The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 15C-7.005 is a invalid exercise of legislatively delegated authority in violation of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 15C- 17.005, which became effective March 3, 1996. The Rule has not been amended since its initial adoption. JM Lexus and Lexus of Orlando are both licensed franchised motor vehicle dealers in the State of Florida. Lexus of Orlando has filed a complaint in the Ninth Circuit Court, Orange County, Florida, alleging, that JM Lexus violated Rule 15C-7.005 in connection with the alleged sale for resale of new Lexus vehicles to non-Lexus dealerships. FADA and SFADA are trade associations whose members are licensed motor vehicle dealers in the State of Florida and are substantially affected by the rule. Florida Administrative Code Rule 15C-7.005 provides the following: 15C-7.005 Unauthorized Additional Motor Vehicle Dealerships - Unauthorized Supplemental Dealership Locations. An additional motor vehicle dealership, as contemplated by Sections 320.27(5) and 320.642, Florida Statutes, shall be deemed to be established when motor vehicles are regularly and repeatedly sold at a specific location in the State of Florida for retail purposes if the motor vehicle dealer transacting such sales: Is not located in this state, or Is not a licensed motor vehicle franchised for the specific line-make, or Is a licensed motor vehicle dealer franchised for such line-make, but such sales are transacted at a location other than that permitted by the license issued to the dealer by the Department. Such sales are not subject to this rule, however, when a motor vehicle dealer occasionally and temporarily (not to exceed seven days) sells motor vehicles from a location other than the motor vehicle dealer's licensed location provided such sales occur within the motor vehicle dealer's area of sales responsibility (except a motor vehicle dealer who may be deemed a licensee under this rule). For the purpose of this rule, a sale for retail purposes is the first sale of the motor vehicle to a retail customer for private use, or the first sale of the motor vehicle for commercial use, such as leasing, if such commercial motor vehicle is not resold for a period of at least ninety days. Furthermore, this rule shall apply regardless of whether the titles issued, either in this or another state, pursuant to such sales are designated as "new" or "used." An additional motor vehicle dealership established in this fashion is unlawful and in violation of Section 230.642, Florida Statutes. A licensed motor vehicle dealer of the same line-make, as the vehicle being sold in violation of this rule, may notify the Department of such violation. The notice shall include motor vehicle identification numbers or other data sufficient to identify the identity of the selling dealer and initial retail purchaser of the motor vehicles involved. Within 30 days from receipt of a request from the Department containing motor vehicle identification numbers or other data sufficient to identify the motor vehicles involved, the licensee shall provide to the Department, to the extent such information is maintained by the licensee, copies of documents showing the dealer to whom each vehicle was originally delivered, any inter- dealer transfer and the initial retail purchaser as reported to the licensee. Upon a showing of good cause, the Department may grant the licensee additional time to provide the information requested under this paragraph. Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to, request for information on more than 100 vehicles, information on vehicle sales which accrued more than 2 years prior to the date of the request, and information which is no longer maintained in the licensee's current electronic data base. Within forty days of receipt of notice from the motor vehicle dealer, the Department shall make a determination of probable cause and if it determines that there is probable cause that a violation of this rule has occurred, the Department shall mail, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the line-maker motor vehicle dealership or dealerships involved a letter containing substantially the following statement: Pursuant to Rule 15C-7.005, F.A.C., the undersigned has received a notice that you have allegedly supplied a substantial number of vehicles on a regular and repeated basis, which were sold at a location in the State of Florida, at which you are not franchised or licensed to sell motor vehicles. If these allegations are true, your conduct may violate Florida law including, but not limited to, the above-mentioned rule, Sections 320.61 and 320.642, Florida Statutes. It may also cause you to be deemed a licensee, importer and/or distributor pursuant to Florida law and subject you to disciplinary action by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, including fines and/or suspension of your Florida Dealer license, if applicable. The Division of Motor Vehicles is putting you on notice, if you are conducting such activity, that you cease and desist such activity immediately. If you fail to do so, this agency will take appropriate action. If the dealer supplying vehicles in violation of subsections (1) and (4) is not located in the State of Florida, the Department shall notify such dealer in writing that they may be operating as a distributor of motor vehicles without proper authorization in violation of Section 320.61, Florida Statutes, and may be violating Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. A motor vehicle dealer, whether located in Florida or not, which supplies a substantial number of vehicles on a regular and repeated basis which are sold in the manner set forth in subsection (1), shall be deemed to have established a supplemental location in violation of Section 320.27(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 15C-7.005, F.A.C. Furthermore, a motor vehicle dealer which supplies vehicles in this manner shall be deemed to have conducted business within the State of Florida and acted as a "licensee," "importer" and "distributor" as contemplated by Section 320.60, Florida Statutes, and thus such activity shall constitute a violation of Sections 320.61 and 320.642, Florida Statutes. Furthermore, this paragraph neither imposes any liability on a licensee nor creates a cause of action by any person against the licensee, except a motor vehicle dealer who may be deemed to have acted as a licensee under this paragraph. Furthermore, no provision of this entire rule creates a private cause of action by any person against a licensee, other than a dealer who is deemed a licensee pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4) of this rule, for civil damages; provided, however, if a licensee fails to comply with the requirements of paragraph (3)(a) of this rule, the Department may bring an action for injunctive relief to require a licensee to provide the information required. No other action can be brought against the licensee pursuant to this entire rule other than a dealer who is deemed to be a licensee pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4) of this rule. Any franchised motor vehicle dealer who can demonstrate that a violation of, or failure to comply with, the provisions of subsection (4) of this rule by a motor vehicle dealer, or a motor vehicle dealer which pursuant to subsection (4) shall be deemed to have conducted business and acted as a licensee, importer, and distributor, has adversely affected or caused pecuniary loss to that franchised motor vehicle dealer, shall be entitled to pursue all remedies against such dealers, including, but not limited to the remedies, procedures, and rights of recovery available under Sections 320.695 and 320.697, Florida Statutes. Rule 15C-7.005 identifies as specific authority Section 320.011, Florida Statutes. Section 320.011 states: The department shall administer and enforce the provisions of this chapter and has authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement them. The Rule lists as "Law Implemented" Sections 320.27 and Sections 320.60-.70, Florida Statutes. Sections 320.60 through 320.70, Florida Statutes, are commonly referred to as the Motor Dealers Act. Section 320.27(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions for a motor vehicle dealer and a franchised motor vehicle dealer: (c) "Motor vehicle dealer" means any person engaged in the business of buying, selling, or dealing in motor vehicles or offering or displaying motor vehicles for sale at wholesale or retail, or who may service and repair motor vehicles pursuant to an agreement as defined in s. 320.60(1). Any person who buys, sells, or deals in three or more motor vehicles in any 12-month period or who offers or displays for sale three or more motor vehicles in any 12-month period shall be prima facie presumed to be engaged in such business. The terms "selling" and "sale" include lease-purchase transactions. . . The transfer of a motor vehicle by a dealer not meeting these qualifications shall be titled as a used vehicle. The classifications of motor vehicle dealers are defined as follows: 1. "Franchised motor vehicle dealer" means any person who engages in the business of