The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from the requirements of Section 559.927, Florida Statutes, under subsection (12)(h) of the statute.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Global Touring, Inc., is in the wholesale travel business. It sells Australia and New Zealand travel packages to travel agencies. Jennifer Pickens is Global Touring, Inc.'s sole shareholder and its President. Pickens has been in the travel business in Broward County, Florida, since 1983, when she started her own travel agency, Global Travel Service, which she operated as a sole proprietorship. At the time, the Air Traffic Conference (hereinafter referred to as the "ATC") had an airline ticket purchase and payment program for participating travel agents. In September of 1983, Pickens contracted with the ATC to participate in its program. She was given an ATC Agency Code Number (618310) and placed on the official ATC Agency List. Approximately a year later, Pickens began a wholesale travel operation, Global Touring Service, which sold tours to Australia and New Zealand. Global Touring Service and Global Travel Service operated out of the same office. Pickens used her ATC Agency Code Number to write airline tickets for both operations. Effective the close of business on December 30, 1984, the ATC terminated its airline ticket purchase and payment program for travel agents. The ATC program, however, was replaced by a similar program operated by the Airlines Reporting Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "ARC"). Travel agents on the official ATC Agency List were given an opportunity, at their option, to be placed on the official ARC Agency List "in substantially the same status as that agent st[ood] on the ATC list on December 30[, 1984,]" by entering into an agreement with the ARC to participate in its replacement program. Pickens opted to participate in the program. She was assigned an ARC Agency Code Number and placed on the official ARC Agency List. On November 20, 1985, Pickens incorporated her business enterprises. She created one corporate entity, Jennifer R. Pickens Travel, Inc., with two operating divisions: Global Travel Service and Global Touring Service. The newly formed corporation continued to operate under the contract Pickens had entered into with the ARC. In 1986, Jennifer R. Pickens Travel, Inc., purchased another travel agency, Lighthouse Travel Services. Jennifer R. Pickens Travel, Inc., assumed Lighthouse Travel Services' contract with the ARC and Lighthouse Travel Services' ARC Agency Code Number and it cancelled the ARC agreement under which it had been conducting business prior to its purchase of Lighthouse Travel Services. Lighthouse Travel Services and Global Travel Service were combined into one retail travel operating division bearing the name of the former. In December of 1991, Jennifer R. Pickens Travel, Inc., changed its name to Global Touring, Inc., and eliminated its retail travel operating division. Since that time, it has engaged only in the wholesale travel business. On or about March 1, 1992, Global Touring, Inc., sold the assets of its former retail travel operating division, including its ARC contract and ARC Agency Code Number, to YAM, Inc. Following the sale, Global Touring, Inc., sought to enter into another contract with the ARC and obtain a new ARC Agency Code Number. Because the paperwork Global Touring, Inc., initially submitted to the ARC was lost, it was not until on or about December 9, 1992, that Global Touring, Inc., entered into such a contract and received a new ARC Agency Code Number (10-53349-3). The contract is still in effect. Since its inception, with the exception of the period from on or about March 1, 1992, to on or about December 9, 1992, Global Touring, Inc., has continuously operated under a contract with the ARC. While it has undergone a name change, it has remained under the ownership and control of the same person, Jennifer Pickens, during the entire time that it has had a contractual relationship with the ARC. Earlier this year, Global Touring, Inc. submitted to the Department an application for a statement certifying that, based upon the total number of years it has contracted with the ARC, it is exempt from the requirements of Section 559.927, Florida Statutes. Pickens, who prepared the application, failed to sign it. In the application, she asserted that Global Touring, Inc., had been "a member of ARC since: 09/14/83," holding "ARC Number 618310." The Department preliminarily determined to deny the application. In its letter to Pickens advising her of its preliminary determination (hereinafter referred to as the "Notice of Proposed Denial"), the Department gave the following reasons for its proposed action: Application for exemption unsigned, with wrong data; 2) ARC approval 10-53349-3, made 12/9/92 is less than 3 years. Such proposed action is consistent with the Department's practice of granting exemptions under subsection (12)(h) of Section 559.927, Florida Statutes, only to those sellers of travel who are able to show that they have an agreement with the ARC which has been in effect for at least the immediately preceding three years. Pickens responded to the Department's advisement with a letter of her own, the body of which read as follows: We wish to apply for a Formal Procedure Hearing. We applied for an exemption on July 22, 1994 and it seems that the reviewer completely ignored all the enclosures. We have been in the travel business since 1983. We took over Lighthouse Travel in 1985 and had the ARC number 618310 for seven years until selling Lighthouse Travel in 1992 and allowing the ARC number to remain with that part of the business. In 1992, after having our application lost, we again became members of ARC, and all of the above under the same company, Jennifer R. Pickens Travel Inc. which changed its name in 1991 to Global Tour- ing, Inc. In the interim we have become one of the 10 largest American Wholesalers to Australia and New Zealand. Our company can obviously prove an ARC relationship for 3 years (actually 11 years) and a history of selling travel for the same period. We therefore request an exemption as per our submis- sion and inasmuch as a formal hearing seems to be the procedure, we hereby request such a hearing. The letter was dated August 25, 1994, and signed by Pickens in her capacity as the President of Global Touring, Inc. After receiving Pickens' letter, the Department referred the instant matter to the Division of Administrative hearings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for a letter of exemption pursuant to Section 559.927, Florida Statues. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of December, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of committing a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioners, based on their national origin, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, sections 760.20-769.37, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In 2006, Petitioners purchased the single-family detached residence located at 1360 Northeast 41st Place in Homestead, Florida. The home is located behind an access gate that requires a card to operate. The card is serviced by Respondent through its management company, The Continental Group. Petitioners claim that Respondent's harassment forced them to move out of their home in October 2012. It is likely, though, that the timing of their relocation was influenced by a foreclosure judgment entered on March 7, 2012. The foreclosure judgment calculated interest on the unpaid mortgage note from September 1, 2008, suggesting that Petitioners had not made mortgage payments for the four years immediately preceding their moving out of the house. Petitioners' residence is subject to a declaration of covenants and bylaws. Respondent and The Continental Group are responsible for enforcing the provisions of these homeowner documents. Petitioners have a long history of violations of the homeowner documents dating as far back as at least late 2008. A notice dated December 31, 2008, advised Petitioners of a noncompliant lease. Notices dated June 30 and December 15, 2009, advised Petitioners that their landscaping lacked mulch. Notices dated August 10 and 25, 2009, advised Petitioners of a vehicle blocking the sidewalk. A notice dated September 24, 2009, advised Petitioners of a driveway that required pressure- cleaning. The notices became more numerous in 2010 and 2011. Claimed violations included an oil stain on the driveway, mildew on one or more exterior walls, and more landscaping issues, almost all of which involved shrubs that needed trimming. On occasion, the inspector cited the failure to trim dead branches or small amounts of grass growing between driveway pavers, but, mostly, she cited the failure to trim live vegetation. The evidentiary record contains 18 citations for overgrown shrubs, even though the photographs that are part of the citations reveal only a conventional foundation planting under the front windows that at no time extends above the bottom of the window frame. There are seven citations for grassy driveway pavers, although only one photograph clearly reveals any such grass--perhaps one linear foot of a few blades of grass wedged between a few pavers immediately in front of the garage door. A similar pattern of citations extended into 2012. Petitioners do not ground their claim of discrimination of these violations, though. Respondent produced a thick written summation of citations and fines that it imposed on homeowners in 2011-12, and Petitioners do not stand out in this document. Respondent clearly enforced the homeowner documents closely, so all that can be gleaned from Petitioners' long citation history is that relations between Petitioners, on the one hand, and Respondent and The Continental Group, on the other hand, may have been strained at times. In any event, the evidentiary record discloses that Petitioners were fined 17 times for untrimmed shrubs and 11 times for failing to remove the mildew from exterior walls. This record of fines is illustrative, not exhaustive. Petitioners believe they have been fined about $10,000. Regardless whether this figure is correct, Petitioners have been fined a substantial amount of money, but they have never paid any of these fines. Petitioners also failed to stay current on their homeowner assessment and maintenance fees. By August 12, 2011, Petitioners overdue balance on these items totaled $1,145 plus another $1,000 in costs in connection with filing a lien against their residence. In mid-August 2011, Respondent sent a notice to all homeowners that their access cards would be deactivated, necessitating the reregistration of the vehicles and recoding of their cards. The notice warned that Respondent would recode only the cards of residents who were current with their maintenance fees. Shortly after receiving this notice, Petitioners visited the management office to reregister their two vehicles and have The Continental Group recode their two access cards. Petitioners first met Ivan Arguello, who is an administrative assistant for The Continental Group. Mr. Woolley presented his access card to Mr. Arguello, so he could recode it. Pursuant to Respondent's policy, Mr. Arguello checked Petitioners' account and found them delinquent, so, again pursuant to Respondent's policy, Mr. Arguello informed them that he could only activate one card, not both cards, unless they paid their balance in full or entered into a payment plan approved by Respondent or its attorney. Mr. Woolley was irate and retrieved his card from Mr. Arguello. Mr. Woolley proceeded to address the issue with Mr. Arguello's supervisor, Mr. Gonzalez, who, at the time of the hearing, no longer was employed with The Continental Group. Petitioners stepped into Mr. Gonzalez's office, which was near the desk occupied by Mr. Arguello. Mr. Woolley and Mr. Gonzalez became angry and argued loudly. Although Mr. Woolley was aware that he could have obtained the recoding of one card, he was unwilling to accept this offer and instead left without the recoding of either card. All of the evidence offered by Petitioners' witnesses of the inconvenience posed by having no access card was entirely attributable to Mr. Woolley's decision not to accept the offer to recode one of his and his wife's two cards. At no time after this confrontation in the office did either Petitioner ever ask an employee of The Continental Group or Respondent to recode one of their access cards; Mr. Woolley merely retained an attorney to pursue the matter. For their part, Mr. Gonzalez did not direct Mr. Arguello to recode one of Petitioners' cards, nor did Mr. Arguello choose to do so on his own. The policy of the management company or Respondent was to require that the resident produce the card to be recoded, and Mr. Woolley had done that when he had handed his card to Mr. Arguello. Although Mr. Woolley left with his card, the actual recoding required Mr. Arguello, who had noted the card number, only to enter some information on his computer. Under Respondent's policy, Petitioners were entitled to the recoding of one of their cards. Under Mr. Arguello's personal policy, which he testified that he has applied to other loudly confrontational residents, he would not recode a card of a vocally abusive resident. When asked if the resident had to return to the office "contrite," Mr. Arguello answered: "No, no. They just have to come back not yelling." Tr. 57-58. No evidence suggests that the failure of The Continental Group to recode the one card was due to discrimination based on national origin. Petitioners alleged that The Continental Group and Respondent selectively enforced these policies against Petitioners, but they produced absolutely no proof to support this claim, even as to Mr. Arguello's personal policy. At the time of the incident in the office, Petitioners had already incurred a number of unpaid fines and maintenance fees. When Mr. Woolley became irate at the prospect of being restricted to a single access card, despite his failure to meet all of his financial obligations to the community association, it is an easy inference that Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Arguello found Mr. Woolley's attitude inappropriate and decided not go out of their way to help Mr. Woolley, such as by activating one of his cards, unless he asked again in a more civilized fashion. Essentially, the only evidence of discrimination in this case is that Petitioners are Haitian, they did not get two access cards when they visited the management company's office, and The Continental Group did not complete the recoding of one of their cards after they left the office. Respondent argues that none of the representatives of Respondent or The Continental Group knew that Petitioners are Haitian. Certainly, this is the testimony of these witnesses. Both petitioners are dark-complected and speak English with a French accent, but it is unnecessary to determine if these facts are sufficient to support an inference of a different national origin because two additional facts stand between Petitioners and a prima facie case. First, even if The Continental Group employees knew that Petitioners are Haitian, there is no evidence of discrimination based on this place of origin. There is no evidence that Mr. Arguello or Mr. Gonzalez treated Petitioners differently from other residents who did not pay their fines and fees when it came to recoding access cards. This is true as to Respondent's policies and Mr. Arguello's personal policy. Second, there is no proof of any harm to Petitioners that they did not cause to themselves. At any time, in a normal tone of voice, they could have obtained a single access card, but they chose not to do so. If Mr. Arguello had not implemented his personal policy, Respondent perhaps could have proved that Petitioners commenced this proceeding for an improper purpose--namely, to harass Respondent. Respondent's policies restricting the availability of access cards based on whether residents were current on their obligations to the community association was written and disseminated among the residents. Thus, if Petitioners' claim of discrimination had been based exclusively on the implementation of these sensible, written policies, they might have exposed themselves to paying Respondent's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. However, Mr. Arguello's implementation of his personal policy--while understandable--raises a different issue in requiring the analysis of the intent and effect of another tier of decisionmaking by Respondent or, in this case, The Continental Group. Ultimately, as noted above, Mr. Arguello's implementation of his personal policy does not support a finding of a prima facie case of discrimination, but his policy's subjective standard makes the inference of an intent to harass on the part of Petitioners more difficult to make--to the point that such an inference cannot be made.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Margaret H. Mevers, Esquire Teresita M. Perez, Esquire Lydecker | Diaz 19th Floor 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Pierre Woolley Emmanuella Woolley 2033 Northwest 178th Way Pembroke Pines, Florida 33029
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all relevant times, respondent, Passport Internationale, Inc. (Passport or respondent), was a seller of travel registered with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). As such, it was required to post a performance bond with the Department conditioned on the performance of contracted services. In this case, petitioner, Helen Stahler, has filed a claim against the bond in the amount of $198.00 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. In response to an offer run in a local newspaper on an undisclosed date in early 1991, petitioner agreed to purchase a five-day, four-night trip for two to the Bahamas at a cost of $99.00 per person. For this, she wrote two checks payable to Passport, each in the amount of $99.00. Although Passport has no record of the transaction, it may be reasonably inferred that the advertisement was run by, and the package purchased directly from, Passport since petitioner's checks were endorsed by Passport and deposited in a bank used by that entity. After receiving a videotape, brochure and travel certificate, petitioner attempted by telephone to reserve certain dates for her trip. Because the certificate could not be used on a weekend, a fact not known at the time the certificate was purchased, petitioner became frustrated and requested a refund of her money by letter dated January 27, 1992. To date, she has never received a refund of her money.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner against the bond of respondent be granted in the amount of $198.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of January, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Helen Stahler 11200 Walsingham Road, Number 69 Largo, Florida 34648 Julie Johnson McCollum 2441 Bellevue Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Robert G. Worley, Esquire 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue On September 22, 1994, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Bureau of Timeshare issued a notice to show cause to Erni Hirsch alleging that Ms. Hirsch violated various provisions of Chapter 721, Florida Statutes, regarding vacation and timeshare plans. Specifically, the agency charged that Ms. Hirsch sold multiple timeshare periods as a "successor developer" or "concurrent developer" without providing required notices and filings. The issue is whether the violations occurred and, if so, what penalties and remedial action are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Erni Hirsch resides in Hollywood, Florida. She has a bachelor's degree in elementary education and a master's degree in public administration, and she has completed a doctorate program in public administration. Prior to 1973, Ms. Hirsch was an elementary school teacher and worked on curriculum for Dade County public schools. From 1973 through 1993, she worked for the Seminole Tribe of Florida setting up adult schools on the reservations, doing grant development and then acting as business manager for the tribe. She was employed full-time by the tribe and worked sometimes sixty to seventy hours a week. She now considers herself retired. Ms. Hirsch is married and has three grown children. The family used to go camping, but in the mid-1980's Ms. Hirsch began purchasing timeshare periods for the family's vacations. She initially purchased a timeshare period in the Hollywood Beach Tower, where she lives, and used it for a beach club and to trade for timeshare periods elsewhere. Ms. Hirsch continued purchasing timeshare periods, upgrading them into better exchange groups. She purchased timeshare periods in other plans, in other cities in Florida and sold them or she traded them in exchange clubs for her personal use and that of her family and friends. While she initially sold timeshares to family and friends, she eventually started advertising timeshare periods in the newspaper, giving her name and home telephone number to contact. In response to inquiries, she sent lists of the various timeshare periods she owned; she also sent letters or information sheets explaining the concept of timesharing and the exchange programs. When she had purchasers, she suggested they get representation by an attorney or title company. She did not receive escrow deposits and did not maintain an escrow account. Any escrow money was held by the attorney or title company. In some cases when purchasers changed their minds before closing, Ms. Hirsch let them have their money back. She never received complaints from purchasers and does not know whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (agency) received complaints. As stipulated by Ms. Hirsch, she owned and transferred title from herself to others in thirty-eight timeshare periods in twenty-one timeshare plans, as follows: HOLLYWOOD BEACH HOTEL AND TOWER Project No. PRXI000584: M. Racoma and Helen T. Racoma, No. 305, Wk 25, Deed Recorded 10/11/91 Rolando V. and Concepcion Barcenilla, No. 305, Wk 26, Deed Recorded 10/11/91 HOLLYWOOD BEACH HOTEL Project No. PRXI000186 Jack Sweetser and Virginia Sweetser, No. 604, Wk 22, Deed Recorded 10/4/91 Michael Mikola, No. 603, Wk 27, Deed Recorded 10/23/91 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE I Project No. PRTI000603 Gregory M. Makozy and Maria Makozy, No. B-04, Wk 45, Deed Recorded 9/21/93 Danielle Hirsch, No. A-08, Wk 24, Deed Recorded 2/23/94 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE III Project No. PRTI000608 Paul A. Pritchard and Faith M. Pritchard, No. L9, Wk 13, Deed Recorded 7/23/93 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE IV Project No. PRTI000609 Leonard A. and Louise E. Bussiere, No. K-09, Wk 6, Deed Recorded 4/7/92 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE V Project No. PRTI000610 Sanford Hirsch, No. J-09, Wk 36, Deed Recorded 4/13/94 Ronald T. and Helen D. Reichenbaum, No. G-06, Wk 51, Deed Recorded 11/19/92 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE VII Project No. PRTI000612 Roger L. Deskins, No. P-05, Wk 7, Deed Recorded 4/22/93 Anthony B. and Valerie A. Leatheart, No. X-10, Wk 52, Deed Recorded 2/13/92 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE IX Project No. PRTI000565 Richard D. Penner and Lorna R. Penner, No. U-10, Wk 21, Deed Recorded 3/25/93 Danielle Hirsch, No. V-05, Wk 31, Deed Recorded 2/23/94 Leo and Moreen T. Blanchette, No. T-08, Wk 39, Deed Recorded 9/24/92 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE XI Project No. PRTI000651 Richard and Eileen Wells, No. Q-11, Wk 22, Deed Recorded 1/22/92 RESORT WORLD OF ORLANDO, PHASE I Project No. PRXMI00376 Mitchel Vogel and Bonnie Vogel, No. B-105, Wk 45, Deed Recorded 1/8/93 Delores Miller, No. 212, Wk 46, Deed Recorded 12/23/92 R. P. and M. O. Gardiner, No. B-107, Wk 44, Deed Recorded 7/27/92 R. P. and M. O. Gardiner, No. A-115, Wk 43, Deed Recorded 7/27/92 Annette Carmona, No. C-211, Wk 33, Deed Recorded 9/23/92 Philip J. and Shelagh M. Price, No. 214, Wk 14, Deed Recorded 9/23/92 RESORT WORLD OF ORLANDO, PHASE II Project No. PRXMI00620 Phase II (A) Peter J. and Madeline A. Nolan, No. A-217, Wk 29, Deed Recorded 9/22/92 Phase II (B) George P. and Karen L. Wong, Trustees, No. E-222, Wk 52, Deed Recorded 7/92 Phase II (C) Gregory P. and Carol Gordon, No. C-234, Wk 23, Deed Recorded 8/7/91 Phase II (G) Lillie R. Long, No. 274, Wk 41, Deed Recorded 11/5/92 THE OAKS AT RESORT WORLD, PHASE IV Anthony M. and Debra A. Kozar, No. 425, Wk 15, Deed Recorded 12/2/92 THE SPAS AT RESORT WORLD, PHASE V Mark J. Wilma, Anna E. Wilma, William K. Zelenc and Nicolett J. Zelenc, No. 527, Wk 11, Deed Recorded 6/24/93 CLUB SEVILLA Horace Curry and Sandra E. Curry, No. 321, Wk 44, Deed Recorded 9/20/91 HIGH POINT WORLD RESORT, PHASE I Marc Van Hove, No. 105, Wk 41, Deed Recorded 3/12/92 VISTANA FALLS CONDOMINIUM Robert L. and Hein T. Hopkins, No. 220, Wk 24, Deed Recorded 11/11/93 John T. and Deborah L. Ryan, No. 208, Wk 36, Deed Recorded 7/13/93 VISTANA CONDOMINIUM Project No. PRXPI00605 Prabhas and Madulika Kejriwal, No A-12, Wk 27, Deed Recorded 5/21/93 ORANGE LAKE COUNTRY CLUB VILLAS Project No. PRXPI00325 James O. and Hildegard J.L. Buss, No. 225, Wk 51, Deed Recorded 9/7/93 CLUB ORLANDO VACATION RESORT I Project No. PRTI000652 Mitchel and Bonnie Vogel, No. 144, Wk 18 (even years), Deed Recorded 1/8/93 SAND AND SURF, A CONDOMINIUM Project No. PRXMI00398 Clearwater Properties, Inc., No. 255, Wks 51/52, Deed Recorded 8/3/90 SEVEN SEAS, A CONDOMINIUM Project No. PRXI000431 Bing S. Laj, No. 310, Wk 51, Deed Recorded 10/6/89 Barbara Uzmack, No. 108, Wk 32, Deed Recorded 8/29/88 Each of the timeshare plans is located in the State of Florida. Except for the two grantees named Hirsch, there is no evidence of kinship between Ms. Hirsch and the purchasers. At all times material to the allegations of the order to show cause, each of the timeshare plans was comprised of more than seven timeshare periods over a period of at least three years. The initial purchase price was $1,000 or more in thirty-four of the timeshare periods sold by Ms. Hirsch; in four periods the purchase price was less than $1,000. For each timeshare period the purchaser from Ms. Hirsch was contractually and statutorily obligated to pay a recurring maintenance fee. Ms. Hirsch's income from her sales of timeshare periods was: YEAR TIMESHARE GROSS INCOME TIMESHARE NET INCOME 1995 $ 7,000 ($2,000) 1994 $ 70,000 ($3,000) 1993 $ 75,000 $3,893.02 1992 $109,000 $5,981.12 1991 $ 25,000 $ 500.00 Ms. Hirsch stipulates that, as charged in the notice to show cause with respect to the timeshare periods she offered and sold, she: did not file any public offering statements with the Petitioner for review and approval with respect to the timeshare periods and timeshare plans prior to offering them to the public; did not provide her timeshare purchasers with a public offering statement that had been approved by the Petitioner with respect to the timeshare periods and timeshare plans prior to closing on sales; did not establish an escrow account with an approved escrow agent as to each timeshare plan; did not at any time place all funds or other property received from or on behalf of purchasers into an escrow account with respect to the timeshare plans; closed on sales of the timeshare periods prior to providing her timeshare purchasers with an approved public offering statement; and did not provide Petitioner with the names and addresses of the persons to whom she had sold timeshare periods. During the relevant period Ms. Hirsch did not incorporate as a business, maintain an office outside of her home, maintain a business telephone, or otherwise operate in other than her own individual capacity. Where she lives she is not permitted to operate an office out of her home. The agency began investigating Ms. Hirsch's timeshare sales activities upon complaint from Michael Lucas of American Timeshare Resales, in the Orlando/Kissimmee area. Sometime in 1993, Ms. Hirsch received a notice of the agency's investigation. After being informed of the agency's concern, Ms. Hirsch contacted someone in Orlando with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Division of Real Estate. From that contact she understood that she was not subject to regulation as long as she was selling timeshare periods that she owned herself. She also contacted an attorney whom she understood specialized in condominium and timeshare law. She received an opinion letter from another attorney in the same firm, Becker and Poliakoff, P.A. The letter stated that arguably she was not a successor or concurrent developer because she purchased her timeshare periods from individuals who were not themselves developers. The letter concluded there were no cases directly on point and the agency might claim that her sales in the ordinary course of business qualified her as a developer. (Respondent's exhibit no. 2) When the agency did, indeed, pursue its administrative enforcement action, Ms. Hirsch ceased buying and selling timeshare periods. At the time of hearing she had two left, which she used, and she disavowed any further interest in acquiring more. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is evident that what started as a family vacation program developed into a business pursuit. It is impossible to ignore the volume of the timeshare periods being sold, the active advertising campaign and the gross income being generated (over $100,000 in one year, 1992). The fact that there were net losses or very small net gains only establishes that large sums were being spent in the enterprise. The evidence belies any claim that all of the timeshare periods were acquired by Ms. Hirsch for her own occupancy, even if the trades for other periods in other plans are considered. Ms. Hirsch did not intend to commit any violations and she did not intend to deprive her purchasers of their statutory rights. As a layperson, albeit well-educated and experienced in financial matters, she obviously never considered herself a "developer" of any sort; she relied on advice of counsel in that regard as well. It is evident that Ms. Hirsch unwittingly slipped within the regulatory reach of timeshare law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Ms. Hirsch violated Sections 721.07, 721.08 and 721.10, Florida Statutes, and ordering that she cease and desist. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK, 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 21st day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0951 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. 4.-5. Adopted in paragraph 6. 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. 7.-10. Adopted in paragraph 8. Accepted as a conclusion of law. Adopted in paragraph 9. Accepted, but unnecessary. The figures speak for themselves. 14.-16. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 5 and 15. 17.-18. Rejected as argument, but incorporated in part in conclusions of law. Rejected. Respondent's testimony is credited, but only to show that she made some attempts to determine her legal obligations. It is accepted that the Division of Real Estate does not regulate timeshares; it does, however, regulate persons who sell or offer to sell real property. Adopted in paragraph 13. 21.-23. Adopted in part in paragraph 13; otherwise rejected as argument or unnecessary. 24. Adopted in substance in paragraph 15. 25.-26. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 5. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Rejected as unsubstantiated by the evidence (as to whether she contacted any agency prior to reselling any timeshare period). Accepted that she understood that to be the agency's response. See paragraph 13. 6.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. 11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 11. 12.-14. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12, except that she received notice sometime in 1993. 18.-19. Adopted in part in paragraph 13. The opinion letter was more equivocal than characterized in this proposed finding. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Respondent did not contact counsel until after she was contacted by the agency. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The purchase price, only, was less than $1,000. 22.-23. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 24.-25. Addressed in conclusion of law no. 26. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura L. Glenn, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tracy Hirsch, Esquire John Militana, Esquire Militana, Militana and Militana, P.A. 8801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 101 Miami Shores, Florida 33138 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 W. James Norred, Acting Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Joanne Gamache is a white, American female, and she owns 51 percent of the stock of Sun World Travel, Inc., (hereafter Sun). She submitted an application for MBE Certification in behalf of Sun to the Department of Management Services, (hereafter DMS). (R.E. 1, p. 24-31) Gillies Gamache, Joanne's husband, owns 49 percent of Sun World Travel. (Tr. 19-20) The major business purpose of this business is the sale of travel. (Tr. 35) Sun is a corporation domiciled in Florida with less than 25 employees, and a net worth of less than $1 million dollars. DMS, through its Certification Officer Morris, reviewed the file, completed an on site visit to Petitioner's business, and Sun's application for MBE Certification was tentatively denied. (Tr. 97-100) Sun was duly notified of DMS's decision, and filed a timely request for formal hearing on the intended agency action. In 1978, Gilles Gamache bought a travel agency in Broward County called Transit Travel using the joint savings of Gilles and Joanne Gamache. (Tr. 11- 12) All of the stock of this travel agency was issued to Gilles Gamache. (Tr. 19) He was both travel agent and the manager of Transit Travel. (Tr. 11) Joanne Gamache also worked in the agency making resevations, delivering tickets and doing the bookkeeping. (Tr. 15-16) Both Gamaches were also employed full time as teachers in the Broward County school system. (Tr. 12-13, 15-16) In 1981, the Gamaches moved to Tallahassee selling both their home and the business in South Florida. (Tr.14) Gilles Gamache opened another travel agency in Tallahassee called Sun World Travel using the proceeds of the sale of Transit Travel and other jointly held property. (Tr. 14 and 31) He was initially the 100 percent owner of the agency. (Tr. 19) Gilles Gamache initially worked in the travel agency full time and Joanne Gamache continued to teach school full time, and deliver tickets and work on business' books. (Tr. 16-19) She occasionally made some reservations. (Tr. 16-19) In 1989, Gilles Gamache transferred 51 percent ownership of Sun to Joanne Gamache. (Tr. 19-20) This shift resulted when Gilles Gamache became involved in additional business ventures, Joanne Gamache had more time to devote to the business because their daughter had entered school, and the transfer reflected the ownership interest which Joanne Gamache had possessed in Sun and its predeccessor, Transit Travel. It is incorrect to state that Joanne Gamache did not pay anything for her share of the business because she would have been entitled to a share of the business equal to her contribution to the joint funds used to purchase Transit Travel and jointly held property from which the money came to start Sun. (Tr. 31) The uncontroverted evidence is that Joanne's contributions to those savings was greater than Gilles' because she had always maintained her full time employment as a teacher. (Tr. 43 and HO's notes p. 6, 14, 27) The bylaws of the corporation provide that no transfer of stock which would dilute the 51 percent ownership of this corporation by minorites shall be permitted. (Tr. 21, Pet. Exh. 2, Article IV, Section 5) Concurrent with the shift in ownership and responsibilities, Sun hired an office manager because of a technical requirement that the manager of such an agency must be a certified reservationist, and Joanne Gamache is not certified. Initially, one of the existing employees, who was certified, was employed as the manager. Thereafter, Cindy Cimbora was hired as the manager; however, she is under the direction and control of Joanne Gamache. Gilles Gamache continues to be employed as a reservationist with Sun, as well has being the sole employee of two other companies which he owns. One of these companies is an importing company and the other involves text books. Gilles Gamache works 20 to 30 hours per week for Sun World Travel and 16 hours in his other businesses. (Tr. 80, 29-30) One of the major purchasing decisions made by Sun in the last five years was the purchase of the current business site. Joanne Gamache suggested the purchase of the building as a business location for Sun, and was the prime mover in its purchase, although both Gamaches participated in the negotiations for the purchase. The Gamaches own the building personally and rent the building to their businesses. The office of Gilles Gamache's companies are also in this building, but separate from those of Sun. None of the travel agency's business is transacted in the area used by his other businesses, and visa versa. (Tr. 76) Joanne Gamahe designed, selected and purchased the business' sign, entrance, and doors. She contracted for the security system for Sun. Rent paid by Sun on the building is less than $20,000 a year. Joanne Gamache earns $32,000 a year as a teacher and $7,000 a year from Sun World Travel. (Tr.46-47) Joanne Gamache goes to the business before and after school to deal with day to day business decisions providing direction to Cimbora in writing, directly, and by telepone. Joanne Gamache does a portion of her bookkeeping work at home at night and on the weekends. (Tr. 49) She estimates that she works 15-20 hours per week for Sun World Travel during the school year. Currently, Cindy Cimbora directs the other agents during business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Tr. 76-94) The Gamaches, as teachers, originally decided to engage in the travel business because its peak busy periods coincide with traditional school breaks. Sun employs Joanne Gamache, Gilles Gamache, Cindy Cimbora, Mary Waltman and John Moseley. Joanne Gamache makes personnel decisions, although most of the current employees were employed prior to the transfer of business ownership, and prepares and signs all payroll checks. She did interview and hire Cindy Cimbora, a white, American female in January 1992, on an employment contract which provides that Cimbora has first right of refusal if the agency is put up for sale. Cindy Cimbora is an experienced travel agent, and certified reservationist. (Tr. 50-51) Gilles Gamache signed the latest contract for the business' reservation computer system; however, Joanne Gamach negotiated the contract, and did not sign in behalf of the business because she was out of town because of an illness in her family. (Tr. 36) Joanne Gamache negotiated and signed the previous contract for reservation computer services. (Pet. Exh. 4 & 5, and Tr. 37) Joanne Gamache currently pays payroll, purchases supplies, handles accounts receivable, deals with the accountant about taxes, and gives direction to Cindy Cimbora on business to pursue. Joanne Gamache controls the finances of the business. Sun has a line of credit with First Florida Bank for which both Gamaches are jointly and severally liable. The business regularly uses credit card accounts for which both Gamaches are jointly and severally liable. Sun is unable to procure credit without the personal guarantee of both Gamaches. Cimbora and Gilles are additional authorized signatories on the business' checking account to facilitate transactions, such as making refunds to customers. Joanne Gamache writes the majority of the checks to suppliers and service providers. The company supplied a list of daily business activities for each owner at the request of the Certification Officer. (R.E. 1, p. 33-36) Gilles Gamache listed the following duties: disseminate information on new travel deals, coordinate ticket deliveries, organize travel literature files, look out for the best insurance values, monitor sales, solicit new business and make travel arrangements for clients. (R.E. 1 p. 34) Joanne Gamache listed her activities as the following: purchase goods and services, sign checks, do payroll, monitor profitability, monitor overhead costs, monitor collection of commissions, monitor stock of documents, issue refunds and process weekly airline report. (R.E. 1 p. 35) All of Joanne Gamache's functions related to management and the setting of policy, not day to day arrangements for travel; however, her duties are essential to the success of the business. In order to establish and maintain a travel agency the Airline Reporting Corporation requires that a travel agent with two years experience must run the business. (Tr. 123) To become a travel agent, a person must take a four hundred hour course covering topics including the opening and closing of a sale, learning airports, the destination of airlines and scheduling. (Tr. 88) There is a separate course requirement for the COVIA reservation system. (Tr. 88) COVIA is a system for making computerized airline reservations. Joanne Gamache has not attended these courses and is not a certified travel agent. (Tr. 75) This is the reason Sun employs Cindy Cimbora. The department's determination was based upon its conclusions regarding control of the business. To determine who has control of a family- owned business the agency looks at the contributions of each family member, the history of involvement with the business of each spouse, who sets policy, the resumes of the owners, the relative involvement of each owner in the business, and the length of time each had been active in the travel business. The agency initially concluded that Gilles Gamache's experience in the business was more extensive than his wife's, and that Joanne Gamache does not control Sun World Travel. (Tr 123-125)
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered granting the Petitioner's request for certification of the minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of October, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1993.
