were described as follows: The purpose of this bid is to obtain competitive prices for a contract for armed security guard service for the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, District 11. Armed security guard service will be provided for various Food Stamp Offices located in Dade County, according to the attached Bid Data Sheet. The effective date for this bid is July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996. SCOPE OF WORK: The contractor will provide armed, uniformed security guards as per schedule on Bid Data Sheet. The number of guards, locations and times required may vary from time to time and the contractor must be flexible. Should a situation arise which requires an increase or decrease in the number of guards needed, not to exceed ten guards, the contractor shall have a reasonable time to adjust said number of guards provided. Additional coverage required will be furnished at the bid rate, not overtime rates. Bid Data Sheet The aforementioned "Bid Data Sheet" was found on page 11 of the ITB. It identified 16 locations where armed security guard services would have to be provided under the contract awarded pursuant to the ITB. It further indicated that a total of 22 security guards (working a total of 58,280 hours per year) would be needed to provide such services. Specifications "Specifications" were set forth on pages three through seven of the ITB. Specification I described the "minimum requirements for security personnel," including the requirement that a guard "wear[] the uniform of the company." Specification II listed the following as "guard duties:" Maintain crowd control. Organize and supervise lines. Control disruptive individuals. Prevent unauthorized individuals from entering restricted areas. Keep issuance area under constant surveillance while food stamps are issued. Contact the police department if he/she is no longer in control of a situation or in the event of a robbery. Ensure that individuals present a food stamp identification card prior to being admitted to cashier area. Directs traffic as necessary; vehicles as well as pedestrians. Specification III described "guard qualifications," including the requirement that a guard "have at least three to five (3-5) years experience as an Armed Security Officer." Specifications IV and V addressed "minimum training requirements" and "background requirements," respectively. The final specification dealt with "communications" and provided as follows: Hand-held Radios: Two-way hand-held radios, with Emergency Protection button, licensed for use by the Federal Communications Commission, are to be provided by the Contractor to all on-duty contract security officers. Contractor Central Dispatch: The Contractor will provide a centralized dispatching service through use of a stationary base station manned by experienced personnel. Contractor's personnel must be available at the Central Dispatch Station, and have the ability and authority to take immediate action, as required. System Quality: Radio communications among system users is expected to be strong and clear at all times ("five by five"), both transmitting and receiving. The Contractor shall be totally responsible for providing and maintaining required system quality. Special Conditions Pages seven though ten of the ITB contained 15 "special conditions." Special Condition I addressed the subject of "contractor's insurance." It provided, in part, as follows: The contractor shall secure and maintain, at his sole expense and for the duration of the contract term, the following insurance coverage written on companies and on policy forms acceptable to the department. Worker's Compensation . . . . Comprehensive general liability insurance covering all operations and services under the contract . . . . Comprehensive automobile liability insurance, including ow[n]ed, non-ow[n]ed and hired vehicle coverage of not less than $100,000 combined single limit issued on a per occurrence basis, if operations and service under the contract involve the use or operation of automotive vehicles on the department's premises. No insurance will be acceptable unless written by a company licensed by the State of Florida Insurance Department to do business in Florida where the work is to be performed at the time the policy is issued. Special Condition II addressed the subject of "licenses." It provided as follows: All contractors, including prime, general and subcontractors, where applicable, must have all licenses and/or permits in accordance with city and county ordinances, rules and regulations and all licenses . . . must be obtained at the contractor's expense. Special Condition III addressed the subject of "federal and state laws and regulations." It provided as follows: To comply with Title VI and VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, respective federal regulations and Executive Order 11246 as amended. To comply with all the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Non- Discrimination as to Handicapped Individuals. It is expressly understood that upon receipt of substantial evidence of any such discrimination, the department shall have the right to terminate the contract for breach. Special Condition IV addressed the subject of contract renewal. It provided as follows: Option to Renew This contract shall end on June 30, 1996 with a two (2) year Option to Renew. Renewal to be based on mutual consent of both parties. Renewal must be exercised within sixty (60) days and not later than thirty (30) days prior to termination of contract. Renewal of this contract will be based upon satisfactory performance evaluations by the department. Subject to the availability of funds, the maximum percentage increase that may be paid is based on the current award amount plus 3 percent for first renewal and 3 percent for second renewal. Special Condition V provided that "[a]ny person submitting a bid in response to this invitation must execute the enclosed form PUR. 7068, SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 287.133(a), FLORIDA STATUTES, ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES, including proper check(s), in the space(s) provided, and enclose it with the bid." Special Condition VI addressed the subject of "protest." It provided as follows: Any actual or prospective bidder who desires to file a formal protest of this ITB, as outlined in Item 5 of the General Conditions sections on the PUR 7031 form, must accompany that protest with a bond payable to the department in the amount of $5,000 or 1 percent of the department's estimate of the total volume of the proposed contract, whichever is less. A bidder may submit, in lieu of a bond, a cashier's check or money order in the amount of the bond. Special Condition VII provided that the "[b]id will be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder." Special Condition VIII provided that "[p]ayment shall be made in accordance with Section 215.422, F.S., which states the contractor's rights and the state agency's responsibilities concerning interest penalties and time limits for payment of invoices." Special Condition IX provided that "[t]he State of Florida encourages minority business enterprise participation in any bid solicitation." Special Condition X addressed the subject of contract termination and described three ways ("termination at will," "termination because of lack of funds," and "termination of breach") in which the contract to be awarded pursuant to the ITB could be terminated. Special Condition XI provided that "[t]he contractor shall secure and maintain a Blanket Fidelity Bond on all of the company's employees providing services under the provisions of this contract in an amount not to exceed an aggregate policy limit of $10,000.00 per occurrence." Special Condition XII was entitled, "References." It provided as follows: The ability of bidders to meet the requirements of this bid is of prime concern to the department. In this regard, it is required that each bidder furnish the department with justification supportive of his ability to meet