Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1973, Wesnofske Farms, Inc., of Crescent City, Florida, entered into an agreement with Richard Weller of Warehouse Point, Connecticut, as receiver and Morgan Produce, Inc., of Lincoln, Delaware, as agent/Broker for the receiver. Wesnofske agreed to deliver 10,000 hundredweight of potatoes at an agreed price of $4.10 per hundredweight f.o.b. Wesnofske Farms in Crescent City, Florida. The contract provided, inter alia, that the deliveries were to be prorated over or about seven week harvest period which began at the time of digging or about April 15, 1978, subject, of course, to weather, digging conditions and crop maturity. The contract also provided that in the event of crop failure due to drought, etc., or any act of God, the contract was to be probated in accordance with acreage yield, etc. (See Exhibit A). William B. Morgan, President of Morgan Produce, Inc. served as the broker for the parties. Mr. Morgan testified that due to the extended cold weather season, digging commenced on or about May 3, 1978. On that date, May 3, 1978, Morgan telephoned Respondent, Richard Weller, and advised him that the first deliveries were ready and inquired of Weller when his first trucks would be arriving to accept delivery. Weller indicated that marketing conditions extant at the time forced him to decline delivery of potatoes and instructed Morgan to contact Mr. Jack Rubin and offer his deliveries to him. Morgan contacted Rubin and offered the potatoes for $6.80 per hundredweight, whereupon Rubin advised that he had at that time more contracts at lower price that he could handle. Weller was advised of Rubin's response and instructed Morgan to sell his deliveries to the best of his ability on the open market. Beginning on May 6, 1978, Morgan began selling potatoes from the Weller contract to various co-ops and distributors at a profit through approximately May 16, 1978, when there existed a glut in the potato market. Weller was advised by Morgan that he would not be able to continue showing him a profit on his contract if the then present market conditions continued. Weller was advised by Morgan that the potatoes were presently bringing approximately $3.75 per hundredweight to the open market, which, of course, would represent a loss to him of 35 cents per hundred pounds. At that time, it appeared that the depressed market conditions would continue throughout the digging season and, this being the first contract that Petitioner had entered with Respondent, Morgan contacted Petitioner's farm manager, Joseph Froehlich. Morgan and Froehlich discussed the matter and decided that it would be advantageous to release Respondent from his contractual obligations with no loss to him and to credit Respondent's account for all profits accrued as of that date. According to Morgan, Weller agreed and was pleased with this proposal of being rid of the contractual obligations due to the depressed market conditions. From the period May 6, 1978, through June 1, 1978, when Weller was released from his, contract, Weller had earned a net profit of approximately $1,900 (See Exhibit B). During the period of May 16 through May 26, 1978, Morgan sold approximately 921,960 hundredweights at $3.75 per hundredweight, which had been grown for Richard Weller and Orlowski Produce Company, another contracting entity (See Exhibit C). However, on or about May 18, 1978, the market conditions turned around due to low acreage yields of area farms which caused a potato shortage with a resultant rise in market prices. At that time, Weller contacted Morgan and demanded a load of potatoes allegedly due on his contract on May 18, 1978. Morgan discussed the matter with farm manager Froehlich, and it was agreed that Petitioner would provide deliveries to Respondent from purchases of other area farms although Petitioner was of the opinion that it was not obligated to do so, inasmuch as Respondent had been released when market conditions were depressed. Deliveries to Weller resumed on May 18, 1978, and continued through June 7, 1978. From the period June 6 through June 8, 1978, Petitioner was unable to provide shipments from its supplies and, therefore, purchased on the open market, three shipments for the Weller contract at a price of $7.85 per hundred pounds. Based on these bulk loads purchased on the open market, the difference between the contract price and the open market price resulted in a deficiency of approximately $4,865.25 which was charged to Richard Weller's account when an invoice was forwarded him pursuant to contract. On June 26, 1978, Weller was invoiced for $32,202.41, of which amount Weller paid $27,337.16 on July 15, 1978, pursuant to the $4.18 per hundredweight contracted price for all deliveries (See Exhibit E). Joseph Froehlich testified that due to the inclement weather conditions, the late acreage yields were down to approximately 40 hundred pounds per acre, which was substantially less than the other acreage had yielded. Froehlich testified that had Respondent accepted deliveries of potatoes when offered during the early digging season, his contractual allotment could have been fulfilled; however, he opted to be released at a time when market conditions were poor. Thus, Froehlich contends, that Petitioner was not obligated to purchase potatoes on the open market for Weller and sustain a loss when market conditions dictated higher prices. This was so Froehlich contends, first of all because Respondent failed to accept delivery of the potatoes when they were available to him pursuant to the terms of the contract and, secondly, inasmuch as Respondent was relieved from the terms and obligations of the contract when market conditions were poor. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner's representative, Morgan, indicated that the Wesnofskes were not negotiating the partial tender of payment by Respondent in the amount of $27,337.16 until the administrative hearing herein was completed. