The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Respondents Wilson and Son Sales, Inc. (Wilson), and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, as surety, are indebted to Petitioner for certain Florida-grown agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a producer of several vegetable crops in Hardee County. Wilson is a dealer in agricultural products. More specifically, Wilson operates an agricultural broker business in Plant City. Wilson’s surety is Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. Although Wilson has written contracts with some producers, Wilson does not have written contracts with all producers. In the absence of a contract, the terms of Wilson’s broker services are almost always the same; that is, Wilson gets a commission of 10 percent on the sale of the produce and $.35 per box for palletizing and pre-cooling the produce, in return for which Wilson makes a reasonable and good faith effort to sell Petitioner’s produce for the best price. Petitioner contacted Wilson in January 2007, about bringing flat beans to Wilson to sell. Wilson expressed interest and informed Petitioner about Wilson’s standards terms as described above. These terms were agreeable to Petitioner and he brought the beans to Wilson later that month. Although Petitioner and Wilson had no written contract, the parties’ mutual understanding of the terms of their agreement created an enforceable oral contract. Wilson sold Petitioner’s beans and no dispute arose from this first transaction. The parties’ subsequent transactions for other produce were undertaken pursuant to the same oral contract terms. Because Wilson works on a commission basis, it is generally in Wilson’s self-interest to sell growers’ produce for the best price. Petitioner contacted Robert Wilson, Wilson’s owner, by telephone in February 2007, and informed Wilson of his plans to grow wax beans and “hard squash.” It was not stated in the record whether all three varieties of hard squash later grown by Petitioner, butternut squash, acorn squash, and spaghetti squash, were discussed by Petitioner and Robert Wilson during their February 2007 telephone conversation. A major dispute in the case was whether the parties’ February discussion about hard squash created some obligation on the part of Wilson beyond the oral contract terms described above. Petitioner claims that Wilson encouraged him to plant the squash and that Petitioner would not have planted the squash otherwise. Petitioner never made clear, however, what additional obligation was created by Robert Wilson’s encouragement beyond the obligation to accept delivery of and make good faith efforts to sell Petitioner’s squash at the best price. Petitioner did not use the word “guarantee,” but his claim seems to be that Wilson became obligated to guarantee that the squash would be sold for a price close to the price published in the Columbia (South Carolina) Market Report, a periodic publication of produce prices. Such an obligation on the part of a broker is contrary to the general practice in the trade. Petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove more than that Robert Wilson thought he could sell Petitioner’s squash and had a genuine interest in acting as broker for Petitioner’s squash. The evidence was insufficient to prove the existence of a contractual guarantee that Wilson would obtain a certain price for Petitioner’s hard squash or do more than was promised with regard to the beans that Wilson had sold for Petitioner; that is, to try to sell the produce for the best price. When Petitioner’s wax beans were picked in late April, he brought them to Wilson to sell. No dispute arose regarding the sale of the wax beans. Petitioner brought squash to Wilson in five deliveries between May 12 and May 29, 2007. Petitioner said that on one of these deliveries, he had to leave the boxed squash in the parking lot of Wilson’s facility because there was so much cantaloupe that had been delivered ahead of him. Petitioner says he was told by a Wilson employee that the squash would not be put in the cooler. Petitioner thinks Wilson was more interested in moving the cantaloupe than the hard squash. Petitioner thinks his squash was not put in the cooler or was put in too late. Wilson denies that Petitioner’s squash was not put into the cooler or was put in late. Robert Wilson claims that he made many calls in an effort to sell Petitioner’s squash, but he could not find interested buyers for all of the squash because (1) the demand for hard squash dried up, (2) some of Petitioner’s squash was of low quality, and (3) the squash began to spoil. Petitioner denied these allegations. Petitioner received invoices and other paperwork from Wilson showing that Wilson sold Petitioner’s first delivery of 490 boxes of acorn squash for $10.18 per box. It sold Petitioner’s second delivery of 519 boxes of acorn squash for $2.08 per box. For Petitioner’s third delivery of 110 boxes of acorn squash and 240 boxes of spaghetti squash, Wilson “dumped” the acorn squash by giving it to away for free to the Society of St. Andrews food bank, and sold the spaghetti squash for $5.15 per box. Wilson sold petitioner’s fourth delivery of 279 boxes of butternut squash for $.55 per box.1 Competent substantial evidence in the record established that it is a regular occurrence for agricultural products awaiting sale to decay and become unsellable, and for the broker to dump the products in a landfill or give the products to a charitable organization and then provide the grower a receipt for tax deduction purposes. It was undisputed that Wilson did not notify Petitioner before disposing of his squash. Petitioner claims he should have been notified by Wilson if the squash was beginning to spoil. However, Petitioner did not prove that prior notification was a term of their oral contract. Petitioner claims further that the federal Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act required Wilson to notify Petitioner before dumping the squash and to have the squash inspected to determine whether, in fact, it was spoiled. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, this federal law is not applicable. Competent substantial evidence in the record established that the market for agricultural products fluctuates and, at times, can fluctuate rapidly. For hard squash, which is normally prepared in an oven, the market demand can drop dramatically due to the onset of warm weather simply because people tend not to cook hard squash dishes in warm weather. Petitioner’s squash was being marketed in May, which means the beginning of warm weather for most areas of the United States. This fact supports Wilson’s claim that the demand for hard squash had been good, but fell rapidly just at the time Wilson was trying to sell Petitioner’s squash. The problem with the claims made by Petitioner in this case is simply one of insufficient proof. It is not enough for Petitioner to offer theories about what he thinks happened or to raise questions which are not fully answered. Petitioner had no proof that his squash was not put in Wilson’s cooler, that his squash did not begin to decay, that the demand for hard squash did not fall rapidly, that Wilson did not make reasonable efforts to sell the squash, that Wilson had willing buyers for Petitioner’s squash at a better price, or that Wilson sold squash from other growers at a better price. Petitioner’s evidence for his claims consisted primarily of market price reports that he contends show the approximate price Wilson should have gotten for the hard squash. Market price reports have some relevance to the issues in this case, but competent evidence was presented that the prices quoted in the publications are not always reliable to indicate the price a grower can expect to get on any given day, because there are factors that cause the published market price to be an inflated price (and applicable to the highest grade of produce) and because the market price can change rapidly with a change in demand for the product. The oral contract between Petitioner and Wilson required Wilson to try to get the best price for Petitioner’s squash, not some particular price appearing in a particular market price report. Petitioner did not show that Wilson got a better price for hard squash of equal quality, or that other brokers in the area got a better price for hard squash of equal quality at the times relevant to this case. Petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove that Wilson did not make a reasonable and good faith effort to sell Petitioner’s squash at the best price.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s amended claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 2008.
Findings Of Fact K & B Enterprises, Respondent, purchased plants from Roy Amerson, Inc., Petitioner, and they were delivered to Respondent on February 19, 1980. Respondent had ordered Bottlebrush and Cuban laurel (Ficus Nitida) packaged in wire baskets to protect root ball in shipment. Upon arrival Respondent noted that the wires were mangled and some root balls appeared separated from the roots. Before the trees were unloaded Mrs. Benway telephoned the salesman for Petitioner and told him about the condition of the trees. The salesman advised her to accept the trees, water them, and they (Amerson) would make an allowance for the damage. This, he said, would be better and cause less damage to the trees than if they were sent back on the truck that brought them. The driver was requested by Mr. Benway to note the condition of the trees on the invoice accompanying the shipment (Exhibit 1). No such notation was made. The driver did note the date of delivery. Respondent Benway acknowledged receipt of the merchandise by signing Exhibit 1 below the following statement printed near the bottom of Exhibit 1: STOCK MAY BE REFUSED AT TIME OF DELIVERY FOR A DEFINITE REASON, BUT ONCE SIGNED FOR CUSTOMER ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR TOTAL AMOUNT OF INVOICE. OPEN ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BY THE 10TH OF THE MONTH. 1 1/2 PERCENT CHARGE ADDED IF NOT PAID BY THE 25TH WHICH IS ANNUAL RATE OF 18 PERCENT. Respondent is a plant retailer and landscape contractor. After accepting the February 19, 1980 delivery the Cuban laurel was planted as were the other plants. Attempts to settle the dispute with Petitioner's salesman were unsuccessful. Nine of the Bottlebrush died but all of the Cuban laurel have survived. At the instruction of the salesman these plants were watered but not trimmed or fertilized. Respondent paid for the other plants received on this invoice and for the damaged plants as they have been sold. As of the date of the hearing the balance owed on the stock delivered on Exhibit 1 was $1,494.90.
