Conclusions . This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Linzie F. Bogan, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Respondent’s Notice of Withdrawal of Intent to Establish Dealership, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Power Group International, LLC, and Reliable Power Equipment, LLC d/b/a Coastal Carts to sell low-speed vehicles manufactured by Tomberlin Automotive Group, (TOMB) at 16277 South Tamiami Trail, Suite A, Fort Myers, Florida 33908. Filed September 6, 2012 2:11 PM Division of Administrative Hearings “ DONE AND ORDERED this C day of September, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. —m P00 J ulie Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed in the official records of the Division of Motorist Services this G day of September, 2012. Webi: Viranok AO Mad — Nalini Vinayak, Deater Hicense Administrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/wev Copies furnished: Elinore Hollingsworth Power Group International, LLC 3123 Washington Road Augusta, Georgia 30907 Jay Stewart A Plus Carts and Parts 16100 San Carlos Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33908 Donald B. Imbus Reliable Power Equipment, LLC 16277 South Tamiami Trail, Suite A Fort Myers, Florida 33908 Linzie F. Bogan Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled under Section 57.111(4), Florida Statutes, to attorney's fees and costs incurred in DOAH Case No. 97-5194?
Findings Of Fact Outcome of Prior Administrative Proceeding Thomas A. Birkhead, d/b/a Century Center ("Birkhead," "Mr. Birkhead, or the "business") is a business in the form of a sole proprietorship. On August 4, 1997, the Division of Hotels and Restaurants (the "Division") served the business with a Notice to Show Cause. Seven weeks or so earlier, on June 13, 1997, the business had been served with an Emergency Order of Suspension. The Emergency Order suspended the business's license to operate a public lodging establishment in Cocoa Beach, Florida, as a nontransient rooming house. The license, bearing number 15-04001 H, had been issued to Mr. Birkhead by the Division. Mr. Birkhead requested a hearing on both the Emergency Order and the Notice to Show Cause. The request was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 97-5184. Unlike this case for fees and costs in which Mr. Severs has appeared in behalf of Mr. Birkhead, at no time during the pendency of DOAH Case No. 97-5184 did any attorney, including Mr. Severs, file a notice of appearance or appear in any capacity on behalf of Mr. Birkhead. The hearing held in April and June of 1998 (at which Mr. Birkhead appeared pro se) culminated in a Recommended Order issued October 1, 1998. The order recommended that the Notice to Show Cause be dismissed but that the Emergency Order be sustained. On May 14, 1998, the Division issued a Final Order. The Order makes no mention of Mr. Birkhead having been represented in any capacity other than pro se in post-recommended order proceedings. In acceptance of the advice of the Recommended Order, the Division dismissed the Notice to Show Cause. As for the recommendation with regard to the Emergency Order the final order stated: The Emergency Order of Suspension was a final order of the Division and subject to judicial review pursuant to section 120.60(6) and 120.68, Florida Statutes, not administrative review. Thus, the part of Birkhead's request for formal administrative review that pertained to the issuance of the Emergency Order of Suspension should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Final Order, page 9, Paragraph 16. Accordingly, the Division ordered that "Birkhead's Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted and the request for formal administrative review of the Emergency Order of Suspension is hereby dismissed." Final Order, page 10. Attorney's Fees and Costs When Case No. 97-5184 was initiated, Mr. Severs had long represented Mr. Birkhead as an attorney in various matters. His normal billing rate during the life of the case was $175 per hour. Although Mr. Severs did not appear as attorney of record in the administrative case, from the time the Emergency Order of Suspension was issued in June of 1997, through the issuance of the Final Order by the Department in Case No. 97-5184, Mr. Severs provided legal services to Mr. Birkhead. Some of the services were related to the administrative case; some were related to other matters. The fees for these services, related or unrelated, totaled $14,929.95, according to the petition filed in this case. An affidavit by Mr. Severs, attached to the petition, showed that only $4,860 of that amount was related to the administrative case. The related services were performed on at least fifteen occasions. Principally these included review and/or drafting of documents and consultation with regard to the reviewed or drafted documents. Mr. Severs' records demonstrate that at least 32.4 hours were expended in the performance of legal services related to Case No. 97-5184. (There were many telephone consultations not included in these hours because Mr. Severs moved from one firm, to his own firm, to the Titusville City Hall, where he is now the full-time City Attorney for the City of Titusville. Because of these transitions, phone records became unavailable.) At an hourly rate of $150 (the rate requested by Petitioner for this case, $25 below Mr. Severs' normal rate), total attorney's fees for 32.4 hours come to $4,860.00. These fees are reasonable. Court reporter costs in defending this action incurred by Mr. Birkhead totaled $478.50. He paid an expert witness fee in the amount of $200 to an engineer who testified in the proceeding. In addition, there were subpoenas for documents of $42; publications, such as the Fire Safety Manual 101, necessary to purchase in order to defend the case, in the amount of $49.35; photocopies of $48.10; office supplies of $56.12; postage and postage stamps of $173.52; and copier maintenance of $605.13. These costs total: $1,655.72. Mr. Birkhead also claimed additional costs of more than $10,000 used to maintain and operate the closed Century Center as an office for the duration of the administrative case. Mr. Birkhead explained this claim at hearing: The building that I was in there using as an office [Century Center] was shut down by the Division, so I could do nothing with it, except just work out of there myself to prepare this case, to work on the case. So, what I have given here is the direct charges of -- you know, that were during the time period for electricity and so forth. (Tr. 25). In addition to electricity, this sum includes charges for telephone, sanitation, pest control, water and sewer and fire extinguisher maintenance. Small Business Party The business's claim for attorney's fees and costs is filed under the authority of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, a provision of the Florida Equal Access To Justice Act (the "Act.") Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, of the Act defines the term "small business party," in pertinent part as: A sole proprietor of an unincorporated business . . . whose principal office is in this state, who is domiciled in this state, and whose business . . . has, at the time the action is initiated by a state agency, not more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth of not more than $2 million including both personal and business investments. . . Mr. Birkhead is the sole proprietor of the business, Thomas A. Birkhead, d/b/a Century Center. The business is unincorporated. Its principal office is in Florida. Mr. Birkhead is domiciled in Florida and his business has less than 25 full-time employees. The only criterion left in order for Thomas A. Birkhead, d/b/a Century Center to qualify as a small business party is net worth. Is Mr. Birkhead's net worth "not more than $2 million including both personal and business investments . . ."? Net Worth Mr. Birkhead's undocumented testimony that his personal net worth and that of the business was less than two million dollars was not rebutted by any evidence offered by the Division. Cross examination revealed that Birkhead's net worth in June of 1997 was certainly in excess of $1.5 million. How much in excess could not be determined because his calculation of net worth was anything but precise as shown from Mr. Birkhead's testimony: Q What is the value of the hotel located across the street from the Century Center? A The value of the hotel at that time, I believe was one and a half million dollars . . . Q What portion of the hotel did you own? A Um? Q What portion of the hotel did you own? A Two thirds. Two thirds of the stock. * * * Q . . . And what was the Century Center worth [in June of 97]? * * * A Well, I had a mortgage against it for two hundred and some thousand dollars. I gave, I believe, five hundred something. So, five hundred and something minus two, whatever it was, forty or fifty thousand, two hundred and thirty five or forty thousand. It would leave three hundred thousand dollars. Q . . . Your testimony is that you've had an equity in the Century Center of three hundred thousand dollars? A That was my intention, to say that. Yes. I subtracted out in my mind the mortgage that I had against the property, versus what I had paid for it. Q And when did you purchase it? A I purchased it . . .in 1990. Q But you don't . . . know what the value was in 1997? A Not at the Century Center. * * * Q . . . What other properties did you own, besides the Century Center, the hotel and the condo in Cape Canaveral? A I own my house. Q How much is it worth? A Well I paid sixty five thousand for it, I believe. It's probably worth a little bit more than that now. * * * JUDGE: When did you buy it? * * * WITNESS: When did I buy it? I bought it in -- let's see. Twenty five years ago or more. * * * Q Was there any other property that we didn't cover so far that you owned at that time? A Let me think a little bit. Yeah. I've got one in Cape Canaveral. It's an empty lot up there. I think I paid very little for it. I bought it because it was cheap. It's the only reason I've still got the thing. I think I gave eighteen hundred dollars for it or something like that. It think it would be worth more than that now. I don't know exactly what it would be worth. Try to sell it. These lots go up, you know, they might be worth fifteen to twenty thousand dollars. I can't -- I can't give you an exact figure on that. JUDGE: When did you buy it? * * * A . . . April of 1967, I believe. * * * JUDGE: . . . What Mr. Biggins is getting at is he wants to know about all our your personal and business investments and what their . . . net worth is. And you said you made a list and you went through and you figured this out. WITNESS: Say what? JUDGE: You said that you figured this out before you filed this motion for attorney's fees . . . WITNESS: Yeah. I called and got the figures as to what I had in June of '97. And I looked at, you know, statements that I had, and this that and the other thing, and added it all up. . . Some of the things, like I say, are joint with my wife. JUDGE: Yes, sir. But what were those things? That's what I want to know. You say you did this calculation. You got together all this information. Now, what information was it and what did the information show? WITNESS: Well, it showed the value of the things that I had in June of '97. JUDGE: And what were those things? What information did you obtain? WITNESS: Well, bank accounts, stock brokers, whatever I could, you know, had money in. JUDGE: . . . What was the value of the bank accounts? WITNESS: Not a whole lot. I don't think I probably had over -- I'm guessing a little bit now. You know, three or four thousand dollars. JUDGE: How about stock? WITNESS: Um? JUDGE: Stock? WITNESS: Stock, what? JUDGE: Equities. WITNESS: Um? JUDGE: Equities? New York Stock Exchange? WITNESS: Well, my stock is largely in a joint account with my wife. And . . . JUDGE: . . . You have control of it? WITNESS: Um? JUDGE: You have control of it? WITNESS: Well, either one of us could be called in control. It's joint . . . with right of survivorship. JUDGE: . . . Did you include the value of that stock in this calculation you did? WITNESS: I believe I did. Yes sir. JUDGE: . . . And what was the value of that stock? WITNESS: I can't recall, Your Honor, exactly what it was. JUDGE: Well, we've been . . . dealing with approximations here. So, do your best. WITNESS: Well, it's a joint account. JUDGE: And what's the value of the account? WITNESS: . . . I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of probably seventy five or a hundred thousand dollars. JUDGE: And you can't do any better than that? WITNESS: Um? JUDGE: You can't pinpoint it any more than that, a twenty five thousand dollar swing? WITNESS: I can't to be honest with you, Your Honor . . . (Tr. 38-50). Mr. Birkhead's testimony also revealed that he owned two "low priced condos in Cape Canaveral" (Tr. 36) held as rental property. At the time he purchased them, Mr. Birkhead "gave twenty four thousand and change for them." Id. Asked when they were purchased, Mr. Birkhead replied, "I'm not sure. Before 1997." When asked to approximate when they were purchased, Mr. Birkhead testified, "Five, ten years. I don't know." Id.