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services uphold the claim of the Petitioner, Wesnofske Farms, Inc., in the amount of $32,202.41, plus normal interest accruing from July 15, 1978, as provided in the contract, plus a reasonable amount for costs and fees for preparation of this administrative claim. Based upon the testimony offered during the course of the hearing, a reasonable amount appears to be approximately $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue This case arises from a complaint filed by Jay Nelson and Ernest Leclercq, d/b/a Sun Coast Farms, in which it is asserted that H. M. Shield, Inc., is indebted to the Complainants in the amount of $7,266.20 for agricultural products sold to the Respondent. At the hearing the representative for the Complainant stated that most of the matters asserted in the complaint had been resolved by settlement, but that six items remained in dispute and that the total amount remaining in dispute was $1,041.20. Ms. Ernst testified as a witness for the Complainant and also offered several documents as exhibits, which documents were marked as a composite exhibit and received in evidence.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witness and on the exhibits offered and received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: On February 23, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans, Wax Beans, and Zukes (Lot No. 1116) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $327.00 on this sale. On March 8, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Wax Beans (Lot No. 1294) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $184.20 on this sale. On March 8, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Wax Beans (Lot No. 1295) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $184.20 on this sale. On March 19, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Zukes (Lot No. 1453) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $202.50 on this sale. On March 19, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Zukes (Lot No. 1454) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $110.00 on this sale. On March 19, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Zukes (Lot No. 1457) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $202.50. The total amount owed for agricultural products by the Respondent to the Complainant, which amount was unpaid as of the time of the hearing, is $1,401.20.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered directing H. M. Shield, Inc., to pay Jay Nelson and Ernest Leclercq, d/b/a Sun Coast Farms, the amount of $1,401.20 for the agricultural products described in the findings of fact, above. In the event the Respondent fails to make such payment within 15 days of the Final Order, it is recommended that the surety be required to pay pursuant to the bond. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of June, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 6th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Nelson & Ernest Leclercq d/b/a Sun Coast Farms P.O. Box 3064 Florida City, Florida 33034 H. M. Shield, Inc. Room 82 State Farmer's Market Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast 200 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe W. Kight, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In 1987, Petitioner grew thirty (30) pounds of marijuana with a fair market value of $20,000. The marijuana was grown within the State of Florida. In 1988, Petitioner grew 116 pounds of marijuana with a fair market value of $500 per pound for a total of $58,000. This marijuana was also grown within the State of Florida. The growing of marijuana is a taxable event in Florida pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes. The tax is assessed at the fair market value of the marijuana grown. Additionally, there are surcharges and penalties assessable under the same statute for growing marijuana. The tax attributable to Petitioner's enterprise is as follows: 20% tax of fair market value $15,600.00 5% penalty per month up to 25% of tax due 3,900.00 Additional 50% penalty 7,800.00 1% interest per month as of date of final hearing (October 24, 1989) ($5.13 per day) from date of hearing) 2,746.14 Total $30,046.14 Petitioner did not demonstrate any defense to the assessment of this tax by the Department and did not demonstrate a defense to the payment of the above assessment. Petitioner, therefore, owes the Department $30,046.14 in penalties and taxes plus interest at the rate of $5.13 per day from October 24, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order upholding the jeopardy assessment, dated March 8, 1989, assessing the Respondent $30,046.14 in penalties and taxes plus $5.13 per day from October 24, 1989. DONE and ENTERED this 31 day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 31 day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted, in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 9, 19, 20 and 23 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: William D. Moore General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Katie D. Tucker Executive Director 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 William Clayton Sapp #114370 Cross City Correctional Institution Work Camp P.O. Box 1500-236WC Cross City, Florida 32628 Lee Rohe, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue Whether Respondent, FYV, Inc., d/b/a Miami Tropical Nursery, Inc. (Respondent or Buyer), owes Petitioner, Bud Sod, LLC (Petitioner or Seller), the sum of $7,168.09 for pallets of sod sold to the Buyer by the Seller.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner and Respondent were involved in the purchase and sale of an agricultural product grown and delivered in Florida. Under the terms of their on-going business relationship, Petitioner supplied Respondent with sod. There is no disagreement that Petitioner produced and sold the sod to Respondent. In fact, the parties had numerous dealings that covered many tickets noting deliveries and invoices noting the monies owed. Prior to July 7, 2010, the parties met without their attorneys to try and agree upon an amount owed by Respondent. At that time, they went through the volumes of paperwork related to the claim and reached a mutually-acceptable decision. Petitioner maintains that Respondent owes $17,168.09 as a compromised sum for the sod sold by Petitioner to Respondent. Of that amount, Petitioner acknowledges that Respondent remitted $10,000 to the Seller. Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that the sum of $7,168.09 is owed and unpaid for the sod purchased by Respondent. Respondent presented no evidence to refute this amount.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order approving Petitioner's complaint against Respondent in the amount of $7,168.09. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 9th day of August, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher E. Green, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Citrus License and Bond Mayo Building, M-38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Kathy Alves Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 968036 Schaumberg, Illinois 60196 Steven J. Polhemus, Esquire Post Office Box 2188 LaBelle, Florida 33975 Yolanda More FYV, Inc., d/b/a Miami Tropical Nursery, Inc. 104475 Overseas Highway Key Largo, Florida 33037 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral testimony and the documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner, Carl Hiers and Rachel Hiers were "producers" 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 the 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. The Complaint filed by Petitioners was timely in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes. Prior to Petitioners selling or delivering any watermelons (melons) to Nichols, Petitioners and Nichols agreed verbally that: (a) Petitioners would sell Nichols melons on a per pound basis at a price to be quoted by Nichols on the day of shipment; (b) Petitioners would harvest and load the melons on trucks furnished by Nichols; (c) a weight ticket with the weight of the truck before and after loading would be furnished to Petitioners; (d) Nichols or its agent in the field would have the authority to reject melons at the place of shipment (loading) which did not neet the guality 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 Petitioners in obtaining the crew to harvest and load the melons, Petitioners 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 a field book with the net weight of each load. Nichols contends that the price quoted each day was the general price melons were bringing on the market that day. The price to be paid Petitioners was the price Nichols received for the melons at their destination minus 1 cent per pound commission for Nichols, taking into consideration freight, if any. Nichols was not acting as Petitioners' agent in the sale of the melons for the account of the Petitioners on a net return basis nor was Nichols acting as a negotiating broker between the Petitioners and the buyer. Nichols did not make the type of accountiig to Petitioners as required by section 604.22, Florida Statutes, had Nichols been Petitioners' 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 11, 1988, L. L. Hiers contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid for melons shipped that day was 6 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight of the load of melons shipped on June 11, 1988. Only a partial load, no. 10896 weighing 11,420 pounds for which Nichols paid 5 cents per pound, is in dispute. The amount in dispute is $114.70. On June 13, 1988, L. L. Hiers contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid for melons shipped that day was 5 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight of 3 loads of melons shipped that day that are in dispute. The 3 loads in dispute are as follows: (a) Load No. 10906, weighing 48,620 pounds for which Nichols paid 4 cents per pound; (b) Load No. 10904, weighing 50,660 pounds for which Nichols paid 4 cents per pound, and; (c) Load No. 10902, weighing 45,030 pounds for which Nichols paid 4 cents per pound. The amount in dispute is as follows: (a) Load No. 10906, $486.20; (b) Load No. 10904, $253.30; and (c) Load No. 10902, $450.30. On June 20, 1988, L. L. Hiers contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid for melons shipped that day was 5 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the weight of 52,250 for which Nichols paid 2 cents per pound. The amount in dispute is $1,567.50. On June 23, 1988, L. L. Hiers contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid for melons shipped that day was 5.25 cents per pound. This price is 0.25 cent per pound less than that quoted on the same day in Case No. 88-5632A which is apparently due to the variety, Crimson Sweet, as opposed to Charmston Grey, since the average size of the melons shipped that day was within 4 ounces. This price was recorded in the field book with the load of melons shipped that day weighing 44,140 pounds for which Nichols paid 5 cents per pound. The load in dispute is load no. 11251, and the amount in dispute is $110.35. The total amount in dispute is $2,982.35. Load no. 11090 was federally inspected and failed to meet U.S. No. 1 grade on account of condition, not quality requirements. Therefore, the price of 2 cents per pound is a reasonable price and within the terms of the verbal contract. On all other loads, Nichols contends that the quality was low resulting in a lesser price than that agreed upon. However, Nichols failed to present sufficient evidence to support this contention. Nichols has refused to pay Petitioners the difference between the agreed upon price for load nos. 10896, 10902, 10904, 10906, 11090, and 11251, and the price paid by Nichols as indicated in the settlement sheet. The total difference is $2,982.35. However, subtracting $1,567.50, the difference in load no. 11090 that was rejected, from the total differnce results in a net difference of $1,414,85 and the amount owed to Petitioners.
Recommendation Upon cnsideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and 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 Petitioners, Carl Hiers and Rachel Hiers, the sum of $1,414.85. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent, Jay Nichols, Inc., fails to timely pay Petitioners, Carl Hiers and Rachel 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 Petitioners 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: Honorable Doyle Conner, Commissioner Mr. Carl Heirs Depaftment of Agriculture and Mrs. Rachel Hiers Consumer Service Route 5, Box 339 The Capitol Dunnellon, Florida 32630 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mallory Horne, Esquire Jay Nichols, Inc. Department of Agriculture and Post Office Box 1705 Consumer Services Lakeland, Florida 33802 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company Ben H. Pridgeon, Chief Post Office Box 1138 Bureau of License and Bond Baltimore, Maryland Mayo Building 21203 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners own and operate a farm in St. Johns County, Florida. During the 1991 potato-growing season, they grew atlantic chipping potatoes on their 400-acre farm, as well as on approximately 30 acres leased from another party by their daughter and son-in-law. The Petitioners' business