The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent should be fined or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Marshall Sellers was the owner and operator of Auto Security Company d/b/a Sonya Sellers Collections. Sellers d/b/a Auto Security Company performed collection and repossession services for Kings Crown Leasing, Inc., a subsidiary of Kings Crown Ford. While the agreement between Sellers and Kings Crown primarily called for Sellers to collect past due payments, he also performed two or three repossessions per month when collection efforts failed. Sellers was paid for his services by Kings Crown in the form of monthly checks made payable, in some instances to Marshall Sellers, and in other instances to Auto Security Company. Sellers' bills or invoices to Kings Crown were similarly sometimes in the name of Marshall Sellers and sometimes in the name of Auto Security Company. Sellers d/b/a Auto Security Company performed collection and repossession services for Tillman Auto Sales from 1988 to the present. While some of his services to Tillman involved collections, most of his services to Tillman were for repossessions. The repossessions for which Sellers billed both Kings Crown and Tillman included both voluntary recoveries, when the debtor voluntarily gave Sellers the keys to the vehicle, and involuntary recoveries when Sellers "stole" the vehicle from the debtor. Sellers himself characterized the involuntary repossessions to be "stealing." Sellers acknowledged to the investigator from the Division of Licensing that he did repossessions incidental to his collections work. For the first time, Sellers testified at hearing that he does not do involuntary repossessions himself, but that he hires independent contractors to perform those services for him. Sellers maintained that the involuntary repossessors were not his employees and that they were paid as contractors with their income being reported by Sellers to the IRS on Form 1099. He stated that the repossession fees paid to him by Tillman and Kings Crown were fees he paid to the independent contractors to repossess particular vehicles. Sellers' testimony in this regard is not worthy of belief. Having observed the candor and demeanor of Sellers while he testified, the undersigned determined that he was inconsistent and evasive and not worthy of belief. Additionally, Sellers failed to comply with valid discovery requests and failed to produce records, either through discovery or at hearing to support his otherwise uncorroborated testimony. It would have been a simple matter for him to have produced the 1099's to show that all repossessions paid for by Tillman and Kings Crown were performed by independent contractors and that those independent contractors were paid for the repossession services, not Sellers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order and therein find Marshall Sellers d/b/a Auto Security Company and Soyna Sellers Collections guilty of both counts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and order Marshall Sellers to pay an administrative fine of $2000. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 3rd day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5300 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing Proposed findings of fact 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 5 are irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 3 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed finding of fact 9 is unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Marshall Sellers d/b/a Auto Security Company and Sonya Sellers Collections Proposed findings of fact 1, 6-9, 11, 13, and 14 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2, 5, 15, and 17 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 3, 4, 10, 12, 16, and 18-20 are unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Bernard S. McLendon Attorney at Law 505 North Liberty Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary Of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner John Crawford, operated Crawford and Son's Farms located in or near Lakeland, Florida, on which he grows produce including, inter alia, beans of the variety in controversy here. Respondent, Wishnatzki, is a produce broker located in Tampa, Florida, and has been in the business of brokering produce grown by Florida farmers throughout the United States for three generations. Petitioner and Respondent have done business together in the past on many occasions, without controversy, and have, over the years, developed an amicable business and well as personal relationship. For a substantial portion of that time, including the time in issue, the parties' transactions were consummated under a "written statement of terms and conditions" which called on the broker, Wishnatzki, to act as the grower's agent on the basis of "gross proceeds of a sale, less carrier, cooling, packing and palleting charges, if any, and a Grower's Agent's customary commission." At some time prior to April 28, 1994, Mr. Crawford, who was, at the time, carrying a bucket full of the beans later sold through Respondent, saw Mr. Wishnatzki who, he claims, indicated the beans could be worth $25.00 per bushel. The beans at hand were the earliest produced from the Petitioner's fields, however, and the main crop was not yet ready for harvesting. Mr. Crawford acknowledges this comment by Mr. Wishnatzki was no guarantee of price but merely an opinion, and Mr. Wishnatzki claims it was Crawford, not him, who stated a figure. Several days later, however, on or about May 3, 1994, while his beans were being picked, Mrs. Crawford spoke with Mr. Wishnatzki who said he needed beans and had a truck going to New York. According to Mrs. Crawford, Mr. Wishnatzki advised her they could probably get $20.00 per bushel for the beans if Crawford could get them in. Mrs. Crawford immediately went to Petitioner and told him what Respondent had said, and within two days, on May 3 and 4, 1994, Mr. Crawford delivered to Mr. Wishnatzki 164 bushels of beans. The beans were shipped up north, but in the interim, the price of beans, according to the Department of Agriculture's price report, dropped considerably from a price near $18.00 per bushel. Records maintained by Respondent reflect that between May 4 and May 7, 1994, Respondent sold the entire 164 bushels, in varying amounts, to six different customers, as follows: 5/4/94 Scarmardo Produce. 40 bu at $14.00/bu 5/5/94 C & S Wholesale Gro. 73 bu at 12.00/bu 5/5/94 C & S Wholesale Gro. 2 bu at 0.00/bu 5/5/94 Watson's Produce 5 bu at 16.00/bu 5/6/94 Scott Street Tomato Co. 5 bu at 16.00/bu 5/6/94 Sy Katz Produce 5 bu at 16.00/bu 5/7/94 Tamburo Bros. 34 bu at 4.00/bu Respondent received a total of $1,812.00 for the sale of all Petitioner's beans consigned to it for an average price of $11.04 per bushel. Notwithstanding Respondent was entitled, by the terms of the agreement between it and Petitioner, to deduct a commission on the sale, because of the long- standing harmonious relationship which had existed between them, and because Respondent felt it important to support its growers and insure their financial well-being, Respondent, nevertheless paid Petitioner the full amount it received, and an additional sum as well, for a total payment of $2,132.00. In other words, though Respondent received only an average of $11.04 per bushel from its customers for Petitioner's beans, it nevertheless paid Petitioner an average of $13.00 per bushel for the beans it received from him. Petitioner is not satisfied with the amount received, however, and claims Respondent sold the beans at a price below market. He refers to Mr. Wishnatzki's comment in passing in late April that the beans could bring $25.00 per bushel. He also notes that the market should have been good because of an infestation of bean virus due to white flies. He further contends that Respondent should not have sold the beans for such a low price; that Respondent should have checked with the northern markets, and if there was a problem with his beans, Respondent should have procured a government inspection of them. While he admits beans were in a downward fall, he does not believe the price dropped to $13.00 per bushel on a first hand picking. In support of his position, he refers to two separate market reports, the first dated May 4, 1994, and the other dated May 6, 1994. The former reflects a "fairly light" demand for beans, with handpicked beans selling between "16.00 and 18.65, mostly 16.65 few 12.00", and the latter reflects, for handpicked beans, a "fairly light" demand with sales at "14.00 - 16.65 few 12.00 occasional lower." Petitioner does not claim he should have received $18.00 per bushel which he cites, inaccurately, was the fair market price according to the Florida Market Reports cited above, but claims he could have come off that price if he had been contacted to negotiate price. However, the $18.00 price he cites was not, according to the evidence, the usual price received. The usual price was around $16.65, with some lower. In any case, the terms of the brokerage agreement does not provide for price negotiation after delivery is made to the broker. Further, Mr. Wishnatzki did not call Petitioner when he saw the beans were not selling well because they had already been picked and were in Respondent's hands. Not much could have been done at that point, and he had other growers to deal with as well. In addition, Mr. Crawford has access to the market report and knew the price was falling. He did not call Respondent to set a minimum price. According to Mr. Wishnatzki, the price paid to the growers is based upon the price his company receives for the produce. However, Respondent does not wait until it has been paid before paying its growers. When the produce is sold, the grower is paid, and Respondent receives payment from the buyer after that. There is no way to say with certainty when the grower delivers produce to Respondent what price an ultimate buyer will pay for that produce. Many factors come into play, including quality of the produce, current market price, supply and demand and the like. A market bulletin, published at the end of each market day, gives some idea of what the next day's price is likely to be, but only market conditions control the price. Review of the prices received by Respondent for the first 130 bushels of beans sold reflect a price of from $12.00 for the 73 bushels sold to C & S, to $14.00 for the 40 bushels sold to Scarmardo. The 15 bushels sold to three different brokers for $16.00 per bushel is but a small amount of the total. The remaining 34 bushels sold to Tamburo for $4.00 per bushel brought the average price received down, as did the two bushels for which no payment was received. Respondent claims they received only $4.00 per bushel from Tamburo because of a constant decline in the market during the entire week the beans were for sale, and the sale to Tamburo was, in effect, a distress sale. Wishnatzki started the week out offering the beans at $18.00 per bushel. The price was reduced each day until the final Saturday when it is usual to sell what they have left over for what they can get. On Saturday, May 7, Wishnatzki still had 34 bushels of beans left and Tamburo sold them at the lower price. It was lower that Wishnatzki had expected, but consistent with the agreement they had with Tamburo who had the beans on consignment. Mr. Wishnatzki asserts the sale at that price was a judgement call he had to make, but were he confronted with the same situation, he would do it again. At no time did Mr. Wishnatzki advise Mr. Crawford he could, or would, sell a given quantity of beans at a certain price. If he had known what price he would get for the beans at later sale, he would have paid Mr. Crawford on the spot, in advance. Further, even though at the beginning of the week in question the market reports showed beans selling for a good price, sales can not always be made at the reported market price. The price he gets is what his customers are willing to pay. His procedure is to send out a daily inventory sheet to each of his customers, nation-wide, by FAX. At the time these beans were delivered to Respondent, the demand was light, witnessed by the fact that it took a whole week to dispose of 164 bushels. That is not a large volume. While he understands Mr. Crawford's disappointment, it is a result of the fact that Crawford's expectations were higher than reality delivered. This has happened to growers before, and it will, no doubt, happen again.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Crawford & Son's Farms' claim against Respondent, Wishnatzki & Natel, Inc. and Continental Insurance Company, in the amount of $824.00, be denied. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John Crawford d/b/a Crawford & Son's Farms 2545 Sleepy Hill Road Lakeland, Florida 33809 ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 1994. David L. Lapides, Esquire W. Edwin Litton, II, Esquire Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. Post Office Box 3433 Tampa, Florida 33601 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Allen’s Sod Service owes Petitioner Lake Jem Farms, Inc., money for grass sod.
