The Issue Whether Expedient Services, Inc. should be certified as a minority business enterprise by the Respondent, pursuant to Section 288.703(1) and (2), Florida Statutes and the applicable rules implementing the statute.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation founded prior to 1978 by five minority owners who purchased all of the stock originally issued. The primary business of the corporation was to provide janitorial services for corporate and governmental clients. In 1978, Harvey Hughes was hired as president and CEO. As part of his compensation package, Hughes purchased a minority interest in the corporation at par value. Hughes continues to serve in that capacity to the present day. Beginning after 1983, the five original stockholders, on separate occasions, sold their shares back to the corporation leaving Hughes as the sole stockholder with 833 shares outstanding. In the late 1980's, Hughes' son, Carl Hughes, joined the company as Vice-President and began the process of changing the type of services the corporation provided. He became a minority shareholder in 1991. Sherry Hughes has served as a member of the Board of Directors and Secretary/Treasurer to the Corporation for many years. In addition, she is employed by the Corporation as its Human Resources Director. In 1992, for past services rendered and no additional consideration, Horace Hughes transferred 450 shares, or 54 percent of the outstanding shares, to Sherry Hughes, his wife. Fifty-Four percent of the Petitioner/applicant is presently owned by Sherry Hughes, a woman. The Petitioner's current business is the repair and sales of computers and peripheral equipment. The majority owner, Sherry Hughes, is not a computer technician. She cannot diagnose a computer which needs repairs. The corporation hires computer technicians. Sherry Hughes does not hire technicians, as that duty has been delegated to the Service Manager, Vincent Schneider. Additionally, Schneider usually does the firing when needed. Payroll for Petitioner is done by an employee, Kathy Levann. Mrs. Hughes purchases office supplies and leaves the purchasing of technical supplies to a buyer. The company presently has three male Directors and two women Directors, including Sherry Hughes. All the Directors are authorized to sign corporate checks. For their work, Sherry Hughes is paid $5.00 hourly; Horace Hughes is paid $12-14 hourly and Carl Hughes is paid $12-15 hourly. All are stockholders. Horace Hughes, as President, signed the lease for the business location. Horace Hughes signed the affidavit for insurance on the business vehicles. Horace Hughes signed for a business loan in the financed amount of $70,302.71, both as President and Guarantor at SunTrust Bank. Horace Hughes is authorized by corporate resolution to borrow money on behalf of the corporation. Carl Hughes entered into the agreements with various computer dealers on behalf of the Petitioner. Sherry Hughes does not handle invitations to bid. Carl Hughes handles all invitations to bid, cost estimating and negotiations. Applicant has not established by competent evidence that Sherry Hughes exercises a real, substantial continuing ownership and control of the applicant corporation. Other than her salary, no evidence was introduced to establish that Sherry Hughes receives income commensurate with the percentage of her ownership in the company. Sherry Hughes failed to establish that she shares in all of the risk through her role in decision-making, negotiations, and execution of documents as either an individual or officer of the corporation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed by Expedient Services, Inc. on April 7, 1995, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 12th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5067 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-18. COPIES FURNISHED: Horace Hughes, President Expedient Services, Inc. Post Office Box 5400 Titusville, Florida 32783-5400 Joseph L. Shields General Counsel Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000 Veronica Anderson Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000
The Issue The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Reguest for Statement of Qualification for Petroleum Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. Attachment F to the solicitation sought information related to utilization of minority business enterprises as subcontractors. Points were available for said utilization. The Department awarded zero points to parties which failed to include the three pages of the attachment in the responses to the solicitation. The issue in this case is whether the Department acted in accordance with law in awarding zero points for failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F.
Findings Of Fact On March 1, 1991, The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSOQ) for Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. As stated in the RFSOQ, the DER's objective is to enter into approximately ten contracts for petroleum cleanup services with contractors most qualified to perform the services. It is in the best interests of the state and the DER to enter into such contracts with the most qualified contractors available. Selected firms will be placed under contract with the DER to respond to task assignments. There is no work guaranteed to any contractor as a result of being selected and placed under contract. The cover sheet to the DER Solicitation #9111C identifies Attachment B as "General Instructions", Attachment C as "Instructions for Preparation of an SOQ", Attachment F as "Minority Business Certificate" and Attachment N as an "SOQ Checklist." In the RFSOQ, the DER specifically reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. The general instructions set forth at Attachment B provide, that the DER "may waive minor informalities or irregularities in the SOQs received where such are merely a matter of form and not substance, and the corrections of which are not prejudicial to other contractors." The DER is not required to waive all minor irregularities. The ability to waive such defects is within the jurisdiction of the agency. The evidence establishes that the DER applied such discretion consistently. There is no evidence that, at any time prior to the SOQ opening, did the Petitioner or Intervenors seek additional information from the DER regarding the agency's discretion to waive minor irregularities. Attachment C provides that "ANY AND ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY A CONTRACTOR IN VARIANCE WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE REVIEWED OR EVALUATED (e.g. pages beyond the 20-page SOQ limit will not be reviewed) or may result in the response being deemed non-responsive and rejected as noted." The purpose of the statement was to discourage responders from submitting information beyond that required by the RFSOQ, in order to provide a common basis for the evaluation of all SOQs submitted. The provision also provided the DER with the ability to reject an SOQ which failed to substantially comply with the agency's solicitation. Attachment C states that an SOQ shall consist of three parts, a one- page transmittal letter, a 20-page SOQ, and "other required information". According to Attachment C, the SOQ was to contain an introduction, a section on the company's background, a statement of experience and knowledge related to the qualifications required by the RFSOQ, a description of project organization and management appropriate to the tasks assigned, a list of personnel responsible for completion of assigned task, a list of "a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the FDER" and related information. Work performed for the DER was to be set forth separately in addition to the ten non-DER clients. "Other required information" included minority business utilization information. Attachment C provides as follows: Contractors submitting SOQs under this solicitation must identify intended minority subcontractors and estimated percentage of total contract amount to be awarded to minority firms on Attachment F of this Request for Statement of Qualifications. Use of any document other that Attachment F shall result in disallowance of any credit for use of minority subcontractors. (emphasis supplied.) Evaluation points were available on a scaled basis to contractors based upon their commitment to utilization of minority businesses enterprises in their SOQs. Attachment B provides that "Minority Business Utilization will be evaluated. provided that the responder complies with the reporting requirements contained in Attachment F...." (emphasis supplied.) Attachment F, page 1 of 3, provides as follows: Directions: Each contractor and/or subcontractor which meets the definition of a certified small minority business, as described below, shall submit an originally signed copy of page 1 of this Attachment in the response package to this solicitation. If more than one minority business is to be used, the prime contractor shall copy this page and have each minority business complete that copy as though it were an original. A prime contractor which intends to utilize subcontractors meeting the definition of small minority business is responsible for completing page 2 of this Attachment. A prime contractor which meets the definition of a small minority business is responsible for completing page 3 of this Attachment. If a particular page of this Attachment is not applicable, the prime contractor shall so indicate on that page and include the page as part of the response package. At a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit-- this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization. (emphasis supplied.) Attachment N, the "SOQ checklist," provides a list of items which are to be "properly completed, signed and enclosed" in order to "ensure that your SOQ is responsive to FDER Solicitation No. 9111C...." Item 3.b. of Attachment N reads: "Minority Business Utilization Form - if applicable (Attachment F)". As stated in Attachment B to the RFSOQ, on March 13, 1991, a mandatory pre-bid meeting was held in Tallahassee, Florida, at the DER's offices for all contractors wishing to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ). Failure to attend the meeting would have resulted in rejection of SOQs submitted by non- attending contractors. The Petitioner and Intervenors were represented at the pre-bid meeting. The meeting provided an opportunity during the solicitation process to have technical, legal or administrative questions answered. Accordingly, potential responders are expected to have read the complete RFSOQ prior to the meeting. At the pre-bid meeting, the DER did not review every part of the solicitation, but invited questions from participants. The DER official conducting the meeting stated that "any and all information submitted by a contractor in variance with these instructions will not be reviewed or evaluated," however, the