this obligation. This information should briefly identify the company's personnel and equipment resources and include a minimum or three (3) representative customers as references. This documentation must accompany bid, along with financial reports and management experience. Special Condition XIII provided that "[t]here will be a wage determination of $9.50 per hour." Special Condition XIV addressed the subject of "invoices and payment." It provided as follows: The contractor will submit invoices on a monthly basis following delivery of services. Invoice(s) should be based on the quoted price per hour and reflect the address for which services were performed, month for which payment of services rendered is requested and Contract Number. Backup time sheets, approved by the Department, will be required. Special Condition XV provided that "[t]he Contractor shall provide documented evidence that they are capable of providing a contingency force of similarly qualified personnel equal to one-third of the force needed in case of emergency situations that would affect the health and welfare of clients and the daily operations of HRS offices." Bid and Signature Sheet The twelfth and final page of the ITB consisted of a "Bid and Signature Sheet" to be completed by the bidder and signed by the bidder's authorized representative. On the sheet, the bidder had to indicate, among other things, its "[p]rice per [g]uard per [h]our." Petitioner's and Intervenor's Bid Submissions Petitioner and Intervenor were among those prospective providers that timely submitted bids in response to the ITB. Both Petitioner and Intervenor included in their bid submissions completed and signed "Bidder Acknowledgment" forms, PUR 7068 forms and "Bid and Signature Sheets." Petitioner's "Bidder Acknowledgment" form, PUR 7068 form and "Bid and Signature Sheet" were all signed by Petitioner's President, Dele Oladunni. Oladunni has been licensed as a security guard for approximately the past five years. He manages all of Petitioner's projects with the help of an assistant. 4/ At the time of the submission of Petitioner's bid, Oladunni's assistant, like Oladunni, had approximately five years experience in the armed security business. On its "Bid and Signature Sheet," Petitioner indicated that its "[p]rice per [g]uard per [h]our" was $12.11. On its "Bid and Signature Sheet," Intervenor indicated that its "[p]rice per [g]uard per [h]our" was $12.23. Other Materials Submitted by Petitioner Petitioner's bid submission also included the following documentation: a list of customer references; a document entitled, "Delad Security Inc. Income Statement and Retained Earnings November 30th 1993;" certificates of insurance; a copy of its security agency license issued by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, on December 19, 1994; 5/ and a "Business Management/Technical Plan," which, including attachments, consisted of approximately 50 pages. Petitioner provided 14 customer references on the list it submitted to the Department. Among these customer references was the Federal Aviation Administration, to whom, according to the representation made on the list, Petitioner had "provide[d] armed security service." 6/ Another customer reference listed by Petitioner was the Department itself. (At the time of the submission of its bid, Petitioner was providing the Department, at its CYF North Service Center in Miami, with armed security guard services pursuant to a contract into which it had entered with the Department. Speakman had received no complaints concerning Petitioner's performance of its obligations under this contract.) In Section 1.1 of the "Business Management/Technical Plan" (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan") that Petitioner submitted to the Department as part of its bid, Petitioner stated the following: BUSINESS MANAGEMENT APPROACH Delad Security, Inc., a minority owned African American Business, proposes to provide security support services to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as required by adopting and implementing the professional business philosophy established in our current relationship for the provision of services: 7/ Task Analysis Planning Implementation Reporting Quality Control Delad Security, Inc., has the resources, the flexibility and the experience to fulfill the security needs of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services[. T]his includes personnel management involvement, outstanding supervision, a well trained, qualified security force which places emphasis on both the public relations and security aspects of its functions. 8/ Petitioner asserted in Section 1.1.1 of the Plan that "Delad Security, Inc., has enjoyed an excellent business reputation" and that it "conduct[s] business in accordance with all local laws and regulations." Section 1.1.2 of the Plan advised that "Delad Security, Inc.['s], proven management concept is to permit the local site management teams, particularly the project Manager/Client Service Supervisor (CSS) and their support staff, to exercise full administrative and technical control of the project." In Section 1.1.3 of the Plan, Petitioner represented that, if awarded the contract pursuant to the ITB, such a management team, comprised of a Client Service Supervisor, with a "[m]inimum of three (3) year's previous experience in the management and operation of security or police services," and a Local Site Supervisor, with a "[m]inimum of one year of experience in the management and operation of security or police services," would be assigned to assist in the management of the project. Petitioner claimed in Section 1.2 of the Plan that, "[i]n accordance with Delad Security['s] long standing experience and management policies," it would "provide the full necessary Corporate assistance and support to ensure the success of the project," including (as enumerated in Section 1.2.2 of the Plan): "[p]rocurement and provisioning of equipment, materials and supplies;" "[g]uidance and instructions in management of security personnel matters based on our proven experience in such projects;" and "[a]vailability of backup emergency management, security cleared, personnel." In Section 1.3.3.2 of the Plan, Petitioner stated, among other things, the following: If awarded the contract, the Delad District office will have immediately available all the uniforms and accessories require[d]. Procurement of uniforms will be handled both locally and at the Corporate level. Issuance of uniforms will be coordinated with the local District Project Team. Each employee issued uniforms would have to sign the Uniforms and Accessories Record. All guards will be issued the uniform items as required by the HRS. Petitioner made the following representations regarding "personnel administration" in Section 1.4 of the Plan: Delad Security, Inc. recognizes that a high percentage of this contract's cost is related to direct labor or personnel. The efficient administration and management of personnel, therefore, depends on reliable information and controls. Delad will administer this contract based on a personnel administration program that takes into account a full understanding of the local labor laws and the policies to recruit and retain a highly qualified professional guard force. Our experience over the past years as a contractor to Federal, State and Municipal entities, has enabled Delad to be fully prepared to meet all challenges in this area. In Section 1.4.1 of the Plan, Petitioner indicated that one of its "personnel administration objectives" would be to "[r]ecruit and maintain an abundance of qualified and experienced personnel to support the operational security requirements of the HRS." To this end, according to Section 1.4.4 of the Plan, "[a]ll employees assigned to work under this contract shall receive competitive wages, so as to attract qualified personnel interested in long term job security." Petitioner stated the following regarding "incumbent personnel" in Section 1.4.9 of the Plan: If awarded the contract, Delad will accept