The Issue The issue is whether the claims of $98,935.20 and $19,147.70, filed by Petitioner under the Agricultural Bond and License Law, are valid. §§ 604.15 - 604.34, Fla. Stat. (2008).
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been a producer of agricultural products located in Plant City, Florida. At all material times, American Growers has been a dealer in agricultural products. Respondent Lincoln General Insurance Company, as surety, issued a bond to American Growers, as principal. American Growers is licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("DACS"). Between December 16, 2008, and February 4, 2009, Petitioner sold strawberries to American Growers, each sale being accompanied by a Passing and Bill of Lading. Petitioner sent an Invoice for each shipment, and payment was due in full following receipt of the Invoice. Partial payments have been made on some of the invoices, and as of the date of this Recommended Order, the amount that remains unpaid by American Growers to Petitioner is $117,982.90, comprising: Invoice No. Invoice Date Amount Balance Due 103894 12/16/08 $7,419.00 $1,296.00 103952 12/22/08 $18,370.80 $1,944.00 103953 12/23/08 $3,123.60 $648.00 193955 12/26/08 $8,164.80 $1,728.00 103984 12/28/08 $28,764.40 $28,764.40 104076 12/31/08 $17,236.80 $17,236.80 104077 1/5/09 $17,658.00 $17,658.00 104189 1/5/09 $1,320.90 $1,320.90 104386 1/20/09 $16,480.80 $16,480.80 104517 1/29/09 $17,449.20 $17,449.20 104496 2/4/09 $13,456.80 $13,456.80 TOTAL $117,982.90
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order requiring Respondent, American Growers, Inc., and/or its surety, Respondent, Lincoln General Insurance Company, to pay Petitioner, Crown Harvest Produce Sales, LLC, the total amount of $117,982.90. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 18th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capital, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Christopher E. Green, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Citrus License and Bond Mayo Building, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Glenn Thomason, President American Growers, Inc. 14888 Horseshoe Trace Wellington, Florida 33414 Katy Koestner Esquivel, Esquire Meuers Law Firm, P.L. 5395 Park Central Court Naples, Florida 34109 Renee Herder Surety Bond Claims Lincoln General Insurance Company 4902 Eisenhower Boulevard, Suite 155 Tampa, Florida 33634 Glenn C. Thomason, Registered Agent American Growers, Inc. Post Office Box 1207 Loxahatchee, Florida 33470
The Issue The issues in this case are: Did the Respondent, Alix Aldonis (Mr. Aldonis), commit fraud; misrepresentation; concealment; false promises; false pretense; dishonest dealings by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence; or breach of trust in a business transaction by: (a) misrepresenting the sales price of real estate in a sale and purchase contract, (b) misrepresenting a commission amount in a sales and purchase contract, and (c) misrepresenting receipt by an escrow agent of a $5,000 deposit? Did Mr. Aldonis fail to obtain and retain written confirmation from the escrow agent of delivery of the Buyer's funds for purchase of the property?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the real estate industry in the State of Florida, under the authority of section 20.165, Florida Statutes (2010), and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes (2010). At all times material to this proceeding, the Department licensed Mr. Aldonis as a State of Florida real estate sales associate. He holds License Number SL-3117116, which is in effect until March 31, 2011. At all times material to this proceeding, Total Stop, Inc., d/b/a Total Stop Real Estate (Total Stop Real Estate), contracted with Mr. Aldonis to affiliate with it as a sales associate. At all times material to this proceeding, Lawrence Ligonde, of Total Stop Real Estate, was the licensed real estate broker with whom Mr. Aldonis was affiliated. Mr. Ligonde did not employ Mr. Aldonis. Currently, Mr. Aldonis is affiliated with Tropical Springs Realty, Inc. The agreement between Mr. Aldonis and Total Stop Real Estate did not provide for Total Stop Real Estate or Mr. Ligonde's receiving a percentage commission based on the price of sales that Mr. Aldonis made. Mr. Aldonis paid a flat fee of $495 to be affiliated with Mr. Ligonde. In 2006, Joseph Phen and Cheryl Phen listed a home that they owned, located at 3500 S.W. Viceroy Street, Port St. Lucie, Florida, for sale. They listed the property for $330,000. Ms. Phen was a real estate sales broker. She was the listing agent for the property. Mr. Aldonis represented a buyer in the sale of the Viceroy Street property. The buyer, Manuela Celestin, signed a Residential Sale and Purchase Contract for the property on August 2, 2006. Mr. and Ms. Phen signed the contract on August 3, 2006. They also initialed each page. The contract set forth a purchase price of $272,000. The contract also indicated that the buyer was providing a $5,000 deposit. Mr. Aldonis sent Ms. Phen a copy of the contract and a copy of a deposit check by facsimile