other directions provided in the RFSOQ were otherwise reviewed only upon request. Although there was a specific discussion of the requirements for reporting proposed minority business utilization, there were no questions asked with regard to the requirements for completion of Attachment F. There were no questions asked regarding the DER's right to waive irregularities, or whether the failure to submit Attachment F in accordance with the directions would be regarded by the agency as a minor irregularity. Potential responders also had an opportunity to submit written questions prior to a time certain. There is no evidence that questions were raised related to the requirements of Attachment F or to the DER's application of it's discretionary authority to waive minor irregularities. On March 22, 1991, the DER issued an addendum, not material to this case, to the Request for SOQs. The addendum was sent by certified mail to each contractor represented at the March 13, 1991 meeting. On March 27, 1991, a second addendum was sent to each contractor. The addendum, among other things, changed the date for submission of an SOQ from April 1, 1991 to April 15, 1991 at 2:00 P.M. On April 15, 1991, SOQs were submitted by the Petitioner and Intervenors in this case. The bids were opened at 2:00 P.M. or shortly thereafter, and subsequently evaluated and scored by DER personnel. In some categories, points were awarded on a weighted basis, which provided a relative ranking of responders. For example, the prime contractor with the highest minority business enterprise subcontractor utilization received 13 points, with lesser ranked contractors receiving fewer points. On June 3, 1991, at 10:05 A.M. bid tabulation results were posted in the DER's contract office. The Petitioner and Intervenors in this case submitted responsive SOQ's to DER solicitation #9111C. The result of the DER's evaluation was the development of a short list of contractors permitted to make oral presentations to agency officials after which the DER will initiate contract discussions with approximately ten contractors. The SOQs were reviewed by DER officials who initially identified information submitted which did not comply with the requirements of the RFSOQ. Irregularities were identified and discussed with DER legal counsel to determine the materiality of the irregularity and to ascertain the appropriate treatment of the defects. The DER officials did not disclose the identity of the responder during the discussions, although the person identifying the defect was aware of the related responder. However, there is no evidence that the three DER officials were aware of an individual non-complying contractor's identity, or that the decision to waive such irregularities was based upon the identity of the participants. The DER determined that, in order to be equitable to all participants, it would not waive irregularities where the directions were clear and the consequences for noncompliance were specifically set forth. If the solicitation were less clear, or the consequence of noncompliance with the requirement was not specifically identified, the Department attempted to be more lenient regarding the waiver of such irregularities. Where the DER waived irregularities, such waivers were awarded on a consistent basis without regard to the individual responders involved. Information which was not to be reviewed or evaluated was concealed by either covering the information with white paper, or stapling excess pages together. The DER waived several types of minor irregularities in the SOQs received for Solicitation #9111C. Some contractors submitted transmittal letters consisting of multiple pages rather than the one page letter specified in the RFSOQ. The transmittal letter received no evaluation points. The DER stapled multiple page letters together and considered only information contained on the first page. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the one- page limit was not reviewed or evaluated. The DER did not waive the failure to attach a transmittal letter. DER waived some irregularities related to subcontractor letters. Multiple page letters were stapled together and only page one information was reviewed. The DER decision to waive such defects was based upon the fact that such subcontractors were less familiar with the DER's submission requirements than were the prime contractors, that such letters were submitted by the subcontractors, that it was unfair to penalize the prime contractors for the minor irregularities of the subcontractor letters, and that the tasks to be performed by subcontractors were generally not critical to the successful completion of the prime contractor's assigned responsibilities. There was sufficient information to permit the DER to conclude that the subcontractor and prime contractor were committed to the project. There is no evidence that the identities of the subcontractors was considered in determining whether such defects should be waived. The DER waived other irregularities related to subcontractor letters, including the failure of a subcontractor to sign the letter. There was no specific requirement that the subcontractor sign the letter. However, the DER did not waive the failure to submit subcontractor letters. In instances where no letters were submitted, the DER awarded zero points and references to the subcontractor in the SOQ were deleted. The DER's actions related to subcontractor letters was reasonable and appropriate. Another irregularity waived by the DER was the failure to supply a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the DER, with work performed for the DER set forth separately. The DER did not waive the failure to submit ten references, however, in some cases, not all ten references were acceptable. Attachment C does not state that the failure to submit ten acceptable references shall result in an award of zero points. In such instances, the DER reduced the number of points available to reflect the percentage of acceptable references provided. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the requirements, such as unacceptable references, was not evaluated. The DER acted reasonably and consistently with the provisions set forth in the RFSOQ. The DER requested that responders identify three "deliverables" required through an ongoing contract which had been effective within the past year. The DER did not consider deliverables related to contracts which had not been effective within the past year. The DER checked the references and awarded no points for unacceptable references. Several SOQ's did not appropriately identify key personnel as required. The DER did not consider information which was not reported as required by the RFSOQ. Where minor irregularities were waived, the waiver was applied consistently to all responders. The DER did not waive the failure of any responder to submit the three pages of Attachment F, as clearly required by the directions to the attachment. All parties which failed to submit all three pages of the attachment received a score of zero. There is no evidence that the DER, at any time, indicated that the directions set forth on Attachment F were optional. Approximately 20 of 45 of contractors submitting SOQs failed to include all three pages of the MBE utilization form, Attachment F to the Request for SOQs. Most failed to include page three of the attachment. The Petitioner, as well as Intervenors ERM-South, ITC and Westinghouse, were included in the 20 responders which failed to submit all three pages of Attachment F. As provided in the directions to Attachment F, failure to include all three pages of the attachment resulted in a score of zero points for MBE utilization. The DER could have made certain assumptions about the applicability of Attachment F to specific responders to the solicitation. However, given that the directions were clear and the penalty for not complying with the directions was equally clear, the DER did not waive the failure to submit all three pages of the attachment as part of the SOQs. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the DER's action was outside the agency's discretion or the requirements of law. Extensive testimony was offered in support of the assertion that the directions related to reporting of minority business utilization were confusing and ambiguous. However, the directions to Attachment F are clear and provide that, "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." There is no credible evidence to establish that such directions are confusing or ambiguous. The instructions to the RFSOQ consistently refer to Attachment F as being the only acceptable means of reporting minority business utilization information. Attachment F consists of three pages, with the "Directions" for completing and submitting the attachment set forth at page one, paragraph one. The Petitioner and Intervenors timely filed SOQ's and are substantially affected by the DER's determination that responders failing to submit all three pages of Attachment F were awarded zero points for minority business utilization. There is no evidence that the Petitioner or Intervenors are unable to perform the tasks identified in the RFSOQ.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (Case No. 91-4318B1D), as well as Cases No. 91- 43I6BID and 91-4317B1D, as set forth in the preliminary statement to this Recommended Order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-4316B1D, 90-4317B1D, and 90-4318B1D The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected as to the implication that DER had no right to waive minor irregularities, contrary to the evidence. 12, 16, 19. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected. Such additional points appear to have been awarded to M&E in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 24-25. Rejected. Although the specific waivers are factually correct, the implication of the proposed finding is contrary to the weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER waives such irregularities, even though the instructions were clear, where the consequences for failing to comply with each specific instruction were unclear. There was no penalty set forth at the requirement that a document be signed or not exceed one page in length. The evidence establishes that the DER's actions were reasonable, logical, and within the authority of the agency. 29-32. Rejected. Contrary to the clear "Directions" of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." Responders were referred to Attachment F by the instructions cited in the proposed finding. 33-34, 36-38, Rejected, irrelevant. 39. Rejected, immaterial. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by M&E and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40-41 Rejected. A logical reading of the checklist reference to Attachment F would be that, if the attachment were applicable, the attachment should be included. The clear and specific directions to Attachment F require the submission of the three page package to receive points. 