is known as Pacetti Farms. Rubin is an Illinois corporation licensed to do business in Florida as a broker or dealer in agricultural products. Rubin customarily purchases potatoes from growers throughout the country at the appropriate season for resale, typically to various potato chip manufacturing companies. Mr. Rubin appeared at the hearing and testified on behalf of Rubin and as an adverse witness on behalf of the Petitioners. Rubin is licensed and bonded with a surety bond from Continental in accordance with the statutory authority cited below, enforced and regulated by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("Department"). On December 22, 1990, the Petitioners and Rubin entered into a written contract for the sale and purchase of 50,000 CWT of Florida atlantic chipping potatoes. That contract is in evidence as Exhibit 3 and is also known as the "set price contract". The contract called for shipment of the potatoes at a stated price of $6.35 per CWT, although the parties have stipulated and agreed that the actual contract price was intended as $6.00 per CWT. That figure is not in dispute in this proceeding. Shipment was to be made during the harvesting season between the dates of April 27, 1991 and June 15, 1991. The contract contained an escape clause or exception for "acts of God", with an explanatory parenthetic clause indicating that that was intended to mean circumstances beyond the control of the parties, such as flood, freeze, hail, etc. On or about February 15, 1991, severe cold weather struck the potato- growing area of St. Johns County, Florida. Temperatures ranged from 25 degrees to 19 degrees on that day, with a high wind blowing and very dry conditions. This resulted in soil being blown away from the newly-set potatoes under very cold temperatures. Because of this, the Petitioners had to work with tractors and cultivators far into the night to turn the blown-away soil back into the potato "sets". The Petitioners feared that this would cause some "dry eyes" and, therefore, lowered potato plant and potato production. In fact, however, upon observing the maturing plants during April of 1991, it appeared that the Petitioners would have a healthy, normal crop. The prior year the Petitioners had grown 133,000 CWT of potatoes on their 400 acres (excluding the Kirkers' 30 acres). With this background of an apparently-healthy crop in mind, the Petitioners were approached by Rubin on April 25, 1991 and negotiations ensued which resulted in the sale and purchase from Petitioners to Rubin of six additional loads of potatoes at the open market price of $19.50 per CWT. The six additional loads were in addition to the 50,000 CWT of potatoes agreed upon in the main contract entered into on December 22, 1990. This separate oral agreement for the six loads of potatoes at the market price of $19.50 per CWT was entered into prior to the Petitioners initiating delivery under the terms of the written contract of December 22, 1990. The parties thus agreed for the sale and purchase of six loads of potatoes at that market price to be delivered on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the following week, April 29th, April 30th, and May 1, 1991. Part of the consideration for that oral contract was the Petitioners' ability to furnish the six truckloads of potatoes on short notice, on the dates that Rubin required them. In other words, Rubin needed them in a hurry; and it was apparently worth $19.50 per CWT for him to get the potatoes delivered immediately on the dates requested. In the process of negotiating this oral contract, the Petitioners assured Rubin that he would have sufficient potatoes to meet his 50,000 CWT obligation under the written contract of December 22, 1990. This was not a misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioners, at this time, because the Petitioners, in good faith, believed they would be able to meet the 50,000 CWT set price contract and the oral contract for six additional truckloads, because of their belief concerning their crop estimate. This belief was based upon their observance of an apparently healthy crop and their knowledge that on their 400 acres, the year before, they had grown 133,000 CWT, as well as upon their knowledge that a normal crop estimate for the entire 430 acres at this location, under all of the prevailing circumstances, was 120,400 CWT. In fact, the Petitioners only contracted for 116,650 CWT of potatoes which, based upon a reasonable and appropriate crop estimate for this site and circumstances, would have allowed them to meet all their contracts, including the 50,000 CWT contract between the Petitioners and Rubin, although not all of the market sales for the Kirkers. After having thus assured Mr. Rubin that they could meet the contract of December 22, 1990 and still perform the oral contract for the six truckloads at market price, the Petitioners proceeded to carry out that oral agreement. It was a separate and distinct contract from the written contract dated December 22, 1990. Under the separate oral contract, they delivered the six truckloads of potatoes requested by Rubin. Rubin received them and paid $19.50 per CWT for them. On May 2, 1990, the Petitioners began delivering potatoes to Rubin under the terms and conditions of the written contract of December 22, 1990 and continued the deliveries throughout the remainder of the harvesting season. The first was shipped from Pacetti Farms on May 2, 1991 and the last load delivered to Rubin on that contract was shipped on June 1, 1991. During the 1991 growing and harvesting season, the area, including St. Johns County, experienced substantial crop damage due to excessive frost, rain, hail, and wind, which occurred during February of 1991 and then after April 25, 1991, with particular regard to excessive rainfall in May of 1991. This resulted in the area being declared an agricultural disaster area by the United States Department of Agriculture for that growing season. The Petitioners suffered damage to their crop as a result of these elements in February of 1991, as described above, and by excessive rainfall during May of 1991. Excessive rainfall caused root damage to their crop, which resulted in a lowered yield even though the plants viewed above ground appeared to be normal. This was aggravated by the fact that the Petitioners and other growers were legally unable to use the pesticide "Temik", for control of nematodes, during that growing season. Because of the