transmission. The record does not reveal the sequence of contract signing, contract transmission, check transmission, the date of the check transmission, or whether the contract was transmitted more than once to Ms. Phen. Due to conversations with Ms. Augustine at Premier Choice Title & Escrow, the escrow agent identified in the contract, Ms. Phen grew concerned about whether the deposit had been placed in escrow. She spoke to Ms. Augustine about her concerns. Ms. Phen also told Mr. Aldonis she was concerned that the deposit check may not have been deposited in an escrow account. After the conversation, Mr. Aldonis sent Ms. Phen a copy of a check payable to Total Stop Real Estate from Charassard & Associates, P.A., for $5,000. "Phen/Celestin" is written in the "Memo" section of the check. The check bears the date August 6, 2006. Persuasive evidence does not establish if this was a copy of a second check or another copy of the check Mr. Aldonis transmitted earlier. Ms. Phen requested and received a copy of the Residential Sale and Purchase contract from the title company. The first page of this copy listed the sale price as $330,000. Although Ms. Phen testified about two HUD closing statements, the Department did not offer a copy of a HUD closing statement into evidence. The sale of the property occurred. The closing sale price was $272,000. The Department entered a second copy of the contract signed by the Phens and Ms. Celestin into evidence. The first page of the second contract reflected a sales price of $330,000. The initials at the bottom of the first page are not the initials of the Phens. The rest of the contract is identical to the contract signed by the Phens on August 3, 2006. Nothing in either contract provides for a four percent commission to be paid to any person or entity. There is no persuasive evidence indicating who created the second contract or how the title company obtained it. Mr. Ligonde testified that the contract with the higher purchase price "looks like" the one Mr. Aldonis provided him. The contracts "look" the same. Only a very close examination would identify the differences in the initials on the first page. The difference in amounts is more obvious, but it still requires a reading of the contract, not just looking at it, to note the different amount. Mr. Ligonde did not testify that the second contract entered into evidence came from his files. He also did not provide any information about how files are maintained at his business or who has access to them. He did not know when the contract arrived at his office or how. In addition, Mr. Ligonde's statement that a document "looks like" one provided him by Mr. Aldonis does not equate to testimony that the document is in fact the document Mr. Aldonis provided. At some point in the transaction, the employees of Mr. Ligonde's office, the employees of a title insurance company, and the employees of a mortgage broker had possession and control of the sales contract or a copy of it. The Department did not present credible, persuasive evidence that ruled out any of those individuals having created the new page one with the $330,000 sales price.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S John D. C. Newton, II 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 2nd day of February, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondents are indebted to Petitioner for 106 boxes of beans sold by Petitioner to Respondent, G & B Produce Company, Inc. and, if so, the amount of the indebtedness.
Findings Of Fact On January 30, 1995, Mark A. Underwood, Vice President of the Petitioner, was contacted by telephone by Troy Bennett, an employee of the Respondent, G & B Produce Company, Inc. (G & B). Mr. Bennett wanted to purchase 150 boxes of beans. Mr. Underwood informed Mr. Bennett that the Petitioner had sold all of the beans it had grown, but that Petitioner could obtain beans from another grower. Thereafter, Suncoast Farms, a grower that is not a party to this proceeding, sold to Petitioner 106 boxes of beans, which Petitioner re-sold to G & B on February 1, 1995. There was no written contract between Petitioner and Suncoast or between Petitioner and G & B. Between February 1, 1995, and February 6, 1995, the beans were loaded onto one of G & B's trucks and transported to Houston, Texas. On February 6, 1995, the beans were inspected by a federal inspector in Houston, Texas. The inspector noted on his inspection report that the beans were "generally shriveled, flabby, watersoaked, or decayed". The use of the term "generally" by the inspector indicates that 90 percent or more of the beans were deficient. There is a notation on the inspection report that the beans would be dumped. On February 7, 1995, Mr. Underwood was told by G & B's employee about the inspection and was notified that the beans had been dumped. Mr. Underwood was sent by fax a copy of the inspection report. He was also provided a copy of the dump certificate. Petitioner was not consulted by G & B prior to the beans being dumped. 