42-43. Rejected, irrelevant. 44. Rejected. The failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F resulted in zero points, as provided in the directions to the attachment. The DER policy related to waiver of irregularities does not include the waiver of irregularities where the instructions are clear, the penalty for noncompliance is specific, and a responder fails to comply. The policy is reasonable and was applied consistently. 47. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. It appears that M&E's assertion that it would be included in the "short list" requires addition of points awarded by the DER in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 49-50. Rejected. While "instructions in a competitive bidding solicitation can be rendered ambiguous by their location," in this case, the instructions contained in the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. Attachment F's directions are not ambiguous or confusing. 51-53. Rejected, immaterial. This proposed finding is also contrary to the suggestion that the instructions were unclear, and indicates, not that the instructions were unclear, but that the M&E representative did not read the RFSOQ. It is not possible to find that a careful and intelligent reader of the directions to Attachment F could misunderstand the meaning of "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 54-61. Rejected, immaterial. The fact that a substantial number of responders failed to comply with the clear directions of Attachment F does not establish that the directions are confusing. The instructions to the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. The first paragraph of Attachment F is entitled and contains "Directions" which are clearly set forth. There is nothing at all ambiguous about the requirement that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 62-65. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no requirement that the DER waive all irregularities. Such irregularities may be waived at the Department's discretion. The DER chose not to waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for failure to comply with said requirements, were clear. The DER applied this policy appropriately and consistently. There was no appearance of favoritism when the agency's policy is fairly and consistently applied. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER expects potential responders to have read the RFSOQ prior to the pre-bid meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to answer questions and provide clarifying information. The fact that no questions were asked regarding the requirement to submit all three pages of Attachment F indicates that participants either clearly understood the requirement or had not read the RFSOQ prior to the only mandatory opportunity to obtain clarification. In any event, the DER is not obligated to read every sentence of the RFSOQ aloud at a pre-bid meeting in order to make certain that responders who fail to read the document will submit responsive SOQs. Rejected, cumulative. 68-69. Rejected, immaterial, unnecessary. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 23. Rejected as to the implication that Attachment C, Page 1, indicated the DER could not waive any irregularities. Cited language states that information submitted in variance with instructions would not be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence establishes that information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated, but was disregarded. 28. Rejected. It is not clear what is meant by this proposed finding. 37-39. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. 41. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. 42-43. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible, especially given M&E/PIECO's correct submission in response to similar requirements of RFSOQ #9003C. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. The fact that the cited witness understood the directive and failed to comply due to oversight does not suggest that the directive was unclear. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. The reason for the cited witnesses failure to comply is unclear. Rejected, cumulative. 48. Rejected, unnecessary. 50-51. Rejected, immaterial. The issue in this case is not whether to goals of the minority business utilization program are met, but whether the DER acted inappropriately in reviewing SOQs submitted in response to the DER RFSOQ #9111C. 52-53. Rejected, unnecessary. 54-56. Rejected, unnecessary, cumulative. Intervenor ERM-South The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, cumulative. 14-19. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. 21. Last sentence rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER applied the language of the RFSOQ in a reasonable way, and that material information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated. 32-39, 41. Rejected, immaterial. The issue is whether the failure to follow the clear directions of Attachment F should result, as the directions provide, in zero points being awarded. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by ERM-South and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. There is no evidence that the omission of Attachment F, page three, is the sole basis for exclusion of a contractor from the short list. The short list was determined by ranking scores awarded. As stated in the directions to Attachment F, the result of noncompliance with said directions was an award of zero points for minority business utilization. 42-46. Rejected, cumulative, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER's action in reviewing the submitted Attachment F was reasonable, logical, and was applied in a consistent manner. As to whether the DER should have contacted other agencies to determine MBE status, the agency is under no obligation to do so. 47-49. Rejected, contrary to the clear directions of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." It is simply not possible to find, as suggested in the proposed finding, that such language cannot be relied upon to put contractors on notice that the failure to submit the three pages would result in zero points. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. Rejected, irrelevant. 52-54. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. 55-57. Rejected, irrelevant. 59-64. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. Intervenor ITC The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Proposed findings of fact #7, #10 and #14-16 relate to evidence introduced at hearing by ITC to support it's position that it had been excluded from the "short list" due to DER's clerical error. As stated in the preliminary statement, ITC failed to timely file a notice of protest subsequent to the posting of the bid tabulation results challenging the DER's clerical error. Accordingly, this Recommended Order does not set forth Findings of Fact related to the clerical error due to ITC's failure to timely file a written notice of protest as required by Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes. 12. Rejected. The M&E formal written protest does not allege that the DER had improperly drawn the line for the "short list." 18-20. Rejected. Although likely correct, the proposed findings are irrelevant to the issue in this case. Rejected. Such additional points awarded to M&E by the DER appear to have been awarded contrary to Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. Rejected, cumulative. ITC had an opportunity to timely file a written notice of protest subsequent to the bid tabulation posting, but failed to do so. An intervenor takes the case as it is found. Rejected, cumulative. 25. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The evidence does not establish that the failure to complete all of Attachment F was based on it's inapplicability. Attachment F clearly states that inapplicable pages should be so marked and submitted with the response package. If such pages were not returned, as suggested, because there did not apply, then it is reasonable to conclude that the responder failed to read the clearly stated directions to Attachment F. 26-29. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER did nothing more than apply the clearly stated direction that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package" and imposed the clearly stated penalty, stating that "[f]ailure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 32-33. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence that the DER did not waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for noncompliance with said requirements, were clearly stated. The DER did waive other irregularities where the instructions were ambiguous or confusing, or where there was not a specific penalty attached for the failure to follow a specific requirement. The evidence establishes that the DER actions were appropriate. 34. Rejected, immaterial. All three pages of Attachment F were clearly required to be submitted or a score of zero would be awarded. Intervenor E&E The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-3. Rejected, cumulative. 12. Rejected, contrary to the cited evidence. Although Attachment F was discussed in terms of reporting requirements, there were no questions asked related to the directions for completing or submitting the attachment. 21. Rejected, cumulative. Intervenors EBASCO, ABB, OHM, Cherokee and Westinghouse jointly filed a proposed recommended order. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 13, 16-17, 43-45, 47. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esq. Carlos Alvarez, Esq. 123 S. Calhoun Street Post Office Drawer 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 M. Christopher Bryant, Esq. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George N. Meros, Esq. 101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barrett G. Johnson, Esq. 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rex D. Ware, Esq. 106 East College Avenue Highpoint Center, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Robert Venzina, III, Esq. Mary M. Piccard, Esq. 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0589 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esq. Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Are Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, valid exercises of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1991, the Respondents made amendments to Rules 60A- 2.001 and 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code, related to the certification of a "minority business enterprise" to engage in business with the State of Florida. With the amendments, a definition for the term "regular dealer" was created, which states in pertinent part: 60A-2.001 Definitions. . . . (10) 'Regular dealer' means a firm that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the material or supplies required for the performance of the contract are bought, kept in stock, and regularly sold to the public in the usual course of business. To be a regular dealer, the firm must engage in, as its principal business and in its own name, the purchase and sale of products. . . . The amendments included other requirements that a "minority business enterprise", as defined at Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, must meet to be certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program. (The definition of "minority business enterprise" was changed by Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). The change does not effect the outcome in the case.) As promulgated December 22, 1991, Rule 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code states in pertinent part: The applicant business shall establish that it is currently performing a useful business function in each specialty area requested by the applicant. For purposes of this rule, "currently" means as of the date of the office's receipt of the application for certification. The applicant business is considered to be per- forming a useful business function when it is responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work of a contract and carrying out its responsibilities in actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. The useful business function of an applicant business shall be determined in reference to the products or services for which the applicant business requested certification on Form PUR 7500. When the applicant business is required by law to hold a license, other than an occupational license in order to undertake its business activity, the applicant business shall not be considered to be performing a useful business function unless it has the required license(s). In determining if an applicant business is acting as a regular dealer and that it is not acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non- minority business, the Office shall consider the applicant's business role as agent or negotiator between buyer and seller or contractor. Though an applicant business may sell products through a variety of means, the Office shall consider the customary and usual method by which the majority of sales are made in its analysis of the applicability of the regular dealer require- ments. Sales shall be made regularly from stock on a recurring basis constituting the usual operations of the applicant business. The proportions of sales from stock and the amount of stock to be maintained by the applicant business in order to satisfy these rule requirements will depend on the business' gross receipts, the types of commodities sold, and the nature of the business's operations. The stock maintained shall be a true inventory from which sales are made, rather than by a stock of sample, display, or surplus goods remaining from prior orders or by a stock main- tained primarily for the purpose of token compliance with this rule. Consideration shall be given to the applicant's provision of dispensable services or pass-through operations which do not add economic value, except where characterized as common industry practice or customary marketing procedures for a given product. An applicant business acting as broker or packager shall not be regarded as a regular dealer absent a showing that brokering or packaging is the normal practice in the applicant business industry. Manufacturer's representatives, sales representatives and non-stocking distributors shall not be considered regular dealers for purposes of these rules. In passing the rules amendments, the Respondents relied upon authority set forth in Sections 287.0943(5) and 287.0945(3), Florida Statutes. Those statutory sections are now found at Sections 287.0943(7) and 287.0945(6), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). Those provisions create the general and specific authority for the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office to effectuate the purposes set forth in Section 287.0943, Florida Statutes, by engaging in rule promulgation. As it relates to this case, the law implemented by the challenged rules is set forth at Section 287.0943(1)(e)3, Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.), which establishes criteria for certification of minority business enterprises who wish to participate in the Minority Business Program contemplated by Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. That provision on certification was formerly Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes. In assessing a minority business enterprise application for certification, the Respondents, through that statutory provision: [R]equire that prospective certified minority business enterprises be currently performing a useful business function. A 'useful business function' is defined as a business function which results in the provision of materials, supplies, equipment, or services to customers other than state or local government. Acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non-minority business does not constitute a useful business function unless it is done so in a normal industry practice. Petitioners, Expertech and Mechanical, had been certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program, but were denied re- certification through the application of Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code. Marsha Nims is the Director of Certification for the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office. In her position, she develops policy on minority business enterprise certification. As such, she was principally responsible for developing the subject rules. In particular, as Ms. Nims describes, the purpose in developing the rules was to address the meaning of a "conduit" set forth at Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes, in an attempt to insure that improper advantage was not taken by persons using certified minority businesses to enter into contractual opportunities with the State of Florida. In promulgating the rule, the Respondents spoke to representatives who were involved with unrelated minority business enterprise certification programs. One person from whom the Respondents had obtained ideas was Hershel Jackson, who processed certifications for the Small Business Administration in its Jacksonville, Florida office. This individual indicated that the Small Business Administration had developed a "regular dealer rule" that required individuals who sought minority certification from the Small Business Administration to make sales from existing inventory. This conversation led to the utilization of federal law as a guide to establishing the rules in question. At 41 CFR 50-201.101(a)(2), the term "regular dealer" is defined as: A regular dealer is a person who owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. It can be seen that the definition of "regular dealer" set forth in Rule 60A-2.001(10), Florida Administrative Code, is very similar to the federal definition. In addition, the Respondents used the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act Interpretations at 41 CFR 50-206 for guidance. The provision within the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act that was utilized was 41 CFR 50-206.53(a). It states: Regular Dealer. A bidder may qualify as a regular dealer under 40 CFR, 50-201.101(b), if it owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the commodities or goods of the general character described by the specifi- cations and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. . . . The Petitioners presented witnesses who established the manner in which their respective industries carried out normal industry practices involving fund transfers to non-minority businesses from minority and non- minority businesses. Joseph H. Anderson is the President of Suntec Paint, Inc. (Suntec), which does business in Florida. Suntec is a non-minority corporation. It manufactures architectural coatings (house paints). Suntec sells and distributes its paint products through its own stores, through other dealers who have stores, and through sales agents. The sales agents would also be considered as manufacturers' representatives. Suntec's relationship with its manufacturer's representatives is one in which Suntec has an agreement with the representatives to sell the paint products to the representatives at negotiated prices which may be discounted based upon volume of sales. The representatives then sell the products to end users at a price that may be higher than the price between Suntec and the representatives. The representatives are responsible for marketing the product to customers. The products manufactured by Suntec are inventoried for distribution, or in some instances, made to order for distribution. The maintenance of inventory is principally for the benefit of the retail outlets controlled by Suntec. Suntec prefers not to maintain inventory because it ties up raw materials, warehousing space, and requires personnel to be engaged in the management and shipment of those products. If the product is "picked up" more than once in the process, it costs more money. Therefore, Suntec distributes inventory through the representatives by direct shipping from the manufacturer to the end user. Suntec's arrangement with its representatives is one in which the customer pays the representative for the product and the representative then pays Suntec. The representatives for Suntec do not ordinarily maintain inventory of the paint products, because this avoids having the representatives handle the product and then reship the product to the end user. By the representative handling the product, it would add expense to the transaction. Suntec, in selling its products through representatives and shipping directly from the manufacturer to the end user, is pursuing a practice which is normal in its industry. Suntec's arrangement with dealers unaffiliated with Suntec who have stores, provides the independent dealers with inventory. Nonetheless, there are occasions in which the independent dealer will place a large order with Suntec; and Suntec will ship the product directly to the end user. That practice is a frequent practice and one that is standard in the industry. Suntec has two minority businesses who serve as manufacturers' representatives and other manufacturers' representatives who are non-minorities. The minority representatives are Expertech, located in Gainesville, Florida, and All In One Paint and Supply, Inc. (All In One), also located in Gainesville. The two minority representatives for Suntec maintain some stock of paint. The inventory amount which All In One maintains was not identified. Within a few months before the hearing, Expertech had purchased 60 gallons of paint from Suntec. It was not clear what the intended disposition was for the paint. Thomas Rollie Steele, the Branch Manager for Bearings and Drives, serves as Sales Manager for that company in its Florida operations. Bearings