Findings Of Fact Before the transaction of business which is the subject of this proceeding, Petitioner’s predecessor sold lawn sod to Respondent over a period of time. Petitioner and Respondent verbally agreed that payment of Respondent’s indebtedness to Petitioner would be forthcoming upon Respondent’s retirement of indebtedness to Petitioner’s predecessor. Despite this condition of payment to Petitioner’s predecessor, Respondent nevertheless made payments to Petitioner for grass sod, thereby effectively waiving the condition with regard to amounts presently owed to Petitioner. Respondent made 24 purchases of sod from Petitioner during the months of August and September 1999, and paid Petitioner for 18 of the sod purchases. Six purchases remained unpaid for a total of $6,244.52 owed to Petitioner by Respondent. Respondent’s representative claimed at final hearing that certain sod purchases were defective, but admitted the six sod purchases for which money was still owed to Petitioner, were not among the defective purchases. Other than the allegations of other defective sod purchases, Respondent’s representative presented no direct, competent evidence of the existence of the defective products. Additionally, the evidence establishes that Respondent’s representative signed for each individual load of sod, certifying that the sod was acceptable. Thereafter each sod purchase entered into possession of Respondent’s employee for transport to the work site.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order determining that Respondent owes Petitioner the sum of $6,244.52, which, if unpaid, is due from Respondent Fidelity & Deposit Company Of Maryland under the bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Croak, Esquire 14229 U.S. Highway 441 Tavares, Florida 32778 Rena Weekly, Qualified Representative Allen’s Sod Service 8148 Southeast 147th Place Summerfield, Florida 34491 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Willie J. Woods is a farmer. He entered into an agreement with W. R. Ward, Jr., President of Growers Marketing Service, Inc. (GMS) concerning the disposition of watermelons which he had grown. The testimony of Woods and Ward concerning the nature of the agreement is conflicting. In the absence of a written contract, the nature of the agreement must be determined from the other documents surrounding their transactions. From these documents, it is determined that the agreement between the parties was not for the purchase of Woods' watermelons by GMS. The documentation surrounding the transactions by GMS, show that GMS was acting as a broker or middle man in introducing Woods' watermelons into the stream of commerce. According to Mr. Ward's records, each shipment was assigned a transaction number, and each sale from a lot of watermelons was also assigned a transaction number. The record of each of these transactions was examined in detail. Below each of these transactions is discussed, and where portions of the record are particularly pertinent, they have been copied and attached to this order for ease of reference. In some instances, the settlement statement has been reproduced and corrected to reflect what the actual charges should have been based upon the underlying record. A handwritten explanation of the adjusting entries has been added to these statements. Transaction number 1439: On June 4, 1991, Woods delivered 43,750 pounds of watermelons to GMS The documentation surrounding this transaction shows that GMS, sold the load of watermelons FOB Brooksville, Florida for a price of 14 cents per pound.The purchaser's driver transported the load from Brooksville to Canada where the purchaser "rejected" the load because the melons were immature. By purchasing the watermelons FOB Brooksville, the purchaser waived any right to reject the melons upon their arrival at their destination. Further, the only evidence of immaturity is an inspection report which states that the inspection was limited and may not reflect the condition of the whole load. The inspection report itself is hearsay. The dollar value of this load as stated in the Bill of Lading/Customs Declaration was $6,125.00. The cost of freight was not shown in the file because it was delivered FOB Brooksville and the costs were borne by the purchaser. The GMS's handling fee was 1 cent per pound or $438.00. GMS owed Woods $5,687.00 on transaction number 1439. GMS paid Woods $2,879 on this transaction. GMS still owes Woods $2,808 on this transaction. Transaction number 1424: On June 4th, GMS sold in behalf of Woods $4,320 pounds of watermelons for 20.25 cents per pound. W. R. Ward stated that the price was reduced from 15 to 5 cents per pound, and was a bookkeeping error. The file reflects the sales price for the 46,320 pounds of watermelons was $9,380. The file reflects that transportation on this load of watermelons was $1,683.00, and GMS, was entitled to 2.5 cents per pound for packing and 1 cent handling for a total of $1,621. The total expenses were $3,304.00 for transaction number 1424. GMS owed Woods $6,077.00 for transaction 1424, but only paid him $1,844. GMS still owes Woods $4,233 on this transaction. Transaction number 3534: On June 4th, GMS, handled a load of yellow meat watermelons weighing 4,071 pounds for Willie J. Woods. Subsequently, GMS sold portions of this load of watermelons in transactions number 1565, 1507, 1461, 1403, and 1476. On June the 6th, GMS sold 13,337 pounds of watermelons at 17 cents a pound for a total sales price of $2,267.29 in transaction 1461. On June 6th, Growers Marketing Service sold 18,909 pounds at 14 cents a pound for a total of $2,647.26 in transaction number 403. On June 7th, Growers Marketing Service sold 1,945 pounds at 22 cents a pound for a total of $427.90 in transaction 1476. On June 14th, Growers Marketing Service sold 5,347 pounds on transaction 1565 which were subsequently rejected because of severe decay. See, Dump Report dated July 5 in Transaction 1565. Growers Marketing Service showed no income nor expense to the grower on transaction 1565. Because these melons were not sold until June 14, it is possible that they decayed. GMS's treatment of the transaction on the settlement statement is contrary to the notes on transaction 1565 which treat is as a wash with no income or expense to Woods. The assessment of freight and handling charges was not inappropriate under the circumstances, and are disallowed. See, Corrected Invoice 3534 attached to this Order. The total revenue from the remaining transactions was $6,142. The expenses on the various loads total $2,285. GMS owed Woods $3,857 on this load, but only paid him $1152. GMS still owes Woods $2705 on this transaction. Transaction number 3541: On June 7, 1991, Growers Marketing Service handled 9,997 pounds of watermelons for Willie J. Woods on transaction number 1565. This load was sold to Castellini Produce on transaction 1565, discussed above, where it was rejected for excessive decay. The assessment of the freight charges and handling charges on this load which was handled 10 days after it was picked was inappropriate, and is disallowed. It is treated also as a wash in this transaction just as it was in 3534, and just as GMS treated it in transaction 1565. Transaction number 3546: On June 11th, Growers Marketing Service received 4,949 pounds of yellow meat watermelons from Woods. It subsequently sold these watermelons for Woods in transactions 1589, 1607, and 1613. Regarding transaction 1589, the Growers Marketing Service's settlement statement to Woods reflects that this transaction is subject to PACA Audit; however, GMS included the 14,121 pounds of watermelons in its settlement at a expense to Woods of 5 cents per pound on a sales price of 1.67 cents per pound. Because this transaction is still subject to audit, it was inappropriate to settle with the farmer. For purposes of this accounting, 1589 is not considered. In transaction 1607, GMS sold 16,775 pounds of yellow meat watermelons received from Woods on transaction 3546. Transaction 1607 and the funds received from the transaction are discussed in full below with regard to transaction 3548; therefore, it is not discussed or accounted for as part of transaction 3546. In transaction 1613, Growers Marketing Service sold 10,053 pounds of watermelons at 11.6 cents per pound for a total of $1,069.00. Expenses attributable to transaction 1613 were $554.00. Woods was entitled to $614.00 on transaction 1613; however, he was paid nothing on this transaction; GMS owes Woods $614 on this transaction. Transaction 1475: On June 11th, Growers Marketing Service received 45,050 pounds of watermelons from Woods. Growers Marketing Service asserts that the original price of these watermelons was dropped from 15 cents to 12 cents; however, the checkstub attached to the invoice shows a total payment to GMS of $7,298.10 at the original purchase price of 17.2 cents per pound. Growers Marketing Service's costs in this transaction were $2,358. Because this transaction clearly shows the original price was paid, it reflects adversely on creditability of the witnesses for Growers Marketing Service with regard to their testimony in other transactions that the original price was reduced due to fall in the market. Growers Marketing Service owed Woods $4,940 on transaction 1475, and paid him $4,484. GMS still owes Woods $456 on this transaction. Transaction number 1508: On June 11, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 46,000 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods. Growers Marketing Service sold these melons at a price of 10.25 cents per pound. Growers Marketing Service received $4,715.00 on transaction 1508 and had expenses in the amount of $2,259.00. Growers Marketing Service owed Woods $2,456.00 on transaction 1508, and paid Woods $2,284. GMS still owes Woods $172 on this transaction. Transaction number 1497: On June 11, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 45,340 pounds of watermelons in this transaction. Growers Marketing Service sold these watermelons at 16.35 cents per pound and deducted freight of 4.35 cents per pound, showing a net sales price of 12 cents per pound. This resulted in sales revenue of $5,441 from which GMS deducted its 1 cent handling charge and an additional $4,750 listed as a harvesting advance. GMS paid Woods $204. GMS introduced no proof of a harvesting loan; however, Woods' complaint admits this loan. Nothing is owed to Woods on this transaction. Transaction number 3548: On June 12, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 41,132 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods. Subsequently, Growers Marketing Service sold watermelons received from Woods on this transaction in its transaction numbered 1613, 1607 and 1627. Growers Marketing Service asserts that 24,457 pounds of watermelons were rejected and destroyed on transaction 1607. The records regarding transaction 1607 show handwritten notation on the invoice that Growers Marketing Service received a total after expenses of sale of $3,286.00 on transaction 1607. In transaction 1613, Growers Marketing Service sold 10,032 pounds of watermelons at 11 cents a pound and in transaction 1627 Growers Marketing Service sold 7,899 pounds of watermelons at 7 cents a pound. The original settlement statement reflected incorrectly that Woods owed GMS $810. A corrected settlement statement on transaction 3548 is attached to this Order and reflects that Willie J. Woods was owed the amount of $1,019.00 in transaction 1607, $624.00 in transaction 1613, and $1,019.00 in transaction 1627. GMS paid Woods no money on this transaction, and owes Woods a total of $1,873. Transaction number 1527: On June 12, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 50,080 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods. Growers Marketing Service sold these watermelons for 17.35 cents per pound receiving a total of $8,689.00 less expenses of $2,441.00. GMS owed Willie J. Woods $6,248.00 on transaction 1527, and paid Woods $247. GMS owes Woods $6,001. Transaction number 1536: On June 12, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 41,320 pounds watermelons from Willie J. Woods. Growers Marketing Service consigned these watermelons and received $2,078.00 less expenses of $1,473.00. Woods owed $605.00 from Growers