The Issue Whether the Respondent Five Brothers Produce owes Petitioner an additional $13,965.00 for snap beans that Five Brothers Produce received, sold, and shipped to buyers as Petitioner's agent/broker.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Five Brothers Produce, Inc. ("Respondent" or "Five Brothers") accepts agricultural products from growers for sale or consignment and acts as an agent/broker for the growers. It has a surety bond issued by Old Republic Surety Company to secure payment of sums owed to agricultural producers. Petitioner Paul Hernandez ("Petitioner" or "Mr. Hernandez") grows snap beans. On March 26, 2010, Mr. Hernandez delivered 400 boxes of hand-picked snap beans to Five Brothers to sell. On March 27, 2010, Mr. Hernandez delivered an additional 750 boxes of snap beans to Five Brothers to sell for him. Five Brothers' Marketing Agreement and Statement included on the Grower Receipt was given to Mr. Hernandez on March 26 and 27, 2010. It provided in relevant part: The grower gives Five Brothers Produce the right to sell or consign to the general trade. No guarantees as to sales price are made and only the amounts actually received by Five Brothers Produce, less selling charges, cooler charges, and any other charges will be paid to the grower. Final settlement will be made within a reasonable length of time and may be held until payment is received from the purchaser. On March 27, 2010, Five Brothers' invoice showed that it shipped 336 of the first 400 boxes of Mr. Hernandez' beans to Nathel and Nathel, Inc., at the New York City Terminal Market. From that shipment, Five Brothers received $12.00 a box, or a total of $4,032.00. After deducting its fee of $1.60 a box, Five Brothers paid Mr. Hernandez net proceeds of $3,494.40. On the next day, Five Brothers' records show it sold the remaining 64 boxes to Tolbert Produce, Inc., for $22.70 a box. On March 26, 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") Fruit and Vegetable Market News Portal reported sales prices ranging from $24.85 to $25.85 a box for round green handpicked snap beans grown in Central and South Florida. Mr. Hernandez had reason to question the accuracy of Five Brother's invoice, given the USDA data and the Tolbert Produce sale. Nathel and Nathel also documented the sales of the 336 boxes of beans and 160 boxes of squash it received from Five Brothers. By the time of its settlement with Five Brothers, it paid a total of $5,643.50, of which $4,032.00 came from the sales of beans as reported on the Five Brothers' invoice. On March 29, 2010, Five Brothers shipped all 750 boxes of beans it received from Mr. Hernandez on March 27, 2010, to A and J Produce, Inc., at the New York City Terminal in the Bronx. Five Brothers' invoice indicated that it received $9.00 a box, or a total of $6,750.00 from A and J. Five Brother's fee for that shipment was also $1.60 a box, or a total of $1,200.00, leaving Mr. Hernandez with a net return of $5,550.00. USDA market data showed prices for the handpicked snap beans, on March 29, 2010, ranged from $20.00 to $20.85 a box. The actual cost of production for Mr. Hernandez, including seeds, water, fertilizer, and labor can range from $6.00 to $10.00 a box. He would not have paid for the labor to hand-pick beans if he had known he could not get an adequate return on his investment. Relying on the USDA data, Mr. Hernandez reasonably expected his net return to be $13,965.20, higher than it was. Five Brothers sold the beans in a rapidly declining market. Pointing to the same USDA data, Five Brothers showed the drop towards the end of March and into April 2010. On March 30, the price was down to $16.85 to $18.85. On March 31, the price was $14.85 to $16.85. And, from April 1 through April 6, a box of snap beans was selling for $10.00 to $12.85. Mr. Hernandez alleged that Five Brothers' invoice for the sale of the 750 boxes was not correct. He pointed to an exhibit that showed Five Brothers shipped A and J Produce 1344 boxes of beans, including the 750 boxes grown by him, and another exhibit that appeared to show that A and J received the 1344 boxes, on March 31, 2010, and paid Five Brothers $20.00 a box. That same A and J document, however, tracks the declining prices as each part of the shipment was sold. In the end the value was 68.82 percent of the target price of $20.00, which equals an average sales price of $13.76. After Five Brothers deducted the $1.60 a box fee, proceeds for Mr. Hernandez were approximately $12.00 a box consistent with that reported as A and J's final settlement with Five Brothers. The evidence that there was no guarantee of a sales price in the agreement, that market prices were declining rapidly, and that the receivers' documents support those of the shipper, Five Brothers, is sufficient to rebut any evidence that Mr. Hernandez is entitled to additional payments for the beans delivered to Five Brothers on March 26 and 27, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the complaint of Paul Hernandez against Five Brothers Produce, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 September, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner, Carl Hiers was a "producer" of agricultural products in the state Of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Jay Nichols, Inc. (Nichols) was a licensed "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, issued license number 1547 by the Department, and bonded by U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Fidelity) for the sum of $50,000.00, bond number 790103-10-115-88-1, with an effective date of March 22, 1988 and a termination date of March 22, 1989. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Nichols was authorized to do business in the state of Florida. Prior to Petitioner selling or delivering any watermelons (melons) to Nichols, Petitioner and Nichols agreed verbally that: (a) Petitioner would sell Nichols melons on a per pound basis at a price to be quoted by Nichols on the day of shipment; (b) Petitioner would harvest and load the melons on a truck furnished by Nichols; (c) a weight ticket with the weight of the truck before and after loading would be furnished to Petitioner; (d) Nichols or its agent in the field would have the authority to reject melons at the place of shipment (loading) which did not meet the quality or grade contracted for by Nichols; (e) the melons were to be of U.S. No. 1 grade and; (f) settlement was to be made within a reasonable time after shipment. Although Nichols assisted Petitioner in obtaining the crew to harvest and load the melons, Petitioner had authority over the crew and was responsible for paying the crew. On a daily basis, L.L. Hiers would contact Nichols and obtain the price being paid for melons that day. The price was marked in the field book with the net weight of each load shipped that day. Nichols contends that the price quoted each day was the general price melons were bringing on the market that day but the price to be paid to the Petitioner was the price Nichols received for the melons at their destination minus a 1 cent per pound commission for Nichols, taking into consideration freight, if any. Nichols was not acting as Petitioner's agent in the sale of the melons for the account of the Petitioner on a net return basis nor was Nichols acting as a negotiating broker between the Petitioner and the buyer. Nichols did not make the type of accounting to Petitioner as required by Section 604.22, Florida Statutes, had Nichols been Petitioner's agent. The prices quoted by Nichols to L.L. Hiers each day was the agreed upon price to be paid for melons shipped that day subject to any adjustment for failure of the melons to meet the quality or grade contracted for by Nichols. On June 24 and 25, 1988, L.L. Hiers contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid for melons shipped on June 24 and 25, 1988 was 4.5 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight of each load of melons shipped on June 24 and 25, 1988. There were 2 loads of melons shipped on June 24, 1988 and 3 loads of melons shipped on June 25,1988 that are in dispute. They are as follows: load nos. 11252, and 11255 weighing 23,530 and 49,450 pounds respectively shipped on June 24, 1988, for which Nichols paid 2 cents per pound and; load nos. 11291, 11292 and 11294, weighing 43,000, 47,070 and 47,150 pounds respectively, shipped on June 25, 1988, for which Nichols paid 4 cents per pound. The total amount in dispute for these 6 loads is $2,510.60. Nichols contends that the 2 loads of melons shipped on June 24, 1988, were rejected at their destination and paid Petitioner 2 cents per pound. There was insufficient evidence to show that these melons were rejected at their destination or that the price received for the melons at their destination minus the 1 cent per pound commission was less than the agreed upon price of 4.5 cents per pound. On the 4 loads of melons shipped on June 25, 1988, load nos. 11291, 11292 and 11294, Nichols contends that the melons were below the quality for which he contracted. Nichols failed to present sufficient evidence to support his contention of low quality or that the price received at destination would have resulted in Petitioner receiving less than the agreed upon price of 4.5 cent per pound. There is no evidence that any of the loads in dispute were federally inspected at their origin or destination. Nichols has refused to pay Petitioner the amount in dispute on the 6 loads of melons shipped on June 24 and 25, 1988.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent Jay Nichols, Inc., be ordered to pay the Petitioner, Carl Hiers the sum of $2,510.60. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Jay Nichols, Inc., fails to timely pay Petitioner, Carl Hiers as ordered, then Respondent U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 20th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Carl Hiers Route 5, Box 339 Dunnellon, Florida 32630 Steve Nichols, Vice President Jay Nichols, Inc. Post Office Box 1705 Lakeland, Florida 33801 U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory Horne, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ben Pridgeon, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Lab Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners (complainants) are entitled to recover $5,640.19 or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and Respondent surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are growers of watermelons and qualify as "producers" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company is surety for Respondent Griffin d/b/a Quality. Petitioners' claims against the dealer and his bond are listed in the Amended Complaint in the following amounts and categories: 6-18-92 Inv. #657 45,580 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $2,279.00 Advance - 700.00 NWPB* - 9.12 $1,569.88 6-19-92 Inv. #668 2,490 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $ 124.50 (paid for 42,860 lbs. short 2,490 lbs.) NWPB* - .50 124.00 6-20-92 Inv. #695 6,818 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $ 340.90 (paid for 39,062 lbs. short 6,818 lbs.) NWPB* 1.36 339.54 6-20-92 Inv. @ #702 .05 39,880 lbs. Sangria melons lb. $1,994.00 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 7.98 Pmt. - 90.00 1,186.02 6-21-92 Inv. @ #706 .05 44,740 lbs. Sangria melons lb. $2,237.00 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 8.95 1,518.05 6-22-93 Inv. @ #716 .04 11,280 lbs. Crimson melons lb. NWPB* - 2.32 460.88 6-22-92 Inv. @ #709 .04 46,740 lbs. Crimson melons lb. $1,869.60 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 9.35 1,150.25 Deducted for #706 - 441.82 441.82 PAID 708.43 Total Claimed $5,640.19 *NWPB = National Watermelon Promotion Board Fee Petitioners and Respondent dealer have had an oral business relationship for four to five years. Both parties agree that their oral agreement initially called for a federal inspection to be done on each load if the load were refused in whole or in part by the ultimate recipient. Respondent Griffin contended that over the years there had been further oral agreements to "work out" or "ride out" small discrepancies or partial refusals of loads without resorting to federal inspections, the cost of which inspections could eliminate the entire profit on single loads. Petitioners denied that such an amended oral agreement was ever reached and further maintained that the amounts of the loads at issue herein could not be considered "small" by any interpretation. Respondent submitted no evidence as to what the relative terms, "large" and "small," mean in the industry. Consequently, it appears that there was never a meeting of the minds of the parties on the alleged oral contract amendments relied upon by Respondent. Respondent testified that in past years, prior to 1992, he had interpreted the term "ride it out" to mean that he would simply accept the hearsay statements of ultimate recipients that named poundages of melons were bad and he would let the ultimate recipients pay for only the melons they said were good. Respondent would thereafter absorb any losses himself, not passing on the loss by deducting any amount from the full amount he would normally pay to the growers within ten days. However, 1992 was such a bad year for melons that the Respondent dealer chose not to absorb the greater losses and passed them on to the growers by way of deductions on "settlement sheets." In 1992 Respondent sent Petitioners the settlement sheets with the deductions explained thereon with the net payments as much as thirty days after the ultimate sales. Upon the foregoing evidence, it appears that Respondent had established a course of business whereby Petitioners could reasonably have expected him to absorb any losses occasioned by Respondent's reliance on hearsay statements of the ultimate recipients concerning poor quality melons unless Respondent chose not to test the questionable melons with a federal inspection. Petitioners obtained Exhibit P-5 for load 657 at Respondent dealer's place of business, but were not certain it applied to the load Mr. Tucker claimed he delivered to Respondent on 6-18-92 because Mr. Tucker did not know his load number that day. The exhibit represents the weight ticket Petitioners believe applies to the load which Mr. Tucker claimed to have delivered to Respondent dealer on 6-18-92. However, the exhibit bears two other names, "Jones and Smith," not Petitioners' respective names of Tucker or Watson. It has "WACC" handwritten across it, which Mr. Tucker claimed signified the name of his watermelon field. The number "657" also has been handwritten across it. There is no evidence of who wrote any of this on the exhibit. Respondent denied that load 657 was received from Mr. Tucker. The exhibit shows a printed gross weight of 78,900 lbs., tare weight of 32,860 lbs. and net weight of 66,800 lbs. Net weights are supposed to signify the poundage of melons delivered to the dealer. Nothing on the exhibit matches Mr. Tucker's journal entry (Petitioners' Exhibit 3) of delivering 45,580 lbs. of watermelons to Respondent dealer on 6- 18-92. Mr. Tucker testified that he was never paid for his delivery. Respondent denied there was such a delivery and testified that he paid Jones and Smith for load 657. Petitioners have established no entitlement to their claim of $1,569.88 on Invoice 657. Petitioners' Exhibit P-4 represents two weight tickets secured from Respondent dealer's records that Petitioners contend apply to load 668. The first page has "45,350/6-19-92/Scott Tucker WACC" handwritten across it. None of the four poundages imprinted thereon match any of the amounts claimed by Petitioners for invoice 668, and subtracting amounts testified to also does not conform these figures to Petitioners' claim on load 668. The second page weight ticket shows a date of 6-18-92 and a weight of 34,260 lbs. It also does not match Petitioner's claim that they were owed for 45,350 lbs. but were paid for only 42,860 lbs., being paid 2,490 lbs. short. Exhibit P-8 is the 668 invoice/settlement sheet which Respondent provided to Petitioners and shows invoice 668 with date of 6-19-92, tare and pay weight of 42,860 lbs. at $.05/lb. for $2,143.00 less $8.57 melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB, see supra) for $2,134.43, less a $700.00 advance and $10.00 for packing straw for a total due Petitioners of $1,424.43 which Respondent has already paid. Petitioners have established no entitlement to their claim of $124.00 on Invoice 668. Petitioners Exhibit P-6 represents two weight tickets secured from Respondent dealer's records. The first page has "45,880 lbs./6-20-92/Scott Tucker Crimson WACC 695" handwritten across it. None of the printed gross, tare, or net weights thereon match any of the amounts claimed by Petitioners for invoice 695. The second page shows the date 6-20-92 and a printed net weight of 32,000 lbs. Respondent dealer provided Petitioners with Exhibit P-7, invoice/settlement sheet 695 dated 6-20-92 showing tare and pay weights of 39,062 lbs. priced at $.05/lb. totalling $1,953.10, less melon adv. assoc. (a/k/a NWPB) fee of $7.81, for $1,945.29, less $700.00 advanced, less $10.00 for packing straw for a total of $1,235.29. The foregoing do not support Petitioner Tucker's claim based on his journal entry (P-3) that he was entitled to be paid for 45,880 lbs. he claims he delivered that day instead of for 39,062 pounds (short by 6,818 pounds) with balance owing to him of $339.54. Respondent has paid what was owed on invoice 695. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 9 shows that Petitioner Tucker delivered 39,880 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-20-92 and Petitioner Watson received back from Respondent dealer an invoice/settlement sheet 702 showing 39,880 pounds @ $.05/lb. equalling $1,994.00 and that although $1,994.00 was owed Petitioners, Respondent thereafter subtracted for $800.00 worth of returned melons, a $700.00 advance, $7.98 for melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB), and $10.00 for packing straw, and that a balance was paid to Petitioners of only $90.00. This is arithmetically illogical. The subtractions total $1,517.98. Therefore, if all of Respondent's subtractions were legitimate, the total balance due Petitioners would have been $476.02. If the right to deduct for the $800.00 in returned melons were not substantiated by Respondent dealer, then Petitioners would be due $1,276.02. Since all parties acknowledge that $90.00 was already paid by Respondent dealer, then Petitioners are due $1,186.02 if Respondent did not substantiate the right to deduct the $800.00. Load 702 was "graded out," i.e. accepted as satisfactory, by a representative of Respondent dealer or a subsequent holder in interest when the melons were delivered by Petitioners to Respondent dealer. That fact creates the presumption that the melons were received in satisfactory condition by the Respondent dealer. Nothing persuasive has been put forth by the Respondent dealer to show that the situation concerning the melons' quality had changed by the time the load arrived at its final destination. Respondent got no federal inspection on this load and relied on hearsay statements by persons who did not testify as to some melons being inferior. In light of the standard arrangement of the parties over the whole course of their business dealings (see Findings of Fact 5-7 supra), Petitioners have proven entitlement to the amount claimed on load 702 of $1,186.02. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite 10 shows Petitioners Tucker and Watson delivered 44,740 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-21-92. At $.05/lb., Petitioners were owed $2,237.00, less melon adv. association fee (a/k/a NWPB) of $8.95, $700.00 for an advance, and $10.00 for straw. Those deductions are not at issue. Therefore, Petitioners would be owed $1,518.05, the amount claimed, from Respondent. However, the invoice also notes that Respondent made a $268.18 deduction for melons returned. Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1 purports to be a BB&W Farms Loading Sheet and Federal Inspection Sheet. Respondent offered this exhibit to show that only $68.18 was realized by him on load 706 which he attributed to Petitioner Watson. However, the federal inspector did not testify as to the results of the inspection, the inspection sheet itself is illegible as to "estimated total," the "estimated total" has been written in by another hand as "$62.60," and there was no explanation on the Composite Exhibit or in testimony as to how Respondent dealer came up with $200.00 in "return lumping charges" as also indicated on Exhibit R-1. Accordingly, Petitioners have established that with regard to load/invoice 706, they delivered watermelons worth $2,237.00 to Respondent dealer and Respondent dealer did not affirmatively establish that any melons were bad, despite the federal inspection sheet introduced in evidence. Petitioners have proven entitlement to their claim on invoice 706 for $1,518.05. However, Petitioners conceded that Respondent actually paid them $441.82 on invoice/settlement sheet 706. Therefore, they are only entitled to recoup a total of $1,076.23 on their claim for Invoice 706. In the course of formal hearing, Respondent dealer admitted that, with regard to load invoice 716, (Tucker) he did owe Petitioners $460.88 for 275 watermelons, and that it had not been paid purely due to clerical error. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 12 (Invoice and Weight Tickets 709, Watson) shows Petitioner Watson delivered 46,740 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-22-92 and at $.04 lb., Petitioners were owed $1,869.60, less appropriate deductions. Petitioners conceded that Respondent dealer appropriately deducted $9.35 for melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB), $700.00 for an advance, and $10.00 for packing straw, bringing the amount they were owed to $1,150.25. Petitioners and Respondent are in agreement the Respondent paid only $708.43 of the $1,150.25 owed on invoice/settlement sheet 709 because Respondent dealer also deducted from the amount owed on invoice 709 the $441.82 he had previously paid out on Invoice 706. See, Finding of Fact 13, supra. Since Petitioners have established that they were owed $1,518.05 on invoice 706 but were paid only $441.82 thereon, it appears that Petitioners should be paid $1,076.23 on Invoice 706 and realize nothing on Invoice 709.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order awarding Petitioners $1,186.02 on invoice 702, $1,076.23 on invoice 706, and $460.88 on invoice 716 for a total of $2,723.13, dismissing all other claimed amounts, and binding Respondents to pay the full amount of $2,723.13, which in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company's case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Tucker and Phillip Watson Route 2 Box 280 Trenton, FL 32693 Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage Post Office Box 889 Immokalee, FL 33934 William J. Moore USF&G Post Office Box 31143 Tampa, FL 33631 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Division of Marketing, Bureau of Licensure and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, F. H. Dicks, III; F. H. Dicks, IV; and F. H. Dicks Company, are wholesale dealers in watermelons which they purchase and sell interstate. The Respondents' agents during the 1991 melon season in the Lake City area were Harold Harmon and his son, Tommy Harmon. The Harmons had purchased watermelons in the Lake City area for several year prior to 1991, and the Petitioner had sold melons to them in previous seasons. The terms of purchase in these prior transactions had always been Freight on Board (FOB) the purchaser's truck at the seller's field with the farmer bearing the cost of picking. The terms of purchase of the melons sold by Petitioner to the Respondents prior to the loads in question had been FOB the purchaser's truck at the seller's field with the farmer bearing the cost of picking. One of the Harmons would inspect the load being purchased during the loading and at the scale when the truck was weighed out. After this inspection, the melons accepted by Harmon were Respondents'. Price would vary over the season, but price was agree upon before the melons were loaded. Settlement had always been prompt, and the Harmons enjoyed the confidence of the local farmers. In June 1991, the Harmons left the Lake City area. There were still melons being picked in the area, and Harold Harmon advised the Petitioner that Jim would be handling their business. On June 30, 1991, load F 267 of 48,600 pounds of watermelons was sold to the Respondents through their agent, Jim, for 4 per pound. Fifteen thousand pounds of this load of melons was purchased by Food Lion in Salisbury, NC, for $1,450, and the remaining 33,600 pounds were refused. That portion which was refused was transported back to Respondents' workplace, and 33,600 pounds of the melons were sold at 3 per pound, or $1,008. The Respondents received a total of $2,458 for load F 267, and had transportation cost of $1,202.50 on this load. On July 1, 1991, load F 269 of 43,710 pounds of watermelons was sold to the Respondent through his agent, Jim, for 4 per pound. This load was to be shipped to Rich Food, Richmond, VA. An annotation on the Bill of Laden indicates the load was returned to Respondent and subsequently dumped. The load was not inspected after refusal, and there is no evidence that the load did not grade to standard. Petitioner's testimony is uncontroverted, and there is no indication that the terms for these two loads were different from the earlier transactions between Petitioner and Respondent, that is, FOB the purchaser's truck at the seller's field with the farmer bearing the cost of picking. Under the terms of sale, FOB purchaser's truck at seller's field, the Respondent bore the costs of transportation and the risk of refusal of the produce. Respondent's recourse was against the purchaser who refused delivery. If there was a problem with the grade, the Respondents also bore the risk of loss on sales which they made and which were rejected. The Petitioner is entitled to his full purchase price on both loads: $1,748.40 on F 269 and $1,944 on F 267.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: Respondents be given 30 days to settle with the Petitioner in the amount of $3,692.40, and the Petitioner be paid $3,692.40 from Respondents' agricultural bond if the account is not settled. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry McDavid, Esquire 128 South Hernando Street Lake City, FL 32055 F. H. Dicks, III c/o F. H. Dicks Company P.O. Box 175 Barnwell, SC 29812 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Division of Marketing, Bureau of Licensure and Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 South Carolina Insurance Company Legal Department 1501 Lady Street Columbia, SC 29202 Victoria I. Freeman Seibels Bruce Insurance Companies Post Office Box One Columbia, SC 29202 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact On June 1, 1984, T. & M. Produce Co., Inc., purchased peppers and eggplants from J. L. Branch. The invoice for this transaction, Exhibit 2, shows uneven quantities of each product were purchased rather than even hundreds of each item. For example, under quantity for each product is shown 204, 540, 100, 77, 55, and 355. These items were priced on the invoice by Branch at $4.50, 6, 8, 12, and 2, respectively, for the commodities listed. These figures were interlined and substitute figures of 2, 4.25, 7, 7, 9, and 6.25 were inserted. On the basis of these substituted prices Respondent reimbursed Complainant for the produce. Complainant contends he is owed the total of the original invoice computed on the interlined figures. The difference in the amount paid and that claimed on Exhibit 2 is $2,382.25. On June 2, 1984, Complainant sold 200 cartons of medium peppers to Respondent at a price, as shown on Exhibit 1, of $6.00 per carton. This price had been interlined and 4.50 written above. This reduced the total price paid by Respondent to Complainant from $1,200 to $900, a difference of $300. On June 7, 1984, Complainant sold 219 cartons of Cubanelle peppers to Respondent at a price, as shown on Exhibit 3, of $9.00 per carton. Respondent ultimately paid Complainant $199 for this shipment in lieu of the $1,971 shown on Exhibit 3. Exhibit 6, presented by Respondent as a composite exhibit, contains an inspection report conducted on these peppers in Canada. The inspection report states the condition of the produce as "Decay of the edible portion averages 10 percent range 4 percent to 16 percent. Cracked or split specimens average 2 percent. Count ranges from 144 to 198. Actual counts are: 173, 157, 144, 168, 160, 168, 164, 198." Other portions of Exhibit 6 shows the peppers were repacked and 20 cartons were lost in repacking. Written figures on Respondent's invoice No. 1539 (part of Exhibit 6) which listed these 199 remaining cartons of peppers indicate the peppers were sold for $5.00 Canadian per carton, returning $995. A 10 percent commission was deducted from this sum and the Canadian dollars were converted to U.S. currency, thereby showing $685.79 received. From this was deducted a figure of $350.40 shown as U.S. freight, leaving a balance of $335.39 which T. & M. billed the Canadian produce company that ultimately purchased these peppers. No explanation was offered why these peppers, after being repacked, were sold at a price less than $9.00 per carton as originally invoiced. However, Exhibit 6 does indicate the peppers were inspected after being repacked. Nor was an explanation provided why Respondent paid Complainant only $1.00 per carton for these 199 cartons remaining after repacking.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner John Crawford, operated Crawford and Son's Farms located in or near Lakeland, Florida, on which he grows produce including, inter alia, beans of the variety in controversy here. Respondent, Wishnatzki, is a produce broker located in Tampa, Florida, and has been in the business of brokering produce grown by Florida farmers throughout the United States for three generations. Petitioner and Respondent have done business together in the past on many occasions, without controversy, and have, over the years, developed an amicable business and well as personal relationship. For a substantial portion of that time, including the time in issue, the parties' transactions were consummated under a "written statement of terms and conditions" which called on the broker, Wishnatzki, to act as the grower's agent on the basis of "gross proceeds of a sale, less carrier, cooling, packing and palleting charges, if any, and a Grower's Agent's customary commission." At some time prior to April 28, 1994, Mr. Crawford, who was, at the time, carrying a bucket full of the beans later sold through Respondent, saw Mr. Wishnatzki who, he claims, indicated the beans could be worth $25.00 per bushel. The beans at hand were the earliest produced from the Petitioner's fields, however, and the main crop was not yet ready for harvesting. Mr. Crawford acknowledges this comment by Mr. Wishnatzki was no guarantee of price but merely an opinion, and Mr. Wishnatzki claims it was Crawford, not him, who stated a figure. Several days later, however, on or about May 3, 1994, while his beans were being picked, Mrs. Crawford spoke with Mr. Wishnatzki who said he needed beans and had a truck going to New York. According to Mrs. Crawford, Mr. Wishnatzki advised her they could probably get $20.00 per bushel for the beans if Crawford could get them in. Mrs. Crawford immediately went to Petitioner and told him what Respondent had said, and within two days, on May 3 and 4, 1994, Mr. Crawford delivered to Mr. Wishnatzki 164 bushels of beans. The beans were shipped up north, but in the interim, the price of beans, according to the Department of Agriculture's price report, dropped considerably from a price near $18.00 per bushel. Records maintained by Respondent reflect that between May 4 and May 7, 1994, Respondent sold the entire 164 bushels, in varying amounts, to six different customers, as follows: 5/4/94 Scarmardo Produce. 