and Drives has its corporate offices in Macon, Georgia. The company has thirty locations throughout the southern United States, with five different divisions. It specializes in industrial maintenance products and some services. Bearings and Drives is a non-minority firm. In its business Bearings and Drives has manufacturing arrangements or agreements to represent other manufacturers. As representative for other companies who manufacture the products which Bearings and Drives markets, Bearings and Drives is expected to solicit sales. The agreements with the manufacturers which Bearings and Drives has, establish price structures, terms and conditions, and shipping arrangements. Bearings and Drives serves as representatives for the manufacturers in a distinct service area. Bearings and Drives buys products from the manufacturers and resells the products to Bearings and Drives' customers. Bearings and Drives derives compensation by selling to customers at a price higher than the product was sold to them. The price at which products are resold by Bearings and Drives is controlled by market conditions. Bearings and Drives maintains some product inventory; however, in excess of 50 percent of the products sold are shipped directly from the manufacturer to the customer. The direct shipment improves the profit margin for Bearings and Drives by not maintaining an inventory and saving on additional freight expenses, taxes paid on existing inventory and labor costs to be paid warehouse personnel. Bearings and Drives uses a direct delivery system to its customers that is scheduled around the time at which the customer would need the product sold by Bearings and Drives. This arrangement is a standard industry practice. Aileen Schumacher is the founder, President, and sole owner of Expertech. This Petitioner had been certified through the Minority Business Program prior to the rule amendments in December, 1991. When the Petitioner, Expertech sought to be re-certified, it was denied certification in some business areas for failure to maintain sufficient levels of inventory. Expertech sells and distributes technical supplies, such as pollution- control equipment, laboratory equipment, hand tools, and other technical supplies. It specializes in the sale and distribution of safety equipment. Expertech does not provide services. The areas in which Expertech has been denied re-certification relate to the sale of laboratory supplies, paint, and pollution-control equipment. In marketing products Expertech buys directly from manufacturers, except in the instance where they cannot access the manufacturer directly and must operate through a distributor. Expertech tries to maintain as little inventory as possible and to have the commodities it sells shipped directly from the manufacturer to the end user. In addition to ordinary sales, Expertech takes custom orders for products not maintained in inventory by the manufacturer, which are directly shipped from the manufacturer to the customer. In Expertech's business dealings as a manufacturer's representative, wherein it arranges for direct shipments, it is performing in a manner which is standard in the industries in which it is engaged. Otto Lawrenz is the sole proprietor of Mechanical. Prior to the rules changes in December, 1991, Mechanical had been certified as a minority business enterprise. The attempt to re-certify was denied based upon the fact that Mechanical did not stock products and was serving as a manufacturer's representative in selling heating and ventilation equipment. Mechanical sells to mechanical contractors and sheet-metal contractors as a representative for the manufacturer. Mechanical bids on construction jobs and "takes off" the amount of equipment needed in setting its price quotes. If the submission of the price quotation is successful, Mechanical receives a purchasing order from the contractor, as approved by the project engineer. The equipment is then ordered by Mechanical, and delivered by the manufacturer to the job site or the contractor's home office. Mechanical does not maintain a warehouse or a store. The end user pays Mechanical within 30-60 days from the time that the equipment is delivered to the end user. Mechanical then pays the original manufacturer an agreed upon price. Generally, Mechanical sells special-order equipment. This type of equipment would be difficult to inventory since it is being custom-ordered and the units that are ordered are large in size. In addition, the variety of parts involved in these projects makes it difficult to stock them.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be certified as a minority business enterprise (MBE) by the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security (Department).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, All Kinds of Blinds, was incorporated in the State of Florida on January 15, 1999, as All Kinds of Blinds of So. Fla., Inc. The President of the Petitioner is Angela Conroy, a female. Mrs. Conroy owns 51 percent of the company. The remaining 49 percent of the company is owned by Phillip Conroy, Angela’s husband. Mr. Conroy also serves as the company’s vice president and secretary. On June 2, 1999, Mrs. Conroy executed a Florida Statewide and Inter-local Minority Business Enterprise Certification Application that was filed with the Department. The application identified Angela Conroy as the person who makes policy, financial decisions, signs payroll, signs surety bonds and insurance, and makes contractual decisions for the Petitioner. The application also identified Phillip Conroy as the person who makes personnel decisions and signs payroll for the Petitioner. Mr. Conroy is authorized to sign checks on behalf of the company. According to the application, the Petitioner performs various functions regarding the sales, consultation, service, and installation of all types of window coverings. Mrs. Conroy sought MBE certification as an American woman with majority ownership of the Petitioner. Mrs. Conroy has ten years of experience in this type of business but was reluctant to let her former employer know that she was opening her own business. Accordingly, Mrs. Conroy authorized Mr. Conroy to execute applications and various papers on behalf of the Petitioner. She relied on his business experience to guide her through the start-up process. An initial loan in the amount of $4,000 from the couple’s joint bank account was the start-up funds for the Petitioner. Mr. Conroy does the installations for the Petitioner. He performs other functions for the company as may be necessary. He also owns and operates an air conditioning filter company that leased a vehicle also used for the Petitioner’s business. Mr. Conroy maintained that his name appears on records pertaining to the Petitioner as a convenience for his wife. Mr. Conroy is a white male.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office, enter a final order denying the Petitioner’s application for MBE certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2000, 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 28th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela Conroy All Kinds of Blinds 123 North Congress Avenue Suite 328 Boynton Beach, Florida 33426 Joseph L. Shields, Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 301, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact By undated application, Petitioner filed an Application for Minority Business Enterprise Certification. Stating that the applicant was established in November 1991, the application lists as the sole shareholders Hui Schaefer (a/k/a Gina Schaefer), who is a Korean-American minority, and her husband, Reid, who is a nonminority. The application was filed in July 1995. The application states that Ms. Schaefer is an Asian female owning 81 percent of the shares. The application lists Ms. Schaefer as the chief executive officer, secretary, and treasurer, Mr. Schaefer as the president, and Gordon Holfelder as the vice-president. The application lists these three persons as directors, plus DuWayne Boudin and Lenny LaRose. Except for Ms. Schaefer, the directors are nonminorities. Petitioner's bylaws provide for management of the business and property by a majority of the directors. The articles of incorporation provide similarly. Petitioner claimed at the final hearing that she had fired all of the directors except herself, but she produced no documentary proof of this action. Mr. and Ms. Schaefer purchased all of the stock of Petitioner in 1991. At the time of purchase, Ms. Schaefer received 500 shares and Mr. Schaefer received 400 shares. The sole purpose of this allocation was to enable the corporation to qualify as a minority business enterprise. The sole consideration for the shares was the forgiveness of about $6000 in debt. Mr. and Ms. Schaefer had lent this sum to Petitioner or its parent corporation, Unidyn Corp., so it could pay operating expenses, such as a telephone bill. Upon acquiring the shares, Mr. and Ms. Schaefer contributed capital to Petitioner in the form of furniture and equipment, which they value at $100,000. The evidence does not indicate that Mr. or Ms. Schaefer possessed any disproportionate interest in the $6000 loan, equipment, or furniture. To the contrary, it appears that their interests were equal in the money and assets. Petitioner is in the computer software business. Specifically, at the time of the application, Petitioner was a value-added retailer of computer programs. Petitioner purchased software programs from developers, customized the programs for end users, and resold the program to the end user with a commitment to provide technical support and training. Mr. Holfelder is a computer programmer. Mr. Schaefer is a sales representative. Ms. Schaefer is an office manager. At the time of the application, Petitioner employed nine fulltime permanent employees and earned over $800,000 in the fiscal year ending in 1993. At all material times, the compensation of Mr. Schaefer or Mr. Holfelder at least doubled the compensation of Ms. Schaefer. For calendar year 1995, their salaries were set at $60,000, while Ms. Schaefer's was set at $30,000, which was the same paid to Mr. LaRose. The other director listed on the application, Mr. Boudin, was set to earn $48,000 for 1995. The malleability of salaries in response to the requirements of government programs is reflected by Petitioner's explanation why Mr. Schaefer's salary is greater than Ms. Schaefer's salary. In a latter to Respondent dated August 30, 1995, Petitioner explained that the Schaefers were trying to refinance a home mortgage and "[s]everal of the mortgage companies suggested that it would be much easier to approve a VA mortgage if the husband and veteran, Reid Schaefer, had the highest salary." Ms. Schaefer has little technical experience in software programming. She could provide some technical support to customers for programs with which she was familiar as an end user, but she