repairing, servicing, buying, selling, or dealing in motor vehicles pursuant to an agreement as defined in s. 320.60(1). Subsection 320.27(2), Florida Statutes, requires motor vehicle dealers to be licensed. Subsection (5) of this same provision requires that "any person licensed hereunder shall obtain a supplemental license for each permanent additional place or places of business not contiguous to the premises for which the original license is issued." Section 320.27(9) authorizes the Department to discipline motor vehicle dealers for a variety of enumerated offenses. Among those enumerated offenses is the willful failure to comply with any administrative rule adopted by the department or the provisions of Section 320.131(8), Florida Statutes. § 320.27(9)(a)16., Fla. Stat. Section 320.60, Florida Statutes, provides definitions for terms used in Sections 320.61 through 320.70, Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case are the following: "Agreement" or "franchise agreement" means a contract, franchise, new motor vehicle franchise, sales and service agreement, or dealer agreement or any other terminology used to describe the contractual relationship between a manufacturer, factory branch, distributor, or importer, and a motor vehicle dealer, pursuant to which the motor vehicle dealer is authorized to transact business pertaining to motor vehicles of a particular line-make. * * * (5) "Distributor" means a person, resident or nonresident, who, in whole or in part, sells or distributes motor vehicles to motor vehicle dealers or who maintains distributor representatives. * * * "Importer" means any person who imports vehicles from a foreign country into the United States or into this state for the purpose of sale or lease. "Licensee" means any person licensed or required to be licensed under s. 320.61. * * * (10) "Motor vehicle" means any new automobile, motorcycle, or truck, including all trucks, regardless of weight . . . the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred by a manufacturer, distributor, importer, or dealer to an ultimate purchaser; (11)(a) "Motor vehicle dealer" means any person, firm, company, corporation, or other entity, who, Is licensed pursuant to s. 320.27 as a "franchised motor vehicle dealer" and, for commission, money, or other things of value, repairs or services motor vehicles or used motor vehicles pursuant to an agreement as defined in subsection (1), or Who sells, exchanges, buys, leases or rents, or offers, or attempts to negotiate a sale or exchange of any interest in, motor vehicles, or Who is engaged wholly or in part in the business of selling motor vehicles, whether or not such motor vehicles are owned by such person, firm, company, or corporation. * * * (14) "Line-make vehicles" are those motor vehicles which are offered for sale, lease, or distribution under a common name, trademark, service mark, or brand name of the manufacturer of same. Section 320.61, Florida Statutes, requires all manufacturers, factory branches, distributors or importers to be licensed. Section 320.63, Florida Statutes, describes the application process for obtaining licensure for manufacturers, factory branches, distributors or importers. The section authorizes the Department to require certain enumerated information as well as "any other pertinent matter commensurate with the safeguarding of the public interest which the department, by rule, prescribes." § 320.63(7), Fla. Stat. Section 320.64, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: 320.64 Denial, suspension, or revocation of license; grounds.--A license of a licensee under s. 320.61 may be denied, suspended, or revoked within the entire state or at any specific location or locations within the state at which the applicant or licensee engages or proposes to engage in business, upon proof that the section was violated with sufficient frequency to establish a pattern of wrongdoing, and a licensee or applicant shall be liable for claims and remedies provided in ss. 320.695 and 320.697 for any violation of any of the following provisions. A licensee is prohibited from committing the following acts: * * * (3) The applicant or licensee willfully has failed to comply with significant provisions of ss. 320.60-320.70 or with any lawful rule or regulation adopted or promulgated by the department. * * * A motor vehicle dealer who can demonstrate that a violation of, or failure to comply with, any of the preceding provisions by an applicant or licensee will or can adversely and pecuniarily affect the complaining dealer, shall be entitled to pursue all of the remedies, procedures, and rights of recovery available under ss. 320.695 and 320.697. Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, provides the process for a licensee to establish additional motor vehicle dealerships or to relocate existing dealerships to a location where the same line-make vehicle is presently represented by a franchised motor vehicle dealer or dealers. Section 320.642, does not, by its terms, authorize rulemaking. Section 320.69, Florida Statutes, states in its entirety that "the department has the authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of this law." Section 320.695, Florida Statutes, which contains no additional grant of rulemaking authority, provides: In addition to the remedies provided in this chapter, and notwithstanding the existence of any adequate remedy at law, the department, or any motor vehicle dealer in the name of the department and state and for the use and benefit of the motor vehicle dealer, is authorized to make application to any circuit court of the state for the grant, upon a hearing and for cause shown, of a temporary or permanent injunction, or both, restraining any person from acting as a licensee under the terms of ss. 320.60-320.70 without being properly licensed hereunder, or from violating or continuing to violate any of the provisions of ss. 320.60-320.70, or from failing or refusing to comply with the requirements of this law or any rule or regulation adopted hereunder. Such injunction shall be issued without bond. A single act in violation of the provisions of ss. 320.60-320.70 shall be sufficient to authorize the issuance of an injunction. However, this statutory remedy shall not be applicable to any motor vehicle dealer after final determination by the department under s. 320.641(3). Section 320.697, Florida Statutes, which also contains no additional grant of rulemaking authority, provides: Civil damages.--Any person who has suffered pecuniary loss or who has been otherwise adversely affected because of a violation by a licensee of ss. 320.60-320.70, notwithstanding the existence of any other remedies under ss. 320.60-320.70, has a cause of action against the licensee for damages and may recover damages therefor in any court of competent jurisdiction in an amount equal to 3 times the pecuniary loss, together with costs and a reasonable attorney's fee to be assessed by the court. Upon a prima facie showing by the person bringing the action that such a violation by the licensee has occurred, the burden of proof shall then be upon the licensee to prove that such violation or unfair practice did not occur.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Jessica E. Varn, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s Notice Of Withdrawal of Proposed Dealer Agreement from Consideration by Respondents and Motion to Dismiss as Moot, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED this AY day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this 4 day of May, 2013. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jdc Copies furnished: Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough, LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 dean.bunch@nelsonmullins.com John W. Forehand, Esquire South Motors Automotive Group 16165 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33157 john.forehand@southmotors.net David Seymour Leibowitz, Esquire Braman Management Association 2060 Biscayne Boulevard, 2"! Floor Miami, Florida 33137 davidl|@bramanmanagement.com Richard N. Sox, Esquire Bass Sox Mercer, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 rsox@dealerlawyer.com Jessica E. Varn Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. SOUTH MOTOR COMPANY OF DADE COUNTY, d/b/a SOUTH MOTORS BMW, Respondent. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., Respondent. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., Respondent. a a aU OOOO ee Oe eee Case No. Case No. Case No. 12-3385 12-3386 12-3387 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 12-3389 SARASOTA AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a BMW OF SARASOTA BERT SMITH OLDSMOBILE, INC., d/b/a BERT SMITH INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL EUROCARS, INC., d/b/a CAPITAL BMW IMPORT CITY, INC., d/b/a QUALITY BMW REEVES IMPORT MOTORCARS, INC., Respondents. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, _ Petitioner, vs. Case No. 12-3390 BRAMAN MOTORS, INC., d/b/a BRAMAN BMW PALM BEACH IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a BRAMAN MOTORCARS, Respondents. ORDER CLOSING FILES AND RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION This case came before the undersigned on the Petitioner's Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Dealer Agreement from Consideration by Respondents and Motion to Dismiss as Moot, filed January 29, 2013, and the undersigned being fully advised, it is, therefore, ORDERED that: 1. The final hearing scheduled for May 13 through 17, 2013, is canceled. 2. The files of the Division of Administrative Hearings are closed. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. DONE AND ORDERED this llth day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. aw JESSICA E. VARN 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 11th day of February, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 John W. Forehand, Esquire South Motors Automotive Group 16165 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33157 john. forehand@southmotors.net Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley, and Scarborough LLP Suite 202 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South Tallahassee, Florida 32312 dean.bunch@nelsonmullins.com David Seymour Leibowitz, Esquire Braman Management Association 2nd Floor 2060 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 davidl@bramanmanagement.com Richard N. Sox, Esquire Bass Sox Mercer, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 rsox@dealerlawyer.com STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, v8. Case No. 12-3385 SOUTH MOTOR COMPANY OF DADE COUNTY, d/b/a SOUTH MOTORS BMW, Respondent. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 12-3386 POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a Vista BMW of Pompano Beach, Respondent. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. . Case No. 12-3387 POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a Vista BMW of Coconut Creek, Respondent. Filed January 29, 2013 8:53 AM Division of Administrative Hearings BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. SARASOTA AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a BMW OF SARASOTA; BERT SMITH OLDSMOBILE, INC., d/b/a" BERT SMITH INTERNATIONAL; CAPITAL EUROCARS, INC., d/b/a CAPITAL BMW; IMPORT CITY, INC., d/b/a QUALITY BMW; and REEVES IMPORT MOTORCARS, INC., Respondents. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. BRAMAN MOTORS, INC., d/b/a BRAMAN BMV, and PALM BEACH IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a BRAMAN MOTORCARS, Respondents. Case No. 12-3389 Case No. 12-3390 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED DEALER AGREEMENT FROM CONSIDERATION BY RESPONDENTS AND MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT Comes now BMW of North America, LLC ("BMW NA") and notifies the Administrative Law Judge that it has withdrawn its notice to Respondents concerning the proposed dealer agreement which is the subject of this proceeding. withdrawal of notice, BMW NA moves to dismiss this matter as moot. motion, BMW NA states: As a result of this In support of its 1. On July 17, 2012, BMW NA notified Respondents of its intent to offer them the superseding/merged BMW Center Agreement for BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks ("the Merged Agreement"), which was proposed to supersede, modify and replace the existing BMW Dealer Agreement for BMW passenger cars and the existing BMW SAV Center Agreement for BMW light trucks (collectively "the Existing Agreements"). 2. Respondents filed complaints with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ("DHSMV"), contesting the terms of the proposed Merged Agreement. These complaints were transferred by the DHSMV to the Division of Administrative Hearings. 3. On January 29, 2013, BMW NA, by letters attached hereto as Exhibit A, notified Respondents, as follows: BMW of North America, LLC ("BMW NA") hereby withdraws its notice, transmitted to you on July 17, 2012, with respect to the superseding/merged BMW Center Agreement (‘Agreement’) for BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks. You and your successors may remain on your current forms of: dealer agreements: the BMW Dealer Agreement for BMW passenger cars (‘Old Agreement’) and the BMW SAV Center Agreement for BMW light trucks (‘SAV Center Agreement') or sign the Agreement which was offered to you, at any time in the future. 4. Inasmuch as BMW NA has withdrawn the July 17, 2012 notice that entitled Respondents to file their protests, and confirmed to Respondents that they and their successors', have the option to remain on the Existing Agreements unless, at any time in the future, they elect to sign the Merged Agreement, Respondents’ protests should now be dismissed as moot. ' Motor vehicle dealerships, and equity interests therein, are transferable to buyers as provided in Section 320.643, Florida Statutes. 3 Respectfully submitted, Lh. bL Dean Bunch dean.bunch@nelsonmullins.com C. Everett Boyd, Jr. everett. boyd@nelsonmullins.com Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Blvd., S., Suite 202 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Telephone: (850)907-2505 Attorneys for BMW of North America, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing was served by electronic transmission, this at day of January, 2013, upon the following: | Jennifer Clerk, Agency Clerk clark. jennifer@hsmv.state.fl.us Dept. of Highway Safety Neil Kirkman Bldg., Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61 Tallahassee, FL 32399 John W. Forehand, Esq. john. forehand@southmotors.net 16165 South Dixie Highway Miami, FL 33157 Richard N. Sox, Esq. rsox@dealerlawyer.com Nicholas A. Bader, Esq. nbader@dealerlawyer.com 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, FL 32308 David Leibowitz, Esq. davidl@bramanmanagement.com Timothy Grecsek, Esq. timothyg@bramanmanagement.com Braman Management Association 2060 Biscayne Bivd., Second Floor Miami, FL 33137 ~ Attorney
Conclusions This matter came on for determination by the Department upon submission of an Order Closing File by Daniel M. Kilbride, an Administrative Law Judge, of the Division of Administrative Hearings, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Sunl Group, Inc. ‘and Action Motorsports to sell motorcycles manufactured by Astronautical Bashan Motorcycle Manufacture Co. Ltd. (BASH) at 11485 South Cleveland Avenue, Suite 1, Fort Myers (Lee County), Florida 33907. DONE AND ORDERED this a — day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 'ARL A. FORD, Direct6r Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division otor Vehicles this ZB day of July, 2009. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: Kyle Lee Ride Green, Inc. 5686 Youngquist Road #113 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Mei Zhou Sunl Group, Inc. ~ 8551 Ester Boulevard Irving, Texas 75063 Howard Chappell, Esquire Law Offices of Howard Chappell 1514 Cumberland Court Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ; Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Daniel M. Kilbride Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator - Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SUNL GROUP, INC., AND ACTION MOTORSPORTS, Petitioners, RIDE GREEN, INC., ) ) ) ) ) vs. ) Case No. 08-5720 ) ) ) Respondent. ) )
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Petitioner should issue a cease and desist order and/or impose sanctions against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent, by failing to have its books, accounts, and documents available for examination and by refusing to permit an inspection of its books and records in an investigation and examination, has violated Sections 520.995(1)(a), (f), and (g), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Sometime during the month of February of 1991, Ms. Jennifer Chirolis, a Financial Investigator from the Department of Banking and Finance, visited the offices of the Barat Company. She spoke with Mr. Roque Barat and determined that the Barat Company was conducting retail installment sales without being licensed to do so under Chapter 520, Florida Statutes. Mr. Chirolis advised Mr. Roque Barat that he needed a license and asked him to cease operations until he obtained the necessary license. The Barat Company thereafter obtained the necessary license and was still licensed as of the time of the formal hearing. Thereafter, the Department received a complaint about the Barat Company from a customer. The customer's complaint was to the effect that the Barat Company had made misrepresentations concerning the fee paid by the customer. The Department initiated an "investigation" of the customer's complaint and also decided to conduct an "examination" of the Barat Company. On April 22, 1992, a Department Examiner, Mr. Lee Winters, went to the office of the Barat Company to conduct the "examination" and "investigation". The Barat Company is operated out of a small office with two employees and a few filing cabinets. When Mr. Winters arrived, employees of the Barat Company were conducting business with two customers. Mr. Winters identified himself to the employees and informed them that he had been assigned to conduct an "examination" and "investigation" of the Barat Company. A Barat Company employee, Mr. Fred Vivar, said that he could not produce the company's records without express authorization from Mr. Roque