1/ Since there was no written contract between Petitioner and G & B and no verbal agreement as to how a failed inspection would be handled, Petitioner must rely on industry practices to support its contention that it is entitled to be compensated because G & B did not give it the opportunity to salvage the load of beans. Petitioner did not establish what the practices of the industry are when a load of produce fails to pass inspection. In addition, Petitioner did not establish that it was commercially reasonable to attempt to salvage the load of beans at issue in this proceeding. There was no evidence as to the salvage value of the beans and there was no evidence as to costs that would have been incurred in an attempt to salvage the beans.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions contained herein and denies Petitioner's claim against Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Corrections' ("Department") intended decision to award contracts to Intervenors, Gateway Foundation, Inc. ("Gateway"), and The Unlimited Path, Inc. ("UPI"), for licensed in-prison substance abuse treatment services pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate FDC ITN 17-112 ("the ITN"), is contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules, or the ITN specifications, and contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The ITN, Site Visits, and Addenda The Department is a state agency responsible for the supervisory and protective care, custody, and control of all inmates incarcerated by the Department in each of its four regions. As of June 30, 2016, the Department had a total inmate population of 99,119, with 62 percent (61,454) of those inmates in need of treatment for a substance abuse disorder. The Department wants to strategically improve the manner in which it provides licensed substance abuse treatment services to inmates by focusing on maximizing the levels of treatment and individual inmate needs without increasing costs. The Department chose to utilize a flexible competitive procurement process to achieve its goals; specifically, an invitation to negotiate method of procurement rather than an invitation to bid or request for proposals, because it wanted industry leaders to craft individual and innovative solutions to address the problem.1/ Against this backdrop, on September 21, 2016, the Department issued the ITN, "In-Prison Substance Abuse Treatment Services," seeking replies from qualified vendors to provide licensed substance abuse treatment services to inmates incarcerated by the Department in each of its four regions. The Department reserved the right to make separate awards to each of its four regions, or to make a statewide award to a single vendor. The initial term of the contract(s) to be awarded under the ITN is five years. In addition, the Department may renew the contract(s) for up to one additional five-year term. The ITN separated substance abuse treatment services into five distinct service types: Prevention Services, Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment, Intensive Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment, Long-term Residential Therapeutic Community, and Aftercare. Additional services were also required, including motivation/readiness classes for program participants awaiting admission to Outpatient, Intensive Outpatient, or Residential Therapeutic Community services, and an alumni support group for program participants who have completed treatment services. The ITN required that the treatment services be provided in programs licensed pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65D-30. The ITN identified the selection criteria as follows: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the State based upon the "Selection Criteria" and satisfies the Department's primary goals as identified in this ITN. The Selection Criteria may include, but is not limited to, the following. Selection Criteria: Respondent's articulation of their solution and the ability of the solution to meet the requirements of this ITN and provide additional innovations. Respondent's experience in providing the services being procured and the skills of proposed staff relative to the proposed approach and offering. Respondent's Technical Reply and Cost Reply, as they relate to satisfying the primary goals of the services identified herein. All interested vendors, before submitting their replies, were required to visit various sites within the regions covered by their reply. GEO attended these site visits, which were held in October to November 2016. During the visits, the topic of the budget was discussed. All vendors were informed that the Department "did not have any new money," and that it would be operating within the existing budget. Section 4.10, TAB A, of the ITN required that each vendor submit with its reply a letter from a surety company or bonding agent that documents the vendor's present ability to obtain a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $1,500,000, per region. In Section 4.8 of the ITN, Pass/Fail Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements, the Department stated it would reject any and all