incumbent personnel who meet our stringent screening standards. In order to qualify for employment, the incumbent personnel must meet the employment standards and receive favorable recommendations from HRS contract personnel. Section 1.4.10 of the Plan detailed Petitioner's personnel recruitment process, including its policy that personnel hired to perform contract work "meet all requirements of the Scope of Service section of the BID." In Section 1.4.11 of the Plan, Petitioner stated the following: The officers selected for this project will be highly trained and experienced. Delad will augment their ability with refresher, site specific and sustainment training." Petitioner asserted the following in Section 1.5.2 of the Plan: At the Corporate level, Mr. Dele Oladunni has been assigned as the Quality Control Coordinator for previous joint projects. Mr. Oladunni has the requisite knowledge and experience to ensure compliance with all requirements of the BID. In Section 1.6 of the Plan, Petitioner made the following assertion: Delad Security, Inc. ha[s] the experience in effecting large scale transition operations of this nature. Our proposed transition and implementation plan is included. Petitioner's proposed transition and implementation plan (which, as Petitioner represented in Section 1.8 of its "Business Management/Technical Plan," was a part of its bid submission) consisted of a series of 11 "tasks." Task 4 of these 11 "tasks" involved "labor pool analysis" and was described as follows in the proposed transition and implementation plan: Delad Personnel units will immediately begin reviewing our backlog of current applicants and make an initial determination of the number of available and suitable candidates for assignment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Since a larger pool of licensed officers is required, Delad will begin the recruiting and training process. We have identified candidates for key positions and they will be available for personal interviews by the HRS Security Coordinator prior to final selection. Task 5 involved "personnel selection and screening of current security staff" and was described as follows in the proposed transition and implementation plan: Delad recognize[s] the possibility that some of the current security officers may meet the upgraded personnel requirements and HRS general criteria for hire. Due to their familiarity with security work, these officers could be valuable employees for assignment at the Depart- ment of Health and Rehabilitative Services Sites or elsewhere with Delad. The personnel units will undertake the screening and interviewing of these officers. If they meet HRS standards, they will be given priority consideration for employment. Task 6 involved "screening of new personnel" and was described as follows in the proposed transition and implementation plan: As soon as current applicants have been con- tacted and we begin to receive response[s] to recr[u]itment efforts, the screening process will begin in earnest. All applicants, whether current Security Officers at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services or new applicants, will be subject to the Delad screening and recruitment procedures. To assure a smooth selection process, Delad proposes to conduct interviews and local reference checks focusing on human relations skills to achieve a preliminary qualification status. If acceptable, the selectee would th[e]n undergo the required background investigation and standard interview process. Task 7 involved "on-site training of all personnel" and was described as follows in the proposed transition and implementation plan: After the screening process and after all personnel selected for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Security Force complete the required training and orientation, site training will begin at HRS sites. The on-site training covers all the topics in the specifications as well as those identified during the transition period as necessary for the effective functioning of officers assigned to the HRS sites. The training is scheduled to augment and not interfere with the present day-to-day operations. The training is scheduled on a per shift basis and allows for the initial cross training process to begin. Upon completion of the on-site training all security officers will be issued certificates. Task 8 involved "logistical activity" and was described as follows in the proposed transition and implementation plan: Delad is fully aware of any equipment and material requirement specified and inherent in the contract. The coordination of the logistics is the responsi- bility of the Client Service Supervisor under the overall direction of the Project Coordinator. The proposed schedule is as follows: Equipment, radios, weapons, armed security officers uniform accessories will be ordered upon award of the contract. Uniforms fitted for all personnel within the first two weeks. Uniforms at District Office and issued- third week. Each logistical requirement will be addressed in advance by the appropriate Transition Team member to minimize duplication of efforts and unnecessary costs. Task 9 involved "operational dynamics during changeover" and was described as follows in the proposed transition and implementation plan: We believe that a smooth transfer of responsi- bilities can be effected at the termination of the existing proprietary force through the full involvement of the transition Team. Additional and retained personnel will be issued their uniforms and any equipment required prior to Transition week. Project supervisory personnel will be made available during the pre-transition period to assure a smooth transition. This consistency of supervision will continue throughout the contract period assuring all security officers are cognizant and knowledgeable of their duties and responsibilities. Task 10 involved "transfer of responsibility and liability" and was described as follows in the proposed transition and implementation plan: Additional and sufficient manpower from Delad Security will be on-site at the facility to supervise and assist the critical transfer of services. These additional transition personnel will be fully knowledgeable of the sensitivity of their positions and objective- a smooth transfer of security operations. In the section of Petitioner's "Business Management/Technical Plan" dealing with "corporate management involvement/support," Petitioner stated the following: Delad has earned and achieved a reputation of professionalism and excellenc[e] in the performance of its projects. A major contributor to such a reputation is the high level of personal interest, support and commitment that Delad top Corporate Management afford to its field operations - - particularly the protective support services for facilities of critical importance to the State of Florida and its economy. Delad Security Inc.