Barat, that Mr. Roque Barat was out of the country, that he could not get in touch with Mr. Roque Barat at that moment, but that when he did get in touch with him, he would advise Mr. Roque Barat of Mr. Winter's desire to examine the company's books and records. Following a number of telephone calls over a period of several days, on May 1, 1992, Mr. Vivar advised Mr. Winters that he had received authorization from Mr. Roque Barat for the Department to inspect the books and records of the Barat Company. An appointment was made for the Department to inspect the books and records on May 6, 1992, beginning at 10:00 a.m. On May 5, 1992, a letter from an attorney representing the Barat Company was hand delivered to Mr. Winters. The letter included the following paragraph: It is my understanding that you have requested the opportunity to view the records of the above-referenced company, said inspection to take place on May 6, 1992. Please be advised that if this "inspection" is purportedly being done by your agency's authority, pursuant to F.S. 520.996, that no records will be produced absent compliance by your department with F.S. 520.994 including, but not limited to, the Barat Company exercising its right to challenge said subpoena. The Department concluded from the letter of May 5, 1992, that the Barat Company not only refused to produce records without a subpoena, but that, even if served with a subpoena, the Barat Company would resist compliance with the subpoena unless and until ordered to comply by a court. For that reason the Department did not pursue the issuance of a subpoena. Mr. Winters has been involved in over one hundred "examinations" under Chapter 520, Florida Statutes. In the course of those "examinations" there have been only two licensees that did not produce their records. Those two licensees were the Barat Company and another company known as Phase One Credit. Mr. Roque Barat is an officer and director of both Phase One Credit and the Barat Company. The license of Phase One Credit was revoked for its failure to produce its books and records. The refusal to produce the books and records of the Barat Company was occasioned by an effort on the part of Mr. Roque Barat to avoid payment of "examination" fees authorized by Section 520.996, Florida Statutes. In the summer of 1992, the Barat Company filed for bankruptcy, closed down its business operations, and is currently winding up the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the charge that the Barat Company has violated Section 520.995(1)(a), Florida Statutes; Concluding that the Barat Company has violated Sections 520.995(1)(f) and (g), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; Imposing a penalty consisting of: (a) an administra-tive fine in the amount of one thousand dollars, and (b) revocation of the Barat Company's license; and Ordering the Barat Company to cease and desist from any further violations of Chapter 520, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 23rd day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5620 The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance, with the exception of the last five words. The last five words are rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case and as, in any event, not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 8: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as inaccurate description of letter. (The relevant text of the letter is included in the findings of fact.) Last sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary evidentiary details. Paragraph 9: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 10: First two sentences rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Last two sentences accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 13: Accepted. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent: As noted in the Preliminary Statement portion of this Recommended Order, the Respondent's proposed recommended order was filed late. The Respondent's proposed recommended order also fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code, in that it fails to contain citations to the portions of the record that support its proposed findings of fact. A party's statutory right to a specific ruling on each proposed finding submitted by the party is limited to those circumstances when the proposed findings are submitted within the established deadlines and in conformity with applicable rules. See Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, and Forrester v. Career Service Commission, 361 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), in which the court held, inter alia, that a party is not entitled to more than a reasonable period of time within which to submit its proposals. Because the Respondent submitted its proposals late and because those proposals fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent is not statutorily entitled to a specific ruling on each of its proposed findings and no such specific findings have been made. (As noted in the Preliminary Statement, the Respondent's proposed recommended order has been read and considered.) COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Brenner, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Suite 708-N Miami, Florida 33128 Louis J. Terminello, Esquire 950 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Michael H. Tarkoff, Esquire 2601 South Bayshore Drive Suite 1400 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Copies furnished continued: William G. Reeves, General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Corrections' ("Department") intended decision to award contracts to Intervenors, Gateway Foundation, Inc. ("Gateway"), and The Unlimited Path, Inc. ("UPI"), for licensed in-prison substance abuse treatment services pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate FDC ITN 17-112 ("the ITN"), is contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules, or the ITN specifications, and contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The ITN, Site Visits, and Addenda The Department is a state agency responsible for the supervisory and protective care, custody, and control of all inmates incarcerated by the Department in each of its four regions. As of June 30, 2016, the Department had a total inmate population of 99,119, with 62 percent (61,454) of those inmates in need of treatment for a substance abuse disorder. The Department wants to strategically improve the manner in which it provides licensed substance abuse treatment services to inmates by focusing on maximizing the levels of treatment and individual inmate needs without increasing costs. The Department chose to utilize a flexible competitive procurement process to achieve its goals; specifically, an invitation to negotiate method of procurement rather than an invitation to bid or request for proposals, because it wanted industry leaders to craft individual and innovative solutions to address the problem.1/ Against this backdrop, on September 21, 2016, the Department issued the ITN, "In-Prison Substance Abuse Treatment Services," seeking replies from qualified vendors to provide licensed substance abuse treatment services to inmates incarcerated by the Department in each of its four regions. The Department reserved the right to make separate awards to each of its four regions, or to make a statewide award to a single vendor. The initial term of the contract(s) to be awarded under the ITN is five years. In addition, the Department may renew the contract(s) for up to one additional five-year term. The ITN separated substance abuse treatment services into five distinct service types: Prevention Services, Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment, Intensive Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment, Long-term Residential Therapeutic Community, and Aftercare. Additional services were also required, including motivation/readiness classes for program participants awaiting admission to Outpatient, Intensive Outpatient, or Residential Therapeutic Community services, and an alumni support group for program participants who have completed treatment services. The ITN required that the treatment services be provided in programs licensed pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65D-30. The ITN identified the selection criteria as follows: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the State based upon the "Selection Criteria" and satisfies the Department's primary goals as identified in this ITN. The Selection Criteria may include, but is not limited to, the following. Selection Criteria: Respondent's articulation of their solution and the ability of the solution to meet the requirements of this ITN and provide additional innovations. Respondent's experience in providing the services being procured and the skills of proposed staff relative to the proposed approach and offering. Respondent's Technical Reply and Cost Reply, as they relate to satisfying the primary goals of the services identified herein. All interested vendors, before submitting their replies, were required to visit various sites within the regions covered by their reply. GEO attended these site visits, which were held in October to