The Issue As described in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation Petitioners are challenging the Respondent's (SJRWMD) solicitation process with regard to the "Invitation to submit an Offer to Purchase property known as the Zellwin Airstrip." Petitioners seek to set aside the award of purchase to Intervenors and to have the solicitation process re-advertised. The issue for resolution is whether Petitioners are entitled to that relief.
Findings Of Fact In 1996 the Florida Legislature mandated that the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) attempt to purchase farms on the north shore of Lake Apopka as part of a long-term restoration and reclamation project. Petitioners, Rex Shepherd and Dale Harper, are pilots and owners of an aerial advertising business, American Outdoor Aerial Advertising. In early 1998 the business was operating out of Crakes field, a small airstrip owned by Kent Crakes as part of Crakes' North Lake Apopka farm. Petitioners' business owned airplanes and banners which it flew for its advertising clients such as Sears and GEICO. Sometime in early 1998 it became obvious that Petitioners would need to move their operation to another field. There were break-ins at the hanger, and the airstrip was beginning to flood as a result of the reclamation project. Kent Crakes referred Rex Shepherd to Leonard Freeman, the individual with SJRWMD who was involved with land acquisition in the area. Around March or early April 1998 Petitioners commenced discussions with Mr. Freeman regarding their use of the farm airstrip at Zellwin Farms, also part of the SJRWMD Lake Apopka farms acquisition program. Mr. Freeman was the SJRWMD point of contact for the Zellwin Farms acquisition. By early 1998, the property was already under contract and was scheduled to close some time around June 1998. Mr. Freeman and the Petitioners met at the Zellwin Farms airstrip in June 1998, and Petitioners determined the property would be suitable for their operation. Eager to accommodate Petitioners because of their predicament and also in anticipation of the SJRWMD's eventual sale of the Zellwin parcel, Mr. Freeman gave permission for Petitioners to store their equipment on the site and gave them a key. Because Zellwin Farms was beyond what SJRWMD considered to be the lake's historic shoreline, the SJRWMD knew that it would need to dispose of its 1400 acres as surplus, in whole or part. Mr. Freeman's desire was to find a way to dispose of the property as the best thing for the SJRWMD. Thus, because of the Petitioners' immediate interest in relocating their business, Mr. Freeman began negotiating with them for their purchase of the airstrip and related buildings. In September 1998, Mr. Freeman met again with Petitioners at the airstrip and discussed a specific proposal. Petitioners talked about offering $250,000 under a lease-purchase arrangement, and sent a letter dated September 10, 1998, to Mr. Freeman with that offer. Mr. Freeman later suggested that since the appraised value was $275,000, an offer in that amount would be easier to get approved. Mr. Freeman did not have the authority to obligate the SJRWMD to sell the property and Petitioners understood that. Still, Petitioners felt they were negotiating in good faith with staff who could make a strong recommendation to the board. Petitioners believed in early October that they had a hand-shake deal subject to further discussions regarding specific terms. They knew that a competitive solicitation might be an option for the SJRWMD but they also believed that they would be given an opportunity to meet another third party's offer. This belief was based not on some specific agreement for a "right of first refusal," but rather on Mr. Freeman's good-natured assurances that they would work it all out. Mr. Freeman requested that the SJRWMD special counsel develop a draft contract based on Petitioners' offer. The offer would then need to be signed by Petitioners and approved by Mr. Freeman's supervisor before going to the SJRWMD governing board. The counsel never finished the draft and it was never given to Mr. Freeman or the Petitioners. By the end of October 1998, Robert Christianson, Mr. Freeman's supervisor and director of the SJRWMD Department of Operations and Land Resources, learned that Petitioners were flying in and out of the Zellwin airstrip and using it for their business base of operations. This activity was beyond the storage permission that Mr. Freeman had granted. (Even that permission was beyond his individual authority.) Mr. Freeman and Mr. Christianson met with Petitioners on October 27, 1998, to work out a license agreement for their use of the airstrip. Such an agreement was necessary to protect the parties' respective interests and to cover the SJRWMD for any liability in the landlord/tenant relationship. The result of that meeting was a written license agreement for Petitioners to use, maintain, and provide protection for the property for a period from October 30, 1998, to April 30, 1999, subject to revocation with advance notice. Petitioners used the airstrip property under that agreement and made improvements, mostly cleaning up the facility so it could be used. At the October meeting it became obvious to Petitioners that the informal negotiations for their purchase were terminated and that the SJRWMD was going to solicit competitive offers for the purchase. This concerned the Petitioners and they felt let- down by Mr. Freeman. Still, they concentrated on getting the license agreement worked out. Rex Shepherd's account of the October meeting was that Mr. Christianson was very clear about the fact that the SJRWMD had to go for competitive bid, that they were bound by a board and rules and regulations even though both he and Mr. Freeman would like for Petitioners to have the airport, and that they should be able to work it out. At the end of the meeting, and as they were leaving the trailer, Mr. Shepherd commented to Mr. Freeman that he really did not want to lose the airport and wanted to be apprised of what was going on so that if there were a higher bid, he could have the opportunity to match it, or if it were too high, that they would have 30 or 60 days to vacate the property. According to Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Freeman simply responded, "We'll work all that out, don't worry about it." On November 11, 1998, the SJRWMD governing board voted to surplus the Zellwin Farms property with direction to the staff that the sale be widely advertised in the aviation community and not be a sole source deal. Consistent with the board's direction and pursuant to Section 373.089(3), Florida Statutes, the SJRWMD advertised a "Notice of Intention to Sell" the airstrip property in the Orlando Sentinel for three consecutive weeks, November 9, 16, and 23, 1998. The notice identifies the airstrip property as an "Approximately 47-acre agricultural airport facility, 2,200'? square feet asphalt runway, 5,250 ? square feet metal hanger, 2,048 ? storage square feet building, well and septic tank at a location of northwest Orange County, Florida, Sections 20 and 29, T-20-S, R-27-E, on Jones Avenue, 1 ? mile west of U.S. Highway 441, Zellwood." The Notice of Intention to Sell states that "[a]ll interested persons are invited to submit an offer to the District for purchase of said lands. Contact the District . . . and request an Airport Sales Package." Both the Airport Sales Package and the Notice of Intention to Sell state that the airport property will be sold for the highest price obtainable. The sales package states that full cash offers to be paid at closing will be given first consideration and that 10 percent of the purchase price must be paid when the offeror was notified that it was successful. The sales package also states that any person adversely affected by an offer solicitation shall file a Notice of Protest, in writing, prior to the date on which the offers are to be received, and shall file a formal written protest within ten (10) days after filing the Notice of protest pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-1.801. * * * Failure to timely file a notice of protest or failure to timely file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (SJRWMD Ex. 3). Both the Notice of Intention to Sell and the sales package require that sealed "offers for purchase" be submitted to the SJRWMD prior to 2:00 p.m. on December 4, 1998, the advertised time for opening of the offers. Nothing in the Notice or sales package reserves a right of first refusal for any person. Instead, both plainly state "no offer will be accepted after the date and hour specified for submittal of offers." (SJRWMD Exhibits 1 and 3) Although Petitioners did not see the newspaper notice, they had knowledge that the SJRWMD advertised the sale of the airstrip property through a competitive solicitation process in the newspaper. They had been clearly informed of need for the competitive process by Mr. Christianson at the October meeting and they were present when a pre-solicitation meeting/inspection took place at the airstrip in November prior to the offers being accepted by the SJRWMD. Intervenors requested a sales package from the SJRWMD on November 30, 1998, and December 2, 1998. Petitioners requested and received a sales package prior to the opening of the offers to purchase. The sales packages were not available to the public until December 2, 1998, the same day Petitioners received their package. Mr. Freeman told Petitioners they needed to submit their bid. Although the sales package stated that facsimile offers would not be accepted by the SJRWMD, Leonard Freeman informed Petitioners that they could fax their Offer to Purchase. The SJRWMD did accept a facsimile offer to purchase from Petitioners on December 4, 1998, at 1:07 p.m. Offers to purchase were opened by the SJRWMD at 2:10 p.m. on December 4, 1998. Petitioners submitted an offer to purchase the airstrip property for $275,000, where Petitioners would pay $1,500.00 per month for 60 months ($90,000 with $72,000 applied toward principal) with a balance of $203,000 cash to be paid at the end of the 60-month term. Intervenors submitted an offer to purchase the airstrip property for $310,000, where Intervenors would put 10 percent down ($31,000 earnest money deposit) at award of Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the balance of $279,000 cash would be paid at closing on or before May 1, 1999. Petitioners' offer to purchase was not the highest offer; it did not provide for cash at closing; and it did not meet the requirement of 10 percent to be paid upon notification. Staff recommended to the SJRWMD board that it award the purchase of the airstrip property to the highest offeror, Intervenors. The governing board approved staff's recommendation at its regularly scheduled meeting on December 9, 1998. On December 9, 1998, Petitioners filed a Notice of Protest. On December 18, 1998, Petitioners filed a copy of their