['s] Corporate Management is bound by this same commitment and certifies that it will devote whatever resources are needed to make this Project a total success. Petitioner asserted in Section 1.8 of the Plan that it "takes no exceptions to, nor intends to deviate from, the Scope of Service requirements in the solicitation." In an attachment to the Plan, Petitioner made the following additional statements relating to its experience in the "security management field:" Delad Security Inc. pride[s itself] on being [a] leader[] within the security management field regarding proactive planning and prepar- ation for un-announced contingencies. It is only through such enlightened management and supervision that problem areas can be identified in sufficient time to insure prevention of unsatisfactory performance. Delad Security has advanced several uniquely designed programs focused upon identifying potential liabilities before they become major shortcomings and generating a specific response to bring about early resolution. . . . Delad Security Inc. [h]as implemented a company- wide program of soliciting from our clients a quarterly evaluation of the quality of services received. The Business Unit sends the question- naires/evaluation to the client and data generated from these questionnaires helps to insure that high standards of service delivery are sustained. Through the Plan and its attachments, as well as the list of references Petitioner submitted as part of its bid, Petitioner provided the Department (albeit in a manner that could have been more clear and concise and less general) with information concerning the personnel and equipment resources, as well as the management experience, that Petitioner would have available to draw upon to meet the requirements of the contract advertised in the ITB. Other Materials Submitted by Intervenor Intervenor included in its bid submission, in addition to the completed and signed "Bidder Acknowledgment" form, PUR 7068 form and "Bid and Signature Sheet," the following documentation: a list containing five customer references; a list of "equipment references;" a statement of assets and liabilities, as of September 30, 1994, of Florida National Industries (which Intervenor identified in its bid submission as Intervenor's "parent company") and of Florida National Industries' subsidiaries; the "declarations" of an "executive protection policy" issued Intervenor by the Federal Insurance Company; 9/ short, written statements containing biographical information about Intervenor's President, Ted Kretzschmar, its Vice President of Operations, William Murphy, and its Secretary and Personnel Manager, Lianne Kretzschmar; and a one-page written statement (on Intervenor's letterhead), which read as follows: With regards to Section XI of the Invitation to Bid entitled "FIDELITY BOND," 50 State provides the attached copy of our current Fidelity Bond; With regards to Section XII of the Invitation to Bid entitled "REFERENCES," 50 State Security Service, Inc. submits the following supportive justification for those items: PERSONNEL 50 State Security currently employes approximately 350 Security Officers and is one of the largest security providers in South Florida. Of these 350 officers, over 150 are licensed as armed security officers by the State of Florida with a "G" license. 10/ EQUIPMENT 50 State Security has a twenty-four hour per day, seven days per week dispatching station at our North Miami headquarters. This Central Control station is manned by fully trained personnel at all times. 50 State currently operates with over 100 handheld and 15 mobile radios under a UHF voting system that allows radio coverage through- out Dade County. CUSTOMER REFERENCES See attached list of Contract Experience. FINANCIAL REPORTS See attached Statement for Florida National Industries (parent company). MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE See attached biographies for Ted Kretzschmar, William Murphy, and Lianne Kretzschmar. With regards to Section XV of the invitation to Bid entitled "CONTINGENCY," 50 State Security Service, Inc. submits the following: 50 State is readily able to supply qualified officers in amounts far in excess of the contract requirements to cover any contingency. HRS Manual No. 75-2 The Department has a manual, HRS Manual No. 75-2, that "establishes policy and furnishes the procedures to ensure that the department, through its contracting process, protects the funds it disburses, derives the maximum return of services from those funds and is in compliance with applicable state and federal law, rules, and regulations governing contracts for services," such as the one advertised in the ITB. Section 5-12 of the manual provides that the following procedures must be followed in the "evaluation of responses" to invitations to bid and requests for proposals: A selection team of at least three employees who have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which contractual services are sought, will be appointed by the appropriate authority to aid in the selection of providers for contracts exceeding the threshold amount for Category Four. 11/ It is recommended that a selection team of at least three employees be used for all contracts, regardless of dollar amount. It is required that each prospective member of the selection team complete the Conflict of Interest Questionnaire (Appendix J) to ensure that no team member has any conflict of interest which would interfere in selection of a provider. If a proposed team member answers "yes" to any question, his/her participation on the selection team must be reviewed by the contract manager in conjunction with legal counsel. If the selection team is organized to assist in the development of the RFP/ITB and its evaluation criteria, the Conflict of Interest Questionnaire must be completed prior to such involvement. Each member must approach the development of evaluation criteria in a manner which promotes fair and open competition. The selection team must evaluate ITB bids based on the lowest price and must evaluate RFP proposals using the weighted evaluation sheet contained in the published RFP. The selection team, upon completion of their review, may be required to submit their recommendation (a ranked list of the top three or five bidders) to the contract signer for review. The contract signer will then decide which person or firm is to be awarded the contract based upon the recommendation made by the selection team and taking into consi- deration which bidder's offer is most advantageous to the state. If the highest ranked bidder, as reported by the selection team, is not selected, the reason for the selection of another bidder must be set forth in writing and included in the contract manager's bid file. Section 5-15 of the manual provides that, "[i]n the case of an ITB, the contract shall be awarded to the responsive and responsible bidder with the lowest price." The Initial Evaluation of Petitioner's, Intervenor's and the Other Bids The bids that the Department received in response to the ITB were reviewed and evaluated by a two-member evaluation team. The members of the team were Speakman and another Department employee, Jorge Gonzalez. Speakman and Gonzalez reasonably determined that both Petitioner's and Intervenor's bid submissions were responsive to the ITB, including the provisions of Special Condition XII which required each bidder to "furnish the department with justification supportive of [its] ability to meet th[e contractual] obligation[s]" prescribed in the ITB by "briefly identify[ing] the company's personnel and equipment resources" and providing information concerning its "management experience." Speakman, however, was concerned that Petitioner's bid price was so low that Petitioner would not be able to make a profit and that therefore any arrangement with Petitioner would "not . . . work out." She telephoned Oladunni to express her concerns and to ask him if Petitioner intended to "stand by" its bid price. In response to Speakman's telephone call, Oladunni, on April 24, 1995, sent Speakman (by facsimile transmission) the following letter: Thank you for the opportunity to present our cost breakdown for the HRS Security Service to Food Stamp Offices. The Breakdown is as follows: Contract HRS: 58,280 LABOR HOURLY COST Security Officers wage: $ 9.50 Payroll Tax and Insurance P.T.I. (.151 percent) 1.43 Direct Labor: 10.93 10.93/HRS EQUIPMENT Radios: 22 at 400= $8,800.00 Tax at 6 1/2 percent= 572.00 TOTAL $9,372.00 3 years depreciation 3,124.00 yearly which equates to .06/hour Weapons: 30 @ 2400= $7,200.00 tax @ 6 1/2 percent= 468.00 TOTAL $7,668.00 5 years depreciation 1,533.60 yearly which equates to .03/hour Uniforms and Accessories: 30 people @ 250= $7500.00 tax 6 1/2= 487.50 TOTAL $7,987.50 uniform per hrs .14 BENEFIT: .19 CURRENT OFFICE OVERHEAD .50 PROFIT at 2 percent .26 TOTAL BILL RATES: 12.11 Speakman and Gonzalez determined that Petitioner was the "lowest responsive bidder," within the meaning of Special Condition VII of the ITB," and that Petitioner therefore should be awarded the contract pursuant to the ITB. Thereafter, the Department gave notice of its decision to award the contract to Petitioner. Intervenor's Protest After learning of the Department's decision, Intervenor (by letter dated May 1, 1995, from its counsel, Joseph Frechette, Jr.) advised Speakman that it was protesting the Department's determination to award the contract to Petitioner. On May 10, 1995, Intervenor filed a formal protest (in the form of a letter dated May 9, 1995, from Frechette). The letter read as follows: By and through [its] undersigned attorney, 50 State Security Service, Inc., (hereinafter "50 State"), files this formal protest of the awarding of ITB Number 11-95-001 to Delad Security, Inc. (hereinafter "Delad Security"). 