The Issue Has Respondent Fancy Farms Sales, Inc. (Fancy Farms) made proper accounting to Petitioner Lonnie Pearce in accordance with Section 604.22(1), Florida Statutes, for agriculture products delivered to Fancy Farms from October 28, 1994, through December 10, 1994, by Lonnie Pearce to be handled by Fancy Farms as agent for Lonnie Pearce on a net return basis as defined in Section 604.15(4), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Lonnie Pearce was in the business of growing and selling "agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes, and was a "producer" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Fancy Farms was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, as evidenced by license number 8453 issued by the Department, supported by bond number 57 92 20 in the amount of $75,000, written by Gulf Insurance Company with an inception date of September 1, 1994, and an expiration date of August 31, 1995. Beginning October 28, 1994, and continuing through December 10, 1994, Lonnie Pearce delivered certain quantities of an agricultural product (zucchini) to Fancy Farms. It is the accounting for these zucchini (zukes) that is in dispute. It was stipulated by the parties that Fancy Farms was acting as agent in the sale of the zukes delivered to Fancy Farms for the account of Lonnie Pearce on a net return basis. There is no dispute as the quantity or size of the zukes delivered by Lonnie Pearce to Fancy Farms during the above period of time. Furthermore, there is no dispute as to the charges made by Fancy Farms for handling the zukes, including but not limited to the commission charged by Fancy Farms. The agreed upon commission was ten per cent (10 percent) of the price received by Fancy Farms from its customers. There is no evidence that Fancy Farms found any problem with the quality of the zukes delivered to Fancy Farms by Lonnie Pearce during the above period of time. Upon delivering the zukes to Fancy Farms, Pearce was given a prenumbered receiving ticket showing Lonnie Pearce as Grower number 6 and containing the following additional information: (a) date and time of delivery; (b) produce number, i.e., 37 indicating fancy zukes and 38 indicating medium zukes; (c) description of the produce, i.e., zukes, fancy; (d) a lot number containing number of delivery ticket, grower number and produce number, i.e. 2074-6-37 and; (e) the number of units of zukes received by Fancy Farm. The accounting for the zukes from the following delivery receipt ticket numbers is being contested in this proceeding: (a) 2074 dated October 28, 1994, lot nos. 2074-6-37 and 2074-6-38; (b) 2078 dated October 31, 1994, lot nos. 2078-6-37 and 2078-6-38; (c) 2086 dated November 3, 1994, lot nos. 2086-6-37 and 2086-6-38; (d) 2103 dated November 4, 1994, lot nos. 2103-6-37 and 2103-6-38; (e) 2128 dated November 8, 1994, lot nos. 2128-6-37 and 2128-6-38; (f) 2144 dated November 10, 1994, lot nos. 2144-6-37 and 2144-6-38; (g) 2162 dated November 12, 1994, lot nos. 2162-6-37 and 2162-6-38; (h) 2180 dated November 15, 1994, lot nos. 2180-6-37 and 2180-6-38; (i) 2241 dated November 29, 1994, lot nos. 2241-6-37 and 2241-6-38; (j) 2253 dated December 1, 1994, lot nos. 2253-6- 37 and 2253-6-38; (k) 2266 dated December 3, 1994, lot nos. 2266-6-37 and 2266- 6-38; (l) 2290 dated December 7, 1994, lot nos. 2290-6-37 and 2290-6-38 and; (m) 2314 dated December 10, 1994, lot nos. 2314-6-37 and 2314-6-38. Once Fancy Farms found a customer for the zukes, Fancy Farms prepared a prenumbered billing invoice. Additionally, a bill of lading and load sheet was prepared and attached to the invoice. The bill of lading and load sheet would have the same number as the invoice. Basically, the invoice and bill of lading contained the customer's name and address, produce number, description of produce, number of units ordered, number of units shipped and the price per unit. The load sheet contains the customer's name, produce number, description of produce, units ordered, units shipped and the lot number for the units that made up the shipment. On numerous occasions Fancy Farms made adjustments to the selling price after the price had been quoted and accepted but before the invoice was prepared. Fancy Farms did not make any written notations in its records showing the adjustments to the price or the reasons for the adjustments to the price. Salvatore Toscano testified, and I find his testimony to be credible, that this usually occurred when there was a decrease in the market price after Fancy Farms made the original quote. Therefore, in order to keep the customer, Fancy Farms made an adjustment to the price. Pearce was never made aware of these price adjustments. In accounting for the zukes delivered by Pearce, Fancy Farms prepared a Grower's Statement which included the delivery receipt number, the date of delivery, the lot number, grower number, produce number, description of the produce, quantity (number of units), price per unit and total due. Payment for the zukes was made to Lonnie Pearce from these statements by Fancy Farms. On occasions payment was for only one delivery receipt while at other times payment was for several delivery receipts for different dates. Petitioner's exhibit 2 is the Florida Vegetable Report (Market Report), Volume XIV, Nos. 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 31, 33, 35, 37 and 40, dated October 28, 31, 1994, November 3, 4,8, 10, 14, 15, 29, 1994, and December 1, 5, 7, 12, 1994, respectively. The Market Report is a federal-state publication which reports the demand (moderate), market (steady), volume sold and prices paid for numerous vegetables, including zucchini, on a daily basis. The prices quoted for zucchini is for 1/2 and 5/9th bushel cartons and includes palletizing. The average cost for palletizing in the industry is 65 per carton. Fancy Farms receives and sells zukes in one-half (1/2) bushel cartons. Fancy Farms does not palletize the cartons for handling at its warehouse or for shipment. From October 28, 1994, through November 8, 1994, Pearce delivered a combined total of 431 units of fancy and medium zukes which included all lot numbers listed on delivery receipt ticket numbers 2074, 2078, 2086, 2103 and 2128. Pearce was paid $1,715.70 by Fancy Farms for those zukes as evidenced by Pearce's Grower Statement dated November 17, 1994 (Petitioner's exhibit 1). Fancy Farms sold this combined total of 431 units of zukes for $1,901.36 as evidenced by invoice nos. 3755, 3777, 3806 and 3814. The commission earned on these sales is $190.14 (0.10 x 1901.36 = 190.14). The amount owed by Pearce after deducting the amount paid by Fancy Farms ($1,715.70) and the commission ($190.14) is: $1,901.36 - $1,715.70 - $190.14 = -$4.48. The Market Report shows a much higher price being paid on the market for both fancy zukes (mostly $10.00 on 10/28/94 and mostly $8.00 on 10/31/94) and medium zukes (mostly $8.00 on 10/28/94) and mostly $6.00 on 10/31/94) than was allowed Pearce for zukes delivered on the same dates to Fancy Farms. However, the zukes delivered on October 28 & 31, 1994, were not sold by Fancy Farms until November 1, 1994. There is no Market Report for November 1, 1994, included in Petitioner's exhibit 2. The Market Reports for November 3, 4, 8 and 10, 1994, included in Petitioner's exhibit 2, show fancy zukes selling for $4.00 - $6.65 and medium zukes selling $2.25 - $4.65. The prices ($5.00 - $6.00 for fancy zukes and $3.50 to $4.14 for medium zukes) received by Fancy Farms for those zukes delivered to Fancy Farms by Pearce beginning October 28 through November 11, 1994, are in line with the Market Report. Therefore, the prices received by Fancy Farms have been used to calculate the amount due Pearce. From November 10, 1994, through November 15, 1994, Pearce delivered a combined total of 645 units of fancy and medium zukes to Fancy Farms which included delivery receipt ticket numbers 2144, 2162 and 2180. Pearce was paid $2,461.15 by Fancy Farms for those zukes as evidenced by the Grower Statement dated November 25, 1994 (Petitioner's exhibit 1). Fifty-three units of medium zukes on delivery receipt no. 2144 (lot no. 2144-6-38), 128 units of fancy zukes on delivery ticket 2162 (lot no. 2162-6-37), 30 units of medium zukes on delivery ticket no. 2180 (lot no. 2180-6-38) and 66 units of fancy zukes on delivery ticket no. 2180 (lot no. 2180-6-37) were not accounted for by invoice. Therefore, the price established in the Market Report of $5.00, $8.00, $6.00 and $8.00, respectively were used to calculate the amount owed Pearce for those zukes. The total amount calculated as owed to Pearce for the zukes represented by delivery receipt ticket nos. 2144, 2162 and 2180 is $3,513.00. The net difference due Pearce after deducting the amount paid to Pearce and the commission is: $3,513.00 - $2,461.15 - $351.30 = $700.55 On November 29, 1994, Pearce delivered 79 units of fancy zukes and 48 units of medium zukes for a combined total of 127 units and was paid $5.00 per unit for the fancy zukes and $3.00 per unit for the medium zukes for a total of $539.00. From invoice no. 3941 it appears that Fancy Farms made an adjustment for its customer in the price per unit for fancy zukes that was not reflected in the price per unit paid to Pearce. The price per unit of $5.00 for fancy zukes paid Pearce is more in line with the price established in the Market Report and is the price used to calculate the amount due Pearce. Invoice no. 3927 indicates that Fancy Farms was paid $3.00 per unit for medium zukes. Therefore, the amount due Pearce is: $5.00 per unit x 79 units = $ 395.00 $3.00 per unit x 48 units = $ 144.00 Total $ 539.00 Less: Ten per cent commission $ 53.90 Amount received by Pearce $ 539.00 Balance Owed by Pearce -$ 53.90 From December 1, 1994, through December 7, 1994, Pearce delivered 181 units of fancy zukes represented by lot nos. 2253-6-37, 2266-6-37 and 2290-6-37 and 160 units of medium zukes represented by lot nos. 2253-6-38, 2266-6-38 and 2290-6-38 for a combined total units of 341 units and was paid $1,385.00 for those zukes by Fancy Farms as evidenced by Pearce's Grower Statement dated December 15, 1994. The price per unit paid by Fancy Farms to Pearce was $5.00 fancy zukes and $3.00 for medium zukes. Other than 73 units of fancy zukes represented by lot no. 2253-6-37 which were billed out by Fancy Farms at $4.25 per unit, there was no evidence of the price per unit received by Fancy Farms for the balance of the fancy zukes and the medium zukes. On December 1, 1994, the Market Report shows the price per unit for fancy and medium zukes to be mostly $8.65 and mostly $6.65 per unit, respectively. Pearce should received a price of $4.25 per unit for 73 units of fancy zukes; $8.65 per unit for 30 units of fancy zukes and $6.65 per unit for 33 units of medium zukes delivered on December 1, 1994. The per unit price of $6.00 and $3.50 for fancy and medium zukes respectively, received by Fancy Farms as indicated on invoice nos. 3946 and 4049 falls within the per unit price reported in the Market Report for the dates of December 5 & 7, 1994. Therefore, Pearce should receive: $4.25 per unit x 73 units = $ 310.25 $8.65 per unit x 30 units = $ 259.50 $6.65 per unit x 33 units = $ 219.45 $6.00 per unit x 78 units = $ 468.00 $3.50 per unit x 127 units = $ 444.50 Total $1,701.70 Less: Ten percent commission $ 170.17 Amount received by Pearce $1,385.00 Amount owed Pearce $ 146.53 On December 10, 1994, Pearce delivered 39 units of medium zukes and 32 units of fancy zukes to Fancy Farms and was paid $3.50 per unit for medium zukes and $5.50 per unit for fancy zukes for a total $312.50 by Fancy Farms. There is no invoice or other evidence to show what Fancy Farms received for the above 71 units of zukes. However, the Market Report reflects that fancy zukes were selling mostly for $7.00 to $8.00 per unit and medium zukes were selling mostly for $6.00 per unit. Therefore, Pearce should receive: $7.50 per unit x 32 units = $ 240.00 $6.00 per unit x 39 units Total $ 474.00 = $ 234.00 Less: Ten percent commission $ 47.40 Amount received by Pearce $ 312.50 Amount owed Pearce $ 114.10 November 17, 1994 -$ 4.48 November 25, 1994 $ 700.55 December 7, 1994 -$(-53.90) December 15, 1994 $ 146.53 December 23, 1994 $ 114.10 SubTotal Less: Positive Adjustment/ $ 906.80 The net amount owed to Pearce by Fancy Farms: From Grower Statements dated: Grower Statement dated December 25, 1994. $ 127.00 Balance owed Pearce $ 779.80
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent Fancy Farms Sales, Inc. be ordered to pay Petitioner Lonnie Pearce the sum of $779.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2559A The parties elected not to file any proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Lonnie Pearce 1676 CR 731 Venus, Florida James A. Crocker Qualified Representative Fancy Farms Sales, Inc. 1305 W. Dr. M. L. King, Jr., Blvd. Plant City, Florida 33564-9006 Gulf Insurance Company Legal Department 4600 Fuller Drive Irving, Texas 75038-6506
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all relevant times, respondent, Passport Internationale, Inc. (Passport or respondent), was a seller of travel registered with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). As such, it was required to post a performance bond with the Department conditioned on the performance of contracted services. In this case, petitioner, H. Fleischer, has filed a claim against the bond for $648.95 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. On an undisclosed date in 1991, petitioner responded to a newspaper advertisement promoting a five-day, four-night cruise to the Bahamas for $99.00 per person. After calling a toll-free number, petitioner was told that in order to take the trip, he must purchase a video for $198.00 plus $11.95 postage, or a total of $209.95. Petitioner agreed to purchase the video in order to take advantage of the trip. The advertisement was being run by a telemarketeer in Tennessee who had been authorized to sell Passport's travel certificates. As such, it was acting as an agent on behalf of Passport. In June 1991, the assets and liabilities of Passport were assumed by Incentive Internationale Travel, Inc. (Incentive). Even so, any travel described in certificates sold after that date under the name of Passport was still protected by Passport's bond. Within seven days after receiving the video and other materials, which carried the name, address, logo and telephone number of Passport, petitioner returned the same to the telemarketeer along with a request for a refund of his money. When he did not receive a refund, he filed a complaint with the Department. In response to a Department inquiry, in December 1991 Incentive declined to issue a refund on the ground the video was purchased from a Tennessee firm, and not Passport, and Passport had never received any money from the telemarketeer. Incentive offered, however, to honor the travel certificate by allowing petitioner to purchase a trip to the Bahamas under the same terms and conditions as were previously offered. On July 6, 1992, petitioner accepted Incentive's offer and paid that firm $439.00 for additional accommodations, meals, fees and taxes. Shortly after July 24, 1992, petitioner received a letter from Incentive advising that his trip had been cancelled and that the firm had filed for bankruptcy protection. To date, petitioner has not received a refund of his money.