Formal Bid Protest with the SJRWMD. Petitioners never grasped the implications of the competitive solicitation process until after the offers were opened and the award was made to Intervenors. Even if Petitioners had seen the newspaper notice and had received the sales package sooner, they still would not have protested because they understood that their "agreement" was outside of the process. That is, they mistakenly perceived that after the offers were in they could negotiate further to exceed the high offer. Chagrined, and genuinely regretful of the misunderstanding, Mr. Freeman had to tell Petitioners that further negotiations were foreclosed after the offers were opened. Mr. Freeman's earlier assurances to Petitioners were the result of an excess of bonhomie rather than any deception. He wanted them to have the airport and he wanted to work out the sale of surplus property. Petitioners were aware that he did not have the authority to bind his agency to an agreement. Mr. Freeman never specifically told Petitioners they had a right of first refusal; they wanted that advantage and surmised agreement from Mr. Freeman's and Mr. Christianson's vague counsel to not worry and that it would all be worked out. The SJRWMD devised a competitive process for disposition of the Zellwin airstrip that was consistent with its statute and with the direction of its governing board. Intervenors responded with an offer that met all the published requirements. Petitioners did not, and any culpability of SJRWMD's staff for Petitioners' misunderstanding is not so egregious as to require that the process begin again. Petitioners occupied the property, used it, and made improvements to enhance their use. This, however, was in reliance on their license to use the property and not on some certainty that they would ultimately be able to own the property. As Petitioners testified at hearing, they were disappointed that the SJRWMD decided to solicit competitive proposals; they knew that it was possible someone would offer more than they could match. (Harper, Transcript pages 117-120).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the SJRWMD enter its final order denying Petitioners' request to reject all bids and re-advertise the sale. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 24th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 John W. Williams, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Clayton D. Simmons, Esquire Stenstrom, McIntosh, Colbert, Whigham And Simmons, P.A. Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848 Stanley Dollen 1230 Kelso Boulevard Windermere, Florida 34786 Herbert Clark 5416 Trimble Park Road Mt. Dora, Florida 32757
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by T. Kent Wetherell, II, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s request for withdrawal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Red Streak Scooters, LLC and Austin Global Enterprises, LLC d/b/a New Scooters 4 Less to sell motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ) at 118 Northwest 14 Avenue, Suite D, Gainesville (Alachua County), Florida 32601. DONE AND ORDERED this Buy of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LA. FORD, Direct6r Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Divisig otor Vehicles this day of July, 2009. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: Collin Austin Austin Global Enterprises, LLC 118 Northwest 14" Avenue, Suite D Gainesville, Florida 32601 Beverly Fox Red Streak Scooters, LLC 427 Doughty Boulevard Inwood, New York 11096 Marc J. Kradolfer RPM Motorcycles, Inc. 518 Southeast 2" Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 T. Kent Wetherell, IT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 28 JUN 19 A 10 Sp Witte pe STP uly SAT ye TRATIVE ARINGS RED STREAK SCOOTERS, LLC and AUSTIN GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a NEW SCOOTERS 4 LESS ay Petitioner, : Case Number: 09-2851 RPM MOTORCYCLES, INC. Respondent. SSS Lid Y Di: 5 COMES NOW, Petitioner, Austin Global Enterprises, LLC is stating a notice of voluntary dismissal. Since RPM Motorcycles, Inc. already has the ZHEJ line make established on their license, Austin Global Enterprises, LLC d/b/a New Scooters 4 Less no longer wishes to continue with the hearing and pursue establishing the ZHEJ line make at its location. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by US Mail to T. Kent Wetherell, Il., Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060; Marc J. Kradolfer, as agent for Respondent RPM Motorcycles Inc., 518 Southeast 2” Street, Gainesville, Fl 32601 on June 8, 2009. AUSTIN GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, LLC Collin Austin, Managing Member Representative for Petitioner 118 NW 14” Avenue, Suite D Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: 352-336-1271
The Issue Regarding the Department of Heath and Rehabilitative Services' (Department's) award of the contract contemplated by RFP 94-07BB-NTM: whether the Department's evaluation of Item 2.2.G of ComputerLand's Technical Proposal was arbitrary and capricious, whether the Department's evaluation of Item 2.2.K of ComputerLand's Technical Proposal was arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact On December 27, 1993, the Department published Request for Proposal No. 94-07BB-NTM requesting proposals to provide full hardware maintenance services for its videos, printers, microcomputers and associate components and peripheral devices. (P-Ex. 1 [RFP], Sections 1.2 and 1.2 [Statement of Need, Statement of Purpose], Page 9). The contract(s) to be awarded pursuant to the RFP addressed hardware in five (5) categories, as follows: Unisys Equipment IBM Equipment Zenith Equipment Other Vendors' Equipment Communications Controllers Vendors were invited to submit Proposals in any or all of these categories. It was possible that the procurement may have resulted in as many as five (5) separate contracts, with any number of component categories being awarded to a single contractor. (P- Ex. 1 [RFP], Section 1.1 and 1.2 [Statement of Need and Statement of Purpose], Page 9 described categories 1 - 4. The RFP was later modified to add the Communication Controllers described in category 5. (See, P-Ex. 2) A conference was conducted by HRS to permit perspective vendors an opportunity to discuss the provisions of the RFP, and clarify any of its terms. (T-318,L-22) All prospective vendors received the same information in response to their individual questions about the RFP. ComputerLand asked questions at the conference and later which were answered. Prospective vendors, including ComputerLand, had the opportunity to challenge any specifications or requirements contained in the RFP. ComputerLand did not challenge any provisions of the RFP. The RFP provided for the evaluation of proposals, as follows: The department will conduct a comprehensive, fair and impartial evaluation of all proposals received in response to this RFP in compliance with the due dates specified in the section entitled "Calendar of Events". Evaluation criteria are grouped into six categories, each of which will be discussed further in this section. The following shows the maximum number of points that may be awarded by section: Category 1 Mandatory Requirements 0 points Category 2 Management Summary 0 points Category 3 Corporate Capabilities 100 points Category 4 Project Staff 200 points Category 5 - Technical Approach 300 points Category 6 - Cost 400 points Selection of the successful vendor will be based on the proposal that is determined to be in the best interest of the department, taking into consideration cost and other criteria set forth in the RFP. (P-Ex. 1 [RFP], Section 6.0 [Proposal Evaluation], Page 41). The RFP provided that any proposals not meeting the Mandatory Requirements would be rejected. The RFP provided that an Evaluation Committee would thereafter evaluate the proposals in the technical categories of Corporate Capabilities, Project Staff and Technical Approach, with points awarded for each category. (P-Ex. 1 [RFP], Section 6.1 [Evaluation Procedure], Page 41). The RFP provided that only those proposals receiving at least 450 points on the Technical Evaluation as assessed by the Evaluation Committee would have their Cost Proposals evaluated. (P-Ex. 2 [Amendments to the RFP], Amendment 15, [Amending Section 6.3 relating to the Evaluation of Cost Proposal], Amending RFP Page 44 and adding Page 44A). The members of the Evaluation Committee were provided with a Proposal Evaluation Manual prior to performing the Technical Evaluation. The Manual set forth the guidelines, criteria and scoring parameters to be used by the Evaluation Committee in its evaluation of the proposals. (P-Ex. 3 [Evaluation Manual]; Tr. 35.11). The committee members followed the Manual in making their evaluations. The committee's responsibility was to evaluate the Technical Approach, Corporate Capabilities and Project Staff sections of all responsive proposals. (P-Ex. 1, Page 41). Each vendor was advised that the Technical Approach section would be evaluated based on the vendor's supplied information in response to the section entitled "Tab 4-Technical Approach." The criteria to be used in evaluating responses to Technical Approach were listed in attachment D. (P-Ex. 1, Page 43). Attachment D to the RFP advised each vendor that HRS would evaluate the vendor's Technical Approach based upon completeness, viability, and quality. The evaluation criteria, for this area were listed and included the following: Bidder's Training Program for Service Personnel Proposed Reporting and Statuting System for Matching Performance Proposed Procedures for Responding to Maintenance Calls. Proposed Procedures for Remedial and Preventive Maintenance, Including Escalation Procedures Proposed Contractor Maintenance Structure Proposed Policy and Procedures Dealing with Spare Parts, Inventorying and Replacement Proposed Test Equipment and Related Procedures Proposed Responsibility Limitations Proposed Policy and Procedures for Engineering Changes Proposed Policy and Procedure for Engineering Changes [sic] Proposed Procedures for Diagnostic Updates Proposed Method to Maintain Department's Priority Status with Manufacturers and Continuing Support of System Engineers and Customer Support Centers Proposed Method for Meeting Service Call Time Requirements, and Proposed Method for (1) Minimizing Customer Impact Caused by Intermittent Problems and (2) For Meeting Required Availability Threshold. (P-Ex. 1, p.66). The RFP advised the vendor that the proposals must include the number of experienced, trained staff that will be working on the project. Information provided should have included an explanation as to the experience of a particular staff member in maintaining the specified hardware included in each component category proposed and the experience of the staff member in maintaining hardware similar to that included in each component category proposed. (P-Ex. 1, pp. 36-37). In addition, the proposal must include a complete description of the proposed training plan for all the vendor's service personnel. (P-Ex. 1, p.38). In evaluating specific criteria/questions within each of the categories, evaluators were required to score each response as follows: 0 = No Value: Bidder has no capability or has ignored this area. 1 = Poor: Bidder has little or no direct capability or has not covered this area, but there is some indication of marginal capability. 