nature of the crop involved, which grows underground, the potato yield is difficult to estimate at any given point in harvesting. The exact nature and extent of damage caused by weather conditions to a single crop is hard to estimate in advance. This difficulty is further compounded by differing soil types and climate conditions present within a particular growing area, especially with regard to farmers such as the Petitioners, who have their crops spread over multiple fields and farms. In mid-May of 1991, the Petitioners realized that there would be a crop shortage. The crop was damaged due to the weather-related factors mentioned above. The Petitioners notified Rubin that they expected their potato crop to fall short of expectations and that they would probably be unable to completely fill the contract with Rubin for the entire 50,000 CWT contracted for on December 22, 1990. In the meantime, before the 1991 planting season began, the Petitioners and Renee and Keith Kirker had entered into an agreement, whereby the Kirkers initiated their own farming operation on 30 acres of potato-growing land. The Kirkers leased that acreage from Diane Ross and received operating assistance from the Petitioners in the form of advances of all their operating costs, pursuant to an agreement between the Petitioners and the Kirkers, whereby the Petitioners would be repaid the estimated production costs for that 30-acre crop in the amount of $1,776.85 per acre, upon the sale of those 30 acres of potatoes. Potatoes are planted and harvested in the same sequence. Since the Petitioners assisted the Kirkers in planting their potatoes prior to the planting and completion of their own fields, the Petitioners borrowed some of the Kirkers' potatoes to fill their own contracts because those potatoes matured earlier, with the understanding that the Kirkers would be repaid in kind from the Petitioners' own fields during the remainder of the harvesting season. This is a common practice according to Ronald Brown, who testified for the Petitioners as an expert witness on farming practices. However, after the heavy rains in May of 1991, the Petitioners discovered that it would be necessary, in their view, to retain a portion of their last acreage in order to have potatoes to pay back the Kirkers for the potatoes borrowed. These potatoes would be sold by the Petitioners at market price, as agreed with the Kirkers. Upon discovering that their crop would not meet their contract obligations, the Petitioners attempted to prorate their remaining potatoes between their remaining contract customers in what they considered a fair and reasonable manner. On behalf of the Kirkers, the potatoes allocated for repayment to them were offered to Rubin, who, through its President, Mr. Rubin, declined to purchase them at the market price at which they were offered (higher than the contract price). The Petitioners' expert, Ronald Brown, established that, based upon accepted growers practices and his experience in the Hastings area, the Petitioners should have anticipated the yield for their 1991 crop at no more than 280 CWT per acre for the Petitioners' 430 acres (30 acres of which was the Kirkers' land). It is customary farming practice in the area, according to Brown, to enter into contracts for no more than 80% of the maximum anticipated yield of potatoes. The anticipated yield on the entire 430 acres of the Petitioners' and the Kirkers' land was, therefore, 120,400 CWT of potatoes. The principle of contracting no more than 80% of a maximum anticipated yield is designed to protect contracting parties in the event a smaller than anticipated yield occurs. A 280 CWT per acre yield is the generally-accepted yield amount under good growing conditions, according to Mr. Brown. The year before, the Petitioners had produced a total yield of 133,000 CWT on only 400 acres. The Petitioners entered into a total of six separate contracts for delivery of a total of 116,650 CWT of potatoes out of a reasonably anticipated maximum yield for the 430 acres of only 120,400 CWT. Thus, the Petitioners contracted 97% of the customary, accepted, anticipated maximum yield for the 430 acres for 1991. Thirty (30) of those acres, however, represent the potatoes which the Petitioners were obligated to the Kirkers to sell on their behalf at market price, rather than contract price. In spite of the fact that the Petitioners contracted 97% of the accepted, projected crop yield for 430 acres, the Petitioners, in fact, produced 117,000 CWT (approximate) on those 430 acres. Therefore, had they not diverted a certain amount of the crop to open market sales, they could have met their 116,650 CWT contractual obligations to the six contracting parties, including Rubin. It is also true, however, that that 117,000 CWT actual yield included the 30 acres of potatoes which the Petitioners were separately obligated to sell at open market price to repay the Kirkers. Notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioners had contracted 97% of the commonly-accepted, projected maximum yield, the Petitioners diverted 10,301.6 CWT of the 1991 crop on the entire 430 acres from contract sales to open market sales at much higher prices. Of those open market sales, 2,789.5 CWT were sold at market price after the last contract sales were made to Rubin. Had the Petitioners sold the entire 10,301.6 CWT of potatoes on contract, instead of at open market, all of the Petitioners' contractual requirements could have been met, including the contract with Rubin, although they would not then have been able to meet their obligations to the Kirkers. Based upon the above Findings of Fact supported by competent evidence, it is found that the preponderant evidence in this case does not support the Petitioners' contention that the Petitioners were unable to fulfill their contract obligation to Rubin due to an act of God. Although it is true that the Petitioners established that poor weather conditions, coupled with the absence of the ability to use the pesticide "Temik", had a deleterious effect on their crop production. The record shows that in spite of this, the Petitioners had the ability to fulfill their contract with Rubin if only approximately 5,000 CWT of the 10,301.6 CWT of potatoes sold on the open market had instead been allocated to the Petitioners' contract with Rubin to fill out the difference between the approximately 45,000 CWT honored under the contract and the contractual obligation to supply 