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner against the bond of respondent be granted, and he be reimbursed $648.95 from the bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of December, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Fleischer 15 Wind Ridge Road North Caldwell, NJ 07006 Michael J. Panaggio 2441 Bellevue Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Robert G. Worley, Esquire 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact This case was filed by Petitioner on behalf of Ida Heaps pursuant to Section 760.35, Florida Statutes. The case alleged that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner, Heaps, based on race when Respondent did not lease a home to Petitioner Heaps. On July 22, 2004, in Tavares, Florida, a one-day hearing was held after which post-hearing recommended orders were filed. Based on the evidence a Recommended Order finding Respondent guilty of a discriminatory housing practice against Ms. Heaps in violation of Section 760.23(1), Florida Statutes, was entered on February 1, 2005. Petitioner was therefore the prevailing party in this matter. The Recommended Order also found that Petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs; and reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees and costs in the event the parties were unable to agree on such an award. On January 31, 2005, the Commission issued its Final Order approving the Recommended Order. The time limit for appealing the Final Order has passed. Petitioner has not been able to resolve the amount of fees and costs incurred in this matter. As evidence of the amount of attorney’s fees, Petitioner, FCHR, submitted an affidavit outlining the hours and costs spent incurred in the underlying case by its attorney. The requested fees are limited to hours expended on Petitioner’s behalf in DOAH Case No. 04-1593, including time spent in travel and establishing a right to attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner’s attorney spent a total of 53 hours on this case, which include 46 hours for legal services and seven hours for travel. The hours multiplied by the reasonable rate results in a total of $14,850.00 for attorney’s fees. The Commission’s direct costs total $453.70, which include the travel costs of Petitioner’s attorney and investigator to attend the hearing and the court reporter’s fee. The time spent on this case by the Petitioner’s attorney was reviewed by an outside expert. The expert has found the time to be reasonable and has recommended a reasonable hourly rate, arrived at independently of the Commission and its attorneys and without direction by Petitioner, based on the nature, novelty and complexity of the case, and the expertise of the Petitioner’s attorney in federal and Florida administrative and anti-discrimination law. The expert opined that a rate of $300.00 per hour legal services and $150.00 per hour for travel was reasonable. Respondent did not challenge the affidavit of Petitioner’s or the expert’s opinion. The amount of hours and costs reflected in the affidavit are reasonable for this type of case. Likewise, the hourly fees for such litigation are reasonable for this type of case and the long experience of Petitioner’s attorney. Therefore, Petitioner, FCHR, is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $15,303.70.
The Issue The issue is whether, due to the nonresponsiveness or misscoring of Intervenor's proposal, Respondent's intent to award a contract to Intervenor based on its proposal submitted in response to a request for proposals known as Florida Travel Demand Modeling Software and License (RFP) is contrary to the governing statutes, rules or policies, or the RFP specifications, as provided by section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact RFP and Proposals In November 2017, Respondent published the RFP. The RFP is divided into parts, including Special Conditions, Scope of Services, Price Proposal Form, and Introduction, which, according to Special Condition 36, are to be interpreted in this order in the event of conflicting provisions. The purpose of the RFP is to procure travel demand modeling software, which projects future service demands on a transportation system, so that transportation planners, engineers, and policymakers can design, schedule, prioritize, and budget transportation projects and expenditures. The Price Proposal Form is the first page of the RFP. It contains four columns to be completed by the proposer with dollar figures for year 1, year 2, year 3, and 3-year total. The Price Proposal Form contains five rows for the following prices: "Model Conversions," "Training," "Annual License Renewal," "Base Software Cost," and "OVERALL PRICE." The next part of the RFP is the Introduction. Introduction 1 invites interested persons to submit proposals "to provide travel demand modeling software and licensing in Florida for [Respondent], MPOs [Metropolitan Planning Organizations], local agencies and universities (teaching only)." The boldface language alerts prospective proposers that, although Respondent is conducting the procurement, the MPOs, local agencies, and universities in their academic capacity will be co-licensees with Respondent. Introduction 1 states that Respondent "intends to award this contract to the responsive and responsible Proposer whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous" to Respondent. Introduction 1 states that the estimated term of the contract is three years. Special Condition 1 warns that a proposer will be considered nonresponsive unless it is registered with the myfloridamarketplace system by the scheduled date for the opening of technical proposals. Special Condition 6 incorporates the Scope of Services. Special Condition 7 states that Respondent intends to award the contract to the "responsive and responsible vendor with the highest cumulative total points for the evaluation criteria." Special Condition 20 warns that a proposer may not apply "conditions . . . to any aspect of the RFP," and the placement of such conditions "may result in the proposal being rejected as a conditional proposal (see "RESPONSIVENESS OF PROPOSALS")." Special Condition 21 is "Responsiveness of Proposals." Special Condition 21.1 states that a: responsive proposal is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this [RFP] in accordance with all requirements of this [RFP] and receiving [70] points or more on the Technical Proposal. Proposals found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A proposal may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons that include . . . failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional proposals, incomplete proposals, indefinite or ambiguous proposals, and improper and/or undated signatures. Special Condition 22.1 calls for each proposer to submit, each in its own sealed package, a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal. Special Condition 22.2 requires that the Technical Proposal be divided into six scored sections and 30 unscored subsections; the six scored sections comprising five technical sections and one price section. The six scored sections are the six main sections of the Scope of Services, which is discussed below. Special Condition 22.4 states that "Technical Proposals should not exceed 30 pages in total." Special Condition 30 requires at least three evaluators with suitable experience and knowledge. Each evaluator will independently score each proposal, and the Procurement Officer will average the scores for each Proposer. During the evaluation process, the Procurement Officer is to examine the proposals for responsiveness and "automatically reject . . ." those that the officer finds are nonresponsive. Special Condition 30.2 explains that the technical evaluation "is the process of reviewing the Proposer's response to evaluate the experience, qualifications, and capabilities of the proposers to provide the desired services and assure a quality product." For the five technical sections making up the Technical Proposal, Special Condition 30.2.a assigns a maximum of 90 points, as follows: General Platform Capabilities 25 points Network 20 points Hardware Requirements and Options 10 points Development and Advanced Options 10 points Other Considerations 25 points These five sections are, respectively, Scope of Services 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Special Condition 30.2 states that, in evaluating the Technical Proposals, each evaluator is to use the following scale in assigning a single score for each section: Exceeds Reply fully meets all 4 Expectations specifications and offers innovative solutions to meet specifications. Reply exceeds minimum specifica- tions and provisions in most aspects for the specific items. Meets Reply adequately meets the 3 Expectations minimum described need, or provisions of the specific needs and is generally capable of meeting [Respondent's] needs for specific items. Partially Reply does not fully 2 Meets address the need, one or Expectations more major considerations are not addressed, or is so limited that it results in a low degree of confidence in the [proposal]. Reply is lacking in some essential aspects for the specific items. Does Not Meet Reply fails to address the 1 Expectations need, or it does not describe any experience related to the component. Reply is inadequate in most basic specifications or provisions for the specific items. Insufficient information provided to be evaluated. For the Price Structure, Special Condition 30.2.b states that the lowest Price Proposal earns 10 points and the other Price Proposals receive points based on a formula in which 10 is multiplied by a fraction whose numerator is the lowest Price Proposal and whose denominator is the price of the subject Price Proposal. Thus, a Price Proposal with the lowest price $100,000 would earn 10 points, and a proposal with a price of $120,000 would earn 8.33 points ($100,000/$120,000 x 10). Scope of Services 1 notes that the Scope of Services is the product of input from the Florida Model Task Force (FMTF), which comprises members of the Florida modeling community. Scope of Services 1 describes the objective of the procurement: [Respondent] has for more than three decades promoted a unified statewide modeling approach for consistency to the application of engineering and planning travel demand modeling activities. As part of this effort [Respondent] makes available a common modeling software platform for use by all public agencies in Florida which includes [Respondent], . . . MPOs, County and City Governments and Regional Planning Councils. Additionally, Florida universities are provided a limited teaching license for teaching and research purposes. [Respondent] seeks to . . . select a travel demand software package and license for the purpose of meeting the stated objective of providing a common modeling platform. This platform is intended to support modeling activities in the state and represent the Florida-specific standardized modeling procedures outlined in the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS). * * * This scope of services represents input from the Florida Model Task Force (MTF)[,] . . . whose mission is to advance model development and applications to serve the transportation planning needs of [Respondent], MPOs and local governments. The input from the Florida MTF serves as a guide for developing the model platform scope. No one challenged the specifications of the RFP. Proposals were submitted timely by Intervenor, Petitioner, and Citilabs, Inc., which is the present vendor of Respondent's travel demand modeling software. The Procurement Officer examined each proposal to ensure that it contained a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal and determined that each Proposer was properly registered to do business in Florida. Without undertaking further analysis of responsiveness, the Procurement Officer distributed the proposals to the evaluators for scoring, assuming that any failure to meet RFP mandatories would result in a lower score. For the Price Proposals, Citilabs submitted the lowest price, which was $96,000, so it received 10 points. Petitioner submitted a price of $180,000, so it received 5.33 points. Intervenor submitted a price of $260,000, so it received 3.69 points. These scores are not at issue. For the Technical Proposals, Intervenor received 83.33 points, Petitioner received 78.75 points, and Citilabs received 73.33 points. Thus, Intervenor received 87.03 points, Petitioner received 84.08 points, and Citilabs received 83.33 points. On December 20, 2017, Respondent published a notice of intent to award the contract to Intervenor. The intended award was protested by Petitioner, but not Citilabs. Responsiveness Introduction The Procurement Officer's responsiveness review never went beyond a determination that each proposer was registered to do business in Florida and each proposal contained a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal. None of the evaluators conducted any examination of the proposals for responsiveness or reduced any score of Intervenor for the two instances of nonresponsiveness discussed in this section of the recommended order. In order to apply the deferential standards discussed in the Conclusions of Law, it is necessary to deem that Respondent determined that Intervenor's proposal is responsive on the two issues discussed immediately below. Although the RFP could have more clearly presented its mandatories by setting them out separately, its failure to do so is irrelevant. Dispersed through the RFP are numerous requirements imposed upon a proposal that, if ignored or violated, would render the proposal nonresponsive. The items discussed in this section of the recommended order are mandatories in the RFP. In its proposed recommended order, Petitioner claims that Intervenor's proposal is nonresponsive in model conversions and special access to the software. Conversions of ABMs and Timeframes for Conversions of All 13 Models Except for three provisions, the RFP could easily be misconstrued to call for the submittal of travel demand modeling software on a platform that might or might not accommodate the platforms, and thus the travel demand modeling software, presently used by Respondent, the MPOs, and local agencies. The first of these exceptions is in the Price Proposal Form. The first of only four price categories in the Price Proposal Form is "Model Conversions," a prominent two-word reference that stands without explanation or context, although the plural form alerts the proposer to the need to price more than one conversion. Nearly as laconic, Scope of Services 7.3.2 requires each proposer to "outline a plan for implementation of the software and/or software updates." An understandably puzzled proposer asked, "Is this about conversion plan for [Respondent] or general software update plan as a whole?" Failing to seize upon the opportunity to elaborate on conversion requirements, in Addendum No. 1, Respondent replied only, "The intent was to form a conversion plan." In Scope of Services 6, Respondent abandons its reticence and describes the conversion