2 = Acceptable: Bidder has adequate capability 3 = Good: Bidder has a good approach with above capability. 4 = Superior: Bidder has excellent capability and an outstanding approach. Questions identified in the evaluation manual as best answered by "yes" or "no" should be scored "0" for "no" and "2" for "yes," unless specified otherwise. In considering the evaluation criteria for the Technical Approach section of the technical proposal, each evaluator was given 27 questions to specifically respond to and score by awarding points from 0 to 4. In certain instances the evaluator was to respond "yes" or "no" to the question and award either a 0 or a no answer or a "2" or "4" for a "yes" answer. (P-Ex. 3 pp. 64- 80). Each of the Evaluators was instructed to review and read each Technical Proposal in its entirety in performing their evaluations - "to look everywhere for the information". (Tr. 73.18 and 294.7). On March 1, 1994, ComputerLand submitted its Technical Proposal and its Cost Proposal to the Department on each of the five categories in the RFP. (P-Ex. 14 [Final Report and Recommendation for Award], Page 3). ComputerLand submitted a cost proposal to the Department to perform the following services at the following cost: 5 x 9 6 x 14 Unisys $10,490 $10,490 IBM $93,891 $93,891 Zenith $18,989 $18,989 Other $12,406 $12,406 Controller $ 3,343 N/A (Tr. 193.03)c ComputerLand was found to have satisfied the Mandatory Requirements and its proposal was submitted to the Evaluation Committee for a Technical Evaluation. (P-Ex. 14, Page 5). Facts Relating to Requirement Item 2.2.G The RFP provided that the "Technical Approach" Category of the Proposal was to explicitly address all Department requirements specified in Section D and in the "Services to be Provided" section of the RFP. (P-Ex. 1 [RFP], Section 5.0 (D), Page 38). Section 2.2 of the RFP titled "Services to be Provided" included Requirement Items 2.2.G and 2.2.K. (P-Ex. 1, Section 2.2, Pages 10 - 12). Item 2.2.G of the RFP required a response to the following requirement: G. The cost of maintenance service shall include unlimited replacement parts. (P-Ex. 1, Section 2.2 (G), Page 12). Throughout its proposal, ComputerLand restated each Requirement Item as set forth in the RFP in bold type which was immediately followed by ComputerLand's response to the Requirement Item in standard typeface. This formatting was not required by the RFP, but was done by ComputerLand purely for the convenience of the Department. (P-Ex. 4, Tab 14 [Cross Reference Index], Page 1. Also evident throughout P-Ex 4.) ComputerLand explained in the proposal its method and its intent in restating each Requirement Item in the Cross-Reference Section of its Technical Proposal. Id. (ComputerLand Document Appendix, Tab 5) ComputerLand's Proposal exactly restated each Requirement Item as set forth in the RFP with the exception of Item 2.2.G which did not address unlimited replacement parts, but mistakenly repeated the requirements of another provision relating to service calls. (P-Ex. 4, Section 4 [Technical Approach], Page 94) The reference to "service calls" in ComputerLand's duplication of Item 2.2.G was a scriveners error. (Tr. 218.13 and 220.3). Four (4) of the five (5) HRS evaluators concluded or assumed that ComputerLand's response to 2.2.G was a mistake. Several made comments on their evaluations relating to it. Because of the mistake, ComputerLand did not state that it would furnish unlimited replacements parts in response to 2.2.G in its proposal. In order for the evaluators to have considered ComputerLand's mistake in its response to the replacement parts requirement, the evaluators would have had to disregard the actual wording of the response which addressed service calls, and then substitute nonexistent language addressing replacement parts. The provision of unlimited replacement parts was a material provision. The evaluators correctly identified the response as an erroneous response and properly did not assign points for ComputerLand's response. With respect to the response to Item "G", the Evaluation Manual set forth a grading criteria which provided as follows: Does the vendor state that he will supply unlimited replacement parts? (Section 2.2.G, Page 12). Score: Yes 4 No 0 (P-Ex. 3, Page 84). Each evaluator scored ComputerLand zero (0) in this section, resulting in a weighted score of zero (0) for Item 2.2.G. (P-Ex. 13). In contrast, IBM stated simply at page 4-48: G. IBM accepts these conditions. (P-Ex. 8, Page 4-48)(ComputerLand Document Appendix, Tab 8). The evaluators concluded the response labeled "G" on page 4-48 of IBM's Technical Proposal was a response to Item 2.2.G of the Department's RFP, based upon IBM's format and, even though page 4-48 did not include any direct reference to "replacement parts," awarded IBM four (4) points for this response, resulting in a weighted score of eight (8) points for Item 2.2.G. (P-Ex. 10; Tr. 55.25)(ComputerLand Document Appendix, Tab 8). The IBM response was unambiguous in accepting the requirements of 2.2.G. Facts Relating to Requirement Item 2.2.K The RFP required a prospective vendor to identify staff who would be assigned to service HRS equipment. It further required that resumes of these individuals be provided as part of the proposal. ComputerLand submitted the resumes of its support personnel as required by the terms of the RFP. The resumes addressed in detail the experience and training of personnel on equipment. Item 2.2.K of the RFP required a response to the following requirement: K. All personnel performing maintenance must be trained to service the equipment listed in this RFP. Training shall be completed before the individual is assigned to service the equipment. Training shall be provided at whatever level is deemed necessary to insure the individual has the requisite qualifications to perform satisfactory maintenance service on the equipment. Vendors shall submit with their proposal a summary of their training program and resumes of personnel who will be performing this training. (Emphasis Added). (P-Ex. 1, Section 2.2 (K), Page 12) Other areas of the RFP requested information relating to the personnel who would be servicing the equipment, including inquiries regarding training programs and experience of the technical staff. (P-Ex. 1 pp.37, 38, 66). With regard to Item "K", ComputerLand's response provided as follows: ComputerLand fully agrees to comply with the training requirement for equipment contained in all five (5) categories. To review the current training levels for ComputerLand's Field Engineers and Branch Service Managers, please see the Technical Response, Tab 3, Project Staff and Appendix 3: Support Staff Resumes. For a complete description of ComputerLand's training program, including resumes of training personnel, please see the Technical Response Appendix 4: Charts and Exhibits, Item "G", Engineer Skills Matrix and Training Plan. (P-Ex. 4, Tab 4 [Technical Approach], Page 95-96). With respect to Section "K", numbered Item 23 in the evaluation criteria, the evaluation manual provided as follows: 23. Has the vendor affirmed that all personnel have already been trained to adequately service the equipment covered by the proposal? (Section 2.2.K, Page 12). Score: Yes 4 No 0 (P-Ex. 3, Page 86)(Emphasis Added). Each evaluator applied this standard of evaluation to evaluate ComputerLand's response to Item 2.2.K. Each evaluator scored ComputerLand zero (0) in this section, resulting in a weighted score of zero (0) for Item 2.2.K. (P-Ex. 13). According to Ms. Morris, the project manager, this was because ComputerLand's staff had poor experience; however, the separate evaluation of the staff requirement awarded ComputerLand 151 or 200 points, or fourth of eleven vendors. (P-Ex. 14, p. 12; Tr. 106-130). The evaluators purportedly graded down ComputerLand on "Corporate Capabilities" because all of ComputerLand's existing personnel were not already trained. The area in which ComputerLand was deemed to be specifically lacking, according to HRS, was in personnel to maintain "IBM Communications Controllers" or the equipment which acts as a switchboard/translator for mainframe computers. The ComputerLand staff were not trained on specific IBM equipment, specifically the 3745 communications controller, according to HRS. (Tr. 174.11) The RFP did not include any indication in Section 2.2.K, or anywhere throughout the RFP, that the vendor was to affirm that "all personnel have already been trained to adequately service the equipment covered by the proposal". (P-Ex. 1 and 2). The resume of Edward Wayne Barker specifically indicated under "Educational Background" certification or experience with "IBM Controllers and Term's [Terminals]". (P services equipment, on site. (Tr. 223.9). However, Barker's resume was the only one which revealed experience or certification on IBM controllers. ComputerLand's Technical Proposal included an outline of its training program and a chart which presented its method of establishing training needs and training the necessary personnel. (Appendix 4G [Field Engineer Skills Matrix and Training Plan] including Figures 1 and 2.) (ComputerLand Document Appendix, Tab 7). The reference to IBM equipment in this Training Matrix includes 3745 controllers. (Tr. 181.14 and 397.11). The Evaluators assumed those staff members who were designated were the pool of personnel from which ComputerLand would select the personnel to work on the equipment covered under the proposal, and scored Item 2.2.K accordingly. (Tr. 118, 122 et seq.) In doing this, HRS differentiated between companies which had some trained personnel and companies who had trained completely all their personnel. (Tr. 325, 1-10) HRS also assumed that the companies would not take further steps to acquire personnel trained to maintain equipment by additional hires, transfers of existing personnel, or training existing personnel. Each evaluator scored ComputerLand a "0" in response to this question because ComputerLand had not affirmed that all personnel had already been trained to adequately service the equipment covered by the proposal. The answer to this question was considered by HRS to be a significant factor because if the personnel were not already trained, the vendor would not be able to meet the contract demands for commencing the contract. Question 23 was not the only question by which the evaluators evaluated the training capabilities and programs of the vendor and experience level of the vendor's