40 bu at $14.00/bu 5/5/94 C & S Wholesale Gro. 73 bu at 12.00/bu 5/5/94 C & S Wholesale Gro. 2 bu at 0.00/bu 5/5/94 Watson's Produce 5 bu at 16.00/bu 5/6/94 Scott Street Tomato Co. 5 bu at 16.00/bu 5/6/94 Sy Katz Produce 5 bu at 16.00/bu 5/7/94 Tamburo Bros. 34 bu at 4.00/bu Respondent received a total of $1,812.00 for the sale of all Petitioner's beans consigned to it for an average price of $11.04 per bushel. Notwithstanding Respondent was entitled, by the terms of the agreement between it and Petitioner, to deduct a commission on the sale, because of the long- standing harmonious relationship which had existed between them, and because Respondent felt it important to support its growers and insure their financial well-being, Respondent, nevertheless paid Petitioner the full amount it received, and an additional sum as well, for a total payment of $2,132.00. In other words, though Respondent received only an average of $11.04 per bushel from its customers for Petitioner's beans, it nevertheless paid Petitioner an average of $13.00 per bushel for the beans it received from him. Petitioner is not satisfied with the amount received, however, and claims Respondent sold the beans at a price below market. He refers to Mr. Wishnatzki's comment in passing in late April that the beans could bring $25.00 per bushel. He also notes that the market should have been good because of an infestation of bean virus due to white flies. He further contends that Respondent should not have sold the beans for such a low price; that Respondent should have checked with the northern markets, and if there was a problem with his beans, Respondent should have procured a government inspection of them. While he admits beans were in a downward fall, he does not believe the price dropped to $13.00 per bushel on a first hand picking. In support of his position, he refers to two separate market reports, the first dated May 4, 1994, and the other dated May 6, 1994. The former reflects a "fairly light" demand for beans, with handpicked beans selling between "16.00 and 18.65, mostly 16.65 few 12.00", and the latter reflects, for handpicked beans, a "fairly light" demand with sales at "14.00 - 16.65 few 12.00 occasional lower." Petitioner does not claim he should have received $18.00 per bushel which he cites, inaccurately, was the fair market price according to the Florida Market Reports cited above, but claims he could have come off that price if he had been contacted to negotiate price. However, the $18.00 price he cites was not, according to the evidence, the usual price received. The usual price was around $16.65, with some lower. In any case, the terms of the brokerage agreement does not provide for price negotiation after delivery is made to the broker. Further, Mr. Wishnatzki did not call Petitioner when he saw the beans were not selling well because they had already been picked and were in Respondent's hands. Not much could have been done at that point, and he had other growers to deal with as well. In addition, Mr. Crawford has access to the market report and knew the price was falling. He did not call Respondent to set a minimum price. According to Mr. Wishnatzki, the price paid to the growers is based upon the price his company receives for the produce. However, Respondent does not wait until it has been paid before paying its growers. When the produce is sold, the grower is paid, and Respondent receives payment from the buyer after that. There is no way to say with certainty when the grower delivers produce to Respondent what price an ultimate buyer will pay for that produce. Many factors come into play, including quality of the produce, current market price, supply and demand and the like. A market bulletin, published at the end of each market day, gives some idea of what the next day's price is likely to be, but only market conditions control the price. Review of the prices received by Respondent for the first 130 bushels of beans sold reflect a price of from $12.00 for the 73 bushels sold to C & S, to $14.00 for the 40 bushels sold to Scarmardo. The 15 bushels sold to three different brokers for $16.00 per bushel is but a small amount of the total. The remaining 34 bushels sold to Tamburo for $4.00 per bushel brought the average price received down, as did the two bushels for which no payment was received. Respondent claims they received only $4.00 per bushel from Tamburo because of a constant decline in the market during the entire week the beans were for sale, and the sale to Tamburo was, in effect, a distress sale. Wishnatzki started the week out offering the beans at $18.00 per bushel. The price was reduced each day until the final Saturday when it is usual to sell what they have left over for what they can get. On Saturday, May 7, Wishnatzki still had 34 bushels of beans left and Tamburo sold them at the lower price. It was lower that Wishnatzki had expected, but consistent with the agreement they had with Tamburo who had the beans on consignment. Mr. Wishnatzki asserts the sale at that price was a judgement call he had to make, but were he confronted with the same situation, he would do it again. At no time did Mr. Wishnatzki advise Mr. Crawford he could, or would, sell a given quantity of beans at a certain price. If he had known what price he would get for the beans at later sale, he would have paid Mr. Crawford on the spot, in advance. Further, even though at the beginning of the week in question the market reports showed beans selling for a good price, sales can not always be made at the reported market price. The price he gets is what his customers are willing to pay. His procedure is to send out a daily inventory sheet to each of his customers, nation-wide, by FAX. At the time these beans were delivered to Respondent, the demand was light, witnessed by the fact that it took a whole week to dispose of 164 bushels. That is not a large volume. While he understands Mr. Crawford's disappointment, it is a result of the fact that Crawford's expectations were higher than reality delivered. This has happened to growers before, and it will, no doubt, happen again.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Crawford & Son's Farms' claim against Respondent, Wishnatzki & Natel, Inc. and Continental Insurance Company, in the amount of $824.00, be denied. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John Crawford d/b/a Crawford & Son's Farms 2545 Sleepy Hill Road Lakeland, Florida 33809 ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 1994. David L. Lapides, Esquire W. Edwin Litton, II, Esquire Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. Post Office Box 3433 Tampa, Florida 33601 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Corrections' ("Department") intended decision to award contracts to Intervenors, Gateway Foundation, Inc. ("Gateway"), and The Unlimited Path, Inc. ("UPI"), for licensed in-prison substance abuse treatment services pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate FDC ITN 17-112 ("the ITN"), is contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules, or the ITN specifications, and contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The ITN, Site Visits, and Addenda The Department is a state agency responsible for the supervisory and protective care, custody, and control of all inmates incarcerated by the Department in each of its four regions. As of June 30, 2016, the Department had a total inmate population of 99,119, with 62 percent (61,454) of those inmates in need of treatment for a substance abuse disorder. The Department wants to strategically improve the manner in which it provides licensed substance abuse treatment services to inmates by focusing on maximizing the levels of treatment and individual inmate needs without increasing costs. The Department chose to utilize a flexible competitive procurement process to achieve its goals; specifically, an invitation to negotiate method of procurement rather than an invitation to bid or request for proposals, because it wanted industry leaders to craft individual and innovative solutions to address the problem.1/ Against this backdrop, on September 21, 2016, the Department issued the ITN, "In-Prison Substance Abuse Treatment Services," seeking replies from qualified vendors to provide licensed substance abuse treatment services to inmates incarcerated by the Department in each of its four regions. The Department reserved the right to make separate awards to each of its four regions, or to make a statewide award to a single vendor. The initial term of the contract(s) to be awarded under the ITN is five years. In addition, the Department may renew the contract(s) for up to one additional five-year term. The ITN separated substance abuse treatment services into five distinct service types: Prevention Services, Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment, Intensive Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment, Long-term Residential Therapeutic Community, and Aftercare. Additional services were also required, including motivation/readiness classes for program participants awaiting admission to Outpatient, Intensive Outpatient, or Residential Therapeutic Community services, and an alumni support group for program participants who have completed treatment services. The ITN required that the treatment services be provided in programs licensed pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65D-30. The ITN identified the selection criteria as follows: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the State based upon the "Selection Criteria" and satisfies the Department's primary goals as identified in this ITN. The Selection Criteria may include, but is not limited to, the following. Selection Criteria: Respondent's articulation of their solution and the ability of the solution to meet the requirements of this ITN and provide additional innovations. Respondent's experience in providing the services being procured and the skills of proposed staff relative to the proposed approach and offering. Respondent's Technical Reply and Cost Reply, as they relate to satisfying the primary goals of the services identified herein. All interested vendors, before submitting their replies, were required to visit various sites within the regions covered by their reply. GEO attended these site visits, which were held in October to November 2016. During the visits, the topic of the budget was discussed. All vendors were informed that the Department "did not have any new money," and that it would be operating within the existing budget. Section 4.10, TAB A, of the ITN required that each vendor submit with its reply a letter from a surety company or bonding agent that documents the vendor's present ability to obtain a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $1,500,000, per region. In Section 4.8 of the ITN, Pass/Fail Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements, the Department stated it would reject any and all replies that did not meet the pass/fail criteria. One of these criteria, Section 4.8e), specifically required each vendor to demonstrate its ability to meet the performance bond requirement. A vendor was likewise required to make this certification on Attachment IV to the