Marketing Service on transaction 1536, and paid Woods $307. GMS still owes Woods $298. Transaction number 1535: On June 12, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 43,240 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods in this transaction. Growers Marketing Service subsequently sold these watermelons at 16.45 cents per pound receiving a total of $7,113.00 less expenses of $2,357.00. Growers Marketing Service owed Willie J. Woods $4,856.00 on transaction 1535, and paid Woods $2,802. GMS still owes Woods $2,054. Transaction number 1505: On June 13, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 44,950 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods on this transaction. Subsequently, Growers Marketing Service sold these watermelons for a total of $6,967.00 to a dealer in Canada. The dealer in Canada rejected the watermelons upon their receipt serving that they were overripe on June 15, 1991, when they were received. A Canadian agricultural inspection was ordered and conducted on June 21, 1991, which revealed that 28% of the melons showed decay. However, the inspection was not timely and the report is hearsay. GMS failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining a prompt inspection and seeking recovery in behalf of Woods. Therefore, after absorbing expenses of $2,747.00, Growers Marketing Service owed Woods $4,220.00 for his loss in this transaction. GMS paid Woods $1,250 salvage on the load; however, it still owes him $2,970. Transaction number 1520: On June 13, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 45,940 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods in this transaction. The front of the folder shows that Growers Marketing Service sold this load of watermelons to Winn Dixie in South Carolina for 12 cents per pound, or $5,513. Upon receiving the watermelons on June 15 1991, Winn Dixie rejected the melons because they were "cutting white, green fresh." See copy of front of file. Growers Marketing Service asked another broker to move the load, and that broker and Growers Marketing Service arranged to have the load inspected at its next destination, Staunton, Virginia. The truck broke down in route to Staunton, Virginia and did not arrive until June 18, 1991. The other broker described the melons as looking "cooked" on arrival. Growers Marketing Service charged Woods with freight on this load. Because Growers Marketing Service had a legitimate freight claim against the trucking company, yet charged the loss and freight charges to the grower, GMS owes Woods $5,940 less the salvage, freight and expenses totaling $2,125. GMS owes Woods $3,816. Transaction number 3553: On June 13, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 29,478 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods on transaction 3553. Subsequently, Growers Marketing Service sold these melons to various concerns realizing $3,450.76 on these sales. GMS's settlement statement with Woods on this transaction reflects a deficit on transaction 1505 of $822.50. According to the records reviewed by the Hearing Officer there was no deficit in transaction 1505; therefore, the deduction of $822.50 was inappropriate. Adding this money back into the amount due Woods, Woods should have received $1,615.74 on transaction number 3553. GMS paid Woods $675, and still owes Woods $941. Transaction number 3552: On June 13, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 32,769 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods on this transaction. A review of the records reflects that Growers Marketing Service subsequently sold 10,403 pounds of these melons at three cents a pound, realizing $312.09. Growers Marketing Service also sold 19 bins of these melons weighing 22,366 pounds for nine cents a pound for a total of $2,012.94. Growers Marketing Service's settlement statement reflects a packing charge of two and a half cents per pound for 22,366 pounds of melons that were in bins. This is excluded as an expense because the adjustment for packing charges was included in the Hearing Officer's recomputation of the price of nine cents per pound. Similarly, the price adjustment of one and a half cents per pound was included in the recomputation of the price and is therefore excluded. The settlement statement which is attached to this Order reflects total receipts of $2,325 and total expenses of $750. Growers Marketing Services owed Willie J. Woods $1,575 on transaction number 3552, and paid Woods $1,551. GMS owes Woods $24 on this transaction. Transaction number 3549: On June 13, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 32,564 pounds of watermelon from Willie J. Woods on this transaction. Subsequently, Growers Marketing Service sold 4,008 pounds of watermelons at three cents a pound on transaction 1669, realizing $120.24 on the sale. Growers Marketing Service sold seven bins of watermelons weighing 8,400 pounds at $217.66 for each bin, realizing a total of $1,523.66 on transaction 1532. Growers Marketing Service sold 1,346 pounds of watermelon at eight cents a pound, realizing $107.68 on transaction 1678. Growers Marketing Services sold 18,810 pounds of watermelons at sixteen and a half cents a pound, realizing $3,104 on transaction 1530. The Growers Marketing Services' settlement statement on transaction 3549, corrected as indicated above, shows that Growers Marketing Services received a total of $4,855 on this transaction. Growers Marketing Services' statement reflects packing charges of four cents per pound for 24,164 pounds. This packing charge was not applicable because the melons are indicated to have been in bins, not in cartons. Further, the price adjustment of one and a half cents per pound on 18,810 pounds was included in the Hearing Officer recomputation of the price per pound. Taking into account these corrections, total revenue was $4,855, and the total expenses of Growers Marketing Services were $1,613. Growers Marketing Services owed Woods $3,242 on transaction 3549, and paid him $1,690. GMS still owes Woods $1,552. Transaction 3556: On June 13, 1991, Growers Marketing Services received 32,898 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods on this transaction. Subsequently, Growers Marketing Services sold 2,086 pounds of these watermelons for 12 cents a pound on transaction 1622. Growers Marketing Services sold 2,096 pounds of these watermelons at 10 cents a pound realizing $210 on transaction 1575. Growers Marketing Services sold 1,983 pounds of these watermelons at 10 cents a pound realizing $198 in transaction 1647. Growers Marketing Services' settlement for transaction 3556 is attached to this Order and reflects an original price for these melons of 4 cents per pound; however, Growers Marketing Services sold 1,029 of these watermelons at 11.6 cents a pound in transaction 1613. The settlement statement, a copy of which is attached, is corrected to reflect the sales price of 11.6 cents a pound, and the resulting change in the monies received from $41.16 to $119. GMS sold 2086 pounds of melon for 12 cents per pound realizing $250 on transaction 1622. GMS sold 3,841 pounds of watermelons for 10 cents per pound realizing $384 on transaction 1707. Growers Marketing Services sold 21,862 of these watermelons at 7 cents a pound realizing $1,530 on transaction 1627. The total received by Growers Marketing Services was $2,691 less expenses of $1,952. Growers Marketing Services owed Willie J. Woods $739, and paid him $662 on transaction 3556. GMS still owes Woods $77. Transaction number 3557: On June 14, 1991, Growers Marketing Services received 20,013 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods on this transactions. Subsequently, Growers Marketing Services sold 9,214 watermelons at 12 cents a pound on transaction 1616. Growers Marketing Services 3,418 pounds of watermelons at 3 cents a pound in transaction 1669. Growers Marketing Services sold three bins of watermelons weighing 3,525 pounds at 16.5 cents a pound and an additional 3,852 pounds of watermelons at 16.5 cents a pound in transaction 1530. This is a total of 16,162 pounds of watermelons. The Growers Marketing Service's settlement statement, which is attached, is corrected to show the correct number of pounds sold and the correct amounts of money received by Growers Marketing Service. Growers Marketing Service received a total of $3,301.50 for the sell of these watermelons. Concerning the expenses shown by Growers Marketing Service, the number of pounds handled is adjusted to show that 16,162 pounds was handled. In addition, the 4 cent packing charge for 16,484 pounds of watermelons is deleted since these melons were not packed in cartons but in bins. In addition, the 1.5 cent price adjustment for 3,525 pounds of watermelons handled in transaction 1530 is in the recomputation of the price. The corrected expense total is $254. Growers Marketing Service owes Willie J. Woods $3,048 on transaction 3557. GMS paid Woods $643; however, it still owes Woods $2,405. The total of the sums still owed Mr. Woods by GMS is $32,999.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the parties be notified of these findings, and GMS permitted the opportunity to pay to Willie J. Woods $32,999 within 30 days, and if GMS fails to settle with Mr. Woods, Mr. Woods should be permitted to obtain settlement from the Respondent's bond in the amount of $32,999, or to the limits of the bond. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Willie J. Woods 1022 Piercewood Point Brooksville, Florida 34602 W. R. Ward, Jr., President Growers Marketing Srevice, Inc. Post Office Box 2595 Lakeland, Florida 33806 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Division of Marketing, Bureau of Licensure and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents owe Petitioner $13,512.09 for watermelons, as alleged in the Amended Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. Cook Brown Farms is a melon farm in Punta Gorda, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Cook Brown Farms was a "producer" as defined in Subsection 604.15(5), Florida Statutes, of agricultural products in the State of Florida. Melons come within the definition of "agricultural products" as defined in Subsection 604.15(3), Florida Statutes. J.G.L. Produce is a Florida Corporation, owned by John W. Johnson, Jr., and located in Pompano Beach, Florida. At times pertinent to this proceeding, J.G.L. Produce was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in Subsection 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Andrew J. Cook, a principal owner of Cook Brown Farms, and Mr. Johnson of J.G.L. Produce entered into an oral agreement regarding the sale of watermelons grown at Cook Brown Farms. The core of this case is a dispute concerning the nature of this agreement. Mr. Cook testified that, under the agreement, J.G.L. Produce would purchase the melons at the farm at their daily market price, plus 1/2 cent to cover Cook Brown Farms' cost of picking, sorting, and placing the melons in special bins and in special pallets required by the ultimate purchaser, Kroger Supermarkets. J.G.L. Produce would provide the bins and pallets and would provide the trucks to ship the melons. Mr. Johnson testified that the agreement was not for purchase but for brokerage of the melons. J.G.L. Produce would act as broker of Cook Brown Farms' watermelons, use its best efforts to sell the melons at the highest price available, and pay Cook Brown Farms the proceeds of the sale, minus expenses and a brokerage fee of one cent per pound. Mr. Johnson testified that J.G.L. Produce never took title to or purchased the melons, and that the risk of loss always remained on Cook Brown Farms. Mr. Johnson testified that he approached Mr. Cook about the melons because he had a ready buyer in another local dealer, Delk Produce, which had a longstanding arrangement to provide melons to Kroger. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Cook that the arrangement included the provision of bins and pallets by J.G.L. Produce, though Mr. Johnson stated that the arrangement also called for J.G.L. Produce to retain $0.015 per pound from the amount paid to Cook Brown Farms to cover the cost of the bins and pallets. J.G.L. Produce took approximately 24 truck loads of watermelons from Cook Brown Farms. J.G.L. Produce deducted a one cent per pound brokerage fee from each load of melons it took, except for certain loads noted below, without contemporaneous objection from Cook Brown Farms. The Amended Complaint claims that J.G.L. Produce owes money to Cook Brown Farms for five of the loads taken by J.G.L. Produce. In sum, the Amended Complaint states that J.G.L. Produce owes Cook Brown Farms $19,991.74 for the five loads, less $6,479.65 already paid, for a total owing of $13,512.09. Item One of the Amended Complaint alleges that J.G.L. Produce owes $4,438.54 for a load of 38,596 pounds at a price of $0.115 per pound, sold on April 20, 2000. Item Two of the Amended Complaint alleges that J.G.L. Produce owes $4,625.30 for a load of 40,220 pounds at a price of $0.115 per pound, sold on April 21, 2000. The Amended Complaint alleges that the melons on these two loads were inspected and approved for shipment during loading by Delk Produce employee Freddie Ellis. The Amended Complaint states that Cook Brown Farms was paid in full for the loads on May 3, 2000, but that the contested amounts were deducted from subsequent settlements by J.G.L. Produce. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Item One were initially sold to Delk Produce for delivery to Kroger. On May 3, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid Cook Brown Farms the amount of $4,438.54, which constituted the price for 38,596 pounds of melons at $0.125 per pound, less $385.96 for the one cent per pound brokerage fee. Jay Delk, the principal of Delk Produce, testified that this load was rejected by Kroger's buyer in Virginia due to "freshness," meaning that the melons were unsuitably green. Mr. Delk stated that the melons were taken to North Carolina to ripen and eventually sold at $0.06 per pound. The final return on this load, less the brokerage fee, was $1,543.84. In its final settlement with Cook Brown Farms on May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce deducted the difference between the original payment of $4,438.54 and the final payment of $1,543.84. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Item Two were initially sold to Delk Produce. On May 3, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid Cook Brown Farms the amount of $5,809.80, which constituted the price for 50,520 pounds of watermelons at $0.125 per pound, less $505.20 for the one cent per pound brokerage fee. Seminole Produce purchased 10,300 pounds of this load at $0.145 per pound, or $1,493.50. The remainder of the load was rejected by Kroger due to freshness and had to be resold at a lesser price of $0.0346 per pound, or $1,391.00. In its final settlement with Cook Brown Farms on May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce deducted the difference between the original payment of $5,809.80 and the final payment (after deduction of the brokerage fee) of $2,576.11. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Item Three were sold to Delk Produce. On May 9, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid Cook Brown Farms the amount of $2,731.30, which constituted the price for 42,020 pounds of watermelons at $0.0675 per pound, less $105.05 for the brokerage fee, reduced to $0.0025 per pound. Mr. Johnson testified that he decided to forego the full brokerage fee to save money for Mr. Cook and his farm, because it was "hurting" due to the rapidly plummeting price for watermelons. Mr. Johnson discovered at this time that Delk Produce had not been retaining the agreed- upon $0.015 per pound to cover the cost of bins and pallets and decided not to lose any more money on that item. In its final settlement with Cook Brown Farms on May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce deducted the difference between the original payment of $2,731.30 and $2,206.05, deducting $525.25 from the original payment to cover the cost of the bins and pallets. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Items Four and Five were originally shipped to Wal-Mart in Kentucky on April 29, 2000, and were rejected on the ground that the melons were not packed to specifications. The melons were trucked back to Florida at J.G.L. Produce's expense. The melons claimed under Item Four totaled 41,100 pounds. J.G.L. Produce divided the melons into four loads and sold them to four local dealers at an average price of $0.775 per pound, totaling $3,185.41. J.G.L. Produce deducted its $0.015 charge for bins and pallets, reducing the total to $2,671.51. J.G.L. Produce then deducted $1,750.00 from the total as reimbursement for the freight charge it paid to bring the melons back to Florida after their rejection by Wal-Mart. J.G.L. Produce did not include a brokerage fee. On May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid the remaining $921.51 to Cook Brown Farms as part of the final settlement. The melons claimed under Item Five totaled 45,600 pounds. J.G.L. Produce sold 2,426 pounds to Seminole Produce at $0.10 per pound, or $242.60. J.G.L. Produce sold the remaining 43,174 pounds to Belle Glade Produce at $0.065 per pound, or $2,800. From the total for Item Five, J.G.L. Produce deducted its $0.015 charge for bins and pallets and $1,950.00 for the freight charge it paid to bring the melons back to Florida after their rejection by Wal-Mart. J.G.L. Produce did not include a brokerage fee on this load of melons. On May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid the remaining $416.64 to Cook Brown Farms as part of the final settlement. The weight of the credible evidence, excluding the hearsay that was not supported by the direct testimony of Mr. Johnson, leads to the finding that there was a brokerage arrangement between the parties. J.G.L. Produce routinely deducted brokerage fees from its payments, without objection by Cook Brown Farms. This course of dealing strongly indicates a brokerage arrangement. Mr. Cook testified as to prior dealings with J.G.L. Produce, which also involved a brokerage arrangement. The evidence indicated that J.G.L. Produce fully accounted for the five loads of melons at issue, and paid Cook Brown Farms the full amounts due and owing for those loads.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the Amended Complaint filed by Gin Brown Matthews, d/b/a Cook Brown Farms. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Redland Insurance Company 222 South 15th Street, Suite 600, North Omaha, Nebraska 65102 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 John W. Johnson, President Post Office Box 1123 Pompano Beach, Florida 33061 Harold M. Stevens, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1440 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Edward L. Myrick, Jr., Esquire Beighley & Myrick, P.A. 1255 West Atlantic Boulevard Suite F-2 Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Terry L. Rhodes Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc., and its surety, Western Surety Company, are liable for funds due to Petitioner from the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. Petitioner operates a nursery supply company that produces trees, plants, and other landscaping supplies at a location in Bunnell, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. At the time of the transactions in question, Respondent was a licensed dealer in agricultural products supported by a surety bond provided by Western Surety Company. This matter arose over a Producer Complaint filed by Petitioner on June 24, 2005, in which it alleged that Respondent owed $20,512.97, based upon five invoices for nursery goods delivered to various job sites where Respondent was providing landscaping services. The five invoices set forth in the original Producer Complaint are as follows: Date of Sale Invoice # Amount Dec. 28, 2004 64679 $2,884.72 Jan. 11, 2005 64828 3,878.75 Jan. 11, 2005 64829 1,926.00 Feb. 1, 2005 65229 2,086.50 Feb. 3, 2005 65127 9,737.00 Petitioner later amended its Complaint to withdraw its claims under Invoice Nos. 65229 and 65127, as untimely filed, resulting in an amended amount due of $8,689.47. Respondent filed a Response to the Producer Complaint on August 15, 2005, admitting the amounts due under Invoice Nos. 64679 and 64828, totaling $6,763.47, and denying the amount claimed in Invoice No. 64829, $1,926.00, as never having been filled, resulting in Respondent's using another vendor to fill the order. Respondent admitted the amounts due under Invoice Nos. 64679 and 64828; therefore, no further discussion is necessary for those items, except to note that Delivery Receipt No. 17751, relating to Invoice No. 64828 contains the note "Reject 1 Live Oak." Therefore, the amount of Invoice No. 64828 must be reduced by $214.00 ($200 for the tree and 7 percent Florida Sales Tax). With respect to Invoice No. 64829, however, Petitioner produced at hearing only an unsigned invoice without either a sales order or a receipt for delivery of goods, as was its custom concerning deliveries of nursery goods. Accordingly, Petitioner provided no proof that the order under Invoice No. 64829 was actually delivered to Respondent. Respondent and its surety, Western Surety Company, currently owe Petitioner $2,884.72 under Invoice No. 64679, and $3,664.75 under Invoice No. 64828, for a total amount owed of $6,549.47.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc., or its surety, Respondent, Western Surety Company, to pay Petitioner $6,549.47 for unpaid invoices. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher E. Green, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Marketing 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Joseph Robbins, Jr. Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc. 11025 Southeast Highway 42 Summerfield, Florida 34491 Tom Snyder Western Surety Company Post Office Box 5077 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117-5077 Donald M. DuMond Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 2970 Hartley Road, Suite 302 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Tom Robinson Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 13000 State Road 11 Bunnell, Florida 32110 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are: (1) whether the decision by Respondent, Department of Transportation, to reject all bids for the contract at issue was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent; and (2) if so, whether Respondent's actions in cancelling the notice of intent to award the contract at issue to Cyriacks Environmental Consulting Services, Inc., ("CECOS") and requiring the submittal of new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.2/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent is the state agency that issued the RFP to procure the Contract for Respondent's District IV. CECOS is an environmental consulting and services firm that submitted a response to the RFP, seeking award of the Contract. DB is an environmental consulting and services firm that submitted a response to the RFP, seeking award of the Contract. DB was granted party status to DOAH Case No. 16-0769 by Order dated February 29, 2016, and by Order dated March 9, 2016, was determined to have standing in that case as a party whose substantial interests were affected by Respondent's decision to reject all proposals. Overview of the Procurement Process for the Contract Respondent issued the RFP on or about October 1, 2015. The RFP sought to obtain support services related to environmental impacts review for projects in Respondent's District IV work program; wetland mitigation design; construction, monitoring, and maintenance; permitting of mitigation sites; exotic vegetation control and removal in specified locations; relocation of threatened, endangered, or rare flora and fauna; permit compliance monitoring; and other services specified in the RFP. The RFP stated Respondent's intent to award the Contract to the responsive and responsible proposing vendor6/ whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to Respondent. The responses to the RFP were scored on two components: a technical proposal, worth a total of 60 points, that addressed the proposing vendor's experience, qualifications, and capabilities to provide high-quality desired services; and a price proposal, worth a total of 40 points, that addressed the proposed price without evaluation of the separate cost components and proposed profit of the proposing vendor, compared with that proposed by other vendors. The price proposal evaluation was based on the following formula: (Low Price/Proposer's Price) X Price Points = Proposer's Awarded Points. The Special Conditions section of the Advertisement portion of the RFP, paragraph 3, stated in pertinent part: In accordance with section 287.057(23), Florida Statutes, respondents to this solicitation or persons acting on their behalf may not contact, between the release of the solicitation and the end of the 72- hour period following the agency posting the notice of intended award, . . . any employee or officer of the executive or legislative branch concerning any aspect of this solicitation, except in writing to the procurement officer or as provided in the solicitation documents. Violation of this provision may be grounds for rejecting a response. The period between the