staff. For example, Question No. 1 in the Technical Approach section of the Evaluation Manual (p. 64) used training and staff as an element of evaluating the extent the vendor's proposal demonstrated an understanding of the scope of the services to be provided. (P-Ex. 3, p.64) Question 13 in the Technical Approach section of the Evaluation Manual specifically requires the evaluation of how adequately the vendor's service personnel have been trained and specifically references 2.2 K, p. 12 of the RFP using the corporate responses as well as the Technical Materials. The evaluators were required to consider the formal training of each proposed service personnel and were also asked to consider whether all required training had been completed on the equipment being proposed. (P-Ex., p.76) In response to the same question, Bull Customer Service answered as follows: Bull Customer Service Engineers are experienced in supporting the equipment and systems utilized in the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services configurations in Table C for the categories being bid. Any additional training required will be completed before the individuals assigned to service the equipment covered by the contract. * * * Supplemental training on either a "stand up" or "infield" basis is provided when any existing products or systems have major modifications implemented or whenever new models with major differences are added to a product line and are shipped to users in the field. We schedule such supplementary training in advance of field shipment such that all appropriate service personnel can handle both installation and maintenance requirements on a totally profes- sional and efficient matter. (P-Ex. 11, Tab 4, Page 4-10)(Emphasis Added). Each evaluator awarded Bull Customer Service four (4) points for this response, resulting in a weighted score of eight (8) points for Item 2.2.K for Bull Customer Service. Facts Relating to Adverse Effect of Agency Action ComputerLand did not score at least 450 weighted points on its technical proposal and its cost proposal was not considered. On May 9, 1994, the Department announced its intent to award the contracts for the "Unisys" and "Other Vendor" categories to vendor AT&T NCR Global Systems and the contracts for the "IBM" and "Zenith" and "Communications Controllers" categories to vendor Bell Atlantic Business Systems Service. (P- Ex. 15 and 16 and Tr. 84.10).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's Petition be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, 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 21st day of September, 1994. APPENDIX All the parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. Petitioner's Findings Paragraph 1-2 Paragraph 1-3 Paragraph 3-6 Paragraph 5-8 Paragraph 7-13 Paragraph 14-18 Paragraph 14-21 Paragraph 21-24 Paragraph 22-26 Paragraph 27-30 Paragraph 27 Paragraph 33 Paragraph 28-31 Paragraph 35-38 Paragraph 32-36 Paragraph 40-43 Paragraph 37,38 Paragraph 48,49 Paragraph 39 Paragraph 51 ATT's Findings Paragraph 1 Subsumed in Paragraph 51. Paragraph 2 Irrelevant and subsumed in other findings. Paragraph 3 Irrelevant. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraph 6,9,12. Paragraph 6 Paragraph 8,10,19,20,33 Paragraph 7 Subsumed in Paragraph 9. Paragraph 8 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 9 Paragraph 11 Paragraph 10 Paragraph 12,13, Paragraph 11 Rejected because part of the guidelines were arbitrary and capricious. Paragraph 12 Paragraph 19,20 Paragraph 13 Paragraph 27 Paragraph 14 Subsumed in 25-31. Paragraph 15,16 Paragraph 33,34 Paragraph 17 Subsumed in Paragraph 41 et seq. Paragraph 18,19 Paragraph 36,37,46,47 Paragraph 20 Questions 1 & 13 are not challenged, and are irrelevant. HRS's Findings Paragraph 1 Statement of Case Paragraph 2 Subsumed in Paragraph 1,2. Paragraph 3 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 4 Subsumed in Paragraph 5. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 50 Paragraph 6 Statement of Case Paragraph 7 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 8 Statement of Case & Issues Paragraph 9 Subsumed in Issues Paragraph 10 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 11 Irrelevant Paragraph 12-15 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 16 Subsumed in other findings. Paragraph 17,18 Subsumed in Paragraph 32. Paragraph 19,20 Paragraph 44 Paragraph 21 Rejected as being contrary from the stated requirements. Paragraph 22 Unnecessary. Paragraph 23 Argument. Paragraph 24-27 These facts are true; however, IBM equipment and Communications Controllers were separate categories of equipment under the RFP, therefore, there was reason to grade ComputerLand down for lack of trained personnel to maintain these items in considering its proposal on unrelated equipment. Paragraph 28 Relates to HRS's argument on standing, and is irrelevant under the HO's suggested view of this issue. Paragraph 29,30 Subsumed in Paragraph 23,24 Paragraph 31 Paragraph 26. Paragraph 32 Paragraph 25 Paragraph 33-35 True, but addressed by not making affirmative findings on these issues. Paragraph 36 The facts indicate that the evaluation of 2.2.K was arbitrary and capricious. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul L. SanGiovanni, Esquire Pleus, Adams, Davis & Spears, P.A. 940 Highland Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Borgognoni, Esquire Ruden & Barnett 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 Miami, Florida 33131 J. Riley Davis, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks & Bryant, P.A. 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents violated Subsections 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), and 626.611(13), Florida Statutes (2008),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaints, Mr. Holliday, III, was a licensed Florida surplus lines (1-20) agent, a life and health (2-18) agent, a general lines (property and casualty) (2-20) agent, an independent adjuster (5-20), and agent in charge at International Brokerage and Surplus Lines, Inc. (IBSL). Mr. Holliday, III, had been associated with IBSL since its inception in 1993. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Holliday, IV, was licensed in Florida as a general lines (2-20) agent. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Holliday, III, and Mr. Holliday, IV, were officers and owners of IBSL. Most recently, Mr. Holliday, III, was the secretary of IBSL. He handled the underwriting and risk placement for the agency. From approximately March 1993 to April 2009, Mr. Holliday, IV, was the president of IBSL. As president of IBSL, Mr. Holliday, IV's, duties included signing agreements which established IBSL's business function as that of a general managing agent and signing agreements which empowered IBSL to collect premiums on behalf of insureds. IBSL ceased doing business on May 1, 2009. In the insurance industry, a common method of procuring insurance involves a retail producer, a wholesale broker, and a program manager. A customer desiring insurance contacts its local insurance agent, which is known as a retail producer, and applies for insurance. The retail producer has a producer agreement with a wholesale broker, who has a producer agreement with a program manager. The program manager represents insurance companies. The retail producer sends the customer's application to the wholesale broker, and the wholesale broker contacts the program manager and forwards the application to the program manager. The program manager will provide a quote if the insurance company is willing to insure the customer. The quote is passed back to the customer via the wholesale broker and the retail producer. If the customer decides to take the insurance, the program manager will issue a binder to the wholesale broker, who will submit the binder to the retail producer. The wholesale broker will issue an invoice for the premium to the retail producer. The program manager pays a commission to the wholesale broker pursuant to its producer agreement with the wholesale broker, and the wholesale broker pays a commission to the retail producer pursuant to its producer agreement with the retail producer. When the retail producer sends the premium payment to the wholesale broker, the retail producer will deduct its commission. The wholesale broker sends the premium amount to the program manager less the wholesale broker's commission. If the customer is unable to pay the entire amount of the premium, part of the premium may be financed through a premium finance company. The premium finance company may pay the premium to the retail producer or to the wholesale broker. International Transportation & Marine Agency, Inc. (ITMA), is a program manager and is engaged in the business of selling, brokering, and servicing certain lines of policies of insurance written or issued by insurance companies. ITMA is a program manager for Pennsylvania Manufacturers Insurance Association (Pennsylvania Manufacturers), an insurance company. IBSL, a wholesale broker, entered into a producer's contract with ITMA on January 4, 2008. Wimberly Agency, Incorporated (Wimberly), is a retail producer located in Ringgold, Louisiana. In 2008, Wimberly had a producer's agreement with IBSL. Carla Jinks (Ms. Jinks) is the administrative manager for Wimberly. In October 2008, R.L. Carter Trucking (Carter) was a customer of Wimberly and applied for motor truck cargo insurance with Wimberly. Wimberly submitted an application to IBSL and requested that coverage be bound effective October 28, 2008, for Carter. IBSL contacted ITMA and received a binder for a policy with Pennsylvania Manufacturers. The cost of the policy was $9,500.00 plus a policy fee of $135.00 for a total of $9,635.00. Carter paid Wimberly $2,500.00 as a down payment and financed the remainder of the cost with Southern Premium Finance, LLC, who paid the financed portion directly to Wimberly. Wimberly deducted a ten percent commission of $950.00 and sent the remainder, $8,635.00 to IBSL. The check was deposited to IBSL's clearing account. On January 22, 2009, Carter contacted Ms. Jinks and advised that he had received a notice of cancellation effective January 22, 2009, due to non-payment to Pennsylvania Manufacturers. On the same date, Ms. Jinks received a facsimile transmission from IBSL, attaching the notice of cancellation and stating: "There was some confusion with the payment we send [sic] and we are working on getting it reinstated." There were some e-mails between Wimberly and Mr. Holliday, III, concerning the placement of coverage with another company. IBSL was unable to place coverage for Carter. By e-mail dated January 30, 2009, Ms. Jinks advised Mr. Holliday, III, that she had been able to place coverage for Carter and requested a return of the premium paid on a pro rata basis. She advised Mr. Holliday, III, that the return premium should be $7,651.35. By e-mail dated January 30, 2009, Mr. Holliday, III, stated: We