replies that did not meet the pass/fail criteria. One of these criteria, Section 4.8e), specifically required each vendor to demonstrate its ability to meet the performance bond requirement. A vendor was likewise required to make this certification on Attachment IV to the ITN, Pass/Fail Requirement Certification and Non-Collusion Certification. Section 4.8e) stated as follows: The Vendor must be able to demonstrate its ability to meet the Performance Bond requirements. Prior to execution of prospective contract, Respondent will deliver to the Department a Performance Bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount equal to the lesser of $1.5 million dollars, per region, or the average annual price of the Contract (averaged from the initial five year Contract term pricing). The bond or letter of credit will be used to guarantee at least satisfactory performance by Respondent throughout the term of the Contract (including renewal years). Section 5.36 of the ITN, Performance Guarantee, also provided: The Vendor shall furnish the Department with a Performance Guarantee in the amount of $1,500,000, per region, on an annual basis, for a time frame equal to the term of the Contract. The form of the guarantee shall be a bond, cashier's check, or money order made payable to the Department. The guarantee shall be furnished to the Contract Manager within thirty (30) days after execution of the Contract which may result from this ITN. No payments shall be made to the Vendor until the guarantee is in place and approved by the Department in writing. Upon renewal of the Contract, the Vendor shall provide proof that the performance guarantee has been renewed for the term of the Contract renewal. Based upon Vendor performance after the initial year of the Contract, the Department may, at the Department's sole discretion, reduce the amount of the bond for any single year of the Contract or for the remaining contract period, including the renewal. The purpose of a performance bond is to mitigate the Department's risk should a vendor fail to perform on a contract. In Addendum 2, the Department identified six current contracts being replaced by the ITN, and provided links to those contracts and budgetary information on the Florida Accountability Contract Tracking System ("FACTS").2/ The Department also provided two rounds of formal questions and answers, which are reflected in Addenda 6 and 7. In Addendum 6, question 3, a vendor asked a question about cost. In response, the Department answered as follows: Vendors are encouraged to submit a Cost Reply in such a manner as to offer the most cost effective and innovative solution for quality services and resources, as both cost efficiency and quality of services will be a consideration in determining best value. In Addendum 6, question 77, a vendor asked a question about how to submit a reply. In response, the Department answered as follows: Vendor's shall only submit one Reply, and the Reply must be clearly labeled with the Region(s) included, or that the Reply is Statewide. In Addendum 7, question 2, the Department again addressed the issue of how many replies are required of a vendor who was interested in either a statewide or a regional award, through the following questions and answers: Question 2: In the responses to vendor questions (Addendum 006), Change to No. 6- "4.9 Submission of Replies" states that "In Reply to this ITN, each Vendor shall: Submit a separate Reply for each Region (bullet item a on page 8). However, under answer #77 (p.21), it states that "Vendor's shall only submit one Reply, and the Reply must be clearly labeled with the Region(s) included, or that the Reply is Statewide." Can you please confirm that a statewide proposal can be one, single proposal for the entire state rather than four separate proposals for each of the four regions? Answer: Yes. If submitting for a Reply for Statewide, the Reply can be submitted as one (1) Reply. If submitting a Reply for multiple Regions such as Regions 1 and 2, a Reply must be submitted for each Region. A separate Technical Reply and Cost Reply must be included for each submission. The Cost Replies must be sealed in a separate envelope from the Technical Replies, but they can all be submitted in the same package. Submission and Evaluation of Replies to the ITN On June 15, 2017, the Department received replies to the ITN from the following six vendors: GEO, Gateway, UPI, SMA Behavioral Health Services, Inc., Village South, Inc., and Bridges of America, Inc. GEO submitted five separate replies, one for each region and one for statewide. Gateway submitted a single statewide reply, but indicated in the reply that it wanted to be considered for a statewide award and one or more regional awards. Gateway also included a detailed budget breakdown by region with pricing for each region. The Department's instructions to the evaluators of the replies included a note reminding them that Gateway submitted a statewide response, but that it wanted to be considered for each individual region. UPI submitted three separate replies, one each for Regions 1, 2, and 