50,000 CWT. The Petitioners produced on their own 400 acres 108,000 CWT. The remainder of the 117,582.5 CWT of potatoes from the total crop represented the potatoes grown on the Kirkers' 30 acres. Thus, the Kirkers' land produced approximately 8,600 CWT. The Petitioners supplied approximately 3,000 CWT under the separate, oral contract at market price and which were delivered to Rubin on April 29th, 30th, and May 1st (six loads at approximately 500 CWT per load). Then, the Petitioners sold the remainder of the total of 10,301.6 CWT of the entire Pacetti/Kirker crop or approximately 7,301.6 CWT on open market sales to others. The remainder of the 108,000 CWT grown on the Petitioners' own 400 acres, not sold to Rubin under the contract of December 22, 1990 or under the oral contract of April 25, 1991 (the six loads at market), were contracted out to other buyers. The ultimate effect of these contracts was that the Petitioners had contracted for 116,650 CWT. Thus, the Petitioners had imprudently contracted approximately 97% of the accepted, projected crop yield of 120,400 CWT, knowing that they were obligated to sell the Kirkers 8,600 or so CWT at market price and not on contract. Thus, the Petitioners clearly over- contracted the crop yield which they reasonably should have expected on the total 430 acres under the generally-accepted method of calculation of crop yield, under good growing conditions, of 280 CWT per acre, established by expert witness, Brown. This over-contracting practice, together with selling an excess amount of potatoes at market price (over and above those sold at market by the separate, oral contract with Rubin at the initial part of the harvesting season), is what actually prevented the Petitioners from fulfilling Rubin's contract of 50,000 CWT, rather than an act of God, predetermined condition for claiming impossibility of performance on that contract due to the above- described weather conditions. Even though the Petitioners were obligated to sell the Kirkers' entire 30 acres of yield, approximately 8,600 CWT, at market price, the Petitioners would still have had enough potatoes, even with their less-than-expected yield of 108,000 CWT represented by their own 400 acres, to have filled out the Rubin contract if they had not contracted out so many potatoes to other contracting buyers and had not sold as many potatoes at market price off contract as, indeed, they sold. Since the act of God condition is not what prevented the Petitioners from filling the written contract with Rubin for 50,000 CWT, it is clear that the Petitioners thus breached that contract. In this connection, it should be pointed out that the written contract with Rubin was entered into before any of the other contracts for the potato crop in question. The two contracts with Rubin are, however, separate contracts. The Petitioners established that there was a separate oral agreement entered into on April 25th between the Petitioners and Rubin and that the consideration flowing from the Petitioners to Mr. Rubin was that he needed the six loads of potatoes on short notice delivered on specific dates, April 29th, 30th, and May 1st, for which he was willing, therefore, to pay the $19.50 market price, knowing that it was for other potatoes that he contracted at $6.00. The Petitioners performed by providing the loads of potatoes when he wanted them and he paid for them in full. Thus, that contract was executed by consideration passing from each party to the other, and the contract was completed. The written contract with Rubin dated December 22, 1990 for the 50,000 CWT was the contract which the Petitioners breached for the above-found reasons. Rubin would, therefore, be entitled to damages for that breach based upon the facts proven in this case. There is no counterclaim or other action pending in this forum by Rubin against the Petitioners, however. Consequently, any damages proven by the breach of the written contract can only, at best, be applied against the amount due and owing the Petitioners for the billed, but unpaid, loads; that is, against the amount in controversy of $40,015.20. Rubin, however, has not produced any evidence to show what his damages might be. The record establishes, as found above, that, of the 48,361 CWT of potatoes delivered to Rubin, approximately 3,000 of which were delivered under the separate oral contract for six loads, Rubin only received approximately 45,000 CWT under the 50,000 CWT written contract. Thus, Rubin would appear to be entitled to damages caused by failing to get the last approximately 5,000 CWT of potatoes. The record, however, does not establish what those damages might be because it is not established whether Rubin had to purchase potatoes from another source at a higher price to meet the remainder of the 50,000 CWT amount, or, conversely, whether Rubin was able to purchase them from another source at a lower price than the $6.00 per CWT contract price, so that Rubin would actually benefit by the Petitioners' breach of that contract. Neither does the record reflect another possible scenario whereby Rubin might have simply accepted the approximate 5,000 CWT shortage and simply lost customers and potential profits represented by that amount of potatoes, or, finally, whether he simply did not purchase the shortage of 5,000 CWT from another source and had no missed sales for that amount of potatoes anyway and, therefore, no loss and no damage. The record simply does not reflect what Rubin's damages might have been because of the shortage under the written contract deliveries. In any event, the record evidence establishes that the oral contract was fully performed, with consideration flowing to each of the parties and that those potatoes were fully paid for at the market price. Then, the Petitioners delivered the written contract loads at $6.00 per CWT to Rubin represented by the claimed $40,015.00. That remains unpaid by Rubin. Rubin is obligated to pay that amount because Rubin was obligated to, and received those potatoes at the $6.00 contract price. Rubin would then appear to be entitled to claim damages if, indeed, any were suffered, for the breach of that written contract by the Petitioners' failure to supply the last (approximate) 5,000 CWT due Rubin under that contract. That resolution of their dispute, however, cannot be performed in this forum because of insufficient evidence, as delineated above, and remains to be resolved by another action by Rubin in another forum.