will tender the return as quickly as it is processed by accounting. I do sorely regret the loss of this account, and our inability to get the Travelers quote agreed on a timely basis. By February 19, 2009, Wimberly had not received the return premium from IBSL. Ms. Jinks sent an e-mail to Mr. Holliday, III, on February 19, 2009, asking that the return premium be rushed to Wimberly so that it could be used to pay for the replacement policy. As of the date of Ms. Jinks' deposition on November 16, 2009, neither Mr. Holliday, III; Mr. Holliday, IV; nor IBSL had given the return premium to Wimberly. K.V. Carrier Services, Inc. (K.V.), is a retail producer located in Medley, Florida. In 2007, K.V. and IBSL entered into a business arrangement with IBSL. Under the arrangement, K.V. was the retailer, IBSL was the wholesale broker, ITMA was the program manager, and Pennsylvania Manufacturers was the insurance company. K.V. collected the down payments for the policy premiums from its customers and sent the down payments to IBSL. The remainder of the premiums were financed by financing companies, who sent the remainder of the premiums to IBSL. IBSL was supposed to send the monies paid for the premiums to ITMA. The following customers made down payments to K.V. and financed the remainder of their premiums with a financing company. E & E Trucking Service OD Transport, Inc. Fermin Balzaldua Eduardo Bravo Carlos Ramirez Edwin Bello Janet Rodriguez UTL, Inc. Prestige Transport USA JNL Transportation, Inc. Valdir Santos DJ Express PL Fast Carrier Ysis Transport K.V. sent the down payments for these customers to IBSL. The financing company sent the remainder of the premiums for these customers to IBSL. The total amount of premiums sent to IBSL for these customers was $19,768.45. IBSL did not send the premium payments for these customers to ITMA. The policies for these customers were cancelled for non-payment. K.V. found another company that was willing to insure K.V.'s customers. K.V. paid the down payments for the new policies from its own funds, hoping that IBSL would repay the finance company with any unearned premiums that would be returned to IBSL as a result of the cancellations. ITMA sent an invoice called an Account Current Statement to IBSL for the business conducted in the month of November 2008. The total amount owed to ITMA was listed as $55,116.32. The invoice included the premium for the policy issued for Carter, less IBSL's commission. The premiums for the policies issued to Eduardo Bravo; Fermin Bazaldua; JNL Transportation, Inc.; Janet Rodriguez; OD Transport, Inc.; and Prestige Transport USA were also included in the Account Current Statement for the business that IBSL conducted in November. IBSL was required to pay the $55,116.32 by December 15, 2008, but did not do so. ITMA received a check from IBSL dated December 31, 2008, for $25,000.00. A notation on the check indicated that it was a partial payment for the November business. The check was unallocated, meaning IBSL did not state to which premiums the partial payment should be applied. Mr. Holliday, III, claimed that IBSL had sent a bordereaux along with the check showing to which policies the payment applied. Mr. Holliday, III's, testimony is not credited. Donald Kaitz (Mr. Kaitz), the president of ITMA, communicated with one of the Respondents, who advised Mr. Kaitz that he needed another week or so to collect some premiums from his retail producers. On January 12, 2009, ITMA received a telephone call from IBSL, stating that IBSL could not pay the balance owed to ITMA and that ITMA should take whatever action it felt necessary. As a result of the communication from IBSL, ITMA issued notices of policy cancellation on all applicable policies listed in the Account Current Statement which was to be paid on December 15, 2008. Copies of the cancellation notices were sent to the insureds and IBSL. ITMA issued pro rata return premiums based on the number of days that each policy had been in effect. The return premiums were sent to IBSL by a check for $18,790.06. Additionally, ITMA sent IBSL a list of the policies that had been cancelled, showing the earned premiums which had been deducted from the $25,000.00. IBSL received and retained a net of $30,116.32, which was owed to ITMA. This amount is derived by deducting the $25,000.00, which IBSL sent to ITMA, from the $55,116.32, which was owed to ITMA. By letter dated April 2, 2009, IBSL sent K.V. a check for $524.80, which stated: We have totaled all amounts owing to IBSL by KV Carrier Service, and we have totaled all pro rated commissions owing by IBSL to KV Carrier Services for the benefit of your clients and have included our check # 1025 in the final amount of $524.80 to settle the account. All net unearned premiums for other than unearned commissions which are funded herein you must contact the insurance carriers involved and request payment under the provisions of Florida Statutes #627.7283. Federal Motor Carriers Risk Retention Group, Incorporated (FMC), is an insurance company, which sells commercial auto liability insurance, specifically targeted to intermediate and long-haul trucking companies. CBIP Management, Incorporated (CBIP), is a managing general underwriter for FMC. FMC had an agreement effective June 1, 2008, with IBSL, allowing IBSL to act as a general agent for FMC. As a general agent for FMC, IBSL was given the authority to accept risk on behalf of FMC. IBSL was given a fiduciary responsibility to accept insurance applications, provide quotes, and bind coverage. Once IBSL binds a policy for FMC, FMC issues a policy and is responsible for the risk. IBSL would receive the down payment from the retail agency, and, in most cases, the finance company would pay the balance of the premium directly to IBSL. The agreement between FMC and IBSL provided that IBSL was to provide FMC a monthly report of premiums billed and collected, less the agreed commission. The report was due by the 15th of the month following the reported month. In turn, FMC was to issue a statement for the balance due, and IBSL was required to pay the balance due within 15 days of the mailing of the statement following the month in which the policy was written. In August 2008, FMC began to notice that IBSL was selling premiums lower than FMC's rating guidelines. IBSL owed FMC approximately $186,000.00, which was due on August 15, 2008. IBSL sent FMC a check, which was returned for insufficient funds. FMC contacted IBSL and was assured that the check was returned due to a clerical error and an error by the bank. Assurances were given to FMC that funds would be transferred to FMC the following day; however, FMC did not receive payment until five days later. In September 2008, Joseph Valuntas (Mr. Valuntas), the chief operating officer for FMC, paid a visit to Mr. Holliday, III, and Mr. Holliday, IV. Mr. Valuntas expressed his concerns about the delay in receiving payment in August. He also pointed out that IBSL had taken some risks which were not rated properly and that there were some risks in which IBSL was not following the underwriting guidelines. After his visit with the Hollidays, Mr. Valuntas wrote a letter to IBSL, restricting IBSL to writing in Florida and limiting the amount of gross written premium to no more than $100,000.00 per month. IBSL did not adhere to Mr. Valuntas' instructions. An example of IBSL's conduct involved the writing of a policy for Miami Sunshine Transfer, which is a risk category designated as public delivery. Public delivery was not a standard that FMC insured and, as such, was not covered by FMC's reinsurance. Beginning on or about September 21, 2008, FMC began getting complaints from policyholders and retail agents about cancellations of policies that had been paid timely and in full. Although the retail agents had paid the premiums in full to IBSL, IBSL had not forwarded the premiums to FMC. By October 2008, IBSL owed FMC approximately $120,000.00 in past due premiums. FMC officially terminated the IBSL agreement in October 2008. IBSL sued FMC for breach of contract. On December 22, 2008, FMC received a check from IBSL in the amount of $25,122.80, but IBSL did not specify what premiums were being paid by the check. From February 1, 2006, through November 20, 2008, IBSL had a business relationship with Markel International Insurance Company Limited (Markel), an entity for which IBSL was writing insurance. IBSL was a coverholder for Markel, meaning that IBSL could produce insurance business for Markel and had the authority to collect and process premiums and bind insurance on Markel's behalf. Once the premiums were collected by IBSL, they were to be reported to Markel, and, within a maximum of 45 days, IBSL was to remit to Markel the aggregate gross written premiums less IBSL's commission. T. Scott Garner (Mr. Garner) is an expert auditor and financial analyst who currently works for Northshore International Insurance Services (Northshore), an insurance and reinsurance consulting firm. Markel retained Mr. Garner to determine the amount of money that IBSL should have sent to Markel for business transacted by IBSL for the period between February 1, 2006, and November 20, 2008. In doing his analysis, Mr. Garner used the bordereauxs which IBSL prepared and provided to Markel. Bordereauxs are monthly billing reports or accounts receivable reports. Mr. Garner also used data from Omni, which is a software system that was used by IBSL. Mr. Garner used the following procedure to determine what IBSL owed Markel. He determined how much risk IBSL wrote during the time period, that is, the gross written premium. He identified the amount of money that Markel had received from IBSL for the time period. Next he determined the amount that should have been received from IBSL, the gross written premiums minus IBSL's commissions. He compared what should have been remitted to Markel with the amount that was actually received by Markel. Based on his analysis, Mr. Garner calculated that IBSL owed Markel $1,208,656.61. Mr. Garner's analysis is credited. Respondent submitted a FSLSO Compliance Review Summary, which was done by the Florida Surplus Lines Office. At the final hearing, Mr. Holliday, III, viewed the report to mean that Markel was incorrect in the amount of money that was owed to it by IBSL. The report does not indicate that the policies on which the premium variances were noted were policies issued by Markel. Additionally, in his review, Mr. Garner eliminated duplicate transactions in determining the amount owed to Markel. The report did give a long list of policies, which should have been reported to Florida Surplus Lines Office, but IBSL had failed to report the policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondents committed the violations alleged in Counts I through V of the Administrative Complaints, dismissing Count VI of the Administrative Complaints, and revoking the licenses of Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 2010.