responsibilities in reasonable detail. As noted above, Scope of Services 6 is Price Structure, which describes each of the four price components included in the Price Proposal Form or Price Proposal. In its proposed recommended order, Respondent argued that responsiveness requirements for the Technical Proposal may not be culled from the portion of the RFP detailing the Price Proposal. Given the failure of the remainder of the RFP to detail conversion requirements, Respondent's argument is burdened by the fact that, if the argument were to prevail, Respondent would be deprived of the only provisions anywhere in the RFP to enforce important conversion responsibilities undertaken by the ultimate vendor. But Respondent's argument finds no support in the RFP itself. Scope of Services 6.1 addresses model conversions as follows: It is the mission of the [FMTF] that every travel forecasting model in Florida operates from the same software platform. These models are validated to standards established by the [FMTF]. The Vendor is expected to convert these models to the selected platform such that the converted models are provided as validated models. A timeframe and conversion methodology is required. While conversions are not expected to precisely meet the outputs of the original model, they are required to meet validation standards consistent with guidelines established through National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 716 and other resources identified on the FSUTMSOOnline.net modeling website. Specific requirements will also include recoding ancillary modeling scripts into the selected platform or to a more common, standardized programming language such as Python. Updates to socioeconomic data inputs, local travel demand variables and network coding are not required through this RFP. The vendor must provide a cost estimate for the conversion of seven (7) 4-step models (Florida Statewide Model, Florida Turnpike Model, Northwest, Capital Region, Gainesville, DS, and D1); four (4) ABM [activity-based models) models (Southeast, Tampa Bay, Northeast and Treasure Coast); and two (2) training models. Scope of Services 6.1 not only informs proposers what they need to include in their cost projections for Model Conversions, but, in so doing, also informs them of their obligation to convert Respondent's Citilabs model, ten local models, and two training models. Except for Scope of Services 6.1, the requirements of the RFP, as distinct from the mission statements contained in Scope of Services 1, might be misinterpreted as specifications for the procurement for Respondent of a travel demand modeling software on a platform whose compatibility with the platform presently used by Respondent and platforms presently used by the MPOs and local agencies is irrelevant. Most importantly, Respondent's argument ignores Special Condition 21.1, which identifies the entire RFP as a source of mandatories. Without regard to Special Condition 21.1, Special Condition 22.2 lists Scope of Services 6 within the Technical Proposal, which, Respondent would concede, is an obvious source of mandatories. Scope of Services 6 is merely the fifth of six sections to be scored by the evaluator. Respondent's argument to disregard Scope of Services 6 as a source of mandatories is a misreading of the RFP. Intervenor's proposal, which refers to its traffic demand modeling software as "Visum," responds to Scope of Services 7.3.2 by proposing to convert Respondent's present Citilabs model, but not all of the models currently used by the MPOs and local agencies: We understand that successful model conversion only can be achieved through a collaborative relationship in between [sic] [Respondent] (and affiliated agencies), local consultants, and the software provider. Therefore, we propose a process that all three parties can contribute to this process and ensure all local modeling and software expertise can be fully utilized for this process. The overall conversion process is divided into four tasks below: Kick-off meeting with [Respondent's] Central office: First, we will work with [Respondent's] Central office to come up with a set of basic templates which will be applicable to four-step models as well as ABM models. In this way, we can come up with set standard that can be applied to all models that need to be converted and/or new models that need to be developed in the future. Details on model conversion schedule and prioritization of each model will be discussed and decided based on required model update (for LRTP) schedule and similarities of models. Kick-off meeting with [Respondent's] District office(s): Based on priority list provided from previous step, we will set up individual kick-off meetings with each district. We expect to meet with local model coordinators as well as local consultants with local modeling knowledge (up to two consultants selected by [Respondent]) to learn about the model that needs to be converted. This will give us a background on special features of the existing models, expected run-time, memory requirements and current shortcomings. All data and documentation necessary for model conversion should be provided at the meeting so that it can be reviewed by conversion team. At the end of the meeting, conversion team will come up with initial model conversion plan and shared [sic] with model coordinator and invited consultants. Basic Model Conversion: Basic components in the existing model will be converted to Visum by [Intervenor] at no additional cost. This conversion includes network (traffic and transit) conversion for the base year model, 4-step procedures, trip tables, and any special scripts used in the current model (to model trip adjustments, special assignments, skim averaging, etc.). In case of models integrated with third- party ABM, we will provide network (traffic and transit) conversion for the base year model, assignment and skimming procedures, and scripts necessary for the ABM interface on the Visum side (any modifications required for the ABM side, i.e., code within the ABM is beyond the scope of the basic conversion process). Once the basic model conversion is completed, we will host a hand-over meeting to the model coordinator and selected local consultant (e.g. on-call consultant). At the meeting, we will present the process that was undertaken and detailed information on new attributes, calculations and overall model operation. We will also provide model conversion report so that [Respondent] and consultants can use it to understand converted model. Model fine-tuning and final delivery: [Intervenor] will take the lead along with [Respondent] model coordinator (or selected consultant with local knowledge) on this final model fine-tuning process that includes calibration and validation of the 4-step models along with [Intervenor]. The calibration and validation will be conducted based on guidelines/standards provided on NCHRP Report 716. For the ABM interface, the local consultant is expected to re- write/modify the code with the ABM system in order to successfully interface it with Visum ([Intervenor] will provide full support on the Visum side required in this process.) As a software expert, [Intervenor] will support [Respondent] model coordinator (or selected consultant), local model expert, to complete fine-tuning and localization process and attend meetings (as necessary) to provide continuous feedback. By contrast, Petitioner's proposal responds to Scope of Services 7.3.2 with an unconditional undertaking to convert, not just Respondent's Citilabs model and local nonABMs, but also local ABMs: In this section, we present our approach to and time frame for the model conversions. Quite obviously model conversions are the principal obstacle to a successful transition to new travel demand modeling software. We will not be taking on this task from scratch, as we have already converted a number of current Florida models and, upon selection, would aggressively ramp up the model conversion efforts. No one has more experience in converting models from Citilabs software to another platform than we do, as we have been doing it for more than two decades. Recently we converted the NFTPO [North Florida Transportation Planning Organization] activity-based model to run on TransCAD. In the process, we improved the models in several respects. First, we replaced the stick road network with an accurate HERE network that was already licensed. We then recreated the transit network so that the buses run on the correct streets in the road network. In doing so, we also fixed errors in both networks. We also identified and fixed a variety of errors in the model scripts and significantly reduced the run times for both models. We also converted the statewide model and the Olympus training model as part of the aborted ITN process. [The "aborted ITN process" refers to an earlier, unsuccessful effort by Respondent to procure the subject software by an invitation to negotiate.] At the outset of the conversion process, we will meet with the stakeholders for each model to be converted to understand their priorities and preferences and to develop a mutually acceptable approach to the model conversion. We will welcome the participation of involved consultants as well as agency managers in these discussions. We will use templates for FSUTMS in TransCAD to facilitate the conversion process. These will consist of a standard flowchart interface and the identification of the specific macro functions to be used for trip generation, trip distribution, model choice, and assignment. Highly experienced staff will then perform the conversions and test the results to ensure a successful outcome. Significant discrepancies will be investigated and resolved in a technically proficient manner, consulting with agency representatives if errors are found that need to be corrected. Each and every conversion will ensure that similar results are obtained, may at the option of each model stakeholder have obvious scripting errors corrected, and will improve upon validation measures and run much faster than the current Cube version model. Each conversion will be accompanied by a technical memorandum detailed the conversion effort, changes made, and validation achieved. The conversion effort will be further strengthened and memorialized in the creation of standard scripts for FSUTMS in TransCAD, which will be published and shared with users statewide. We estimate that we will be able to complete all the conversions in a 6- to 12-month time frame. Based on our prior experience, we know that different agencies will have different timetables for this work, and we intend to work with [Respondent] and other model stakeholders to schedule the work effort to reflect these schedules and [Respondent] priorities. We will be mindful of the improvement and standardization opportunities afforded by the conversion effort and will work close with [Respondent] and MPO staff to incorporate some upgrades to the models as part of the process. Upon close analysis, the promise of kick-offs featured in Intervenor's proposal fade to a more prosaic element of the kicking game, as Intervenor fails to convert and punts its responsibilities to Respondent, local agencies, and even unspecified private consultants. In three ways, Intervenor's proposal comes up short as to conversion, so as to deprive Respondent of much of the benefit of the bargain that is the purpose of the procurement. First, Intervenor's proposal does not undertake the conversion of the four travel demand ABM models, which include the heavily populated areas of southeast Florida and Tampa Bay. Instead, Intervenor shifts the responsibility for converting the ABMs, so as to enable them to interface with Visum, to local consultants who are, in the RFP, third-party beneficiaries of the procurement, not the vendor or its subcontractors. Intervenor's unwillingness to convert the ABMs evidences the difficulty of converting this type of model, as borne out by Petitioner's proposal. Petitioner has considerable experience converting Citilabs' travel demand modeling software, so Petitioner's conversion of Respondent's Citilabs model, which Intervenor also has agreed to do, should not be difficult; the open-ended timeframe to which Petitioner committed for converting all of the models--6 to 12 months--likely reflects the difficulty of converting the ABMs, which Intervenor has expressly declined to do. Second, Intervenor fails adequately to describe exactly what it will undertake as to the conversion of ABMs. For these four models, including two with very large service bases, the last sentence of the above-quoted excerpt from Intervenor's proposal offers only Intervenor's support of the "localization" efforts of other parties. Failing to define "localization," Intervenor nonetheless has made it clear that it does not accept the RFP requirement that it convert the four ABMs. To this requirement, Intervenor has attached a condition that relieves Intervenor of the responsibility for the final step or steps necessary for local agencies' travel demand models, which will share the new platform of Respondent's software, actually to work. By so doing, Intervenor has declined unconditionally to assume the daunting tasks of calibration, in which each model is adjusted to force results that match real-world conditions, and validation, in which the model is tested by performing a model run for an historic period, for which the actual data is known, to confirm that the model's output compares favorably to actual results--although, as described in Scope of Services 6.1, quoted above, validation in this RFP also may mean the ability of the model to reproduce the outputs of the model that it is replacing. Third, Intervenor's proposal does not contain the required timeline for the conversion work that Intervenor has undertaken to perform. Intervenor has not imposed upon itself the required timeline for any of the 13 models required to be converted. The materiality of this omission is underscored by Petitioner's warning, "Quite obviously model conversions are the principal obstacle to a successful transition to new travel demand modeling software." Intervenor's nonresponsiveness to the conversion requirements in Scope of Services 6.1 and 7.3.2 confers upon Intervenor a competitive advantage. Conversion, calibration, and validation of the 13 travel demand models are time- consuming, expensive processes, which are at the core of the services for which Respondent is paying in this procurement, so that a proposal that incompletely undertakes these responsibilities confers upon the proposer a significant competitive advantage. Intervenor has also undermined Respondent's ability to enforce the contract in case of incomplete work by shifting to Respondent and private consultants the final stages of the conversion of the ABMs and omitting a timeframe within which to complete any of the 13 conversions. Access as a Co-Licensee for Universities in their Teaching Capacity and Affordable Access for Universities as Consultants and Private Consultants Petitioner argued in its proposed recommended order that Intervenor's proposal is nonresponsive due to inadequacies in its undertaking to provide access to the travel demand modeling software for universities and certain private