release of the solicitation and the 72-hour period after posting of the intended award is commonly referred to as the "cone of silence." The Special Conditions section of the Advertisement portion of the RFP, paragraph 19, informed vendors that Respondent reserved the right to reject any or all proposals it received. Exhibit B to the RFP, addressing compensation, limited compensation for all authorizations for work performed under the Contract to a total of $5,000,000. Exhibit B stated that the schedule of rates listed in the Price Proposal Form C (i.e., the rates submitted for the sections comprising Exhibit C to the RFP) would be used for establishing compensation. On October 7, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 1 to the advertised RFP. Addendum 1 revised Exhibit A to the RFP, the Scope of Services; and also revised Exhibit C to the RFP, the Bid Sheet, to provide it in Excel format. As revised by Addendum 1, Exhibit C consists of an Excel spreadsheet comprised of six sections, each of which was to be used by the responding vendors to propose their rates for the specified services being procured in each section of the Bid Sheet. Section 6 of the Excel spreadsheet, titled "Trees, Schrubs [sic], and Ground Cover, consists of eight columns and 258 rows, each row constituting a plant item on which a price proposal was to be submitted. The columns are titled, from left to right: No.; Scientific Name; Common Name; Unit; Estimated of [sic] number of Unites [sic]; Rate; Extension (Unit X Rate); and Multiplier 2.5 (Price X 2.5). Each row of the spreadsheet in Section 6 identified, as a fixed requirement for this portion of the proposal, the specified type of plant, unit (i.e., plant size), and estimated number of units (i.e., number of plants). For each row of the Section 6 spreadsheet, only the cells under the "Rate" column could be manipulated. Vendors were to insert in the "Rate" cell, for each row, the proposed rate for each plant item. The cells under all other columns for each row were locked, and the RFP stated that any alteration of the locked cells would disqualify the vendor and render its proposal non-responsive. The instructions to Exhibit C, Section 67/ stated: Trees, Schrubs [sic], and Ground Cover Price of plants shall include project management, field supervision, invoicing, installation, mobilization of traffic, water throughout the warranty period, fertilizer and [sic] six (6) month and demobilization, minor maintenance guarantee. Installation of plant material shall be per the Scope of Services. All planting costs shall include the cost to restore area to pre-existing conditions (i.e., dirt, sod, etc.). On October 20, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 2, and on October 29, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 3. Both addenda changed Respondent's schedule for reading the technical proposal scores, opening the sealed price proposals, and posting the intended awards. Addenda 1, 2, and 3 were not challenged. However, a key dispute in these consolidated proceedings is whether the Addendum 1 Bid Sheet in Section 6 and the instructions for completing that Bid Sheet were ambiguous, or whether Respondent reasonably believed them to be ambiguous. The vendors were to submit their responses to the RFP, consisting of their technical proposals and price proposals, by October 16, 2015. CECOS, DB, and four other vendors timely submitted responses to the RFP. On November 2, 2015, the scores for the technical proposals submitted by the vendors were presented to the Selection Committee ("SC") at a noticed meeting. DB received the highest number of points on the technical proposal portion of the RFP. The SC met again on November 3, 2015. At that time, Respondent's Procurement Officer, Jessica Rubio, read the total awarded points for each vendor's price proposal, as well as each vendor's total combined points——i.e., total points for technical proposal and price proposal. CECOS received the highest number of points for the price proposal portion of the RFP, and also received the highest total combined points. Respondent recommended, and the SC concurred, that Respondent should award the Contract to CECOS. At 10:00 a.m. on November 3, 2015, Respondent posted the Proposal Tabulation, constituting its notice of intent that CECOS would be awarded the Contract.8/ CECOS submitted a price proposal of $4,237,603.70. DB submitted a price proposal of $9,083,042.50. The other four vendors' price proposals ranged between $4,540,512.90 and $5,237,598.55. The "cone of silence" commenced upon Respondent's posting of the Proposal Tabulation, and ended 72 hours later, on November 6, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. As discussed in greater detail below, after the Proposal Tabulation was posted, Respondent discovered an apparent ambiguity in Exhibit C, Section 6, regarding the instructions to that section and the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column on the Bid Sheet. After an internal investigation, Respondent decided to cancel its intent to award the Contract to CECOS. On November 5, 2015, Respondent posted a notice that it was cancelling the intent to award the Contract to CECOS. On November 5, 2015, DB filed a Notice of Protest, stating its intent to challenge the award of the Contract to CECOS. Thereafter, on November 9, 2015, DB contacted Respondent by electronic mail ("email") to withdraw its Notice of Protest.9/ Due to the apparent ambiguity in Exhibit C, Section 6, on November 9, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 4 to the RFP. Addendum 4 required the responding vendors to submit new price proposals for all sections (i.e., sections 1 through 6) of Exhibit C to the RFP. Addendum 4 also established a new timeline for a mandatory pre-bid conference to be held on November 12, 2016; set a sealed price proposal due date of November 19, 2016; and identified new dates for opening the price proposals and posting the Notice of Intended Award of the Contract. On November 12, 2015, Respondent conducted a mandatory pre-bid conference to address Addendum 4. The participating vendors expressed confusion and posed numerous questions regarding the submittal of new price proposals and their technical proposals. Immediately following the pre-bid conference, Respondent issued Addendum 5, which consisted of a revised Exhibit A, Scope of Services; revised Exhibit C, Bid Sheet in Excel format for all six sections; and responses to the questions posed at the pre-bid conference.10/ The Addendum 5 Bid Sheet comprising Exhibit C, Section 6, was substantially amended from the version that was published in Addendum 1. Specifically, the column previously titled "Rate" was changed to "Rate Per Unit"; the "Extension (Unit X Rate)" and "Multiplier 2.5" columns were deleted; and a new column titled "Proposed Cost (Rate per Unit X Est. No. of Units)" was added. Additionally, the instructions for Section 6 were substantially amended to read: "'Rate Per Unit' must include all costs associated with the purchase, installation, watering, fertilization, project management, field supervision, travel, invoicing, labor, maintenance of traffic, mobilization and demobilization, staking and guying, maintenance of planting site throughout the 180[-]day plant warranty." These amendments were intended to clarify that the proposed rate for each plant unit was to include all overhead costs associated with performance of the Contract with respect to that particular unit. On November 13, 2015, CECOS filed a Notice of Protest to Respondent's issuance of Addendum 4, requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals. Thereafter, on November 23, 2015, CECOS filed the First Petition challenging Respondent's decision, announced in Addendum 4, to require the responding vendors to submit new proposals for the price proposal portion of the RFP, and its decision to cancel the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS.11/ Once CECOS filed its Notice of Protest on November 13, 2015, Respondent ceased all procurement activity directed toward awarding the Contract. On December 17, 2015, Respondent posted notice that it was rejecting all proposals and that the Contract would be re- advertised through issuance of a new RFP. On December 22, 2015, CECOS filed a Notice of Protest, and on January 4, 2016, filed its Second Petition challenging Respondent's decision to reject all proposals and re-advertise the Contract. Bases for Respondent's Actions Shortly after Respondent posted the Proposal Tabulation noticing its intent to award the Contract to CECOS, Christine Perretta, owner and president of DB, sent an email to Respondent, then called Rubio to inquire about Respondent's decision to award the Contract to CECOS. The evidence shows that these contacts occurred sometime on or around November 3, 2016.12/ In her telephone discussion with Rubio, Perretta inquired about how to file a notice of protest13/ and also asked whether Respondent had reviewed the vendors' price proposals for correctness or accuracy, or had simply chosen the lowest price proposal. In the course of the discussion, Perretta informed Rubio that DB had submitted a "loaded" rate for each plant unit ——meaning that DB's rate proposed for each plant item in the "Rate" column on the Section 6 Bid Sheet consisted not only of the cost of the plant item, but also the cost for all associated overhead services listed in the instructions to Section 6 and in the RFP Advertisement, paragraph 18(v), plus compensation.14/ Rubio could not clearly recall whether, in the course of their discussion, Perretta had inquired about the use of the 2.5 multiplier, and there is conflicting evidence as to whether Perretta related her view that CECOS may not be able to perform the Contract based on the price proposal it had submitted. In any event, as a result of Rubio's discussion with Perretta, Rubio determined that she needed to review Exhibit C, Section 6. In the course of her investigation, Rubio called Wendy Cyriaks, owner and president of CECOS.15/ Cyriaks confirmed that CECOS had submitted an "unloaded" rate for each plant item—— meaning that it had included only the cost of each plant item in the "Rate" column on the Section 6 Bid Sheet, and had not included, in the proposed rate for each plant item, the cost of the associated overhead services listed in the instructions to Section 6 or RFP Advertisement, paragraph 18(v), or compensation. Cyriaks told Rubio that CECOS expected that its overhead costs and compensation for each item would be covered through use of the 2.5 multiplier. Also in the course of her investigation, Rubio asked Bogardus whether he had intended the 2.5 multiplier to be used to cover all costs, including vendor compensation, associated with obtaining, installing, and maintaining the plant items listed in Section 6. Bogardus initially confirmed that his intent in including the 2.5 multiplier on the Section 6 Bid Sheet was to cover all of the overhead costs and compensation. However, the persuasive evidence establishes that Bogardus subsequently agreed with Rubio that the 2.5 multiplier should not have been included in Section 6. Pursuant to her discussions with Perretta and Cyriaks, Rubio realized that the wide discrepancy between DB's and CECOS' price proposals was due to their differing interpretations of the instructions in Section 6 regarding plant item rates and the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column in the Section 6 Bid Sheet. Rubio testified, persuasively, that the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column rendered Exhibit C, Section 6, of the RFP ambiguous. To that point, the RFP does not contain any instructions or discussion on the use of the 2.5 multiplier. Therefore, to the extent the multiplier was intended to be used by the vendors to build overhead costs and compensation into their price proposals, the RFP fails to explain that extremely important intended use——leaving the significance and use of the multiplier open to speculation and subject to assumption by the vendors in preparing their price proposals. Rubio reasonably viewed DB's and CECOS' divergent interpretations of the instructions and the inconsistent use of the 2.5 multiplier as further indication that Section 6 was ambiguous. She explained that in order for Respondent to ensure that it is procuring the most advantageous proposal for the State, it is vitally important that the RFP be clear so that responding vendors clearly understand the type of information the RFP is requesting, and where and how to provide that information in their price proposals. Rubio persuasively testified that in her view, the instructions in Section 6 had, in fact, called for a loaded rate, but that CECOS had erroneously