November 2016. During the visits, the topic of the budget was discussed. All vendors were informed that the Department "did not have any new money," and that it would be operating within the existing budget. Section 4.10, TAB A, of the ITN required that each vendor submit with its reply a letter from a surety company or bonding agent that documents the vendor's present ability to obtain a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $1,500,000, per region. In Section 4.8 of the ITN, Pass/Fail Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements, the Department stated it would reject any and all replies that did not meet the pass/fail criteria. One of these criteria, Section 4.8e), specifically required each vendor to demonstrate its ability to meet the performance bond requirement. A vendor was likewise required to make this certification on Attachment IV to the ITN, Pass/Fail Requirement Certification and Non-Collusion Certification. Section 4.8e) stated as follows: The Vendor must be able to demonstrate its ability to meet the Performance Bond requirements. Prior to execution of prospective contract, Respondent will deliver to the Department a Performance Bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount equal to the lesser of $1.5 million dollars, per region, or the average annual price of the Contract (averaged from the initial five year Contract term pricing). The bond or letter of credit will be used to guarantee at least satisfactory performance by Respondent throughout the term of the Contract (including renewal years). Section 5.36 of the ITN, Performance Guarantee, also provided: The Vendor shall furnish the Department with a Performance Guarantee in the amount of $1,500,000, per region, on an annual basis, for a time frame equal to the term of the Contract. The form of the guarantee shall be a bond, cashier's check, or money order made payable to the Department. The guarantee shall be furnished to the Contract Manager within thirty (30) days after execution of the Contract which may result from this ITN. No payments shall be made to the Vendor until the guarantee is in place and approved by the Department in writing. Upon renewal of the Contract, the Vendor shall provide proof that the performance guarantee has been renewed for the term of the Contract renewal. Based upon Vendor performance after the initial year of the Contract, the Department may, at the Department's sole discretion, reduce the amount of the bond for any single year of the Contract or for the remaining contract period, including the renewal. The purpose of a performance bond is to mitigate the Department's risk should a vendor fail to perform on a contract. In Addendum 2, the Department identified six current contracts being replaced by the ITN, and provided links to those contracts and budgetary information on the Florida Accountability Contract Tracking System ("FACTS").2/ The Department also provided two rounds of formal questions and answers, which are reflected in Addenda 6 and 7. In Addendum 6, question 3, a vendor asked a question about cost. In response, the Department answered as follows: Vendors are encouraged to submit a Cost Reply in such a manner as to offer the most cost effective and innovative solution for quality services and resources, as both cost efficiency and quality of services will be a consideration in determining best value. In Addendum 6, question 77, a vendor asked a question about how to submit a reply. In response, the Department answered as follows: Vendor's shall only submit one Reply, and the Reply must be clearly labeled with the Region(s) included, or that the Reply is Statewide. In Addendum 7, question 2, the Department again addressed the issue of how many replies are required of a vendor who was interested in either a statewide or a regional award, through the following questions and answers: Question 2: In the responses to vendor questions (Addendum 006), Change to No. 6- "4.9 Submission of Replies" states that "In Reply to this ITN, each Vendor shall: Submit a separate Reply for each Region (bullet item a on page 8). However, under answer #77 (p.21), it states that "Vendor's shall only submit one Reply, and the Reply must be clearly labeled with the Region(s) included, or that the Reply is Statewide." Can you please confirm that a statewide proposal can be one, single proposal for the entire state rather than four separate proposals for each of the four regions? Answer: Yes. If submitting for a Reply for Statewide, the Reply can be submitted as one (1) Reply. If submitting a Reply for multiple Regions such as Regions 1 and 2, a Reply must be submitted for each Region. A separate Technical Reply and Cost Reply must be included for each submission. The Cost Replies must be sealed in a separate envelope from the Technical Replies, but they can all be submitted in the same package. Submission and Evaluation of Replies to the ITN On June 15, 2017, the Department received replies to the ITN from the following six vendors: GEO, Gateway, UPI, SMA Behavioral Health Services, Inc., Village South, Inc., and Bridges of America, Inc. GEO submitted five separate replies, one for each region and one for statewide. Gateway submitted a single statewide reply, but indicated in the reply that it wanted to be considered for a statewide award and one or more regional awards. Gateway also included a detailed budget breakdown by region with pricing for each region. The Department's instructions to the evaluators of the replies included a note reminding them that Gateway submitted a statewide response, but that it wanted to be considered for each individual region. UPI submitted three separate replies, one each for Regions 1, 2, and 3. UPI made the required certifications regarding the performance guarantee and submitted a letter from a surety company evidencing its ability to obtain a performance bond in the amounts required by the ITN. All of the replies were deemed to satisfy the pass/fail criteria and were then evaluated and scored. Negotiations Following the evaluation of the replies, the Department entered into the negotiation phase with GEO, Gateway, UPI, and Bridges of America, Inc. Negotiations commenced in August 2017 and continued through October 2017. The Department held a total of three negotiation sessions with each of these vendors. The ITN provided that the scores from the evaluation phase would not carry over into negotiations and that the negotiation team was not bound by the scores. The Department's negotiation team consisted of Kasey Faulk, chief of the Bureau of Procurement (lead negotiator); Patrick Mahoney, chief of the Bureau of Readiness and Community Transition; and Maggie Agerton, the assistant chief of In-Prison Substance Treatment in the Bureau of Readiness and Community Transition. Ms. Faulk has a master's degree in business administration from the University of Florida. She is also a Florida-certified project management professional; Florida- certified contract negotiator; and Florida-certified contract manager. In her tenure as chief of the Bureau of Procurement, she has overseen more than 130 competitive solicitations, including at least 80 invitations to bid, at least 30 requests for proposals, and approximately 17 invitations to negotiate. She has drafted procurement procedures at two different state agencies, and helped draft revisions to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 68-1. Without objection, Ms. Faulk was accepted at hearing as an expert in the area of Florida procurement processes. Ms. Agerton authored the programmatic portions of the ITN and served as an evaluator. She has a bachelor's and master's degree in criminology. She is also a Florida-certified addiction professional and certified criminal justice addictions professional. She currently serves as contract manager for the Everglades Recovery Center ("Everglades") contract, of which GEO is the incumbent vendor.3/ During negotiations, GEO, which had only provided services to the Department for a short time, touted its experience and devotion of resources at Everglades. However, GEO was under a corrective action plan at Everglades as of May 12, 2017, because of missing information in clinical files and lack of staff supervision. Complete clinical files are very important to substance abuse treatment. Proper clinical documentation is necessary for licensure purposes and allows the Department to ensure that services are being provided in accordance with the contract. By the end of October 2017, Ms. Agerton had conducted a site visit to Everglades, and although GEO had made significant progress in the area of leadership and staff, the clinical files were still a significant problem. Ms. Agerton and Ms. Faulk had concerns about GEO's current contract performance at Everglades. During the negotiation phase, GEO was aware of the Department's concerns regarding its performance at Everglades. During negotiations, GEO was told by the Department that it is trying to spend its money more efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. GEO was told by the Department that its price was outside the range of competitive replies, and GEO was encouraged to provide alternative pricing models and "sharpen