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondents, Jack Rubin & Son, Inc. and Continental Casualty Co., Inc. be found jointly and severally liable for payment of $40,015.20 to the Petitioners for potatoes delivered to the Respondent, Jack Rubin & Son, Inc., for which payment has not yet been made. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 23rd day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-548A Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted, in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter because the evidence establishes that 30 acres of potatoes belonged to the Kirkers even though Pacetti Farms was responsible for all operations with regard to planting and harvesting those 30 acres, furnishing costs, operational expertise, equipment and labor as an advance against the Kirkers' crop sale. 2-5. Accepted, except that it is not found that the entire 430 acres of potatoes were the Petitioners' potatoes. 30 acres of potatoes belonged to the Kirkers. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence, to the extent that the 97% of the accepted projected crop yield contracted for by the Petitioners represents an inclusion of the 30 acres of the Kirkers' potatoes in that percentage of crop yield projection. This is erroneous because the 30 acres were the Kirkers' potatoes which the Petitioners were handling for them. Accepted in concept, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esq. General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 John Michael Traynor, Esquire Charles E. Pellicer, Esquire 28 Cordova Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 C. Holt Smith, III, Esquire 3100 University Boulevard So. Suite 101 Jacksonville, FL 32016
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.
The Issue Whether Saxon Business Products, Inc.'s ("Saxon") response to the Department of General Services' invitation to bid for walk-up convenience copiers should be disqualified on grounds that: Saxon's omission of a supply price list was a material deviation from the bid specifications and conditions; and Saxon's walk-up convenience copier, model "Saxon 300," failed to prove two-sided copy capability.
Findings Of Fact I. Invitation to Bid On June 10, 1981, DGS issued invitation to Bid No. 544-600-38-B ("ITB") entitled, "Walk-Up Convenience Copiers; Bond Paper and Magazine Finish Bond Paper." The ITB proposes an annual contract under which state agencies and institutions can purchase copying machines. It contains general and special conditions and specifications, and warns vendors that bids that do not comply with such conditions "are subject to rejection." (Testimony of Celnik) The ITB specifications divide copiers into two groups: Group I, plain bond copiers, Group II, magazine finish copiers. The copiers are further categorized by type: Type I indicates minimum features; Type II indicates two- sided copying capability; Type III indicates one reduction capability; and Type IV indicates two or more reduction capabilities. These types are further separated into 12 classes on the basis of speed and volume (P-1.) The ITB special conditions instruct bidders to submit bid sheets 2/ breaking down all copying costs to a per-copy basis. Bids are to be evaluated and contracts awarded to bidders submitting the, lowest cost per copy in each category of copier. Cost per copy is calculated by using a specific cost formula. (P-1.) The ITB cost formula contains three components: machine cost, labor cost, and supply cost. DGS proposes to disqualify Saxon's bid in several categories of copiers for failure to supply a supply price list required by the supply cost component. This component provides, in relevant part: C) SUPPLY COST - The bidder shall compute supply costs on the Manufacturer's Brand. If there is an existing state con- tract for supplies for the manufacturer's brand equipment, the state contract price may be substituted. Supply costs will be rounded to six (6) decimal points. All other costs will also be rounded off to six (6) decimal points. The volume price used by the vendor to compute supply cost shall be based on the monthly median vol- ume of the type and class being bid. Supply cost submitted shall be firm for the contract period, except for paper, and all supply costs shall be current market price, verifiable. Vendor must submit supply price lists with his bid to substantiate that correct price vol- umes were used, unless state contract prices were used. A contract award may include supplies if deemed in the best interest of the State. By electing to substitute state contract supplies, the vendor is certifying that his equipment, using said supplies, will meet all per- formance requirements of this bid and of the equipment manufacturer. NOTE - All cost formulas will be verified by the Division of Purchasing and errors in extension will be corrected. In the event incorrect supply cost volumes are used by a bidder, the Division of Purchas- ing will adjust these costs to the median volume range. (e.s.)(P-1.) The purpose of the supply price list requirement, included in DGS's 1980 and 1981 ITB for convenience copiers, is to enable DGS to verify the supply cost figures shown on a vendor's bid sheets; in this way, DGS can insure that all vendors are using correct quantity pricing on their bid sheets. 3/ (In the past, some bidders had used lower supply prices, which were tied to high volume purchases; but those volumes frequently exceeded the state's needs and the median volumes specified by the ITB for each category of copier.) The verification procedure followed by DGS in both 1980 and 1981 involves checking the vendor's bid sheets against the prices shown on the supply price list. 4/ If DGS finds an inconsistency between the two, it "corrects" the bid sheet supply cost upward or downward to reflect the price shown on the supply price list. 5/ Such a bid sheet correction would also change the total median cost per copy, the factor used to evaluate competing bids. DGS also checks the supply list to determine whether it contains current market prices. (Testimony of Hittinger, Eberhard.) If a vendor fails to submit a supply price list, DGS cannot verify that the supply prices used on the bid sheet (to compute total median cost per copy) accurately reflect the median volumes specified in the ITB. Neither can DGS determine whether the supply prices used on the bid sheet are set prices, which do not vary with volume, or volume