modeling consultants. As the heading indicates, there are two distinct aspects to this challenge. Scope of Services 7.4 provides: While [Respondent] makes the modeling software available to other public agencies (and Universities acquire no-cost teaching licenses), selection of the software will consider the costs to private industry working in Florida. Private industries and Universities work in collaboration with [Respondent] and Florida's public agencies. It is important to ensure that these industries, particularly smaller firms, have affordable access to the selected software. In Addendum No. 1, Respondent responded to a vendor's question of how and where to present pricing information pertaining to the specifications contained in Scope of Services 7.4. Respondent replied: "Please present a price, a discount, or your approach as to how these entities will have affordable access to the selected software in section 7.4." Intervenor's proposal responds to Scope of Services 7.4 as follows: [Intervenor] has been providing a separate pricing structure for academic users. First, all academic users in Florida will get access to not only Visum licenses as a part of this contract but also, for each semester, they will be eligible for additional classroom licenses for up to 60 students per request. If they would like to acquire separate licenses, they will be eligible for academic pricing where we provide all four off-line software that [Intervenor] provides. For smaller firms in Florida, we will apply maximum multiple license discount (50%) from first license; however, we will require them to submit Florida DBE [Disadvantaged Business Enterprise] certification to ensure their eligibility. In addition, we will offer a lease-to-own option as well as making Visum license to be even more affordable to them. Leased licenses will be fully functional with an expiration date. Upon expiration, user will be able to choose whether they would like to purchase a license and the full amount that they have paid until then (within 1-year) will be applied as a credit toward their purchase. In this way, we can provide affordable access to users with smaller companies. Petitioner's proposal, which refers to its travel demand modeling software as "TransCAD" and its traffic simulator software as TransDNA and TransModeler, responds as follows: Our offer will actually lower the cost to Florida consultants and university researchers. Many, of course, already have our software and will not need to acquire additional licenses. For those that will need licenses, we will provide TransCAD free of charge, but expect that the normal annual support fee of $1,200 be paid up front to receive the software. We will limit this offer to two copies per consulting firm for use in Florida and for work performed for Florida public agencies. Similarly, we will offer one optional TransModeler license to Florida consultants and university researchers for work performed in Florida for free but with the normal annual support fee of $1,500 per year to be paid in advance. Intervenor's proposal is nonresponsive in two respects. First, Scope of Services 7.4 clearly identifies as co-licensees local public agencies and universities in their teaching capacity. This is consistent with Introduction 1, which, as noted above, alerts in boldface that Respondent is acquiring the software and license for itself, the MPOs, local agencies, and universities in their teaching capacity. The university's teaching of traffic demand modeling is not feasible if only the professor were to be entitled to a free copy of the software, which students would be required to purchase at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars per copy. Attaching an impermissible condition to the requirement to treat the university in its teaching capacity as a co-licensee, Intervenor's proposal limits the free student copies to 60 per semester and offers additional student copies at an unspecified academic discount. Thus, Intervenor's proposal is nonresponsive to Scope of Services 7.4 and the Introduction in its treatment of universities in their teaching capacity as a co-licensee. As to Scope of Services 7.4, Petitioner's proposal is also nonresponsive because it imposes substantial "annual support fees" on all "free" university licenses--even though the above-quoted Price Proposal Form clearly includes the price of the "Annual License Renewal" for three years. Additionally, Petitioner's proposal fails to provide any free copies of the software for students. Second, regardless of whether they are private entities or universities, consultants, who are not co-licensees, are assured by Scope of Services 7.4 affordable access to the software. This assurance does not impose much of a burden upon a proposer. As amplified by Respondent's response to the second question in Addendum No. 1, each proposal was required to "present a price, a discount, or your approach as to how these entities will have affordable access to the selected software in section 7.4." Contrary to Petitioner's contention, a discount without a price against which to apply the discount is facially sufficient, so Intervenor's proposal is responsive to this requirement. However, Intervenor's proposal is nonresponsive because Intervenor inexplicably failed to offer its vague promise of preferential pricing to the class of users to whom Scope of Services 7.4 assures affordable access. Rather than extend its discount to all private and university consultants, Intervenor's proposal limits its discount to private consultants that are certified as DBEs, which is likely a small fraction of private consultants and, of course, improperly ignores all universities in their capacity as consultants. Intervenor's nonresponsiveness to these requirements confers upon Intervenor a competitive advantage. The advantage from failing to treat the universities in their teaching capacity as co-licensees means that every dollar exacted from students or universities in their teaching capacity for the term of the RFP is unearned because Respondent has already paid for these licensing rights in this procurement. The advantage from extending a discount to a small fraction of the class of persons entitled to the discount means that Intervenor will improperly realize thousands of dollars on the sale of undiscounted software to consultants that are not DBEs. Scoring A. Introduction The evaluators were T. Hill, T. Corkery, and Tabatabee (respectively, Evaluator 1, Evaluator 2, and Evaluator 3). The evaluators were not trained in the RFP, and they did not communicate with each other while scoring the three proposals. The evaluators worked briskly, completing their evaluations within two weeks. Evaluator 1 has been Respondent's state modeling manager for the past five years and has prior experience with Respondent in transportation modeling in a district office. He has a total of 18 years' experience in transportation modeling. Evaluator 2 has been employed by Respondent for 25 years. He is presently a senior travel demand modeler, in which capacity he has served for ten years. Evaluator 2 previously served as a transportation modeler for Respondent. Prior to his employment with Respondent, Evaluator 2 worked as a travel demand modeling consultant for seven years. Evaluator 3 lacks experience in modeling, but instead is experienced in statistics and the development of Respondent's traffic data system, which supplies the data used for traffic modeling. As noted above, none of the evaluators lowered a score of Intervenor's proposal due to its nonresponsiveness, but neither did they lower a score of Petitioner's proposal due to its nonresponsiveness. In any event, these omissions have not rendered the scoring clearly erroneous. Oddly, Evaluator 3 may have lowered a score of Petitioner for complying with an RFP provision. Evaluator 3 testified that Petitioner improperly included a price within its Technical Proposal, even though, as noted above, Respondent instructed the proposers to do so in Addendum No. 1. However, this act has not rendered Evaluator 3's scoring clearly erroneous. In contrast to the clear, confident testimony of Evaluators 1 and 2, who demonstrated fluency with the RFP and reasonable familiarity with the proposals, the testimony of Evaluator 3 was often vague, sometimes confusing, and, at least once, as noted in the preceding paragraph, confused. Perhaps due to his unique expertise, Evaluator 3 was not as conversant as the other evaluators with the RFP or the proposals. But Evaluator 3's shortcomings do not render his scoring clearly erroneous, although it inspires less confidence than the scoring of Evaluators 1 and 2. In any event, Petitioner would have lost to Intervenor even if Evaluator 3's scores had been discarded. Averaging the scores of Evaluators 1 and 2, Intervenor outscored Petitioner on the Technical Proposal 86.875 to 83.125, so the addition of Intervenor's Price Proposal score of 3.69 and Petitioner's Price Proposal score of 5.33 would have yielded a final score of 90.565 for Intervenor and 88.455 for Petitioner. Moreover, the scoring of the two sections at issue-- Scope of Services 3 and 7--did not reveal that Evaluator 3 was much of an outlier. For Scope of Services 3, Evaluators 1 and 2 assigned a 4 to both proposals, and Evaluator 3 assigned a 3 to both proposals. For Scope of Services 7, Evaluator 3 assigned to each proposal the same score as one of the two other evaluators: for Intervenor's proposal, Evaluators 1 and 3 assigned a 4, and Evaluator 2 assigned a 3, and, for Petitioner's proposal, Evaluator 1 assigned a 4, and Evaluators 2 and 3 assigned a 3. Petitioner's evidence of clearly erroneous scoring takes two forms. First, Petitioner relies mostly on the testimony of its principal, who is extremely knowledgeable about travel demand modeling, but equally interested in the outcome of the case. Second, Petitioner relies on a few internal inconsistencies in scoring that are not so grave as to render the scoring clearly erroneous. Petitioner's task of proving clearly erroneous scoring was undermined by the strong testimony of Evaluators 1 and 2, the open-ended nature of the scoring criteria driving a single score for each section, and, for Scope of Services 7, the large number of unweighted subsections. It is a daunting task for a party challenging a proposed award in a highly technical procurement to set aside scoring as clearly erroneous without the testimony of at least one independent expert witness, who is well informed of the facts of the case. Scoring of Scope of Services 3: Network Scope of Services 3 comprises two subsections: True Shape Network--At a minimum, the vendor's software must efficiently accommodate true shape networks. Integrated Advanced Network Capabilities--Inefficiencies of contemporary modeling networks have made it challenging to share data among models and have led to duplication in data collection. This results in less than optimal model execution times and consequently reduced capacity to develop multiple scenarios efficiently. The vendor's software shall include access to integrated advanced networks and capabilities that promote a unified network platform for all travel demand models in the state and promote more efficient and flexible networks. These subsections generally ask each evaluator to assess how efficiently the proposed software accommodates true shape networks, which capture the actual geometry of roads rather than invariably representing them linearly as sticks, and the accessibility of the proposed software to integrated advanced networks and capability that promote a unified network platform for all travel demand models. The phrasing of these criteria introduces an element of flexibility in the scoring of the proposals under Scope of Services 3, although this section is much less open-ended than Scope of Services 7 and its myriad criteria. Evaluator 1 testified to no significant differences between the proposals of Intervenor and Petitioner in handling true shape networks and integrating advanced networks. Evaluator 2 testified that the proposals of Intervenor and Petitioner offered true shape networks and also did well in importing other map-based information on top of the road information, which evidences the integration of advanced network capabilities. This testimony is credited, and Petitioner has failed to prove that the scoring of Scope of Services 3 was clearly erroneous in favor of Intervenor's proposal. Scoring of Scope of Services 7: Other Considerations Scope of Services 7 comprises nine subsections: Support Needs and Integration with Other Florida Models Model Flexibility Implementation and Collaboration Private Industry and University Consideration Comprehensive Documentation Training Plan Consultant Support Consultant Work Experience Addressing Florida's Future Modeling Needs Three of these nine subsections have a total of seven subsubsections, so a total of 16 separate scoring criteria are found in Scope of Services 7, which, like other scoring sections, is ultimately assigned a single score of 1 through 4. For Scope of Services 7, Intervenor's proposal received an average of 22.92 points, and Petitioner's proposal received an average of 20.83 points. As noted above, Intervenor's proposal is nonresponsive to Scope of Services 7.3 and 7.4, although Petitioner's proposal is nonresponsive to Scope of Services 7.4. Intervenor's proposal also offers one year, not three years, of training, so as to earn a relatively low score on Scope of Services 7.6 and describes less work experience than that described in Petitioner's proposal. However, the open-endedness of Scope of Services 7 requires deference even to Evaluator 3's enthusiastic endorsement of Intervenor's proposal's response to Scope of Services 7.6 for its division of the state, for personnel training, by latitude, not longitude, exactly as Evaluator 3 does. Nothing in the RFP compels a specific weighting of the 16 scoring criteria in Scope of Services 7. Addressing this point in its proposed recommended order, Petitioner argued that for a score "to be true of the overall whole [section,] it must also be true of a fair number of its parts." The deferential standards discussed in the Conclusions of Law undermine this assertion by reducing a "fair number" to a very low number. Although Evaluators 1, 2, and 3 struggled to justify their scores for Intervenor's proposal as to Scope of Services 7, as compared to the explanations offered by Evaluators 1 and 2 as to Scope of Services 3, Petitioner failed to prove that their scores were clearly erroneous in favor of Intervenor's proposal.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order rejecting Intervenor's proposal as nonresponsive. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Frederick John Springer, Esquire Elizabeth W. Neiberger, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Bryan Duke, Esquire Messer Caparello, P.A. 2618 Centennial Place Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Erik Fenniman, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Michael J. Dew, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent, a "seller of travel," owes Petitioner $5,400.00 for failing to provide services to Petitioner pursuant to a contract between the parties.