3. UPI made the required certifications regarding the performance guarantee and submitted a letter from a surety company evidencing its ability to obtain a performance bond in the amounts required by the ITN. All of the replies were deemed to satisfy the pass/fail criteria and were then evaluated and scored. Negotiations Following the evaluation of the replies, the Department entered into the negotiation phase with GEO, Gateway, UPI, and Bridges of America, Inc. Negotiations commenced in August 2017 and continued through October 2017. The Department held a total of three negotiation sessions with each of these vendors. The ITN provided that the scores from the evaluation phase would not carry over into negotiations and that the negotiation team was not bound by the scores. The Department's negotiation team consisted of Kasey Faulk, chief of the Bureau of Procurement (lead negotiator); Patrick Mahoney, chief of the Bureau of Readiness and Community Transition; and Maggie Agerton, the assistant chief of In-Prison Substance Treatment in the Bureau of Readiness and Community Transition. Ms. Faulk has a master's degree in business administration from the University of Florida. She is also a Florida-certified project management professional; Florida- certified contract negotiator; and Florida-certified contract manager. In her tenure as chief of the Bureau of Procurement, she has overseen more than 130 competitive solicitations, including at least 80 invitations to bid, at least 30 requests for proposals, and approximately 17 invitations to negotiate. She has drafted procurement procedures at two different state agencies, and helped draft revisions to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 68-1. Without objection, Ms. Faulk was accepted at hearing as an expert in the area of Florida procurement processes. Ms. Agerton authored the programmatic portions of the ITN and served as an evaluator. She has a bachelor's and master's degree in criminology. She is also a Florida-certified addiction professional and certified criminal justice addictions professional. She currently serves as contract manager for the Everglades Recovery Center ("Everglades") contract, of which GEO is the incumbent vendor.3/ During negotiations, GEO, which had only provided services to the Department for a short time, touted its experience and devotion of resources at Everglades. However, GEO was under a corrective action plan at Everglades as of May 12, 2017, because of missing information in clinical files and lack of staff supervision. Complete clinical files are very important to substance abuse treatment. Proper clinical documentation is necessary for licensure purposes and allows the Department to ensure that services are being provided in accordance with the contract. By the end of October 2017, Ms. Agerton had conducted a site visit to Everglades, and although GEO had made significant progress in the area of leadership and staff, the clinical files were still a significant problem. Ms. Agerton and Ms. Faulk had concerns about GEO's current contract performance at Everglades. During the negotiation phase, GEO was aware of the Department's concerns regarding its performance at Everglades. During negotiations, GEO was told by the Department that it is trying to spend its money more efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. GEO was told by the Department that its price was outside the range of competitive replies, and GEO was encouraged to provide alternative pricing models and "sharpen its pencils." During negotiations, the Department asked every vendor to identify its cost drivers. GEO did not identify the performance bond as a cost driver. However, UPI identified the performance bond as a cost driver. UPI informed the Department that a performance bond would cost it $200,000 per year regardless of whether the amount of the bond was reduced, because the cost of the bond is based on the complete value of the contract. UPI requested that it be allowed to submit a cashier's check to the Department in the amount of $1,000,000 for three regions in lieu of paying $200,000 per year for five years to a bonding company for a performance bond. At hearing, Ms. Faulk explained the process of negotiating with individual vendors, the importance of having a strategy, and the value of making individual concessions with individual vendors during negotiations. UPI had performed services for the Department for over ten years, through budget cuts, and had not walked away from their contracts. Accordingly, the negotiation team considered UPI's suggestion to be a low risk. That is, the Department did not believe there was a significant risk that UPI would abandon the contract. In any event, the cashier's check proposed by UPI would benefit the Department because the Department could easily take the money and use it to recoup losses in the event of nonperformance, as opposed to a bond, which may require the Department to engage in protracted litigation with a surety company to obtain the value of the bond. The Department also saw the cashier's check as an opportunity