prices, which do; the bid sheets, on their face, do not reveal which type of pricing is being used. (Testimony of Eberhard; P-1.) After sealed bids are publicly opened, DGS has an established practice of not allowing any bidder to submit additional material which could alter price or other information previously submitted on bid sheets. DGS does, however, accept late information if it can be corroborated by an independent source. For example, a bidder might -- after bid opening -- supply its corporate charter number, which can be easily verified by contacting the Department of State. (Testimony of Hittinger, Eberhard.) The ITB special conditions also require DGS to test and approve copiers prior to bid opening. Copiers which are not tested and accepted by DGS are ineligible for a contract award: EQUIPMENT APPROVAL - Each item of equipment bid shall have been tested by the Division of Purchasing prior to the bid opening time and date for performance and reliability under normal working con- ditions. Any bidder whose equipment has not been tested shall provide a model of the equipment on which he intends to bid to a specified testing station, complete with all supplies, at no expense to the State. Testing will extend for a period of twenty (20) working days. In the event evaluation and acceptance of untested ma- chines has not been accomplished prior to the bid opening date and time, such machine shall not be eligible for an award. (P-1.) II. Bid Opening: Saxon's Failure to Submit Supply Price List Prior to the 1981 bid opening, Saxon failed to submit a supply price list in connection with its bid. This was apparently an oversight on its part; a year earlier, it had furnished a supply price list in response to a similar ITB for convenience copiers. Because of Saxon's omission, DGS was unable to verify the supply prices used by Saxon on its bid sheets or determine whether Saxon was utilizing set or volume prices. (Testimony of Eberhard, Celnik, Hittinger.) After bid opening, Saxon notified DGS that the supply prices shown on its bid sheets were set supply prices -- unit prices which do not vary with volume -- and confirmed that they are the supply prices which it now offers to the state. (Testimony of Celnik.) In its evaluation of the bids, DGS applied the requirement of a supply price list equally to all bidders. All bidders who omitted a supply price list were informed that they were disqualified. Saxon's bid was disqualified in five copier categories: Group I, Type I, Class I; Group I, Type I, Class II; Group I, Type I, Class IV; Group I, Type II, Class I; and Group I, Type II, Class II. At least 11 vendors, however, did submit supply price lists with their bid sheets; approximately one-third were set price lists, the remaining were volume price lists. (Testimony of Eberhard; P-3.) If a vendor could submit a supply price list after the bid opening, it could effectively decrease or increase its bid. (This is so because, in case of a conflict between the bid sheet supply price and the supply price list, the price list value will prevail. A change in the bid sheet supply price will change the cost per copy figure the determining factor in awarding contracts.) A vendor submitting a late supply price list would have an unfair advantage since it could change its bid after bid opening while its competitors could not. The competitive nature of the bidding process would be impaired. (Testimony of Hittinger, Eberhard.) Furthermore, if late submittal of a supply price list was allowed, a bidder could disqualify itself by refusing to provide it; the bidder would then have the advantage of revisiting its bid and -- if it chose -- withdrawing it after bid opening. The opportunity to withdraw a bid -- after bid opening -- would be an advantage not enjoyed by those who timely submitted supply price lists with their bids. (Testimony of Hittinger, Eberhard.) In some copier categories, the vendors who omitted supply price lists were the low bidders. If DGS disqualifies them for their omission, it must award the contract to the next highest bidder. The difference between those low bids and the next higher bid is substantial -- in some cases exceeding 23 percent. 6/ (Testimony of Celnik, Eberhard, Nee, Reinhart.) III. Failure of "Saxon 300" to Demonstrate Two-Sided Copying Capability In accordance with the ITB, Saxon submitted its "Saxon 300" copier to DGS for evaluation and testing. Prior to bid opening, DGS conducted a 20-day test of the machine. The "Saxon 300" machine which DGS tested lacked two-sided copying capability. It could reproduce clearly on one side, but not on the other. The "Saxon 300" sales literature and instruction manual submitted with the machine did not represent that the machine had two-sided copying capability. (Testimony of Nee; 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, R-2.) The "Saxon 300" may have two-sided copying capability, but only after special modifications are made to the copier. These modifications include removal of a roller device, replacement of the heating element, and replacement of the blower system. Saxon did not indicate at the time of testing, or in its bid, that the "Saxon 300" required such modification for two-sided copying capability. Neither did it indicate what, if any, additional costs would be charged for such modifications. (Testimony of Nee, Wallace; R-3.) After DGS tested the "Saxon 300," it sent Saxon a form letter indicating that the copier met minimum operating requirements. The letter did not inform Saxon that the machine lacked two-sided copying capability because DGS did not consider the lack of such capability a major malfunction in the equipment. (Testimony of Nee.) If a machine malfunctions, DGS has -- in the past -- allowed vendors to correct the deficiency or substitute another machine. (Testimony of Nee.) The Group I, Type II, Class I category of copiers, requires two-sided copying capability. Saxon bid its "Saxon 300" as a copier which meets this requirement. (Testimony of Celnik, Nee; P-1.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Saxon's bids in Group I, Type I, Class I; Group I, Type I, Class II; Group I, Type I, Class IV; Group I, Type II, Class I; and Group I, Type II, Class II be disqualified; and That Saxon's bid in Group I, Type II, Class I be disqualified. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 26th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1982.
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.