Findings Of Fact WIN is a "seller of travel" as defined by section 559.927(11), Florida Statutes. On January 31, 2016, Petitioner and her sister, Julie Loftus, attended an Italian festival in St. Lucie County where they both entered a drawing to win a free "getaway" vacation. The sisters were contacted within a few days and told they had won, but to collect their prize, they had to attend a meeting at a Holiday Inn in Port St. Lucie. On February 13, 2016, the sisters attended the presentation that was put on by WIN. They were provided a brochure regarding the travel services offered by WIN and were impressed by the presentation. WIN offered a "lifetime of worry- free travel at your fingertips" with travel software to provide 24/7 access to booking, and significant discounts on travel services, such as hotel stays, cruises, excursions, dining, car rentals, and access to a "live personal travel concierge." The software does not provide on-line booking for airfare, private homes, yacht, or recreational vehicle rentals. Although neither sister is adept at using the Internet or computers, they were very interested in having a personal travel concierge, particularly because they intended to travel to Rome later in the year. After the presentation, they jointly purchased and executed a "Reservation Services Software Licensing Agreement" (Agreement) for a "lifetime License Fee" of $5,400.00. The price included a $1,000.00 discount in lieu of a certificate for a free "getaway" that the sisters had won. In pertinent part, the Agreement provides: This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts: A The Licensee desires to license software from the Licensor to obtain access to vacation packages, nightly stays, bonus weeks, fantasy getaways, activities and excursions, cruises, car rentals, golf discounts, hotels and luxury condominium and villa rentals. The Licensee acknowledges that the network benefits may be changed from time to time. * * * 6 Annual Software Renewal Fee. In addition to the purchase price, the Licensee does hereby agree to pay an Annual Software Renewal Fee of $199 to SaveOn Resorts, LLC (whose phone number is 858-649- 1481), with the first payment to be paid twelve (12) months from the purchase date of this Licensing Agreement. . . . a. Freeze Option. The Licensee acknowledges that they have the option to freeze their license. By doing so, they understand that although their License is Lifetime, during the freeze period, they will not have access to the website or Reservations Hotline. The Licensee may freeze their license without penalty by contacting SaveOn Resorts at least 7 days prior to their Annual Renewal Fee due date. * * * Discount Variation. All benefits and discounts conferred through this Agreement vary greatly based on the characteristics of the vacation unit or type, the time of year, space availability, and/or the rates charged by those parties listing the accommodations for rent. The Licensee acknowledges that he/she has been advised that while some discounts may be significant, these same accommodations may not enjoy deep discounts at other times and that deep discounts are not available for some vacation units or types at any time. The Licensee acknowledges that the value in this License is expected to be realized over time and that the License Fee is not guaranteed to be recovered on a single vacation, the first year, if the Licensee does not take vacations, or if the vacation choices are not tailored to deep discount offerings, but rather are contingent on the frequency of the use of the software. Assistance of Personal Live Travel Concierge and Website Access. The Licensee shall be provided 24 hour access to the internet website www.planwithWIN.com and may book travel arrangements through this website 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with the exception of those travel arrangements which require the coordination of booking assistance with travel vendors, such as cruise lines. The Licensee shall also be provided access to a Personal Live Travel Concierge Agent at 1-858-649-1481 during the hours of 9am through 9pm EST, Mondays through Fridays, and 10am through 4pm EST, Saturdays, at no additional charge. The hours of availability for the Live Travel Concierge Agent are subject to change without notice. * * * 11 Live Online Software Demonstration and Tutorial. The Licensee acknowledges that he/she has had direct access to, including a live demonstration online, and a complete tutorial covering usage of the software program operation prior to the execution of this Agreement and was able to review the benefits with a sales agent of the Licensor. The Licensee acknowledges that they are comfortable with the operation of online software program. The Licensee acknowledges that the licensor has informed him/her that at any time during normal business hours, the Licensee may also call SaveOn Resorts at (858)649-1481 to schedule an additional tutorial for assistance with the operation of the software at no additional cost. On February 18, 2016, Petitioner and her sister spoke by telephone to Dae Byun, WIN's Member Services Agent, who walked them through the online software tutorial. By the end of the call with Mr. Byun, the sisters were familiar with the software capabilities and how to use it. Mr. Byun asked the sisters if they knew where their first trip would be. They explained that they intended to travel to Rome in August or September 2016 to attend a ceremony at the Vatican for a friend who was celebrating his 50th anniversary as a priest. Mr. Byun told the sisters that when they call to make travel arrangements, they should dial his direct line in Orlando because he had been a travel agent for over 30 years, was very familiar with Italy, and could easily assist them. Mr. Byun told the sisters that when they called, they should speak exclusively with him and that he worked Monday through Friday, and was not available on weekends. Because both sisters are retired, these arrangements were fine with them. During this same call, the sisters asked Mr. Byun to begin working on their flight from Philadelphia to Rome on August 31, 2016. They advised that they did not need hotels in Rome because a friend had made arrangements for them to stay in a convent bed-and-breakfast. However, they sought hotels in Venice and Florence on September 9 and September 18 through 22, 2016, respectively. Mr. Byun spoke knowledgeably about hotels and travel in Italy, and the sisters were pleased. Petitioner used WIN's personal travel concierge to book a one-night hotel room stay at a Microtel in Leesburg, Florida, for $65.00 during the week of February 27, 2016. During the months of March and April 2016, the sisters made multiple calls to WIN's Orlando office in an attempt to speak with Mr. Byun to schedule their Rome trip. Most times they called, they were told he was out of the office or training new customers on the software. Because of Mr. Byun's initial instruction to speak only to Mr. Byun regarding the trip to Rome, they did not want to speak with another member services agent for this trip. On or about March 23, 2016, Petitioner also called to arrange a rental cabin in the North Carolina Mountains for a girlfriends' gathering. Petitioner was told that WIN did not have access to discounts and reservations for private cabins, but she was provided information on a condominium and hotel room options in the area. Because Petitioner found the choices provided by WIN unsuitable for her group, she chose to make her own arrangements. During March and April 2016, the sisters spoke to Mr. Byun regarding the Italy trip once or twice. WIN sent four e-mails to the sisters on April 15 with a tentative flight schedule, hotel options, and train information for Italy. The sisters were not pleased with the initial flight itinerary because it called for a layover on the way from Philadelphia to Italy. They were concerned that their luggage was more likely to be lost with a layover and asked for a direct flight. According to Petitioner, her sister had a follow-up conversation with Mr. Byun during which she selected a direct flight, provided credit card information, and asked him to book the flight. Mr. Byun testified that he was told at that time that they were not sure of their travel dates. This was a preliminary search only. He has no notes reflecting credit card or any additional information he would have needed to book the flight, such as dates of birth, passport numbers, frequent flyer account numbers, and seat preferences. Mr. Byun credibly testified that if he booked airline tickets, that would be done in one phone call with the client on the line because airfares change within minutes. Mr. Byun would not quote an airfare with the intention of booking a flight at a later time, even on the same date. Mr. Byun had no further conversation with the sisters regarding the Italy trip. According to Petitioner, on May 24, 2016, her sister received her credit card statement and realized there was no charge for airline tickets. The sisters were panicked because they had learned Mother Teresa was being canonized a saint in Rome at the same time as their trip and flights and hotels were filling up quickly. The sisters attempted to reach Mr. Byun by telephone to demand an explanation. Although they did not reach Mr. Byun, another WIN employee explained that there was no record of reservations of the proposed trip to Italy. Within a few days, the sisters opted to use the services of AAA to book the trip to Italy. The sisters sent a letter by e-mail on May 31, 2016, expressing their extreme disappointment and asked "What are we paying you for?" They received no response. They subsequently used the services of the Glanz law firm to send WIN a demand letter seeking a refund of the $5,400.00. They also filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau and the Department. Petitioner and her sister traveled to Italy and Greece from August 31 through September 23, 2016, without the assistance of WIN. Beginning in February 2017, Petitioner's sister began receiving correspondence and frequent automated calls from WIN that their annual maintenance fee of $199.00 is due. Although Petitioner and her sister have made their intention clear that they do not wish to use the services of WIN going forward, they have not asked to "freeze" their account as is provided for in the Agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Alice Kenyon's claim against WIN and the surety bond be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 8th day of August, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Alan Parkinson, Bureau Chief Bureau of Mediation and Enforcement Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Rhodes Building, R-3 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6500 (eServed) Tina Robinson Bureau of Mediation and Enforcement Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Rhodes Building, R-3 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida (eServed) 32399-6500 Alice B. Kenyon 5668 Travelers Way Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-3989 (eServed) Kenneth Hamner, Esquire The Entrepreneur Law Center, P.L. 250 North Orange Avenue, Suite 600 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Tom A. Steckler, Director Division of Consumer Services Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Stephen Donelan, Agency Clerk Division of Administration Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 509 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 (eServed)