The Issue Are the February 13, 2014, letters of Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division), requiring totalisator reports to "identify the Florida [permitholder] in reports as both host and guest when applicable," statements that amount to a rule, as defined in section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes (2013).1/
Findings Of Fact Florida permits and regulates betting on greyhound racing,2/ jai alai games,3/ quarter horse racing,4/ and harness racing.5/ The Division is responsible for administration of Florida's statutes and rules governing this betting. JKC and OPKC are separate, individually permitted facilities. Jacksonville Greyhound Racing owns and operates both the JKC and the OPKC. It is not, however, a party to this proceeding. The betting system is a pari-mutuel system. This "means a system of betting on races or games in which the winners divide the total amount bet, after deducting management expenses and taxes, in proportion to the sums they have wagered individually and with regard to the odds assigned to particular outcomes."6/ Each race, contest, or game is an "event."7/ The aggregate wagers called "contributions" to pari-mutuel pools are labeled "handle." § 550.002(13), Fla. Stat. An "intertrack wager" is "a particular form of pari-mutuel wagering in which wagers are accepted at a permitted, in-state track, fronton, or pari-mutuel facility on a race or game transmitted from and performed live at, or simulcast signal rebroadcast from another in-state pari-mutuel facility."8/ The JKC offers intertrack wagering at its permitted facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. It does not offer live events. The OPKC offers intertrack wagering and wagering on live events conducted at its permitted facility in Orange Park. The Racetracks are host tracks when they transmit live greyhound racing to other in-state and out-of-state facilities for off-track wagers.9/ They are guest tracks when wagers are made at their separate permitted locations on pari-mutuel races or games conducted at third-party facilities.10/ Florida statutes and the Division's rules require detailed reports from permitholders to the Division and other permitholders, including tables of wagers, pool data, and winnings.11/ These reports are generated by "totalisators." A totalisator is "the computer system used to accumulate wagers, record sales, calculate payoffs, and display wagering data on a display device that is located at a pari-mutuel facility."12/ The Division's Form DBPR-PMW-3570 requires host permitholders to report intertrack wagering "handle" by guest on a monthly basis. The host permitholders must sign and attest to the accuracy of the information submitted in the form. Also, Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-7.023(2) requires generation of reports for each pool within each contest to be printed immediately after the official order of finish is declared. On March 9, 2012, the Division issued a letter to AmTote International ("AmTote"), a licensed totalisator company, and copied Jacksonville Greyhound Racing, notifying AmTote that Florida permitholders and the Division would need a breakdown of the handle of the Racetracks in order to pay appropriate purses, taxes, or other liabilities. It sent a similar letter to other totalisator companies. This was an effort to be accommodating and flexible. The letter concluded: "Please continue to provide handle information broken down by source, which is required by rule to all those in the state of Florida who have been users of that information in the past." The Racetracks rely upon AmTote to provide their totalisator services. Between March 2012 and March 2014, AmTote commingled the Racetracks' wagering data into a single "community," reporting all wagering as coming from the OPKC in order to reduce interface fees paid for the totalisator service. The guest track wagering data and reports exchanged with the other totalisator companies from the Racetracks show up on the AmTote settlement files as OPKC. The reports do not differentiate between wagers made at each of the Racetracks. Before March 1, 2012, AmTote segregated wagering data as coming from either JKC or OPKC. During the two years reported by the Racetracks as a single community, the Racetracks separately provided Florida host tracks a supplemental report breaking down the sources within the common community. The Racetracks provided these supplemental reports--via email or other means--to assist Florida host tracks with reporting requirements. They did not provide them simultaneously with the other reports and data. There were frequently errors that had to be identified and corrected. In an effort to be flexible and work with the Racetracks, the Division tolerated this method of reporting for two years. But it created problems for both the Division and for the other permitholders in the state. On February 13, 2014, the Division prepared and issued correspondence to AmTote, as well as the two other Florida totalisator companies, announcing that it intended to require proper reporting of the data required by rule, including reports of each permitholder. The letter states: This letter is to address the issue of proper and complete identification of each individual permitholder in totalisator reports. Rule 61D-7.024(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires all Florida pari-mutuel permitholders to use an electronically operated totalisator. Rule 61D-7.023(9), F.A.C. states in part, ". . . Each report shall include the permitholder's name . . .," and Rule 61D-7.024(4), F.A.C. states in part, ". . . reports shall be kept logically separate . . . ." Further, Rule 61D-7.023(1), F.A.C. states, "The totalisator licensee shall be responsible for the correctness of all tote produced mutual accounting reports. " In accordance with Florida Administrative Code, the division requires each permitholder to be properly and uniquely identified by totalisator reports provided to the division and to the permitholders. In addition, the totalisators are responsible for the correctness of all tote produced mutual accounting reports. Reports provided after February 28, 2014 must properly identify the Florida Permitholder in reports as both host and guest when applicable. Improper identification of permitholders will be considered a violation of the Florida Administrative Code. On March 11, 2014, AmTote began segregating wagering data from the Racetracks in compliance with the February 13, 2014, letter. The Racetracks will incur additional financial costs if AmTote ends the reporting of all wagering data as coming from OPKC for purposes of reports provided to other totalisator companies licensed in Florida and begins segregating their wagering data by individual permitholders. These costs stem from additional interface fees incurred outside the regulatory jurisdiction of Florida. The only evidence of these costs is the testimony of Matthew Kroetz, vice-president of Operations for Jacksonville Greyhound Racing. The testimony of Mr. Kroetz about the cost of the required change is confusing because he mingles assumed costs for a third closed track as if it were reactivated and operational. Bayard Raceways is that track. The Racetracks' parent company owns it. But the likelihood and timing of that reactivation is speculative. In addition, Bayard is not a party to this proceeding. Neither is the parent company. Mr. Kroetz' testimony establishes that the current cost for the two petitioners is a total of $1,500 per month. He projects that costs for reporting, as the letter requires, would be $4,500 per month for the two Petitioners and the track that may reopen in the future. That testimony is unrebutted and consistent with his testimony that the recurring fees for all three tracks would total over $50,000 annually. It is accepted as accurate. But the $3,000 increase from $1,500 to $4,500 per month is not due solely to the reporting requirement. It is also due to lumping in the non-active track. The evidence does not support including that track, the opening of which is speculative. The monthly fee for the two operating tracks is $1,500 divided by two or $750. Subtracting that, as the current cost for an existing track, from the $3,000 increase, lowers the estimated increase to $2,250. Dividing that by three gives the increased monthly cost per track, or $750 per track. This results in the projected annual cost increase for each of the Racetracks of $9,000. Although Mr. Kroetz testified in summary that the changes would result in an increased cost of "about a thousand dollars per month per facility," that testimony is not persuasive. It is inconsistent with the more detailed testimony relied upon above and would require the improbable and unsupported conclusion that the monthly increase would be more than the existing fees.
The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether the Petitioners, MISSCO, GENERAL, AND INTERSTATE should be placed on the convicted vendor list pursuant to Section 287.133 Florida Statutes (1991).
Findings Of Fact The facts stated in the Joint Stipulations to the extent set forth below are hereby adopted as findings of fact: On April 9, 1993, DMS issued notices of intent pursuant to Section 187.133(3)(e)(1), Florida Statutes. Jt. Stips. Appen. at pp. 72-73. On April 13, 1993, MISSCO filed petitions with DMS for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to determine whether it is in the public interest for MISSCO, GENERAL, or INTERSTATE to be placed on the Florida Convicted Vendor List pursuant to Section 287.133, Florida Statutes. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 74-77. Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)e., Florida Statutes, establishes factors which, if applicable to a convicted vendor, will mitigate against placement of that vendor upon the convicted vendor list. On April 5, 1991, General Equipment Manufacturers, Inc., (hereinafter "General"), a Mississippi corporation, and wholly owned subsidiary of MISSCO Corporation, was convicted of the commission of a public entity crime as defined within subsection 287.133(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Jr. Stips. p. 1, Appen. at pp. 41-43. A criminal information was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against General Equipment Manufacturers, Inc., alleging a violation of Section 1001, Title 18, United States Code and applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations which occurred on or about December 2, 1988. Jt. Stips. p. 1, Appen. at p. 40. The criminal information filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Mississippi charged General with falsely representing on or about December 2, 1988 that the equipment schedule and price list submitted to the General Services Administration (hereinafter GSA) was General's established commercial price list. (Jt. Stips. p. 2, Appen. at p. 40. Upon entry of a plea of guilty, the Court entered a judgement against General which was filed April 5, 1991. The judgement required payment of a special assessment of $200, a fine in the amount of $10,000, without interest, and restitution in the amount of $28,000. Jt. Stips. p. 2, Appen. at pp. 40-48. The GSA issued Solicitation No. FCGS-X8-38010-N for FSC Group 66 Part II, Section P, Laboratory/Pharmacy Furniture. General submitted an offer dated August 18, 1988, and signed by Charles H. Wright, General Manager of General's SystaModules Division. In connection with its offer, General submitted its purported commercial price list dated January 31, 1987. Mr. Wright certified in Section M-FSS-330, M.3, Basis for Price Negotiation, Item (c), Certificate of Established Catalog or Market Price, that: The price(s) quoted in General's proposal is based on established catalog or market prices of commercial items, as defined in FAR 15.804-3(c), in effect on the date of the offer or on the dates of revisions submitted during the course of negotiations. Substantial quantities of the items have been sold to the general public at such prices. All of the data, including sales data, submitted with General's offer are accurate, complete, and current representations of actual transactions to the date when price negotiations are concluded. By letter dated December 2, 1988, Mr. Wright, in his capacity as General Manager of General's SystaModules Division, certified on behalf of General that: . . . all data submitted with General's offer pursuant to the discount schedule ad marketing data sheets and any other data submitted as as part of General's offer on Solicitation FGS-X8-38010-N are current, accurate, and complete a of the conclusion of negotiations, which occurred on December 2, 1988. Jt. Stips. p. 2-3, Appen. at pp. 51-53. On the basis of General's offer on Solicitation No. FGS-X8-38010-N, the GSA awarded General Contract No. GS-00F-06709 on December 13, 1988. The contract was for the period February 1, 1989, through January 31, 1992. Jt. Stips. p. 3-4, Appen. at p. 53. An investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation determined that General provided the GSA with fabricated price lists in connection with FGS-X8-38010-N. Jt. Stips. p. 4, Appen. at pp. 53-54. The details of the criminal information against General are discussed in the findings and determination made by the GSA Office of Acquisition Policy, dated May 18, 1992, which are incorporated herein by reference. Jt. Stips. Appen. at pp. 49-71). Particular findings are as follows: Federal debarment was imposed on General and its corporate officials Messrs. Wright and Majure. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 50. The debarments were effective throughout the Federal Executive Branch. The debarment precluded the award, renewal, or extension of federal contracts. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 50. Debarment proceedings were initiated by separate notices dated November 1, 1990 based on a referral from the Federal General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Inspector General (OIG). Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 51. General bid on GSA Solicitation No. FGS-X3-36426-N and in connection with its offer General submitted a "dealer retail price list," and certified that: its prices were based on established catalog or market prices, substantial quantities of the items had been sold to the general public at said prices: and that all of the data submitted with its offer was accurate, complete and current representations of actual transactions up to the date when price negotiations were concluded. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 51. General's offer on the solicitation was accepted and it was awarded contract number GS-00F-70316 on April 19, 1984. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 52. On June 28, 1985 General made the same representations as to GSA Solicitation No. FGS-X8-38000-N for laboratory and pharmacy furniture. The award was made to General on December 9, 1985. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 52. Identical representations were made by General in response to GSA Solicitation No. FCGS-X8-38010-N issued on July 7, 1988. The solicitation was for laboratory and pharmacy furniture. The award was made to General on December 13, 1988. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 53. Criminal Information Number J90-00080(B) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on November 15, 1990. The information was based on the FBI investigation of General's submission of false commercial price lists to GSA. The criminal information charged General with violating Title 18, U.S.C. 1001 in connection with its offer on Solicitation No. FGS-X8-38010-N. It alleged that General knowingly, willfully, and falsely represented to GSA that the equipment schedule and price lists submitted with General's 1988 offer was General's established commercial price list. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 54. General pled guilty to Criminal Information No. J90-00080(B) on December 19, 1990 and was ordered to pay a fine of $10,000 and to make just restitution to the GSA in the amount of $28,000. The conviction was also used as the basis for the federal debarment of General. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 54. Mr. Wright and Mr. Majure were also debarred by virtue of their conduct in connection with the General conviction. Jt. Stips. Appen. at pp. 54- 59. General and MISSCO are affiliated companies. General is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MISSCO. MISSCO is directed and governed by its executive committee which acts in lieu of the board of directors. Mr. Majure was a director of MISSCO, a member of MISSCO'S executive committee, a senior vice president of MISSCO, and president, director, and general manager of General. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 59. Mr. Majure held a position of substantial responsibility in both MISSCO and General, and through MISSCO's control group is accountable for the circumstances of General's crime. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 60. A decision not to impose federal debarment on MISSCO was predicated on MISSCO management's decision to ensure that it did not supply the Federal government with the same goods and services formerly provided by General during the period of General's debarment: MISSCO management made a commitment to emphasize ethical business practices: the people responsible for General's crime were no longer employed by MISSCO: the GSA administrative record (with the exception of General) does not indicate a lack of business integrity or poor performance on federal contracts. Jt. Stips. Appen. at pp. 61-63. Federal debarment of General was predicated upon the following: conviction of the crime of making false statements posed a substantial risk to government business dealings: General submitted false information on solicitations over an extended period of time: General fabricated price lists and false certification son two prior solicitations: General's crime posed a substantial danger to the integrity of the Federal government's MAS program: the accountable individuals for the crime were high-ranking officials at General. Jt. Stips. Appen. at pp. 63-66. The federal debarment proceedings found mitigating factors in that: the parties pled guilty and cooperated with the Department of Justice throughout the investigation: the parties cooperated with GSA throughout the debarment proceedings: General was not charged with deliberate overcharges on its federal MAS contracts: General promptly paid its fine and restitution: General has made good faith efforts to undertake remedial action. Jt. Stips. Appen. at pp. 68-69. On April 9, 1993, Respondent issued Notices of Intent pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(e)1, Florida Statutes, which were received by the Petitioners. Jt. Stips. p. 5, Appen. at pp. 72-73. On April 13, 1993, Petitions filed petitions pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(e)2, Florida Statutes, and Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, requesting an order determining that it is not in the public interest for Petitioners to be placed on the State of Florida Convicted Vendor List. Jt. Stips. p. 5, Appen. at pp. 74-75. MISSCO is a holding company which has a number of operating divisions and two wholly-owned subsidiary corporations, General Equipment Manufacturers (General) and MISSCO Exports Corporation (Exports). Jt. Stips. p. 2, Appen. at pp. 35-36. Interstate of Florida is a Division of MISSCO and is a dealer (re- seller) of General's products. Jt. Stips. p. 2. General and MISSCO are commercially distinguishable and they do not occupy the same facilities. MISSCO's primary lines of business are distribution of school equipment and supplies, office equipment and supplies, and commercial printing. Jt. Stips. p. 4. MISSCO Exports is an entity formed solely for accounting and tax purposes, has no employees, and does not engage in substantive commercial operations. Jt. Stips. p. 4. MISSCO has extensive dealings with the federal government, as supplier of goods manufactured by other entities. General is the only MISSCO entity that contracts with the government under the Multiple Awards Schedule (MAS) program. General's primary line of business is manufacturing institutional furniture. Jt. Stips. pp. 4-5. In compliance with paragraphs 287.133(3)(a) and (B), Florida Statutes, MISSCO made timely notification to the DMS and provided details of the conviction of General, by letter dated March 24, 1992 and provided copies of the criminal information, judgement and related correspondence. Jt. Stips. p. 5, Appen. at pp. 37048. Payment of the fine in the amount of $10,000 and restitution in the amount of $28,000 imposed by the conviction and judgement entered April 5, 1991 were promptly paid by General on April 15, 1991. Jt. Stips. pp. 5-6, Appen. at pp. 47-48. Subsequent to the criminal information filed in the United States District court, Southern District of Mississippi in November of 1990, General entered a plea of guilty to the charge, thus eliminating the necessity for further investigation and trial. Jt. Stips. p. 6. The GSA in its findings and determination dated May 18, 1992, cited mitigating factors favorable to General and MISSCO. The factors included, cooperation with the Department of Justice throughout its investigation; cooperation with the GSA throughout the debarment proceeding; constructive dealings by counsel for MISSCO and General with the GSA Office of General Counsel on issues relating to the restrictions on MISSCO and General's business relationship with the government and government prime contractors. Jt. Stips. p. 6, Appen. at pp. 68-69. MISSCO fully cooperated with the DMS in connection with its investigation initiated pursuant to Section 287.133, Florida Statutes. Jt. Stips. p. 6. MISSCO formally filed its disclosure pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(b), Florida Statutes with the DMS by letter dated March 24, 1992, together with exhibits attached thereto. The letter specifically referred to the criminal information filed against General and the judgement entered by the Federal District Court. A copy of the criminal information and judgement were enclosed with the letter, together with a copy of correspondence between MISSCO and the GSA. Jt. Stips. pp. 8-9, Appen. at pp. 37-39. In response to a request dated April 15, 1992 from the DMS for additional information, MISSCO promptly furnished all such information. Jt. Stips. p. 9. At its meeting held December 17, 1992, the Board of Directors of MISSCO was convened and all of the offices then held by Mr. James T. Majure, former President of General, were declared vacant and other persons were elected to those positions. Jt. Stips. p. 7, Appen. at pp. 2, 67, 70. Mr. Charles Wright was retired from General under a medical disability prior to 1990. Jt. Stips. p. 7. MISSCO Corporation fully cooperated with the GSA by proposing and implementing remedial measures including the presentation of an Ethics Seminar by Mr. Norman Roberts, past chairman of the American Bar Association's section on government contracting. Jt. Stips. p. 7. MISSCO revised its corporate Code of Ethics, revised its Employee Handbook, installed an 800 hotline telephone number permitting employees to communicate any concerns regarding business ethics, designated a Corporate Vice President as the Ethics Compliance Officer, appointed a committee of three corporate executives to monitor corporate business activities, and revised its internal audit procedures to insure that no cash is unaccounted for which might be used for the purpose of kickbacks. Jt. Stips. pp. 7-8, Appen. at pp. 28-33, 62-63. MISSCO's management undertook prompt and verifiable action to comply with the restrictions imposed on MISSCO's business dealings with the government after notices of proposed debarment. General promptly and voluntarily withdrew from the GSA contract that was tainted by the submission of a fabricated commercial price list during negotiations. Jt. Stips. p. 8. MISSCO had a code of business ethics in place when the circumstances leading to General's conviction arose. The code was amended following the initiation of debarment proceedings to specifically address the importance of truthful certifications and providing accurate information in connection with business transactions with the government. Jt. Stips. p. 8. MISSCO substantially expanded its corporate ethics compliance program and undertook extensive training in business ethics. A detailed "ethics audit" was undertaken by MISSCO, and the results of this audit were provided to the GSA. Jt. Stips. p. 8, Appen. at pp. 10-22, 28-34. General sells its products through a dealer network and not through factory direct sales. General has a dealer agreement with Interstate of Florida for the sale of its products in Florida to private and public entities. Jt. Stips. p. 9. Interstate of Florida, a division of MISSCO Corporation of Jackson, is a dealer (re-seller) of General's products. There are other dealers throughout the United States which also market and sell General's products. Interstate of Florida had gross sales of approximately $6.8 million in fiscal year 1990-91. Approximately 99 percent of those sales were to public entities. Jt. Stips. p. 9. Interstate of Florida is primarily an educational sales company which sells educational contract furnishings such as laboratory casework, auditorium seating, and folding bleachers. It has conducted business with almost every school district in Florida. The largest transactions have been conducted with the school districts of Dade and Orange Counties in Florida. The largest municipal transactions have been conducted with the City of Tallahassee. Jt. Stips. p. 10.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department not place the names of the Petitioners on the Florida Convicted Vendor List. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, 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 29th day of July, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 C. Graham Carothers, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee Carothers & Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, FL 32392 Terry A. Stepp, Esquire Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