50 State Security is located [at] 820 N.E. 126th Street, North Miami FL 33161. 50 State Security was entitled to the award of the aforementioned contract. 50 States' interest will be severely affected by a loss of revenue and exposure if the award of this contract to Delad Security is not overturned as required by law. 50 State was notified on April 27, 1995, by telephone, that Delad Security was awarded the aforementioned contract. On May 1, 1995, 50 State filed their written notice of protest, and files this formal protest in accordance with Florida Statute 120.53. Florida Statute 287.032 and 287.001 both indicate the legislature's intent on public procurement and the purpose of the Division of Purchasing. Both of these Statutes discuss the requirement that there be "uniform contractual service procurement policies, rules and procedures." The legislature set up these bid guidelines precisely and purposely. The failure of Delad to follow these guidelines established by the State was in violation of Florida Statutes, and thus their bid must be declared nonresponsive. Special Condition Section XII of the bid specifications, entitled references, specifically discusses the fact that "the ability of bidders to meet the requirements of this bid is of prime concern to the department." This section also "required that each bidder furnish the department with justification supportive of his ability to meet this obligation." Delad Security was in breach of Section XII. First, [it] failed to "identify the company's personnel and equipment resources." Second Delad failed to furnish management experience documentation as required by this section of the Invitation to Bid. Delad did not fulfill this section requirement; and the general conditions (Section 10) of the bid requirements dictate [it] should not be awarded this contract. Florida Statute 287.012 specifically addresses Delad's failure to meet statutory requirements. Section 17 of the Statute states that the respon- sive bid must conform "in all material respects to the invitation to bid or request for proposals." Section 18 of the Statute states that "Responsive bidder or responsive offeror means a person who has submitted a bid or proposal which conforms in all material respects to the invitation to bid or request for proposals." Delad has not met these requirements. They failed to provide the documentation and information on both manage- ment experience and personnel and equipment resources requirements of section XII of the bid. [Its] failure to provide this information violates the aforementioned Statute by not conforming to the bid specifications. There is no dispute of material fact other than 50 States' position that, as a result of Delad's failure to fulfill all of the bid requirements, Delad should not have been awarded the above listed contract. Delad Security failed to fulfill the requirements set forth under Special Conditions Section XII of the Invitation to Bid. Delad Security did not submit documentation of [its] company's management experience. They also failed to identify the company's personnel and equipment resources. The Florida Legislature placed specific requirements on the bid process. Delad Security's failure to fulfill these requirements is in violation of the Florida Statutes, therefore Delad should not have been awarded this contract. Delad did not conform with the General and Specific Conditions of the Invitation to Bid. This protest has demonstrated that Delad violated Florida Statutes 287.012, 287.032 and 287.001. 50 State therefore demands that the Delad Security bid be deemed nonresponsive, and requests that the lowest responsive bidder, 50 State Security, be awarded ITB 11-95-001. Intervenor's formal protest was referred to the Department's District 11 Deputy District Administrator, Lloyd Henry Hill. Along with Intervenor's formal protest, Hill was furnished copies of the ITB and Petitioner's and Intervenor's bid submissions. Hill did not fill out a Conflict of Interest Questionnaire (Appendix J to HRS Manual No. 75-2). If he had, however, it would not have reflected that he had any conflict of interest that might have interfered with his fairly and impartially resolving Intervenor's formal protest. After reviewing the materials with which he had been furnished, 12/ Hill determined that Intervenor's bid submission was responsive to the ITB, but that Petitioner's bid submission was clearly non-responsive because, in his opinion, it did not identify Petitioner's existing personnel and equipment resources, nor did it describe Petitioner's management experience, 13/ as required by Special Condition XII of the ITB (as interpreted by Hill 14/ ). Therefore, in Hill's opinion, as between Petitioner and Intervenor, Intervenor was the lowest responsive bidder. Accordingly, on June 13, 1995, Hill sent the following letter to Oladunni: This is to notify you that after further review of your company's bid for the referenced contract, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has determined your bid to be non-responsive. HRS will award the bid to 50 State Security, the lowest responsive bidder. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Fla. Stat. Any person who is affected adversely by this decision or intended decision and chooses to protest the decision shall file a notice of protest in writing with the Director of Purchasing within 72 hours after the posting of the bid tabulation or within 72 hours after receipt of the notice of the agency decision or intended decision, and shall fil[e] a formal written protest within ten days after the date of the filing of the notice of protest. Failure to file a notice of protest or failure to file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Fla. Stat. The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based. Thank you for your interest. In resolving Intervenor's formal protest in Intervenor's favor, Hill acted without the Petitioner's input or agreement and without there having been a Section 120.57(1) or (2) proceeding conducted on the matter. After receiving Hill's June 13, 1995, letter, Petitioner filed the protest that is the subject of the instant Section 120.57 proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order sustaining Petitioner's protest of the decision to award the contract advertised in ITB Number 11-95-001 to Intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of March, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (Sections 760.01 through 760.11, Florida Statutes.)1