its pencils." During negotiations, the Department asked every vendor to identify its cost drivers. GEO did not identify the performance bond as a cost driver. However, UPI identified the performance bond as a cost driver. UPI informed the Department that a performance bond would cost it $200,000 per year regardless of whether the amount of the bond was reduced, because the cost of the bond is based on the complete value of the contract. UPI requested that it be allowed to submit a cashier's check to the Department in the amount of $1,000,000 for three regions in lieu of paying $200,000 per year for five years to a bonding company for a performance bond. At hearing, Ms. Faulk explained the process of negotiating with individual vendors, the importance of having a strategy, and the value of making individual concessions with individual vendors during negotiations. UPI had performed services for the Department for over ten years, through budget cuts, and had not walked away from their contracts. Accordingly, the negotiation team considered UPI's suggestion to be a low risk. That is, the Department did not believe there was a significant risk that UPI would abandon the contract. In any event, the cashier's check proposed by UPI would benefit the Department because the Department could easily take the money and use it to recoup losses in the event of nonperformance, as opposed to a bond, which may require the Department to engage in protracted litigation with a surety company to obtain the value of the bond. The Department also saw the cashier's check as an opportunity to obtain lower pricing from UPI. The negotiation team told UPI it would accept, in lieu of the performance bond, a $1,000,000 cashier's check if UPI was awarded three regions; a $750,000 cashier's check if UPI was awarded two regions; and a $500,000 cashier's check if UPI was awarded one region. Allowing UPI to post a cashier's check in the amount of $750,000 for the two regions it was awarded did not provide UPI with a competitive advantage over GEO. At hearing, GEO's representative, John Thurston, who oversaw the development of GEO's reply and BAFO, and participated in the negotiations, acknowledged that GEO's cost to obtain a performance bond in the amount of $1,500,000 would only have been $67,500 per year. During negotiations, the Department revised the scope of work. Following the negotiations, on October 25, 2017, the Department emailed an RBAFO to those vendors who participated in the negotiations. The RBAFO informed vendors that the term "Best and Final Offers" is used to provide the vendor the opportunity to clarify its response and adjust its price based on the negotiations, and that this does not preclude the Department from seeking clarification or additional information upon receipt of the BAFOs. The RBAFO further stated that the BAFO "must contain a written narrative of services to be provided inclusive of clarifications and any alternative or modifications discussed during the negotiation process." The BAFO required an executive summary, description of service delivery, a staffing matrix, and a price sheet. GPR-037 (General Program Requirements) in the RBAFO addressed staffing and provided, in pertinent part: The vendor shall ensure that all required Vendor staff positions are filled for the entire scheduled 40 hour weekly working period, and that those individuals are physically present at the work site. All positions are full-time, unless otherwise specified, inclusive of interim positions. As to the price sheet, the per diem pricing "should represent the best price the Vendor is willing to offer to the Department." The RBAFO specifically addressed and allowed for vendors to provide alternative pricing models and methods. Providing alternative price offerings gives the Department more options to solve its problem and demonstrates a vendor's understanding of the Department's needs. All vendors were provided with an equal opportunity to submit BAFOs reflecting revisions to the ITN made by the Department during negotiations. The RBAFO reminded vendors to include in their BAFOs alternatives or any modification discussed during the negotiation process. GEO was aware during negotiations that it could have inquired about or proposed to negotiate different components of all aspects of its proposal. GEO was also aware that any global changes for all vendors would be included in the RBAFO, but that negotiation concessions, innovative solutions, and negotiated points with individual vendors, would not be included. In fact, GEO negotiated items that were not shared with other vendors. The BAFOs and Negotiation Team Recommendation The deadline for vendors to submit their BAFOs was November 14, 2017. The Department received BAFOs from the four vendors invited to negotiate. The ITN provided that BAFOs would not be scored and the negotiation team would make a recommendation of award based on which vendor's solution presented the best value to the state, utilizing the selection criteria in the ITN. Prior to submitting its BAFO, the Department responded to Gateway's inquiries about differences between what was to be included in the BAFO and what was discussed during negotiations, specifically in the context of the ratio of Prevention Services counselors (indicated as one counselor to fifty participants in the RBAFO, but discussed during negotiations as one counselor to eighty participants). The Department instructed Gateway to use the ratios included in the RBAFO, and "provide an alternative price with the ratio your Company is proposing." As allowed by the RBAFO and further clarified by the Department, Gateway's BAFO included both a base price offering and an alternative price offering, with detailed explanations of the assumptions included within each offering. Gateway's BAFO included a ratio for Prevention Services counselors from one counselor for every fifty participants (1:50), and an alternative ratio of one counselor for every eighty participants (1:80). Gateway's staffing models in its BAFO also included part-time positions. The members of the negotiation team reviewed the BAFOs and then made a formal recommendation of award at a public meeting held on November 17, 2017, with recorded minutes. The negotiation team recommended regional awards rather than a statewide award. It recommended an award of Regions 1 and 2 to UPI and Regions 3 and 4 to Gateway. The team recommended these vendors because it believed their solutions represented the best value to the state based on the selection criteria identified in the ITN. Ms. Faulk recommended UPI for Regions 1 and 2 because UPI was an incumbent vendor with a long history of providing satisfactory services to the Department. Additionally, she felt UPI had tremendous ideas on how to maximize treatment, their cost was affordable, and they proposed innovative solutions. Ms. Faulk ultimately recommended Gateway's alternate price offering for Regions 3 and 4 because she found them very innovative and treatment-focused. She felt they had extensive experience in a correctional setting providing substance abuse treatment, and their cost was very affordable. She recommended the alternate price offering because it was an innovative solution to increase services. Gateway's alternate price offering increased the number of available treatment slots and provided staffing which the Department found acceptable and appropriate, while at the same time offering a better price. Ms. Agerton recommended UPI for Regions 1 and 2 because she felt UPI brought an innovative solution in negotiations, as well as many different ideas. She felt that based on their incumbent status, they had knowledge of the Department's systems and were able to suggest improvements while remaining affordable. Ms. Agerton recommended Gateway for Regions 3 and 4 because they also brought innovative solutions, particularly an evaluator that would help with monitoring their implementation. She also felt Gateway was likewise affordable and energetic. Neither Ms. Faulk nor Ms. Agerton recommended GEO for any of the regions. Ms. Faulk felt GEO's cost was significantly higher than the other vendors. She also had concerns about some of GEO's responses during the negotiation sessions, particularly with regard to the problems at Everglades. Ms. Faulk felt GEO lacked innovation, it did not understand the problems at Everglades, and it lacked an effective strategy for how not to have the problems reoccur in the future. Ms. Agerton did not recommend GEO for any of the regions because she felt they were very expensive compared to the other vendors; so expensive, in fact, that their price exceeded the Department's budget. Ms. Agerton also had concerns about GEO's current contract performance at Everglades. A formal recommendation memorandum was prepared by the procurement officer and routed through various levels of the Department. The memorandum included a cost analysis, which reflected the total awarded price for all four regions for the initial five-year term to be $57,683,377.25. GEO's proposed price for all four regions for the same period was $80,558,693.75, approximately $22,000,000 higher than the Department's intended awards for all four regions. Notably, the formal