generally was not involved with the technical end of Petitioner's business. Ms. Schaefer's actual authority over corporation management was quite limited in practice. Hiring and firing authority is divided into departments with persons other than Ms. Schaefer responsible for such personnel decisions in the crucial areas of programming and marketing. Mr. Schaefer is responsible for purchasing. Even Ms. Schaefer's involvement in internal bookkeeping is subordinated to Mr. LaRose, who is Petitioner's in-house accountant. Mr. Boudin handles customer training and assists in sales. Ms. Schaefer signed most of the checks, but appeared to do so at the direction of others. She was not the sole person authorized to sign checks drawn on any of Petitioner's accounts, all of which authorized checks to be signed by a single authorized signer. At the end of 1994, shares were redistributed, leaving Ms. Schaefer with 500 shares, Mr. Schaefer with 100 shares, and Mr. LaRose, Mr. Holfelder, and Mr. Boudin with five shares each. Later, Petitioner issues one share to Brian Risley, a systems installer. These transactions left Ms. Schaefer with 81 percent of the issued shares of Petitioner. Later transactions left her with an even greater percentage of the stock; Petitioner repurchased the shares owned by Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Holfelder, and Ms. Schaefer acquired an additional 89 shares. Petitioner repurchased Mr. Holfelder's shares in connection with her termination in January 1996. By that time, Petitioner had transformed from a value-added retailer to custom applications, designing software programs from scratch. Ms. Schaefer does not control Petitioner either in ownership or operation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification. DONE and ENTERED on April 29, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on April 29, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 2-3 and 6: rejected as legal argument. 4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and subordinate. 5: adopted or adopted in substance except as to implication that Ms. Schaefer controls the business. 7: rejected as not finding of fact. 8-9: rejected as recitation of evidence. 10 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10 (remainder): rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 11: rejected as speculative and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: rejected as speculative. 13: rejected as subordinate. 14 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 14 (remainder): rejected as irrelevant. 15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 17: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and recitation of evidence. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 21 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 21 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and subordinate. 23: rejected as legal argument. 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, subordinate, and legal argument. 25-26: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance except for subsequent transaction, which does not alter findings. 2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: adopted or adopted in substance except for presence of additional nonminorities. 4-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9-10: rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: adopted or adopted in substance except that such personnel decisions are divided into three areas with different persons in charge of each area. 16-17: adopted or adopted in substance except that the illustrations are rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Veronica Anderson, Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000 Joseph Shields, General Counsel Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000 Kurt A. Streyffeler Kurt A. Streyffeler, P.A. 3440 Marinatown Lane, Northwest Suite 205 North Fort Myers, Florida 33903
Findings Of Fact Aguiar Defense, Inc. was incorporated April 14, 1987, in Florida, with Geny DaSilva Aguiar-Slaughterbeck, the President, owning all of the stock. William S. Slaughterbeck was named Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer. Ms. Aguiar- Slaughterbeck subsequently assigned 50 shares (10 percent) of the stock to David E. Knutson when he joined the company. Knutson was made a Vice- President as is William Slaughterbeck. Geny Aguiar-Slaughterbeck was born in Brazil and holds a BS degree in Business Administration from the University of Southern California. She is married to William S. Slaughterbeck. William S. Slaughterbeck has had some 20 years experience in obtaining and administering government contracts, principally in the procurement of material phases of these contracts. He acted as consultant to Petitioner in obtaining its first large contract from the U. S. Department of Commerce to provide, install and service eighty computer installations. David E. Knutson's experience is primarily in aviation; however, he has some financial experience and computer experience. To finance the formation of Aguiar Defense, Geny Aguiar-Slaughterbeck converted two IRA accounts to cash, borrowed some $5,000 on her automobile, converted two mortgages to cash and used credit cards to purchase office furniture and other pre- incorporation expenses. Her total investment in Petitioner is approximately $24,000. Before submitting a bid on the Commerce Department computer contract, Geny DaSilva Acquiar-Slaughterbeck consulted with her husband and Donald Sayban who was employed by Tandy Corporation at a Radio Shack outlet. Sayban provided advice on the type of equipment needed to meet the bid specifications, and prices were obtained on the components needed to fulfill the contract. A large portion of the bid was prepared by William Slaughterbeck who was unemployed at the time and is eminently familiar with bidding on contracts to supply government agencies with equipment and materials. When the Commerce Department contract was awarded to Aguiar Defense, Ms. Aquiar-Slaughterbeck obtained financing from a local bank with the assistance of the owner of the company supplying most of the components needed to assemble the computer stations; Sayban and Knutson traveled to the sites to install and put the computers in operation; and the travel costs for these installations were financed by Knutson who was subsequently reimbursed by Aguiar Defense. Sayban's travel expenses were paid by Aguiar Defense, but his compensation came from the commissions he received on the computer equipment he sold to Aguiar Defense. Prior to starting Aguiar Defense, Ms. Aguiar- Slaughterbeck served as a part-time school teacher, a distributor for Shaklee Products and a distributor of water treatment equipment and chemical sales. Chemical cleaning products were sold to McDill Air Force Base in Tampa, and door-to-door sales of water treatment equipment were made. When Aguiar Defense was incorporated, these latter two activities were continued as part of the Aguiar Defense operation. All of Petitioner's witnesses testified that Mrs. Aguiar-Slaughterbeck has final authority in deciding which government contracts to bid on, the hiring and firing of all personnel and all financial decisions. No evidence to contradict this testimony was presented. Petitioner obtains most of its information on available contracts on which bids are being solicited from Commerce Business Daily which contains a daily list of government procurement invitations, contract awards, subcontracting leads, sales of surplus property and foreign business opportunities (Exhibit 3). The By-Laws of Petitioner (Article V, Section 2), provide that the President shall be the chief executive officer of the corporation, shall have general and active management of the business and affairs of the corporation subject to the decisions of the Board of Directors, and shall preside at all meetings of the shareholders and Board of Directors. Article III, Section 9, of the By-Laws provides that any director may be removed, with or without cause, by a vote of the holders of a majority of the shares entitled to vote at an election of directors. Article II, Sections 1 and 2 of the By-Laws of Petitioner provide for an annual meeting of the shareholders on May 4 of each year and for special meetings when called by the President, the Board of Directors or when requested in writing by the holders of not less than 10 percent of the shares entitled to vote at the meeting. Directors are elected by the shareholders with each shareholder entitled to one vote for each share of stock held. Article II, Section 11 of the By Laws provides that any action that may be taken by the shareholders at an annual or special meeting may be taken without a meeting, without prior notice or without a vote, if consent in writing, setting forth the actions so taken, is signed by the holders of outstanding stock having not less than the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize or to take such action at which all shares entitled to vote thereon were present and voted. As the holder of ninety percent of the stock, Geny DaSilva Aguiar- Slaughterbeck has control over the Board of Directors by the power to elect or remove any Director by so voting her shares; and the power to effect any corporate decision, even without a meeting of the shareholders or Board of Directors as noted in finding 14 above. No evidence was submitted to indicate that Geny DaSilva Aguiar- Slaughterbeck is a mere figurehead and that the operations of Petitioner are controlled by one who does not qualify as a minority owner. Petitioner is a corporation employing less than 25 persons and having a net value of less than $1,000,000.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are: (1) whether the Respondent properly rejected the lowest bid because the bid did not comply with the requirements set forth in the Project Manual, and (2) whether the Respondent properly awarded the bid to the second lowest bidder.