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with over 50 departments and 30,000 employees. GSA is the Respondent’s department responsible for providing security to other county departments and facilities. GSA provides security services by contracting with private vendors. At the times relevant to this proceeding, GSA had contracts with approximately seven separate vendors to provide security guards where needed. One of the vendors is Security Alliance, which is a private company that provides security guards to both public and private entities. In 2004, GSA, on behalf of Respondent, entered into a contract with Security Alliance. The “General Terms and Conditions” of the bid document, which were incorporated into the contract between Respondent and Security Alliance, pertained to the responsibility of the vendor as an employer and provided as follows in Section 1.16: The employee(s) of the successful Bidder shall be considered at all times its employee(s) and not employee(s) or agent(s) of the County or any of its departments. . . . The County may require the successful bidder to remove any employee it deems unacceptable. . . . Security Alliance hired the security guards that were assigned to County posts. Only Security Alliance had the authority to terminate one of its employees. Respondent had no authority to terminate the employment of any Security Alliance employee. Security Alliance paid the salaries and the employment taxes of the security guards it employed to work on County posts. Security Alliance administered their annual and sick leave. Security Alliance supervisors monitored the daily activities of the Security Alliance security guards assigned to the various County facilities. Security Alliance employed approximately 250 security guards to service the contract it had with Respondent. As noted above, the contract between Respondent and Security Alliance gave Respondent the authority to require Security Alliance to remove a security guard from a County post if Respondent deemed the security guard’s performance to be unacceptable. Respondent could require that a particular security guard not be assigned to specific County posts. Respondent could also require that a particular security guard not be assigned to any County post. Security Alliance could assign the security guard to other duties with Respondent (depending on the Respondent’s instructions to Security Alliance) or with other clients. Petitioner is a black male whose national origin is Haitian. In 2003, Security Alliance hired Petitioner as a security guard and assigned him to work at facilities operated by Respondent’s Water and Sewer Authority (WASA). Petitioner was one of between 30-to-50 security guards assigned by Security Alliance to WASA facilities. The Preston Water Treatment Plant (Preston Plant) is a water purification and distribution facility operated by WASA. The Preston Plant runs around the clock and is considered by Respondent to be critical infrastructure. Security must be maintained at the Preston Plant at all times because of the need for a safe water supply and because dangerous chemicals are maintained there. On October 16, 2006, Michael Breaux, a white male, was employed by WASA as a Security Supervisor. His duties included monitoring the performance of guards assigned to security posts at WASA facilities. On October 16, 2006, Mr. Breaux conducted a routine check of the security posts at the Preston Plant. Mr. Breaux observed the security guard at the front gate slumped over his chair with his back to the gate. That security guard was subsequently identified as Petitioner. Mr. Breaux observed that Petitioner was inattentive. Mr. Breaux testified, credibly, that Petitioner’s lack of attention to duty posed a security risk. Nick Chernichco, Mr. Breaux’s supervisor, told Mr. Breaux to report his observations to Mr. Wolfe, who was the GSA security manager. Mr. Breaux reported his observations to Mr. Wolfe orally and in writing. Mr. Wolfe is a white male. When he reported his observations to Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Breaux did not know Petitioner’s national origin. Petitioner failed to establish that Mr. Breaux's actions following his observations of Petitioner at the guard station were motivated by Petitioner’s race or national origin.5 Mr. Wolfe did not meet with or talk to Petitioner in October 2006. After speaking to Mr. Breaux and reviewing the written report Mr. Breaux generated, Mr. Wolfe instructed the Security Alliance manager (Al Martin) not to assign Petitioner to a WASA facility. Mr. Wolfe took that action based on Mr. Breaux’s opinion that Petitioner’s lack of attention created a security risk. Petitioner failed to establish that Mr. Wolfe’s action was motivated by Petitioner’s race or national origin.6 After Mr. Wolf’s instruction to Mr. Martin, Security Alliance could have assigned Petitioner to any County facility other than a WASA facility or to another Security Alliance client. On May 17, 2007, Mr. Wolfe conducted rounds to check on security personnel at various County facilities. He came upon a security guard at the pump station located at 911 Northwest 67th Avenue, Miami, which is a WASA facility. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Mr. Wolfe did not remember Petitioner, who was the security guard he met. Mr. Wolfe observed that Petitioner was in violation of the uniform policy and had unauthorized reading material at his post. Mr. Wolfe returned to his office and proceeded to reduce to writing what he had observed. While preparing his memorandum Mr. Wolfe realized that Respondent had instructed Security Alliance not to use Petitioner at any WASA facility. Because of that prior order, with which Security Alliance had failed to comply, Mr. Wolfe informed Security Alliance of his observations, instructed Security Alliance not to use Petitioner as a security guard for any County post, and imposed a fine against Security Alliance in the amount of $1,800.00. Mr. Wolfe had no interest whether Petitioner retained his employment with Security Alliance and he did not intend to interfere with that employment, as long as Security Alliance did not assign Petitioner to a County post. Petitioner failed to establish that Mr. Wolfe’s actions following his observations on May 17, 2007, were motivated by Petitioner’s race or national origin. On or shortly after May 17, 2007, Security Alliance terminated Petitioner’s employment for failing to adhere to its policies. Brunelle Dangerville filed a Charge of Discrimination against Respondent. That complaint, together with Mr. Dangerville’s testimony, established that Mr. Dangerville and Petitioner were not similarly situated employees. Consequently, the claims raised by Mr. Dangerville’s Charge of Discrimination are irrelevant to this proceeding. Taken as a whole, the evidence in this case is insufficient to establish that Respondent was Petitioner’s employer or that it, acting through Mr. Wolfe or otherwise, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race or national origin.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding Respondent not liable to Petitioner for the alleged discriminatory employment practice(s). DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 2009.
The Issue The issues for consideration in this case are whether Respondent’s Class D, Class DI, and Class G licenses, as a security guard, a security guard instructor, and to carry a firearm, respectively, should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of security guards and guard instructors, and for the issuance of licenses for security guards to carry firearms. The Division is also responsible for the regulation of the non-governmental security profession in this state. Respondent, at the times in issue, held Class "D" Security Officer’s License, D94-08184; Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, DI98-00070; and a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License, G95-01354. On or about February 28, 1999, Respondent, working as a security guard for APS, was assigned to guard duty at American Freightways truck terminal in or near Pinellas County. The terminal was not open for business at the time, since it was a weekend, but Richard W. Clark, the company’s operations supervisor, was there to do an equipment inventory. Because this was not during business hours, all the loading dock doors were supposed to be shut and locked to prevent uncontrolled access to the terminal. As he went down one side of the building he discovered that one bay door was open about four- and-a-half feet without any truck in the bay against the dock. He then checked other dock doors to the terminal and found another door, this one located on the other side of the terminal, open by about five-to- six feet up from the floor. This bay had a truck parked in it up against the dock, but there was a space of about one-and-a-half feet on either side of the truck that afforded access to the open bay door. When he discovered the open doors, Mr. Clark