recommendation memorandum mistakenly reflected 225 prevention slots in Region 3, instead of the 320 prevention slots included in Gateway's alternative proposal; and 200 prevention slots in Region 4, instead of the 320 prevention slots included in Gateway's alternative proposal. For Region 3, multiplying 320 slots times Gateway's per diem rate of $3.89 (and by 365 days a year), results in an annual total cost of $454,352; compared to the annual cost figure of $319,466.25 for 225 slots reflected in the memorandum. For Region 4, multiplying 320 slots times Gateway's per diem rate of $3.89 (and by 365 days a year), results in an annual total cost of $454,352; compared to the annual cost figure of $283,970 based on 200 slots. Thus, accounting for the increased prevention slots for Regions 3 and 4 results in an annual increase in cost of $305,267.75 above the $11,536,675.45, for a total annual cost for all four regions of $11,841.943.20, and a five-year cost of $59,209,716. On the other hand, GEO's proposed price for all four regions for the same period was $80,558,693.75, which divided by five results in an annual cost to the Department of $16,111,738.70. GEO eliminated the cost of Aftercare services because the Department intends to use an Alumni Program for zero cost in lieu of Aftercare services. GEO calculated that removing the cost to the Department of Aftercare services would result in $1,885.790.75 less, or a total annual cost of $14,225,948.70. Thus, removing the cost of Aftercare services from GEO's proposed price for all four regions would still result in a five-year cost to the Department of $71,129,743.50, which may exceed the amount appropriated, budgeted, and available to the Department for substance abuse treatment for Fiscal Year 2017- 2018, and which far exceeds the cost of $59,209,716 (the amount of the proposed award to Gateway and UPI for the same time period).4/ The recommendation memorandum was approved by the Department's secretary on January 9, 2018. GEO's Protest GEO's protest raises numerous issues, none of which warrant rescission of the Department's intended award to Gateway and UPI. Gateway's Reply to the ITN GEO contends Gateway submitted only a single "statewide" reply to the ITN, and no reply for any regions, and therefore, Gateway is ineligible for a regional award. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Gateway's reply was properly considered as a reply for multiple regions because Gateway clearly indicated its intent to be considered for multiple regions. Moreover, Gateway gained no competitive advantage over other vendors as a result of combining its statewide reply with a regional reply. In fact, the Department would have been inundated with replies if it required a vendor to reply for every conceivable combination of regions. UPI's Performance Guarantee GEO contends the Department materially deviated from the ITN and gave UPI a competitive advantage over it by allowing UPI to provide, in lieu of a performance bond, a cashier's check in the amount of $500,000 if awarded one region; $750,000 if awarded two regions; or $1,000,000 if awarded three regions. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the Department did not materially deviate from the ITN and give UPI a competitive advantage over GEO by allowing UPI to provide, in lieu of a performance bond, a cashier's check in the amount of $500,000 if awarded one region; $750,000 if awarded two regions; or $1,000,000 if awarded three regions. Notably, the ITN did not require proposers to submit a performance bond or letter of credit with its reply to the ITN, and none of the vendors submitted a performance bond or letter of credit with their replies. Instead, in replying to the ITN, a vendor was only required to "demonstrate its ability to meet the Performance Bond requirements." UPI satisfied the requirements of the ITN by demonstrating its ability to meet the performance bond requirements. In any event, the reduction in the amount of the bond agreed to by the Department ($750,000 in connection with the award of contracts for two regions) did not provide UPI with a competitive advantage over GEO. At hearing, Mr. Thurston estimated GEO's annual cost of providing a performance bond in connection with contracts to be awarded pursuant to the ITN would be approximately $67,500, well below the $200,000 per year that UPI was quoted for its bond. Moreover, the amount of $67,500 is insignificant compared to the significant disparity in the annual, total prices proposed by GEO and UPI in their BAFOs for Regions 1 and 2 (GEO: $9,299,141.50; UPI: $6,342,203, for a difference of $2,956,938.50 per year). At hearing, Mr. Thurston acknowledged he could have raised the issue of the performance bond during negotiations. As Mr. Thurston also acknowledged at hearing, even if GEO had been able to negotiate an elimination of the performance bond amount requirement in its entirety, GEO would not have been able to offer a price that would have remedied the disparity. Gateway's BAFO (Prevention Services Ratio) GEO contends Gateway's ratio for Prevention Services counselors of 1:80, as provided in Gateway's BAFO alternative price offering, is a material deviation from the RBAFO requirements. As detailed above, this alternative offering was expressly permitted by the RBAFO and was further clarified by the Department to Gateway before its BAFO was submitted. Moreover, increasing the prevention capacity to 80 per institution adds an additional 605 inmates served at any one time, resulting in the Department being able to serve more inmates for the same appropriation amount. This is precisely the type of innovative thinking the Department sought to reach its goals. GEO did not submit an alternative pricing model, and it never asked the Department if the ratios for Prevention Counselors were negotiable. At hearing, GEO could not say how much it could have lowered staff levels, if at all, if it attempted to negotiate ratios. Gateway was not given a substantial advantage over GEO by increasing the prevention capacity. In addition, although chapter 65D-30 does include required ratios for certain types of services, there is no maximum caseload requirement applicable to Prevention Services. Gateway's BAFO (Part-Time Positions) GEO also contends Gateway violated GPR-037 in the RBAFO because Gateway's staffing models included part-time positions. However, the Department interprets the phrase "unless otherwise specified" to mean that unless the vendor specifies a position in its reply as part time, the Department will assume that any positions referenced in the reply are full time (40 hours). GEO never asked the Department for clarification on the meaning of the phrase "unless otherwise specified." At hearing, Mr. Thurston could not say whether its BAFO would have been adjusted had GEO asked about negotiating the positions, in terms of being full time. In any event, the Department currently utilizes part- time staff under the contracts being replaced by the ITN. Part- time staff may provide a more cost-effective solution than full- time staff. Gateway's BAFO (Clerical Positions) GEO also contends Gateway's alternate price offering provided for a reduction in clerical staff positions contrary to GPR-035 as set forth in Addendum 6 and the RBAFO. GPR-035 required that each vendor provide a minimum of one clerical position for up to 136 treatment slots, and one-half position for each additional 68 treatment slots. In support of its position, GEO presented Exhibit 1. However, GEO's Exhibit 1 is based on incorrect assumptions, and it is unreliable and unpersuasive. First, the ratios calculated by GEO are impermissibly "rounded-up." Secondly, contrary to GEO's position, the Department only calculates an additional one-half position once the full 68 treatment slots have been achieved. GPR-035 does not require one-half positions for "up to each additional 68 slots." A plain reading of GPR-035, consistent with the Department's reasonable interpretation, is that an additional one-half position is required only after the full 68 slots have been achieved. Gateway's base price offering fully complied with the staffing ratios when the ratios are calculated according to a plain reading of GPR-035, which is bolstered by the Department's practice in calculating ratios. Gateway's alternative price offering providing for a reduction in clerical positions to one full-time employee per facility was a cost-saving measure discussed with the Department and a product of negotiations. Even if Gateway's alternative price offering deviated with regard to the clerical positions, given the discrepancy between GEO's and Gateway's price offerings, the deviation is so small that it is a minor irregularity and not a material deviation. Gateway's BAFO (Pricing) GEO also contends Gateway failed to provide region- specific pricing or a final, firm pricing offer of any kind for the initial term or the renewal term. During negotiations and in its BAFO, Gateway reiterated that it would accept a regional or multi-regional award. Under Section 4.12 of the ITN, the Department reserved the right to seek clarification from vendors regarding their BAFOs and to reopen negotiations after receiving BAFOs. The