assumed, based on the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column in the Section 6 Bid Sheet, that overhead and compensation for each plant item would be covered through use of the 2.5 multiplier, and that as a consequence, CECOS incorrectly proposed unloaded rates for the plant items. In Rubio's view, CECOS' error was due to the ambiguity created by the unexplained and unsupported inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6. Rubio testified that CECOS had been awarded the Contract because it had submitted the lowest price proposal, but that its proposal was based on an unloaded rate for the plant items, contrary to the instructions for Section 6. In Rubio's view, CECOS' price proposal was unresponsive, and CECOS should not have been awarded the Contract. Rubio also testified, credibly and persuasively, that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 for compensation purposes rendered the RFP arbitrary. Respondent's District IV historically has not used a 2.5 multiplier for compensation purposes for commodities contracts, and no data or analyses exist to support such use of a 2.5 multiplier.16/ This rendered the RFP both arbitrary and unverifiable with respect to whether it was structured to obtain the most advantageous proposal for the State. To this point, Rubio credibly explained that Respondent's existing environmental mitigation services contract with Stantec was procured through the "Invitation to Negotiate" ("ITN") process. In that procurement, Respondent negotiated to obtain the best value for the State. The ITN bid sheet contained a 2.5 multiplier that was used only for weighting purposes to evaluate and determine which firms would be "short- listed" for purposes of being invited to negotiate with Respondent for award of the contract. Importantly——and in contrast to the RFP at issue in this case——the multiplier in the ITN was not used to determine the final prices, including compensation, to install trees, shrubs, and ground cover under that contract. Rubio also testified, credibly, that the Bid Sheet was structurally flawed because it did not allow the vendor to clearly indicate the "unit price" inclusive of all overhead costs, and that this defect would result in Respondent being unable to issue letters of authorization to pay invoices for the cost of installing the plant items or compensating for work performed. For these reasons, Respondent determined that it needed to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS. As noted above, Respondent posted the cancellation of the intent to award the Contract on November 5, 2015. At a meeting of the SC conducted on November 9, 2015, Respondent's procurement staff explained that the intent to award the Contract had been cancelled due to ambiguity in the instructions and the Bid Sheet for Exhibit C, Section 6. Ultimately, the SC concurred with Respondent's cancellation of the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and agreed that the vendors should be required to submit new price proposals. Thereafter, on November 9, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 4, announcing its decision to solicit new price proposals from the responding vendors. Respondent conducted a pre-bid meeting with the vendors on November 12, 2015, and immediately thereafter, issued Addendum 5, consisting of a revised Scope of Services and a substantially revised Bid Sheet for all six sections of Exhibit C. As previously discussed, the Section 6 Bid Sheet issued in Addendum 5 was revised to, among other things, delete the "2.5 Multiplier" column and the column previously titled "Rate" was changed to "Rate Per Unit." Also as discussed above, the instructions to Section 6 were revised to clarify that the "Rate Per Unit" provided for each plant unit must contain all costs associated with the purchase, installation, watering, fertilization, project management, field supervision, invoicing, labor, maintenance of traffic, and other costs specified in the instructions——i.e, constitute a loaded rate. All of these changes were made in an effort to clarify, for the benefit of all vendors, the specific information that Respondent needed to be provided in the price proposals. Rubio testified, credibly, that in requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals pursuant to revised Exhibit C, Respondent did not give, or intend to give, any vendor a competitive advantage over any of the other vendors, nor did Respondent place, or intend to place, CECOS at a competitive disadvantage by requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals pursuant to revised Exhibit C. As noted above, once CECOS filed its Notice of Protest, Respondent ceased all procurement activity directed toward awarding the Contract. Consequently, the vendors did not submit new price proposals and the scheduled meetings at which the new price proposals would be opened and the intended awardee announced were cancelled. On December 17, 2015, Rubio briefed the SC regarding the problems with the RFP and described her concerns about proceeding with the procurement. She explained that Respondent's procurement staff was of the view that the instructions in Section 6, as previously published in Addendum 1, were ambiguous because they did not clearly provide direction on how to complete the Bid Sheet for that section. Additionally, the Section 6 Bid Sheet, as structured in Addendum 1, did not allow the vendors to provide a plant unit rate that was inclusive of all overhead costs. To this point, she noted that unless the vendors provided a loaded rate——i.e., one that included all overhead costs——Respondent would not be able to issue work orders for any plant items in Section 6.17/ She explained that these flaws constituted the bases for Respondent's decision, announced on November 9, 2015, to require the submittal of new price proposals. Rubio further explained that in Respondent's rush to issue a revised Scope of Services as part of Addendum 5, mistakes had been made18/ and Respondent's Environmental Office needed more time to carefully review the Scope of Services and Bid Sheet, to ensure the RFP was correctly drafted and structured so that the Contract could be accurately solicited and procured. Additionally, the vendors——including Mark Clark of CECOS——had expressed confusion regarding the revised Bid Sheet and submitting new price proposals, and some vendors had inquired about submitting new technical proposals. Further, under the revised procurement schedule issued as part of Addendum 4 on November 9, 2015, the vendors had a very compressed timeframe in which to prepare and submit their new price proposals, heightening the potential for mistakes to be made. Because of these substantial problems and concerns with the RFP, Rubio recommended that Addendum 5 be rescinded, that all vendor proposals (both technical and price) be rejected, and that the entire procurement process be re-started. The SC concurred with her recommendation. As noted above, on December 17, 2015, Respondent rejected all proposals and announced that the Contract would be re-solicited in the future through issuance of another RFP. CECOS' Position CECOS takes the position that the RFP and the Section 6 Bid Sheet published in Addendum 1 were not ambiguous. Specifically, CECOS contends that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 clearly indicated that Respondent was seeking an unloaded rate for the plant items listed on the Section 6 Bid Sheet. In support of this position, CECOS notes that all of the vendors other than DB had submitted unloaded rates for the plant items in Section 6. CECOS contends that this shows that Section 6 was not ambiguous, and that DB simply did not follow the RFP instructions——of which it was fully aware——in preparing and submitting its price proposal.19/ CECOS also contends that Rubio's failure to contact the other vendors to determine if they found the instructions or use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 ambiguous evidences that Rubio's conclusion that Section 6 was ambiguous lacked any factual basis, so was itself arbitrary. CECOS asserts that Bogardus' intent to use a 2.5 multiplier for compensation purposes was evidenced by its inclusion on the Section 6 Bid Sheet, that its use on the Section 6 Bid Sheet did not render the RFP flawed, and that Bogardus' intent to compensate using the multiplier should control the structure of compensation paid under Section 6.20/ CECOS also notes that the use of the 2.5 multiplier on the Section 6 Bid Sheet mirrors the 2.5 multiplier in the existing environmental mitigation support services contract with the current contractor.21/ CECOs further contends that there was no material difference, with respect to structuring compensation for the plant items, between the ITN process used for procuring the existing contract and the RFP process used to procure this Contract. As additional support for its argument that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 was valid, CECOS points to a request for proposal for environmental mitigation services issued by Respondent's District VI. In that contract, a 2.5 multiplier was used for compensation purposes, albeit for specific plant items that were not contained in the original list of specific plant items for which rate proposals had been solicited in the request for proposal. CECOS further contends that Respondent——and, most particularly, Rubio——did not conduct a thorough investigation into the historic use of 2.5 multipliers in Respondent's commodities contracts. CECOS argues that as a consequence, Respondent's determination that the use of the 2.5 multiplier rendered the Section 6 Bid Sheet structurally flawed and arbitrary was unsupported by facts, so was itself arbitrary and capricious. CECOS asserts that cancelling the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS and requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals placed CECOS at a competitive disadvantage and was contrary to competition because once the Proposal Tabulation was posted, the other vendors were informed of the price that CECOS had bid, so knew the price they had to beat when the Contract was re-solicited. CECOS also points to what it contends are procedural irregularities with respect to Respondent's treatment of, and communication with, CECOS and DB once Respondent decided to cancel the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS. Specifically, CECOS contends that Respondent did not respond to its calls or email asking why the intent to award the Contract to CECOS had been cancelled. CECOS also contends that Respondent communicated with DB on substantive matters during the "cone of silence." CECOS further notes that Respondent did not convene a resolution meeting within the statutorily- established seven-day period after CECOS filed its First Petition, but instead held the meeting over 60 days later, on January 28, 2015, and that even then, Respondent did not engage in good faith negotiation to resolve the challenge. Finally, CECOS contends that Respondent's decision to reject all proposals and start the procurement process anew was predicated on a series of arbitrary and erroneous decisions (discussed above) that created confusion, so that Respondent's ultimate decision to reject all proposals was itself arbitrary and capricious. CECOS asserts that it followed the instructions in the RFP in preparing its price proposal, submitted the lowest price proposal, and is ready, willing, and able to perform the Contract at the rates it proposed in its response for Section 6. On that basis, CECOS contends that it is entitled to the award of the Contract. Findings of Ultimate Fact CECOS bears the burden in this proceeding to prove that Respondent's decision to reject all proposals was arbitrary, illegal, dishonest, or fraudulent.22/ Even if CECOS were to meet this burden, in order to prevail it also must demonstrate that Respondent's actions in cancelling the intent to award the Contract and requiring the submittal of new price proposals were clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition. For the reasons discussed herein, it is determined that CECOS did not meet either of these burdens. The Multiplier Rendered Section 6 Ambiguous, Arbitrary, and Structurally Flawed As discussed in detail above, Respondent decided to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and to require the submittal of new price proposals by the vendors only after it had conducted an extensive investigation that included a careful review of numerous provisions in the RFP and the instructions to Section 6 and had analyzed the structure of Section 6 in relation to other provisions in the RFP. That investigation showed that nowhere in the RFP was the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Exhibit C, Section 6, discussed or explained. Thus, to the extent the multiplier was to be used in determining reimbursement for overhead costs and compensation, the RFP failed to explain this extremely important point, leaving the multiplier's purpose, use, and significance open to speculation and assumption by the vendors in submitting their price proposals. This rendered the multiplier's use in Section 6 ambiguous. This ambiguity is further evidenced by DB's and CECOS's widely divergent price proposals for Section 6, and the credible testimony of Perretta and Cyriaks regarding their differing views of the purpose of the 2.5 multiplier. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the ambiguity in Section 6 caused the vendors to have differing interpretations of the manner in which they were to propose plant unit rates in Section 6; that the vendors submitted plant price proposals predicated on differing assumptions; and that this resulted in Respondent being unable to fairly compare the price proposals for purposes of obtaining the most advantageous proposal for the State. On these bases, Respondent reasonably concluded23/ that the inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6, rendered that portion of the RFP ambiguous. As extensively discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence also establishes that Respondent concluded, based on its investigation and review of Section 6, that inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier rendered Section 6 both arbitrary and structurally flawed.24/ The credible, persuasive evidence further establishes that Rubio investigated Respondent's use of multipliers in commodities procurements and contracts to the extent necessary and appropriate for her to reasonably conclude that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 rendered this portion of the RFP ambiguous, arbitrary, and structurally flawed.25/ In sum, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent engaged in a thorough and thoughtful investigation before concluding, reasonably, that the inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier in Exhibit C, Section 6 rendered that portion of the RFP ambiguous. Respondent's Actions Were Not Contrary to Competition Although the evidence shows that CECOS may suffer some competitive disadvantage because competing vendors were informed of the lowest "bottom line" price they would have to beat, it does not support a determination that Respondent's decisions to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require the vendors to submit new price proposals were contrary to competition. To that point, in Addendum 5, Respondent substantially restructured the Section 6 Bid Sheet and also amended the Bid Sheet comprising the other price proposal sections in Exhibit C, so that CECOS' and the other vendors' price proposals submitted in response to Addendum 5 may have substantially changed from those submitted in response to Addendum 1. In any event, it cannot be concluded that Respondent's decisions to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require submittal of new price proposals are contrary to competition such that they should be overturned in this proceeding. Procedural Irregularities CECOS also points to certain procedural irregularities in Respondent's treatment of, and communication with, CECOS once Respondent decided to cancel the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require submittal of new price proposals. CECOS apparently raises these issues in an effort to show that Respondent's actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The undisputed evidence establishes that Rubio communicated with both DB and CECOS during the "cone of silence" following the posting of its intent to award the Contract to CECOS. The undersigned determines that the "cone of silence" applied to Rubio and her communications with DB and CECOS within the 72-hour period following Respondent's posting of the intent to award the Contract. Specifically, she is an employee of Respondent's District IV Office, so is an employee of the executive branch of the State of Florida. Further, the evidence shows that her communications with both DB and CECOS during the "cone of silence" period dealt specifically with substantive, rather than "administrative" issues regarding the RFP and the vendors' price proposals. Accordingly, it is determined that these communications did, in fact, violate the "cone of silence." However, this does not require that Respondent's decision to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS be overturned. The credible, persuasive evidence shows that while DB's conversation with Rubio may have spurred Rubio to decide she should investigate the Section 6 instructions and use of the 2.5 multiplier, it was not the reason why Respondent ultimately determined that the intent to award the Contract should be cancelled. Rather, Respondent's discovery of the ambiguity and structural flaws in Section 6, through Rubio's investigation, was the reason that Respondent determined that the intent to award the Contract to CECOS should be cancelled. In sum, the credible, persuasive evidence shows that notwithstanding Rubio's communications on substantive matters during the "cone of silence" with both DB and CECOS, the integrity of the procurement process was not undermined such that Respondent's decision to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. CECOS failed to present persuasive evidence establishing that other procedural irregularities rendered Respondent's actions in cancelling the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Respondent's Decisions to Cancel Intent to Award the Contract and Require Submittal of New Price Proposals Based on the foregoing, it is determined that CECOS did not meet its burden to show that Respondent's decisions in cancelling the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Respondent's Decision to Reject All Proposals As noted above, CECOS contends that Respondent's decision to reject all proposals and start the procurement process anew was predicated on a series of arbitrary and erroneous decisions that created confusion, so that Respondent's ultimate decision to reject all proposals was itself arbitrary and capricious. However, the credible, persuasive evidence shows that Respondent's ultimate decision to reject all bids was factually supported and was reasonable. As discussed above, Respondent initially decided to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and to require the vendors to submit new price proposals after it discovered the ambiguity and structural flaws resulting from the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6. At that point, rather than rejecting all proposals, which would require the vendors to go to the time and expense of preparing completely new proposals, it decided to instead only require the vendors to submit new price proposals. Due to the interrelated nature of the six sections of Exhibit C comprising the complete price proposal for the RFP, Respondent determined revision of Section 6 would also require revision of the other five sections of Exhibit C, in order to ensure that they were internally consistent with each other. At the mandatory pre-bid meeting preceding the issuance of Addendum 5, the participating vendors had numerous questions about the sweeping revisions to all six sections of Exhibit C, and they expressed confusion about the revisions and their effect on preparation of new price proposals. Some vendors also expressed concern that they may have to change their personnel in order to be able to accurately prepare new price proposals, raising the question whether the technical proposals needed to be revised. As a result of vendor confusion and concern, and also because Respondent's Environmental Office needed additional time to carefully review and revise the RFP as needed, Respondent decided to reject all proposals and to start the procurement process anew. Respondent's decision to reject all bids was made after fully considering all of the pertinent information regarding the ambiguity and structural flaws in Section 6, vendor confusion and concern caused by Respondent's revisions to Exhibit C needed to address the ambiguity and flaws in Section 6, and Respondent's need for additional time to ensure that its RFP accurately and clearly solicited the needed environmental mitigation support services. Accordingly, Respondent did not act arbitrarily in deciding to reject all bids. Further, no persuasive evidence was presented to show that Respondent's decision to reject all bids was illegal, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation: Issue a final order in Case No. 16-0769 finding that the rejection of all proposals in response to Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-15/16-4004PM was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent; and Issue a final order in Case No. 16-3530 finding that the decisions to cancel the award of the Contract for Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-15/16-4004PM to CECOS and to require the vendors to submit new price proposals for Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-15/16-4004PM were not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 30th day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Garrison Irrigation, Inc., failed to pay amounts owing to Petitioner resulting from a verbal contract for four pallets of Bahia sod as set forth in the complaint dated July 20, 2004, and, if so, what amount Petitioner is entitled to recover.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witness and her demeanor while testifying, the documents received into evidence, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following relevant and material findings of fact are determined: At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, C.M. Payne and Son, Inc., was a producer of agricultural products as that term is defined in Subsection 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (2004). At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Garrison Irrigation, Inc. (Garrison), was licensed as a dealer in agriculture products as that term is defined in Subsection 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (2004). Respondent was licensed under number 13653, supported by Bond No. 929237754 in the amount of $10,000; written by Respondent, Continental Casualty Company, as Surety (Continental); Inception Date: December 4, 2003; Expiration Date: December 3, 2004; and Execution Date: December 4, 2003. At all times material, Continental is the surety which issued Garrison a surety bond. On January 23, 2004, Petitioner sold 16 pallets of Bahia sod to Garrison and, on Invoice 20027, billed Garrison a total of $599.20 for the 16 pallets of sod. On January 26, 2004, Petitioner sold 32 pallets of Bahia sod to Garrison and, on Invoice 20033, billed Garrison a total of $1,198.40 for the 32 pallets of sod. On January 27, 2004, Petitioner sold 16 pallets of Bahia sod to Garrison and, on Invoice 20039, billed Garrison a total of $599.20 for the 16 pallets of sod. On February 2, 2004, Petitioner sold 16 pallets of Bahia sod to Garrison and, on Invoice 20044, billed Garrison a total of $599.20 for the 16 pallets of sod. The terms of the sale between Petitioner and Garrison were for net payment for products sold within 30 days after the invoice date. Garrison did not appear at the hearing to contest or otherwise refute the charges alleged in Petitioner's complaint. Garrison is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $2,996.00 for Bahia sod purchases from Petitioner on January 23, 26, and 27, 2004, and February 2, 2004. Garrison has failed to pay Petitioner for the sod purchases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue its final order requiring that Respondent, Garrison Irrigation, Inc., pay to Petitioner, C. M. Payne and Son, Inc., the amount of $2,996.00 for the purchases of Bahia sod from Petitioner on January 23, 26, and 27, 2004, and February 2, 2004. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent, Garrison Irrigation, Inc., fails to comply with the order directing payment, the Department shall call upon the surety, Continental Casualty Company, to pay over to the Department from funds out of the surety certificate, the amount needed to satisfy the indebtedness. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2004.