ITN, Pass/Fail Requirement Certification and Non-Collusion Certification. Section 4.8e) stated as follows: The Vendor must be able to demonstrate its ability to meet the Performance Bond requirements. Prior to execution of prospective contract, Respondent will deliver to the Department a Performance Bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount equal to the lesser of $1.5 million dollars, per region, or the average annual price of the Contract (averaged from the initial five year Contract term pricing). The bond or letter of credit will be used to guarantee at least satisfactory performance by Respondent throughout the term of the Contract (including renewal years). Section 5.36 of the ITN, Performance Guarantee, also provided: The Vendor shall furnish the Department with a Performance Guarantee in the amount of $1,500,000, per region, on an annual basis, for a time frame equal to the term of the Contract. The form of the guarantee shall be a bond, cashier's check, or money order made payable to the Department. The guarantee shall be furnished to the Contract Manager within thirty (30) days after execution of the Contract which may result from this ITN. No payments shall be made to the Vendor until the guarantee is in place and approved by the Department in writing. Upon renewal of the Contract, the Vendor shall provide proof that the performance guarantee has been renewed for the term of the Contract renewal. Based upon Vendor performance after the initial year of the Contract, the Department may, at the Department's sole discretion, reduce the amount of the bond for any single year of the Contract or for the remaining contract period, including the renewal. The purpose of a performance bond is to mitigate the Department's risk should a vendor fail to perform on a contract. In Addendum 2, the Department identified six current contracts being replaced by the ITN, and provided links to those contracts and budgetary information on the Florida Accountability Contract Tracking System ("FACTS").2/ The Department also provided two rounds of formal questions and answers, which are reflected in Addenda 6 and 7. In Addendum 6, question 3, a vendor asked a question about cost. In response, the Department answered as follows: Vendors are encouraged to submit a Cost Reply in such a manner as to offer the most cost effective and innovative solution for quality services and resources, as both cost efficiency and quality of services will be a consideration in determining best value. In Addendum 6, question 77, a vendor asked a question about how to submit a reply. In response, the Department answered as follows: Vendor's shall only submit one Reply, and the Reply must be clearly labeled with the Region(s) included, or that the Reply is Statewide. In Addendum 7, question 2, the Department again addressed the issue of how many replies are required of a vendor who was interested in either a statewide or a regional award, through the following questions and answers: Question 2: In the responses to vendor questions (Addendum 006), Change to No. 6- "4.9 Submission of Replies" states that "In Reply to this ITN, each Vendor shall: Submit a separate Reply for each Region (bullet item a on page 8). However, under answer #77 (p.21), it states that "Vendor's shall only submit one Reply, and the Reply must be clearly labeled with the Region(s) included, or that the Reply is Statewide." Can you please confirm that a statewide proposal can be one, single proposal for the entire state rather than four separate proposals for each of the four regions? Answer: Yes. If submitting for a Reply for Statewide, the Reply can be submitted as one (1) Reply. If submitting a Reply for multiple Regions such as Regions 1 and 2, a Reply must be submitted for each Region. A separate Technical Reply and Cost Reply must be included for each submission. The Cost Replies must be sealed in a separate envelope from the Technical Replies, but they can all be submitted in the same package. Submission and Evaluation of Replies to the ITN On June 15, 2017, the Department received replies to the ITN from the following six vendors: GEO, Gateway, UPI, SMA Behavioral Health Services, Inc., Village South, Inc., and Bridges of America, Inc. GEO submitted five separate replies, one for each region and one for statewide. Gateway submitted a single statewide reply, but indicated in the reply that it wanted to be considered for a statewide award and one or more regional awards. Gateway also included a detailed budget breakdown by region with pricing for each region. The Department's instructions to the evaluators of the replies included a note reminding them that Gateway submitted a statewide response, but that it wanted to be considered for each individual region. UPI submitted three separate replies, one each for Regions 1, 2, and 3. UPI made the required certifications regarding the performance guarantee and submitted a letter from a surety company evidencing its ability to obtain a performance bond in the amounts required by the ITN. All of the replies were deemed to satisfy the pass/fail criteria and were then evaluated and scored. Negotiations Following the evaluation of the replies, the Department entered into the negotiation phase with GEO, Gateway, UPI, and Bridges of America, Inc. Negotiations commenced in August 2017 and continued through October 2017. The Department held a total of three negotiation sessions with each of these vendors. The ITN provided that the scores from the evaluation phase would not carry over into negotiations and that the negotiation team was not bound by the scores. The Department's negotiation team consisted of Kasey Faulk, chief of the Bureau of Procurement (lead negotiator); Patrick Mahoney, chief of the Bureau of Readiness and Community Transition; and Maggie Agerton, the assistant chief of In-Prison Substance Treatment in the Bureau of Readiness and Community Transition. Ms. Faulk has a master's degree in business administration from the University of Florida. She is also a Florida-certified project management professional; Florida- certified contract negotiator; and Florida-certified contract manager. In her tenure as chief of the Bureau of Procurement, she has overseen more than 130 competitive solicitations, including at least 80 invitations to bid, at least 30 requests for proposals, and approximately 17 invitations to negotiate. She has drafted procurement procedures at two different state agencies, and helped draft revisions to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 68-1. Without objection, Ms. Faulk was accepted at hearing as an expert in the area of Florida procurement processes. Ms. Agerton authored the programmatic portions of the ITN and served as an evaluator. She has a bachelor's and master's degree in criminology. She is also a Florida-certified addiction professional and certified criminal justice addictions professional. She currently serves as contract manager for the Everglades Recovery Center ("Everglades") contract, of which GEO is the incumbent vendor.3/ During negotiations, GEO, which had only provided services to the Department for a short time, touted its experience and devotion of resources at Everglades. However, GEO was under a corrective action plan at Everglades as of May 12, 2017, because of missing information in clinical files and lack of staff supervision. Complete clinical files are very important to substance abuse treatment. Proper clinical documentation is necessary for licensure purposes and allows the Department to ensure that services are being provided in accordance with the contract. By the end of October 2017, Ms. Agerton had conducted a site visit to Everglades, and although GEO had made significant progress in the area of leadership and staff, the clinical files were still a significant problem. Ms. Agerton and Ms. Faulk had concerns about GEO's current contract performance at Everglades. During the negotiation phase, GEO was aware of the Department's concerns regarding its performance at Everglades. During negotiations, GEO was told by the Department that it is trying to spend its money more efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. GEO was told by the Department that its price was outside the range of competitive replies, and GEO was encouraged to provide alternative pricing models and "sharpen its pencils." During negotiations, the Department asked every vendor to identify its cost drivers. GEO did not identify the performance bond as a cost driver. However, UPI identified the performance bond as a cost driver. UPI informed the Department that a performance bond would cost it $200,000 per year regardless of whether the amount of the bond was reduced, because the cost of the bond is based on the complete value of the contract. UPI requested that it be allowed to submit a cashier's check to the Department in the amount of $1,000,000 for three regions in lieu of paying $200,000 per year for five years to a bonding company for a performance bond. At hearing, Ms. Faulk explained the process of negotiating with individual vendors, the importance of having a strategy, and the value of making individual concessions with individual vendors during negotiations. UPI had performed services for the Department for over ten years, through budget cuts, and had not walked away from their contracts. Accordingly, the negotiation team considered UPI's suggestion to be a low risk. That is, the Department did not believe there was a significant risk that UPI would abandon the contract. In any event, the cashier's check proposed by UPI would benefit the Department because the Department could easily take the money and use it to recoup losses in the event of nonperformance, as opposed to a bond, which may require the Department to engage in protracted litigation with a surety company to obtain the value of the bond. The Department also saw the cashier's check as an opportunity to obtain lower pricing from UPI. The negotiation team told UPI it would accept, in lieu of the performance bond, a $1,000,000 cashier's check if UPI was awarded three regions; a $750,000 cashier's check if UPI was awarded two regions; and a $500,000 cashier's check if UPI was awarded one region. Allowing UPI to post a cashier's check in the amount of $750,000 for the two regions it was awarded did not provide UPI with a competitive advantage over GEO. At hearing, GEO's representative, John Thurston, who oversaw the development of GEO's reply and BAFO, and participated in the negotiations, acknowledged that GEO's cost to obtain a performance bond in the amount of $1,500,000 would only have been $67,500 per year. During negotiations, the Department revised the scope of work. Following the negotiations, on October 25, 2017, the Department emailed an RBAFO to those vendors who participated in the negotiations. The RBAFO informed vendors that the