negotiation team recommended awarding Gateway's alternate price offering for Regions 3 and 4 contingent upon clarification from Gateway that its pricing would be applicable to Regions 3 and 4. Although vendors were invited and could have attended the public meeting and heard this for themselves, none of them chose to attend. Four days later, on November 21, 2017, the Department's procurement officer reached out to Gateway's representative asking it to confirm that the pricing listed in the alternate price offering would remain the same if awarded individual regions as opposed to the entire state. Gateway's representative responded that the alternate prices included in Gateway's BAFO could remain in effect with a modified administrative personnel staffing plan if Gateway was awarded more than one region. At the time of this exchange, the Department's negotiation team had already recommended Gateway for Regions 3 and 4; so, the Department knew there would be no need to renegotiate pricing because Gateway was recommended to receive more than Region 4. According to Ms. Faulk, the Department understood Gateway's response to mean that the per diem pricing provided in Gateway's BAFO would apply to Regions 3 and 4. Gateway would reduce the oversight positions to two or three positions, consistent with the smaller level of responsibilities required for two regions instead of four. This exchange occurred prior to the drafting of the award recommendation memorandum, which was dated November 28, 2017. It was not signed by Ms. Faulk until January 3, 2018, or the Secretary until January 9, 2018. Gateway's per diem statewide pricing applied equally to Regions 3 and 4. Although Gateway did not provide a grand total price on its BAFO price sheet, the Department calculated the grand total price using the correct per diem unit prices provided. The ITN stated that unit prices would control in the event of a mathematical error. As it pertains to the price sheet instructions, the RBAFO stated that the vendor's pricing should represent the best price the vendor is willing to offer the Department. Gateway provided both a base price offering and an alternate price offering. The base price offering's price sheet contained the required per diem prices for both the original contract term and the renewal contract term. Under the section titled "TOTAL PRICE," Gateway appeared to sum the individual per diem prices rather than provide an actual grand total contract amount. Gateway did the same for its alternate price offering price sheet. Although Gateway did not provide a grand total price on the price sheet, it included a detailed budget breakdown for both its base price offering and alternate price offering. The Department felt these breakdowns offered additional transparency into Gateway's pricing. Section 4.10, Tab F, of the ITN provided that all calculations would be verified for accuracy by the Department's Bureau of Support Services staff, and that unit prices submitted by a vendor would prevail in the event a mathematical error is identified. Ms. Faulk testified the Department could calculate a grand total price by using the per diem pricing provided on the price page. She explained the Department could multiply the per diem price for each service type by the number of slots for that service, and then multiply that number by 365 days to arrive at the yearly price for a particular service. The Department could then add those prices together to obtain an annual total. She also explained these same calculations could be done for the renewal pricing. UPI's BAFO (Clerical Positions) GEO contends UPI deviated from the staffing requirements by providing fewer clerical support positions than required by the RBAFO. Specifically, GEO contends UPI had a deficit of six clerical support positions, and that if GEO knew it could reduce the staffing complement by six, it would have been worth approximately $270,000. UPI's clerical staffing ratios deviated from GPR-035, because its ratios were calculated based on the belief that prevention slots were not "treatment" slots. The ITN and RBAFO refer to prevention slots as treatment slots. Nevertheless, given the discrepancy between the prices submitted by GEO and UPI, UPI's deviations from the clerical staffing requirements are so small that they are minor irregularities and not material deviations. UPI's BAFO (Pricing) GEO also contends UPI's BAFO failed to include the Revised Price Sheet. Specifically, in paragraph 24 of its amended petition, GEO alleged: "UPI appears to have created its own form that emulated the format of the required form but provides many more spaces for additional information. Other Vendors that used the ITN required form did not have the opportunity to include this additional information." Although UPI did not use the specific Revised Price Sheet form, it provided per diem prices for each level of treatment as required by the form and additional information for the Department's consideration. GEO failed to include per diem pricing for Residential Therapeutic slots in Regions 2 and 4. GEO also modified its price sheets and submitted additional information in the form of annotations denoted by asterisk. In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the Department appropriately determined that the proposed awards to Gateway and UPI will provide the best value to the Department based on the selection criteria. Any irregularities in Gateway's and UPI's replies and BAFOs as alleged by GEO were minor and not material deviations. The Department's intended awards to Gateway and UPI are not contrary to the Department's statutes, rules, the ITN specifications, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order dismissing the protest of GEO Reentry Services, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 20th day of April, 2018.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents owe Petitioner approximately $591 for a quantity of watermelons provided by Petitioner; secondarily, resolution of this issue 1 Correction of obvious error has been made to the style of this case, adding the name of Co-Respondent U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., and eliminating the Department of Agriculture and Consumer requires a determination of whether Respondents acted as an agent for Petitioner as opposed to a direct purchase of Petitioner's melons by Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a farmer who produces agricultural products, including watermelons. Petitioner also has trucks in which he hauls agricultural products, including watermelons. When all his trucks are in use, he frequently calls a friend, Freddy Bell, to provide some of Bell’s trucks to haul his products. Petitioner, in turn, helps Bell when Bell’s trucks are all in use. Respondent Wilson is a dealer of such products in the course of normal business activity. Respondent Wilson acts as a broker in these arrangements, receives the gross sales receipts from buyers and from that sum deducts costs of labor, freight, inspections, any other associated costs and his commission. The net balance of the gross sales receipts are paid to the melon producers. Respondent U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company is the bonding agent for Respondent pursuant to Section 604.20, Florida Statutes. Petitioner had not discussed any arrangement for the sale of his melons with Respondent Wilson. Instead, Petitioner discussed the sales price of his melons with Freddy Bell. Petitioner testified that Bell represented to Petitioner that he could get a price of $4.00 per hundred weight for Petitioner’s melons. Petitioner relied on Bell to provide transport his melons and obtain the promised price. While Bell did not testify at the final hearing, the parties are in agreement that Bell arranged for sale and shipment of Petitioner’s melons through Wilson. Wilson’s President, Robert M. Wilson, testified at hearing that Bell was not empowered by him to represent a guaranteed price for melons to anyone and that he could not affirm that Bell operated as his agent. He added that Melons were plentiful this past season and no melons were brokered on a guaranteed price basis. Testimony of Robert M. Wilson at the final hearing establishes that the arrangement between Respondent Wilson and Freddy Bell on Petitioner’s behalf was a brokerage arrangement and that the sale of the melons was subject to conditions and demands of the market place, i.e., that the melons would sell for the best possible price which Wilson could obtain for them. Testimony of Petitioner is uncorroborated and fails to establish that the agreement between the parties contemplated a direct sale of the melons to Respondent Wilson or a guaranteed price by Wilson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Petitioner's complaint.DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bo Bass 2829 Southwest SR 45 Newberry, FL 32669 John M. Martirano, Esquire US Fidelity and Guaranty Co Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203-1138 Robert M. Wilson, President Wilson and Son Sales, Inc. 2811 Airport Road Plant City, FL 33567 Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol - Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