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners (complainants) are entitled to recover $5,640.19 or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and Respondent surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are growers of watermelons and qualify as "producers" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company is surety for Respondent Griffin d/b/a Quality. Petitioners' claims against the dealer and his bond are listed in the Amended Complaint in the following amounts and categories: 6-18-92 Inv. #657 45,580 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $2,279.00 Advance - 700.00 NWPB* - 9.12 $1,569.88 6-19-92 Inv. #668 2,490 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $ 124.50 (paid for 42,860 lbs. short 2,490 lbs.) NWPB* - .50 124.00 6-20-92 Inv. #695 6,818 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $ 340.90 (paid for 39,062 lbs. short 6,818 lbs.) NWPB* 1.36 339.54 6-20-92 Inv. @ #702 .05 39,880 lbs. Sangria melons lb. $1,994.00 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 7.98 Pmt. - 90.00 1,186.02 6-21-92 Inv. @ #706 .05 44,740 lbs. Sangria melons lb. $2,237.00 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 8.95 1,518.05 6-22-93 Inv. @ #716 .04 11,280 lbs. Crimson melons lb. NWPB* - 2.32 460.88 6-22-92 Inv. @ #709 .04 46,740 lbs. Crimson melons lb. $1,869.60 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 9.35 1,150.25 Deducted for #706 - 441.82 441.82 PAID 708.43 Total Claimed $5,640.19 *NWPB = National Watermelon Promotion Board Fee Petitioners and Respondent dealer have had an oral business relationship for four to five years. Both parties agree that their oral agreement initially called for a federal inspection to be done on each load if the load were refused in whole or in part by the ultimate recipient. Respondent Griffin contended that over the years there had been further oral agreements to "work out" or "ride out" small discrepancies or partial refusals of loads without resorting to federal inspections, the cost of which inspections could eliminate the entire profit on single loads. Petitioners denied that such an amended oral agreement was ever reached and further maintained that the amounts of the loads at issue herein could not be considered "small" by any interpretation. Respondent submitted no evidence as to what the relative terms, "large" and "small," mean in the industry. Consequently, it appears that there was never a meeting of the minds of the parties on the alleged oral contract amendments relied upon by Respondent. Respondent testified that in past years, prior to 1992, he had interpreted the term "ride it out" to mean that he would simply accept the hearsay statements of ultimate recipients that named poundages of melons were bad and he would let the ultimate recipients pay for only the melons they said were good. Respondent would thereafter absorb any losses himself, not passing on the loss by deducting any amount from the full amount he would normally pay to the growers within ten days. However, 1992 was such a bad year for melons that the Respondent dealer chose not to absorb the greater losses and passed them on to the growers by way of deductions on "settlement sheets." In 1992 Respondent sent Petitioners the settlement sheets with the deductions explained thereon with the net payments as much as thirty days after the ultimate sales. Upon the foregoing evidence, it appears that Respondent had established a course of business whereby Petitioners could reasonably have expected him to absorb any losses occasioned by Respondent's reliance on hearsay statements of the ultimate recipients concerning poor quality melons unless Respondent chose not to test the questionable melons with a federal inspection. Petitioners obtained Exhibit P-5 for load 657 at Respondent dealer's place of business, but were not certain it applied to the load Mr. Tucker claimed he delivered to Respondent on 6-18-92 because Mr. Tucker did not know his load number that day. The exhibit represents the weight ticket Petitioners believe applies to the load which Mr. Tucker claimed to have delivered to Respondent dealer on 6-18-92. However, the exhibit bears two other names, "Jones and Smith," not Petitioners' respective names of Tucker or Watson. It has "WACC" handwritten across it, which Mr. Tucker claimed signified the name of his watermelon field. The number "657" also has been handwritten across it. There is no evidence of who wrote any of this on the exhibit. Respondent denied that load 657 was received from Mr. Tucker. The exhibit shows a printed gross weight of 78,900 lbs., tare weight of 32,860 lbs. and net weight of 66,800 lbs. Net weights are supposed to signify the poundage of melons delivered to the dealer. Nothing on the exhibit matches Mr. Tucker's journal entry (Petitioners' Exhibit 3) of delivering 45,580 lbs. of watermelons to Respondent dealer on 6- 18-92. Mr. Tucker testified that he was never paid for his delivery. Respondent denied there was such a delivery and testified that he paid Jones and Smith for load 657. Petitioners have established no entitlement to their claim of $1,569.88 on Invoice 657. Petitioners' Exhibit P-4 represents two weight tickets secured from Respondent dealer's records that Petitioners contend apply to load 668. The first page has "45,350/6-19-92/Scott Tucker WACC" handwritten across it. None of the four poundages imprinted thereon match any of the amounts claimed by Petitioners for invoice 668, and subtracting amounts testified to also does not conform these figures to Petitioners' claim on load 668. The second page weight ticket shows a date of 6-18-92 and a weight of 34,260 lbs. It also does not match Petitioner's claim that they were owed for 45,350 lbs. but were paid for only 42,860 lbs., being paid 2,490 lbs. short. Exhibit P-8 is the 668 invoice/settlement sheet which Respondent provided to Petitioners and shows invoice 668 with date of 6-19-92, tare and pay weight of 42,860 lbs. at $.05/lb. for $2,143.00 less $8.57 melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB, see supra) for $2,134.43, less a $700.00 advance and $10.00 for packing straw for a total due Petitioners of $1,424.43 which Respondent has already paid. Petitioners have established no entitlement to their claim of $124.00 on Invoice 668. Petitioners Exhibit P-6 represents two weight tickets secured from Respondent dealer's records. The first page has "45,880 lbs./6-20-92/Scott Tucker Crimson WACC 695" handwritten across it. None of the printed gross, tare, or net weights thereon match any of the amounts claimed by Petitioners for invoice 695. The second page shows the date 6-20-92 and a printed net weight of 32,000 lbs. Respondent dealer provided Petitioners with Exhibit P-7, invoice/settlement sheet 695 dated 6-20-92 showing tare and pay weights of 39,062 lbs. priced at $.05/lb. totalling $1,953.10, less melon adv. assoc. (a/k/a NWPB) fee of $7.81, for $1,945.29, less $700.00 advanced, less $10.00 for packing straw for a total of $1,235.29. The foregoing do not support Petitioner Tucker's claim based on his journal entry (P-3) that he was entitled to be paid for 45,880 lbs. he claims he delivered that day instead of for 39,062 pounds (short by 6,818 pounds) with balance owing to him of $339.54. Respondent has paid what was owed on invoice 695. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 9 shows that Petitioner Tucker delivered 39,880 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-20-92 and Petitioner Watson received back from Respondent dealer an invoice/settlement sheet 702 showing 39,880 pounds @ $.05/lb. equalling $1,994.00 and that although $1,994.00 was owed Petitioners, Respondent thereafter subtracted for $800.00 worth of returned melons, a $700.00 advance, $7.98 for melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB), and $10.00 for packing straw, and that a balance was paid to Petitioners of only $90.00. This is arithmetically illogical. The subtractions total $1,517.98. Therefore, if all of Respondent's subtractions were legitimate, the total balance due Petitioners would have been $476.02. If the right to deduct for the $800.00 in returned melons were not substantiated by Respondent dealer, then Petitioners would be due $1,276.02. Since all parties acknowledge that $90.00 was already paid by Respondent dealer, then Petitioners are due $1,186.02 if Respondent did not substantiate the right to deduct the $800.00. Load 702 was "graded out," i.e. accepted as satisfactory, by a representative of Respondent dealer or a subsequent holder in interest when the melons were delivered by Petitioners to Respondent dealer. That fact creates the presumption that the melons were received in satisfactory condition by the Respondent dealer. Nothing persuasive has been put forth by the Respondent dealer to show that the situation concerning the melons' quality had changed by the time the load arrived at its final destination. Respondent got no federal inspection on this load and relied on hearsay statements by persons who did not testify as to some melons being inferior. In light of the standard arrangement of the parties over the whole course of their business dealings (see Findings of Fact 5-7 supra), Petitioners have proven entitlement to the amount claimed on load 702 of $1,186.02. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite 10 shows Petitioners Tucker and Watson delivered 44,740 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-21-92. At $.05/lb., Petitioners were owed $2,237.00, less melon adv. association fee (a/k/a NWPB) of $8.95, $700.00 for an advance, and $10.00 for straw. Those deductions are not at issue. Therefore, Petitioners would be owed $1,518.05, the amount claimed, from Respondent. However, the invoice also notes that Respondent made a $268.18 deduction for melons returned. Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1 purports to be a BB&W Farms Loading Sheet and Federal Inspection Sheet. Respondent offered this exhibit to show that only $68.18 was realized by him on load 706 which he attributed to Petitioner Watson. However, the federal inspector did not testify as to the results of the inspection, the inspection sheet itself is illegible as to "estimated total," the "estimated total" has been written in by another hand as "$62.60," and there was no explanation on the Composite Exhibit or in testimony as to how Respondent dealer came up with $200.00 in "return lumping charges" as also indicated on Exhibit R-1. Accordingly, Petitioners have established that with regard to load/invoice 706, they delivered watermelons worth $2,237.00 to Respondent dealer and Respondent dealer did not affirmatively establish that any melons were bad, despite the federal inspection sheet introduced in evidence. Petitioners have proven entitlement to their claim on invoice 706 for $1,518.05. However, Petitioners conceded that Respondent actually paid them $441.82 on invoice/settlement sheet 706. Therefore, they are only entitled to recoup a total of $1,076.23 on their claim for Invoice 706. In the course of formal hearing, Respondent dealer admitted that, with regard to load invoice 716, (Tucker) he did owe Petitioners $460.88 for 275 watermelons, and that it had not been paid purely due to clerical error. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 12 (Invoice and Weight Tickets 709, Watson) shows Petitioner Watson delivered 46,740 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-22-92 and at $.04 lb., Petitioners were owed $1,869.60, less appropriate deductions. Petitioners conceded that Respondent dealer appropriately deducted $9.35 for melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB), $700.00 for an advance, and $10.00 for packing straw, bringing the amount they were owed to $1,150.25. Petitioners and Respondent are in agreement the Respondent paid only $708.43 of the $1,150.25 owed on invoice/settlement sheet 709 because Respondent dealer also deducted from the amount owed on invoice 709 the $441.82 he had previously paid out on Invoice 706. See, Finding of Fact 13, supra. Since Petitioners have established that they were owed $1,518.05 on invoice 706 but were paid only $441.82 thereon, it appears that Petitioners should be paid $1,076.23 on Invoice 706 and realize nothing on Invoice 709.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order awarding Petitioners $1,186.02 on invoice 702, $1,076.23 on invoice 706, and $460.88 on invoice 716 for a total of $2,723.13, dismissing all other claimed amounts, and binding Respondents to pay the full amount of $2,723.13, which in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company's case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Tucker and Phillip Watson Route 2 Box 280 Trenton, FL 32693 Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage Post Office Box 889 Immokalee, FL 33934 William J. Moore USF&G Post Office Box 31143 Tampa, FL 33631 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Division of Marketing, Bureau of Licensure and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