term "Best and Final Offers" is used to provide the vendor the opportunity to clarify its response and adjust its price based on the negotiations, and that this does not preclude the Department from seeking clarification or additional information upon receipt of the BAFOs. The RBAFO further stated that the BAFO "must contain a written narrative of services to be provided inclusive of clarifications and any alternative or modifications discussed during the negotiation process." The BAFO required an executive summary, description of service delivery, a staffing matrix, and a price sheet. GPR-037 (General Program Requirements) in the RBAFO addressed staffing and provided, in pertinent part: The vendor shall ensure that all required Vendor staff positions are filled for the entire scheduled 40 hour weekly working period, and that those individuals are physically present at the work site. All positions are full-time, unless otherwise specified, inclusive of interim positions. As to the price sheet, the per diem pricing "should represent the best price the Vendor is willing to offer to the Department." The RBAFO specifically addressed and allowed for vendors to provide alternative pricing models and methods. Providing alternative price offerings gives the Department more options to solve its problem and demonstrates a vendor's understanding of the Department's needs. All vendors were provided with an equal opportunity to submit BAFOs reflecting revisions to the ITN made by the Department during negotiations. The RBAFO reminded vendors to include in their BAFOs alternatives or any modification discussed during the negotiation process. GEO was aware during negotiations that it could have inquired about or proposed to negotiate different components of all aspects of its proposal. GEO was also aware that any global changes for all vendors would be included in the RBAFO, but that negotiation concessions, innovative solutions, and negotiated points with individual vendors, would not be included. In fact, GEO negotiated items that were not shared with other vendors. The BAFOs and Negotiation Team Recommendation The deadline for vendors to submit their BAFOs was November 14, 2017. The Department received BAFOs from the four vendors invited to negotiate. The ITN provided that BAFOs would not be scored and the negotiation team would make a recommendation of award based on which vendor's solution presented the best value to the state, utilizing the selection criteria in the ITN. Prior to submitting its BAFO, the Department responded to Gateway's inquiries about differences between what was to be included in the BAFO and what was discussed during negotiations, specifically in the context of the ratio of Prevention Services counselors (indicated as one counselor to fifty participants in the RBAFO, but discussed during negotiations as one counselor to eighty participants). The Department instructed Gateway to use the ratios included in the RBAFO, and "provide an alternative price with the ratio your Company is proposing." As allowed by the RBAFO and further clarified by the Department, Gateway's BAFO included both a base price offering and an alternative price offering, with detailed explanations of the assumptions included within each offering. Gateway's BAFO included a ratio for Prevention Services counselors from one counselor for every fifty participants (1:50), and an alternative ratio of one counselor for every eighty participants (1:80). Gateway's staffing models in its BAFO also included part-time positions. The members of the negotiation team reviewed the BAFOs and then made a formal recommendation of award at a public meeting held on November 17, 2017, with recorded minutes. The negotiation team recommended regional awards rather than a statewide award. It recommended an award of Regions 1 and 2 to UPI and Regions 3 and 4 to Gateway. The team recommended these vendors because it believed their solutions represented the best value to the state based on the selection criteria identified in the ITN. Ms. Faulk recommended UPI for Regions 1 and 2 because UPI was an incumbent vendor with a long history of providing satisfactory services to the Department. Additionally, she felt UPI had tremendous ideas on how to maximize treatment, their cost was affordable, and they proposed innovative solutions. Ms. Faulk ultimately recommended Gateway's alternate price offering for Regions 3 and 4 because she found them very innovative and treatment-focused. She felt they had extensive experience in a correctional setting providing substance abuse treatment, and their cost was very affordable. She recommended the alternate price offering because it was an innovative solution to increase services. Gateway's alternate price offering increased the number of available treatment slots and provided staffing which the Department found acceptable and appropriate, while at the same time offering a better price. Ms. Agerton recommended UPI for Regions 1 and 2 because she felt UPI brought an innovative solution in negotiations, as well as many different ideas. She felt that based on their incumbent status, they had knowledge of the Department's systems and were able to suggest improvements while remaining affordable. Ms. Agerton recommended Gateway for Regions 3 and 4 because they also brought innovative solutions, particularly an evaluator that would help with monitoring their implementation. She also felt Gateway was likewise affordable and energetic. Neither Ms. Faulk nor Ms. Agerton recommended GEO for any of the regions. Ms. Faulk felt GEO's cost was significantly higher than the other vendors. She also had concerns about some of GEO's responses during the negotiation sessions, particularly with regard to the problems at Everglades. Ms. Faulk felt GEO lacked innovation, it did not understand the problems at Everglades, and it lacked an effective strategy for how not to have the problems reoccur in the future. Ms. Agerton did not recommend GEO for any of the regions because she felt they were very expensive compared to the other vendors; so expensive, in fact, that their price exceeded the Department's budget. Ms. Agerton also had concerns about GEO's current contract performance at Everglades. A formal recommendation memorandum was prepared by the procurement officer and routed through various levels of the Department. The memorandum included a cost analysis, which reflected the total awarded price for all four regions for the initial five-year term to be $57,683,377.25. GEO's proposed price for all four regions for the same period was $80,558,693.75, approximately $22,000,000 higher than the Department's intended awards for all four regions. Notably, the formal recommendation memorandum mistakenly reflected 225 prevention slots in Region 3, instead of the 320 prevention slots included in Gateway's alternative proposal; and 200 prevention slots in Region 4, instead of the 320 prevention slots included in Gateway's alternative proposal. For Region 3, multiplying 320 slots times Gateway's per diem rate of $3.89 (and by 365 days a year), results in an annual total cost of $454,352; compared to the annual cost figure of $319,466.25 for 225 slots reflected in the memorandum. For Region 4, multiplying 320 slots times Gateway's per diem rate of $3.89 (and by 365 days a year), results in an annual total cost of $454,352; compared to the annual cost figure of $283,970 based on 200 slots. Thus, accounting for the increased prevention slots for Regions 3 and 4 results in an annual increase in cost of $305,267.75 above the $11,536,675.45, for a total annual cost for all four regions of $11,841.943.20, and a five-year cost of $59,209,716. On the other hand, GEO's proposed price for all four regions for the same period was $80,558,693.75, which divided by five results in an annual cost to the Department of $16,111,738.70. GEO eliminated the cost of Aftercare services because the Department intends to use an Alumni Program for zero cost in lieu of Aftercare services. GEO calculated that removing the cost to the Department of Aftercare services would result in $1,885.790.75 less, or a total annual cost of $14,225,948.70. Thus, removing the cost of Aftercare services from GEO's proposed price for all four regions would still result in a five-year cost to the Department of $71,129,743.50, which may exceed the amount appropriated, budgeted, and available to the Department for substance abuse treatment for Fiscal Year 2017- 2018, and which far exceeds the cost of $59,209,716 (the amount of the proposed award to Gateway and UPI for the same time period).4/ The recommendation memorandum was approved by the Department's secretary on January 9, 2018. GEO's Protest GEO's protest raises numerous issues, none of which warrant rescission of the Department's intended award to Gateway and UPI. Gateway's Reply to the ITN GEO contends Gateway submitted only a single "statewide" reply to the ITN, and no reply for any regions, and therefore, Gateway is ineligible for a regional award. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Gateway's reply was properly considered as a reply for multiple regions because Gateway clearly indicated its intent to be considered for multiple regions. Moreover, Gateway gained no competitive advantage over other vendors as a result of combining its statewide reply with a regional reply. In fact, the Department would have been inundated with replies if it required a vendor to reply for every conceivable combination of regions. UPI's Performance Guarantee GEO contends the Department materially deviated from the ITN and gave UPI a competitive advantage over it by allowing UPI to provide, in lieu of a performance bond, a cashier's check in the amount of $500,000 if awarded one region; $750,000 if awarded two regions; or $1,000,000 if awarded three regions. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the Department did not materially deviate from the ITN and give UPI a competitive advantage over GEO by allowing UPI to provide, in lieu of a performance bond, a cashier's check in the amount of $500,000 if awarded one region; $750,000 if awarded two regions; or $1,000,000 if awarded three regions. Notably, the ITN did not require proposers to submit a performance bond or letter of credit with its reply to the ITN, and none of the vendors submitted a performance bond or letter of credit with their replies. Instead, in replying to the ITN, a vendor was only required to "demonstrate its ability to meet the Performance Bond requirements." UPI satisfied the requirements of the ITN by demonstrating its ability to meet the performance bond requirements. In any event, the reduction in the amount of the bond agreed to by the Department ($750,000 in connection with the award of contracts for two regions) did not provide UPI with a competitive advantage over GEO. At hearing, Mr. Thurston estimated GEO's annual cost of providing a performance bond in connection with contracts to be awarded pursuant to the ITN would be approximately $67,500, well below the $200,000 per year that UPI was quoted for its bond. Moreover, the amount of $67,500 is insignificant compared to the significant disparity in the annual, total prices proposed by GEO and UPI in their BAFOs for Regions 1 and 2 (GEO: $9,299,141.50; UPI: $6,342,203, for a difference of $2,956,938.50 per year). At hearing, Mr. Thurston acknowledged he could have raised the issue of the performance bond during negotiations. As Mr. Thurston also acknowledged at hearing, even if GEO had been able to negotiate an elimination of the performance bond amount requirement in its entirety, GEO would not have been able to offer a price that would have remedied the disparity. Gateway's BAFO (Prevention Services Ratio) GEO contends Gateway's ratio for Prevention Services counselors of 1:80, as provided in Gateway's BAFO alternative price offering, is a material deviation from the RBAFO requirements. As detailed above, this alternative offering was expressly permitted by the RBAFO and was further clarified by the Department to Gateway before its BAFO was submitted. Moreover, increasing the prevention capacity to 80 per institution adds an additional 605 inmates served at any one time, resulting in the Department being able to serve more inmates for the same appropriation amount. This is precisely the type of innovative thinking the Department sought to reach its goals. GEO did not submit an alternative pricing model, and it never asked the Department if the ratios for Prevention Counselors were negotiable. At hearing, GEO could not say how much it could have lowered staff levels, if at all, if it attempted to negotiate ratios. Gateway was not given a substantial advantage over GEO by increasing the prevention capacity. In addition, although chapter 65D-30 does include required ratios for certain types of services, there is no maximum caseload requirement applicable to Prevention Services. Gateway's BAFO (Part-Time Positions) GEO also contends Gateway violated GPR-037 in the RBAFO because Gateway's staffing models included part-time positions. However, the Department interprets the phrase "unless otherwise specified" to mean that unless the vendor specifies a position in its reply as part time, the Department will assume that any positions referenced in the reply are full time (40 hours). GEO never asked the Department for clarification on the meaning of the phrase "unless otherwise specified." At hearing, Mr. Thurston could not say whether its BAFO would have been adjusted had GEO asked about negotiating the positions, in terms of being full time. In any event, the Department currently utilizes part- time staff under the contracts being replaced by the ITN. Part- time staff may provide a more cost-effective solution than full- time staff. Gateway's BAFO (Clerical Positions) GEO also contends Gateway's alternate price offering provided for a reduction in clerical staff positions contrary to GPR-035 as set forth in Addendum 6 and the RBAFO. GPR-035 required that each vendor provide a minimum of one clerical position for up to 136 treatment slots, and one-half position for each additional 68 treatment slots. In support of its position, GEO presented Exhibit 1. However, GEO's Exhibit 1 is based on incorrect assumptions, and it is unreliable and unpersuasive. First, the ratios calculated by GEO are impermissibly "rounded-up." Secondly, contrary to GEO's position, the Department only calculates an additional one-half position once the full 68 treatment slots have been achieved. GPR-035 does not require one-half positions for "up to each additional 68 slots." A plain reading of GPR-035, consistent with the Department's reasonable interpretation, is that an additional one-half position is required only after the full 68 slots have been achieved. Gateway's base price offering fully complied with the staffing ratios when the ratios are calculated according to a plain reading of GPR-035, which is bolstered by the Department's practice in calculating ratios. Gateway's alternative price offering providing for a reduction in clerical positions to one full-time employee per facility was a cost-saving measure discussed with the Department and a product of negotiations. Even if Gateway's alternative price offering deviated with regard to the clerical positions, given the discrepancy between GEO's and Gateway's price offerings, the deviation is so small that it is a minor irregularity and not a material deviation. Gateway's BAFO (Pricing) GEO also contends Gateway failed to provide region- specific pricing or a final, firm pricing offer of any kind for the initial term or the renewal term. During negotiations and in its BAFO, Gateway reiterated that it would accept a regional or multi-regional award. Under Section 4.12 of the ITN, the Department reserved the right to seek clarification from vendors regarding their BAFOs and to reopen negotiations after receiving BAFOs. The negotiation team recommended awarding Gateway's alternate price offering for Regions 3 and 4 contingent upon clarification from Gateway that its pricing would be applicable to Regions 3 and 4. Although vendors were invited and could have attended the public meeting and heard this for themselves, none of them chose to attend. Four days later, on November 21, 2017, the Department's procurement officer reached out to Gateway's representative asking it to confirm that the pricing listed in the alternate price offering would remain the same if awarded individual regions as opposed to the entire state. Gateway's representative responded that the alternate prices included in Gateway's BAFO could remain in effect with a modified administrative personnel staffing plan if Gateway was awarded more than one region. At the time of this exchange, the Department's negotiation team had already recommended Gateway for Regions 3 and 4; so, the Department knew there would be no need to renegotiate pricing because Gateway was recommended to receive more than Region 4. According to Ms. Faulk, the Department understood Gateway's response to mean that the per diem pricing provided in Gateway's BAFO would apply to Regions 3 and 4. Gateway would reduce the oversight positions to two or three positions, consistent with the smaller level of responsibilities required for two regions instead of four. This exchange occurred prior to the drafting of the award recommendation memorandum, which was dated November 28, 2017. It was not signed by Ms. Faulk until January 3, 2018, or the Secretary until January 9, 2018. Gateway's per diem statewide pricing applied equally to Regions 3 and 4. Although Gateway did not provide a grand total price on its BAFO price sheet, the Department calculated the grand total price using the correct per diem unit prices provided. The ITN stated that unit prices would control in the event of a mathematical error. As it pertains to the price sheet instructions, the RBAFO stated that the vendor's pricing should represent the best price the vendor is willing to offer the Department. Gateway provided both a base price offering and an alternate price offering. The base price offering's price sheet contained the required per diem prices for both the original contract term and the renewal contract term. Under the section titled "TOTAL PRICE," Gateway appeared to sum the individual per diem prices rather than provide an actual grand total contract amount. Gateway did the same for its alternate price offering price sheet. Although Gateway did not provide a grand total price on the price sheet, it included a detailed budget breakdown for both its base price offering and alternate price offering. The Department felt these breakdowns offered additional transparency into Gateway's pricing. Section 4.10, Tab F, of the ITN provided that all calculations would be verified for accuracy by the Department's Bureau of Support Services staff, and that unit prices submitted by a vendor would prevail in the event a mathematical error is identified. Ms. Faulk testified the Department could calculate a grand total price by using the per diem pricing provided on the price page. She explained the Department could multiply the per diem price for each service type by the number of slots for that service, and then multiply that number by 365 days to arrive at the yearly price for a particular service. The Department could then add those prices together to obtain an annual total. She also explained these same calculations could be done for the renewal pricing. UPI's BAFO (Clerical Positions) GEO contends UPI deviated from the staffing requirements by providing fewer clerical support positions than required by the RBAFO. Specifically, GEO contends UPI had a deficit of six clerical support positions, and that if GEO knew it could reduce the staffing complement by six, it would have been worth approximately $270,000. UPI's clerical staffing ratios deviated from GPR-035, because its ratios were calculated based on the belief that prevention slots were not "treatment" slots. The ITN and RBAFO refer to prevention slots as treatment slots. Nevertheless, given the discrepancy between the prices submitted by GEO and UPI, UPI's deviations from the clerical staffing requirements are so small that they are minor irregularities and not material deviations. UPI's BAFO (Pricing) GEO also contends UPI's BAFO failed to include the Revised Price Sheet. Specifically, in paragraph 24 of its amended petition, GEO alleged: "UPI appears to have created its own form that emulated the format of the required form but provides many more spaces for additional information. Other Vendors that used the ITN required form did not have the opportunity to include this additional information." Although UPI did not use the specific Revised Price Sheet form, it provided per diem prices for each level of treatment as required by the form and additional information for the Department's consideration. GEO failed to include per diem pricing for Residential Therapeutic slots in Regions 2 and 4. GEO also modified its price sheets and submitted additional information in the form of annotations denoted by asterisk. In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the Department appropriately determined that the proposed awards to Gateway and UPI will provide the best value to the Department based on the selection criteria. Any irregularities in Gateway's and UPI's replies and BAFOs as alleged by GEO were minor and not material deviations. The Department's intended awards to Gateway and UPI are not contrary to the Department's statutes, rules, the ITN specifications, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order dismissing the protest of GEO Reentry Services, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2018.