went to find the security guard, Respondent, and asked how long he had been on duty. Respondent indicated he had been there for from six-to-eight hours. Clark asked Respondent if, during that time, he had seen any doors open and Respondent said he had not. When Clark asked Respondent if he had toured the building, he indicated he had seen some employees of PDQ truck line in the back, but they were not near the open doors. According to Tara Jean Colon, formerly the personnel manager for APS and Respondent’s indirect supervisor, Respondent, at the times in issue here, was first a roving security officer, and then assigned to the Albertson plant. APS develops "post orders" for each duty post. These orders define the particulars of each position and outline the scope of the duties to be performed. As a roving security officer, Respondent was given a copy of the order for each of the places at which he was assigned, including the American Freightways position. The American Freightways order became effective on November 1, 1996, and was in effect on February 28, 1999. The shift/post duties outlined in the order include the following comment. Officer will ensure any doors designated for security on weekends by American Freightways remain locked. Though this page bears date of December 21, 1999, after the date of the incident, Ms. Colon is certain that the original edition, first promulgated in November 1996, a copy of which had been furnished to Respondent, was identical. Ms. Colon also indicated that an additional copy of the post order for each post was on- site at the post, but Respondent denies having seen one at American Freightways. Respondent contends that on February 28, 1999, he was told at the American Freightways job site by the supervisor for APS to stay at the main gate and let no one except American Freightways or PDQ people come onto the property. He was also told he could use his car to drive around to do the door checks. As to that duty, he claims he was told that only the door to the driver’s lounge was available to him and there were none others that he could get to, so he should not worry about the doors. Respondent’s claim here is without merit. His job was to stay outside and he knew he had to patrol the area because he was advised he could use his automobile to do so. It is obvious that a visual check of the outer bay doors, which could be seen from his car, was a part of his duty. Notwitstanding that Investigator Floyd indicates Respondent admitted to having a weapon in his car the night he drove his post on February 28, 1999, Respondent claimed at hearing that at the American Freightways post that night he did not have a weapon in his car. He was driving his own vehicle, not a company car, and he admits he usually carries a 9mm pistol in the glove box for personal protection. When the weapon is there, the glove box is locked. Because he was driving his wife’s car quite a bit during the period, he claims he took the weapon out of his car and put it into his night stand. A 9mm pistol was found in Respondent’s glove box when Respondent was interviewed by Mr. Floyd on July 7, 1999. At the time, Mr. Floyd had gone to Respondent’s home to interview him about the allegations herein. At that time, Respondent admitted he had a 9mm pistol which he usually kept in the glove box of his car. When Floyd asked to see it, they went outside to the car where Respondent unlocked the car and the glove box and removed the weapon. From the evidence presented at hearing, it is found that Respondent owned a 9mm weapon that he usually kept in the glove box of his car where it was found on July 7, 1999. It is also found, however, that Respondent claims to have removed it from the car before he drove his post on February 28, 1999. There is no evidence at all that Respondent had the weapon in his car on February 28, 1999, at the American Freightways site, and no inference that he did can be drawn from the fact that he owned a weapon. Paul Summerall, a heavy equipment operator and part- time security guard for APS, was assigned to work at Albertson’s Distribution Center on the evening of March 16, 1999. He and Respondent arrived for work at the same time. When the assignments were passed out by the supervisor, Respondent was assigned to work with a female security guard, Stephanie Clopton, with whom he had worked before, and with whom he did not want to work again. He feelings on that point were quite strong. He called Ms. Clopton a bimbo, a whore, and a bitch, and Respondent asserted that if he were around her too much, he would kill her. Mr. Summerall advised Respondent not to talk like that, but Respondent said he didn’t care - they could put him in jail and he knew how to dispose of the body so that nobody would find it. Mr. Summerall believed that Respondent’s threat was serious and he thought Respondent had a gun in his car, though Respondent did not take it out. Because of this, Summerall called the other guard post and reported what Respondent had said. Other people, including a Mr. Bonner, also an employee of APS, were present when Respondent uttered his threat, but not Ms. Clopton. Summerall and Bonner agreed that at the time, Respondent was upset and angry. In fact, after his comments, he slammed the door and turned over a chair. Because of Respondent’s state, Summerall was concerned for Ms. Clopton’s safety and the safety of others. Respondent took no action to carry out his threat, however. In his interview with Mr. Floyd, Respondent admitted to making the threat as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. At hearing, however, he denied threatening to kill Ms. Clopton. He indicated that when he reported to work and found he was to work with her, he called the APS office and indicated he did not want to do so. He admits to saying that if he was forced to work with her he was afraid he’d kill her, but he denies having any intent to hurt her. He claims it was just his frustration coming out in a figure of speech. At the time, he claims, he was under a lot of stress due to the terminal illness of his brother in his care who subsequently died of esophageal cancer on February 16, 1999. Mr. Ray was telephoned at home by Ms. Colon who told him about the threats he had allegedly made. This call, he asserts, came the morning after he had worked all night at the IBM office complex. Ms. Colon told him that he had been removed from roving status, but that he would be allowed to work at the Albertson gate on a six hour shift. This would be a three-hour reduction in work time. Respondent claims he declined the offer and hung up. He also indicates this call was made on March 8, 1999, some eight days prior to the time given in the statements of the witnesses and contained in the Administrative Complaint. Ms. Clopton indicates that she did not telephone Respondent on March 16, 1999, as reflected on the employee action report sent to the Department of State, but on March 17, 1999, the day after the incident regarding the threat. He admitted making the alleged comment out of anger, and she terminated him effective immediately. The evidence is somewhat inconsistent in times and dates, but the central focus of the allegation is not in significant dispute. It does not matter exactly what day the threat was made. The evidence reflects the threat was voiced by Respondent, though it was not made to Ms. Clopton or in her presence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, issue a final order in this case finding Respondent not guilty of misconduct by making a threat to kill or injure another security guard; or by carrying a weapon with him on at a client site which was not designated as an armed post, as alleged in Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint, respectively; but finding Respondent guilty of negligence and misconduct by failing to perform his assigned duties properly on February 28, 1999, in failing to assure that certain outside doorways at a client site were secure, as alleged in Count II thereof. It is further recommended that Respondent’s Class "D", "G", and "DI" licenses be placed on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions as the Division may specify, and that Respondent be administratively fined $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 21st day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Bensko, Esquire Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Leonard J. Connors, Esquire 1017 East Reynolds Street Plant City, Florida 33566 Honorable Katherine Harris Secretary of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Lower Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Findings stipulated to by the parties On March 27, 1990, the school district issued an Invitation For Bids, Bid NO. 91-037V for Security Guard Services - Term Contract. Special Condition 5 of the bid specifications states as follows: Bidders shall submit evidence with this bid of the following: The bidder is presently engaged in security services; and The bidder has an established record of satisfactory performance over the past three (3) years and shall furnish names of five (5) organizations for whom the bidder has provided security services during this period. Failure to provide this information with the bid shall result in disqualification of bid submitted. (emphasis furnished) The school district received timely bids upon Bid NO. 91-037V from eight bidders, including the Petitioner, Security Services, Inc. Bids were open on April 19, 1990, at 2:00 p.m. Six of the eight bidders upon Bid NO. 91-037V submitted with their bids the five (5) references required by Special Condition 5 of the Invitation To Bid. The Petitioner, Security Services, Inc., failed to submit the required five (5) references along with its bid. Security Services, Inc.'s, bid of $6.25 per hour constituted the lowest hourly rate contained in any of the bid submittals. Universal Security Consultants' bid submittal contained a proposal to render guard services at the rate of $6.88 per hour and constituted the second lowest hourly rate contained in any of the bid submittals. In addition, Universal's bid submittal met all other requirements of the bid specifications and included the five (5) references required by Special Condition 5. Prior to issuing a recommendation upon the bid item, the staff of the school district contacted the five references submitted by Universal Security Consultants with its bid, and each reference indicated that Universal had satisfactorily provided security guard services. After reviewing and evaluating the bid submittals, the staff of the School Board recommended the rejection of Security Services, Inc.'s bid for its failure to meet the requirements of Special Condition 5 of the Invitation To Bid. It was further recommended that a contract be awarded to Universal Security Consultants under Bid NO. 91-037V. The recommendations and bid tabulations were posted on April 26, 1990, at 3:00 p.m. On April 27, 1990, the Petitioner, Security Services, Inc., submitted a document entitled "Letter Of Protest -- Bid NO. 91-037V" to the school district. Within the document, Security Services, Inc., notified the school district of its protest of recommendations that were posted on April 26, 1990. The document states that "[w]hile preparing this year's bid package, I [the owner of Petitioner] overlooked the section pertaining to requirement of having to list references." The document requests the school district to reconsider the bid of Security Services, Inc., and lists the following organizations as references: The School Board of Broward County, Florida; WSCV - Ch. 51; The Lauderhill Mall; Telemundo Productions, Inc.; and Midway Club Apartments. The Petitioner, Security Services, Inc., had previously been awarded contracts by the school district to provide security guard services. The first contract was dated February 4, 1988. A second contract was awarded to Petitioner on March 1, 1989, and the Petitioner was providing security guard services to the school district under the second contract at the time of the bid proceedings pertaining to Bid NO. 91-037V. The first contract awarded to the Petitioner by the school district arose from Security Services, Inc.'s, bid submission to a certain bid numbered 88-518D. The bid specifications for Bid NO. 88-518B did not require bidders to submit references, and none were provided at that time by Security Services, Inc. The second contract awarded to the Petitioner by the school district arose from Security Services, Inc.'s, bid submission to a certain bid numbered 89-368V. The bid specifications for Bid NO. 89-368V contained a requirement to submit references identical to the requirement contained in the bid specifications for Bid NO. 91-037V. Security Services, Inc., did submit five references along with its bid proposal to Bid NO. 89-368V. The five references listed in the Petitioner's bid submittal to Bid NO. 89-368V were as follows: Broward County School Board; WSCV-Ch. 51; Lauderhill Mall; Lauderdale Yacht Basin; and Woodhue Condominium Association. On May 1, 1990, the school district received a formal written Notice Of Protest [dated April 30, 1990] from Security Services, Inc. Within the formal written protest, the Petitioner requested that it be awarded the contract for security guard services on the basis of the Petitioner's work being satisfactory and the lowest bid. The protest asserted that Security Services, Inc., had de facto complied with the requirements of Special Condition 5 as Petitioner had provided this information to the school district in previous years and that such information was on file at the school board. The Petitioner further asserted that the failure to submit the five (5) references was an irregularity that could be waived by the school district or that was correctable after opening of the bids. The formal written notice of protest filed by Security Services, Inc., states as follows: There was an unintended omission from the Security Services, Inc., Invitation to Bid in that through inadvertence, Security Services, Inc., failed to provide a list of five (5) organizations for whom the bidder has provided security services as required by Paragraph 5B of the Special Conditions. On May 15, 1990, the School Board considered the protest filed by Security Services, Inc., and rejected the same. The Petitioner subsequently requested further proceedings in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and these proceedings commenced. b. Additional facts established at hearing: The School Board requires the inclusion within its bids of the names of five (5) organizations for whom the bidder has provided security services over the past three (3) years in order to be able to evaluate the present ability of the bidder to perform under a contract awarded under the bid item. The information as to references is evaluated and investigated by the school district as to the apparent low bidder prior to the posting of recommendations for the award of the bid item. Security Services, Inc., has satisfactorily performed the two security guard contracts it has previously been awarded by the School Board, and there have been no complaints about the performance of Security Services, Inc., under those two contracts. At the time the bids in this case were opened, the School Board already knew that Security Services, Inc., could perform satisfactorily because it had been doing so for the School Board for two years. Over the term of the contract, the difference in cost between the low bid submitted by Security Services, Inc., and the second low bid submitted by Universal Security Consultants, will amount to approximately $50,000.00.
Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County enter a Final Order in this case concluding that the irregularities in the bid submitted by Security Services, Inc., are minor irregularities, that those irregularities are waived, and that Bid NO. 91-037V should be awarded to Security Services, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 24th of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 24th day of July, 1990.