Findings Of Fact Findings Based Upon Stipulation of All Parties The Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, issued a Call For Bids, as published in Vol. 16, No. 7, February 16, 1990, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly, for project number BR-183, Life Safety and Fire Code Corrective Work, J. Hillis Miller Health Center, University of Florida., Gainesville, Florida. Sealed bids were received on March 15, 1990, at which time they were publicly opened and read aloud. Petitioner, Anglin Construction Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Anglin"), submitted the lowest monetary bid for the project; and Charles R. Perry (hereinafter referred to as "Perry") submitted the second lowest monetary bid on the project. By letter dated March 19, 1990, the University of Florida notified Anglin that its bid proposal, submitted on March 15, 1990, had been found to be in non-compliance with the Project Manual and rejected by the University of Florida. The specific reason for non-compliance was that Anglin's advertisement for Minority Business Enterprise ("MBE") participation, as part of its demonstration of good-faith effort, did not appear in the media at least seven (7) days prior to bid opening. On March 23, 1990, the contract for this project was awarded to Perry by the Chancellor of the Florida Board of Regents. By letter dated March 26, 1990, Anglin filed a notice of protest in regard to the award of this contract to Perry. Anglin timely filed a formal bid protest in regard to this action, which was received by the Florida Board of Regents on April 4, 1990. A representative from Anglin and Perry attended the required pre- solicitation/pre-bid meeting scheduled for March 1, 1990 for this project. Mr. Larry Ellis, Minority Purchasing Coordinator, University of Florida, was present at the pre- solicitation/pre-bid meeting and distributed a handbook entitled "Minority Business Enterprise Requirements for Major and Minor Construction Projects Survival Handbook" to those in attendance. Anglin and Perry obtained or examined the Project Manual for BR-183. By letter dated March 6, 1990, Anglin requested the Gainesville Sun newspaper to run an advertisement for seven (7) consecutive days to solicit bids from qualified MBE/WBE companies for BR-183. The advertisement in the Gainesville Sun was initially published in the March 9, 1990 edition and ran consecutively through the March 15, 1990 edition. The Project Manual, at page L-2 of L-13 pages, Special Conditions section, paragraph 1.7.2.2, provides that advertisements for minority business enterprises must run or be published on a date at least seven (7) days prior to the bid opening. Findings Based Upon Documentary Evidence The Call for Bids provided that at least fifteen percent (15%) of the project contracted amount be expended with minority business enterprises certified by the Department of General Services and if fifteen percent (15%) were not obtainable, the State University System would recognize good- faith efforts by the bidder (Jt. Ex. 1). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 1) provided that all bidders must be qualified at the time of their bid proposal in accordance with the Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2. The Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2, at page 9 of the Project Manual (Jt. Ex. 2) provided, in pertinent part, that in order to be eligible to submit a Bid Proposal, a bidder must meet any special requirements set forth in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Special Conditions, paragraph 1.1 at page L-1 sets forth the MBE requirements. Paragraph 1.1.2 provides that evidence of good- faith efforts will be required to be submitted to the University Planning Office within two working days after the opening of the bids. Paragraph 1.1.2 further provides that incomplete evidence which does not fully support the good-faith effort requirements shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be non- responsive. Subparagraph 1.7.2.2 of the Special Conditions section in the Project Manual at page L-2 (Jt. Ex. 2) provides that a contractor, as part of meeting the good-faith efforts for this project, should advertise to inform MBEs of contracting and subcontracting opportunities, through minority focus media, through a trade association, or one local newspaper with a minimum circulation of 25,000. Subparagraph 1.7.2.3 provides for required documentation and provides for a copy of the advertisement run by the media and the date thereof. The copy of the tear sheet from The Gainesville Sun for Anglin regarding BR-183 and the affidavit from the Gainesville Sun reflect that Anglin's advertisement ran or was published beginning March 9, 1990, which was six (6) days prior to bid opening, through March 15, 1990 (Jt. Ex. 9 at section 1- 7.2). Anglin's advertisement did not run in the Gainesville Sun seven (7) days prior to the bid opening (Jt. Ex. 9 at section 1-7.2, and Jt. Ex. 8). The Respondent interprets paragraph 1.7.2.2 to require that advertising through minority focus media, through a trade association or one local newspaper with a minimum circulation of 25,000 to be run on at least one day, seven (7) days prior to the day the bids are opened. Anglin ran an otherwise qualifying advertisement for seven (7) consecutive days, the seventh of which was the day the bids were opened. Anglin sent letters to fourteen (14) minority businesses qualified for participation in state contracts inviting participation and providing information about the program. These letters indicated that Anglin would subdivide work to assist in their participation and invited them to inspect the drawings. Anglin sent followup letters to the same fourteen (14) minority businesses. Anglin apparently divided portions of the electrical work between two minority businesses and included their estimates totaling $288,000.00 in the bid which is at issue (see Jt. Ex. 9 at section 1-7.7). A representative of Anglin, Dennis Ramsey, attended the pre- solicitation/pre-bid meeting on March 1, 1990 (Jt. Ex. 4). One of the purposes of the pre-solicitation/pre-bid meeting is to invite MBEs to attend to become familiar with the project specifications and to become acquainted with contractors interested in bidding the project. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-23 at page 16 (Jt. Ex. 2) provides that the contract award will be awarded by the Respondent for projects of $500,000.00 or more, to the lowest qualified bidder, provided it is in the best interest of the Respondent to accept it. The award of the contract is subject to the provisions of Section 287.0945, Florida Statutes, and the demonstration of "good-faith effort" by any bidder whose Bid Proposal proposes less than fifteen percent (15%) participation in the contract by MBEs. The contract award will be made to the bidder who submits the lowest responsive aggregate bid within the pre-established construction budget. Sealed bids for BR-183 were opened on March 15, 1990 (Jt. Ex. 1). Anglin's bid of $1,768,400.00 was the lowest monetary bid (Jt. Ex. 5). Perry was the second lowest monetary bidder (Jt. Ex. 5). Anglin submitted its bid proposal (Jt. Ex. 6) and documentation of good-faith efforts for BR-183 (Jt. Ex. 9). Anglin was notified by letter dated March 19, 1990 that its bid proposal had been found to be in noncompliance with the requirements of the Project Manual and was, therefore, rejected. The specific reason for Anglin's noncompliance was that the advertisement for MBE participation did not appear in the media at least seven (7) days prior to the day the bids were opened (Jt. Ex. 10). By letter dated March 19, 1990, the Project Manager from the architectural and planning firm responsible for BR-183 recommended to Respondent that the contract be awarded to Perry (Jt. Ex. 11). By letter dated March 20, 1990, the University of Florida recommended to the Director of Capital Programs for Respondent that Perry be awarded the contract for BR-183 for the base bid and alternates #1 through #5 in the amount of $1,789,400.00 (Jt. Ex. 12). The Respondent awarded the contract to Perry on March 23, 1990 (Jt. Ex. 14). The MBE award to electricians of $288,000.00 is 16.29% of the $1,768,400.00 Anglin bid.
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 Board of Regents award the contract to Anglin. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 18th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX "A" TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2652BID Anglin and Perry's proposed findings of fact were adopted as paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Recommended Order. The Board of Regents' proposed findings of fact, which duplicated the stipulation, were adopted as paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Recommended Order, and otherwise ruled upon as follows: Adopted as paragraph 11. Adopted as paragraph 12. Adopted as paragraph 20. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted as paragraph 19. Adopted as paragraph 13. Adopted as paragraph 14. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted as paragraph 21. Adopted as paragraph 22. Adopted as paragraph 15. Adopted as paragraph 23. Adopted as paragraph 24. Adopted as paragraph 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Reed Chancellor of Florida State University System 325 W. Gaines Street Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950 Gregg Gleason, Esquire General Counsel Board of Regents 107 W. Gaines Street Room 210-D Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Mostoller, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Board of Regents 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950 William B. Watson, III, Esquire Watson, Folds, Steadham, Christmann, Brashear, Tovkach & Walker P.O. Box 1070 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Raymond M. Ivey, Esquire Rakusin, Ivey, Waratuke, Solomon & Koteff, P.A. 703 North Main Street Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32601 =================================================================
The Issue The primary issue for determination is whether Petitioner should be granted certification as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE). Determination of this issue requires resolution of other issues: Namely, whether Respondent's business qualifies as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) as defined by provisions of Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes; and whether Respondent is a minority person as defined by provisions of Section 288.703 (3)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Alfredo Ramos is the sole owner of the janitorial business known as "A Cleaning Crew." Ramos was born in Rio Hondo, Texas, on August 9, 1938, to Martin and Ada Salazor Ramos. Ramos' birth certificate, issued at that time denoting his race as white, was amended on May 21, 1992, to reflect that his color or race was Hispanic. Ramos' father was born in Texas. Ramos' mother was born in Oklahoma. There is no independent or verifiable knowledge of where any of Ramos' grandparents were born. All are now deceased. By letter dated June 5, 1992, Respondent denied Ramos' application seeking to have "A Cleaning Crew" certified as a MBE. The basis for denial recited in the letter was that the business did not meet the requirements of Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, in that Ramos, as sole proprietor, was unable to establish his status as a minority person within the definitional requirements of applicable Florida Statutes and administrative rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS 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 14th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. No findings were submitted. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-5. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfredo Ramos d/b/a A Cleaning Crew P.O. Box 10293 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Management Services Suite 309, Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Larry Strong, Acting Secretary Department of Management Services Suite 307, Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Susan Kirkland, Esquire General Counsel Department of Management Services Suite 110, Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Action Wire & Cable Corporation should be certified as a minority business enterprise by the Respondent, pursuant to Section 288.703(1) and (2), Florida Statutes and the applicable rules implementing the statute.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1993, the Petitioner company was started in New York but incorporated in the State of Florida. Rosemarie Branciforte and Janet Monaco were two of the original incorporators as minority stockholders and three non- minority males held the majority of the stock. The two women incorporators were not named to the original Board of Directors. At the time of the incorporation, 100 shares of stock were issued as follows: Bert Polte-40 shares, Frank Kleeman-40 shares, Janet Monaco-10 shares, Rosemarie Branciforte-5 shares, and Ken Barry-5 shares. The company began operations out of the home of Monaco and Branciforte in New York, who contributed their knowledge and labor without compensation. Janet Monaco was appointed President and Rosemarie Branciforte was selected as Vice President-Sales & Marketing. Two of the male stockholders from Germany (Polte and Kleeman) contributed $2,000 which was used for the purchase of fax and computer equipment. Polte and Kleeman are listed as Regional Sales Managers and reside in the Federal Republic of Germany. On December 29, 1993, Ken Barry, one of the original stockholders, returned his 5 shares to the corporation. On January 1, 1994, at its annual meeting, the corporation voted to redistribute the shares among its stockholders, as follows: Janet Monaco-26 shares, Rosemarie Branciforte-25 shares, Bert Polte-25 shares, and Frank Kleeman-24 shares. This was based on the contribution of space in the women's house for the corporate offices and supplies, the assumption of risk and the operation of the company by Monaco and Branciforte without compensation. Monaco and Branciforte were also elected as sole directors of the company, with Monaco as Chair. In April, 1994, the company relocated to Florida and filed its application for certification with the Commission. In October, 1994, the corporate records were amended to reflect that Monaco and Branciforte were the sole directors of the corporation. As sole directors and chief operating officers of the company, the women owners perform the following: Develop and maintain the customer base, both in the United States and overseas; determine who to sell to depending on credit worthiness; develop market plans, advertising campaigns and mailings; promote the company at trade shows and community organizations; control bookkeeping; control all monies (including distribution of year end profits; sign all long term leases; select and maintain working relationships with vendors; and sign as guarantors on vendor accounts, as needed. Polte and Kleeman, stockholders in Petitioner, are owners of a wire and cable distribution business in Europe. As such, they have made a market for Petitioner's American wire in Europe and provide European wire to Petitioner for sale in the U.S. Sales generated by Polte and Kleeman account for approximately 15 percent of Petitioner's sales in Europe and 11 percent of products imported by Petitioner for distribution in the U.S. For their services, Polte and Kleeman receive an annual stockholders' dividend from the profits of the corporation, which has been designated as a "management fee" in the corporate books. Their combined ownership of stock in the corporation amounts to 49 percent. Monaco and Branciforte, both American women, are 51 percent owners of the corporation. The gross sales of the company was approximately $350,000 in 1993, $700,000 in 1994 and $500,000 to date in 1995. In 1995, Petitioner sold approximately $180,000 of material through its European sales managers and purchased approximately $27,000 from them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed by Action Wire & Cable Corporation on April 27, 1994, be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 17th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner submitted in letter form proposed findings of fact. However, it contained, in paragraph form, comments on the evidence and argument which can not be specifically ruled upon. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 4 (in part), 5, 7 (in part), 8 (in part), 9. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 3, 4 (in part) 7 (in part), 8 (in part). Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 6, 8 (in part) COPIES FURNISHED: Rosemarie N. Branciforte Vice President-Sales & Marketing Action Wire & Cable Corporation 4802 Distribution Court, Unit 2 Orlando, Florida 32822 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Senior Attorney 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Crandall Jones Executive Administrator Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Haul-It, Inc., is a trucking company in the business of hauling road building materials. It owns 19 trucks and 13 trailers worth about $106,000; and owes between $75,000 and $79,000 to a bank. Occasionally petitioner engages additional trucks and drivers. All but eight of its 15 or 16 employees are truck drivers. Haul-It, Inc., was organized in 1973. Jack Taylor and his father started the business but later sold out to Hubert E. Real, the president, half- owner and operator of Columbia Paving, and Wiley Jinwright, a 24-year employee of Columbia Paving. Mr. Jinwright became president of Haul-It, Inc., and Jack Taylor stayed on as truck foreman. Messrs. Real and Jinwright each owned 20 shares of stock, representing half interest in petitioner. Columbia Paving itself has never held any of the 40 shares of stock that petitioner has issued. In November of 1980, Mr. Real conveyed all 20 of his shares to his wife, Helen Real; and Mr. Jinwright conveyed one share to Mrs. Real. Both transfers of stock to Mrs. Real were gratuitous. She knew at the time that her ownership might help Haul-It, Inc., qualify as a minority business enterprise. In addition, Mr. Real "had had a couple of heart attacks" (T. 14) and Mrs. Real "thought it would be nice to have a related [to Columbia Paving] business." (T. 14.) The evidence did not reveal whether Mr. Real has spent more, less, or the same amount of time with petitioner's affairs since his divestiture as before. Mr. Real remains active as president of Columbia Paving. From November of 1980 to the time of hearing, Mrs. Real has owned 52.5 percent of petitioner's stock and Mr. Jinwright has owned 47.5 percent. Petitioner's only offices are housed in a trailer located on land owned by Columbia Paving. Haul-It, Inc., pays Columbia Paving rent for the land on which its office trailer, trucks, and other equipment are parked. At the time of the hearing, between 70 and 80 percent of Haul-It, Inc.'s work was being performed under contract to Columbia Paving. As far as the evidence showed, petitioner has always performed most of its services under contract to Columbia Paving. Although it has had other customers, Columbia Paving is petitioner's only regular customer. (T. 27.) Petitioner uses Columbia Paving's computer to keep its books and shares a bookkeeper with Columbia Paving. Each company pays the bookkeeper a separate salary. Mrs. Real sits on Columbia Paving's board of directors. Neither Columbia Paving nor any other entity uses petitioner's hauling equipment unless it has contracted to do so. When Haul-It, Inc., "bid[s] through Columbia Paving" (T. 39) in response to invitations by the Department of Transportation, Columbia Paving personnel check the bid over to make sure that it "fits whatever plan or whatever estimates they feel are in order." (T. 40.) Soon after she became owner of a majority of petitioner's Stock, Mrs. Real became petitioner's vice-president, secretary, and treasurer, even though she had had no prior experience in the trucking business. Mr. Jinwright remains president of Haul-It, Inc. It was also in November of 1980 that Haul-It, Inc., applied for certification as a minority business enterprise. At that time and for some months afterward, Mrs. Real was not working for Haul-It, Inc., on any regular schedule. On the basis of the information petitioner furnished with its application, respondent, in November of 1980, "certified them for 12 months, on the condition that an on-site review would be conducted and at that time the decision would be made as to the ownership and control and whether this minority business enterprise should be continued as certified." (T. 61.) In April of 1981, respondent's Mr. Nath conducted an on-site review. At that time, Mr. Nath requested additional documents which petitioner eventually mailed to respondent. In September of 1981, respondent for the first time communicated to Haul-It, Inc., its intention to disqualify petitioner as a minority business enterprise. After receiving this news, Mrs. Real began going to work for petitioner daily. She has an office in the trailer that she shares with Mr. Jinwright, whose role in Haul-It, Inc., was reduced to cosigning checks when Mrs. Real began working full time. Most of Mr. Jinwright's time is now spent as Superintendent of Columbia Paving's four asphalt plants. Even so, he still draws a salary from Haul-It, Inc., equal to Mrs. Real's salary. Despite their respective titles, both Mr. Jinwright and Mrs. Real act on the assumption that she, rather than he, has ultimate authority in the conduct of Haul-It, Inc.'s business. Mrs. Real has full authority to hire and fire, authority which she has delegated, in the case of the truck drivers, to Jack Taylor. She has the final say on all questions of policy and operations that arise in the business. Haul-It, Inc., cannot borrow money or make expenditures without her permission. Jack Taylor and two other employees buy for Haul-It, Inc., but she cosigns all checks with Mr. Jinwright. She has not learned how to prepare a written bid for the Department of Transportation, although she is involved with bidding. Mrs. Real relies heavily on Jack Taylor's bidding expertise, as have petitioner's other owners. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation reflect the good work done in this case by counsel on both sides. To the limited extent proposed findings have not been adopted, they have been deemed immaterial or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny Haul-It, Inc., certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 3rd day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick E. Hurley, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Ella Jane P. Davis, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