to obtain lower pricing from UPI. The negotiation team told UPI it would accept, in lieu of the performance bond, a $1,000,000 cashier's check if UPI was awarded three regions; a $750,000 cashier's check if UPI was awarded two regions; and a $500,000 cashier's check if UPI was awarded one region. Allowing UPI to post a cashier's check in the amount of $750,000 for the two regions it was awarded did not provide UPI with a competitive advantage over GEO. At hearing, GEO's representative, John Thurston, who oversaw the development of GEO's reply and BAFO, and participated in the negotiations, acknowledged that GEO's cost to obtain a performance bond in the amount of $1,500,000 would only have been $67,500 per year. During negotiations, the Department revised the scope of work. Following the negotiations, on October 25, 2017, the Department emailed an RBAFO to those vendors who participated in the negotiations. The RBAFO informed vendors that the term "Best and Final Offers" is used to provide the vendor the opportunity to clarify its response and adjust its price based on the negotiations, and that this does not preclude the Department from seeking clarification or additional information upon receipt of the BAFOs. The RBAFO further stated that the BAFO "must contain a written narrative of services to be provided inclusive of clarifications and any alternative or modifications discussed during the negotiation process." The BAFO required an executive summary, description of service delivery, a staffing matrix, and a price sheet. GPR-037 (General Program Requirements) in the RBAFO addressed staffing and provided, in pertinent part: The vendor shall ensure that all required Vendor staff positions are filled for the entire scheduled 40 hour weekly working period, and that those individuals are physically present at the work site. All positions are full-time, unless otherwise specified, inclusive of interim positions. As to the price sheet, the per diem pricing "should represent the best price the Vendor is willing to offer to the Department." The RBAFO specifically addressed and allowed for vendors to provide alternative pricing models and methods. Providing alternative price offerings gives the Department more options to solve its problem and demonstrates a vendor's understanding of the Department's needs. All vendors were provided with an equal opportunity to submit BAFOs reflecting revisions to the ITN made by the Department during negotiations. The RBAFO reminded vendors to include in their BAFOs alternatives or any modification discussed during the negotiation process. GEO was aware during negotiations that it could have inquired about or proposed to negotiate different components of all aspects of its proposal. GEO was also aware that any global changes for all vendors would be included in the RBAFO, but that negotiation concessions, innovative solutions, and negotiated points with individual vendors, would not be included. In fact, GEO negotiated items that were not shared with other vendors. The BAFOs and Negotiation Team Recommendation The deadline for vendors to submit their BAFOs was November 14, 2017. The Department received BAFOs from the four vendors invited to negotiate. The ITN provided that BAFOs would not be scored and the negotiation team would make a recommendation of award based on which vendor's solution presented the best value to the state, utilizing the selection criteria in the ITN. Prior to submitting its BAFO, the Department responded to Gateway's inquiries about differences between what was to be included in the BAFO and what was discussed during negotiations, specifically in the context of the ratio of Prevention Services counselors (indicated as one counselor to fifty participants in the RBAFO, but discussed during negotiations as one counselor to eighty participants). The Department instructed Gateway to use the ratios included in the RBAFO, and "provide an alternative price with the ratio your Company is proposing." As allowed by the RBAFO and further clarified by the Department, Gateway's BAFO included both a base price offering and an alternative price offering, with detailed explanations of the assumptions included within each offering. Gateway's BAFO included a ratio for Prevention Services counselors from one counselor for every fifty participants (1:50), and an alternative ratio of one counselor for every eighty participants (1:80). Gateway's staffing models in its BAFO also included part-time positions. The members of the negotiation team reviewed the BAFOs and then made a formal recommendation of award at a public meeting held on November 17, 2017, with recorded minutes. The negotiation team recommended regional awards rather than a statewide award. It recommended an award of Regions 1 and 2 to UPI and Regions 3 and 4 to Gateway. The team recommended these vendors because it believed their solutions represented the best value to the state based on the selection criteria identified in the ITN. Ms. Faulk recommended UPI for Regions 1 and 2 because UPI was an incumbent vendor with a long history of providing satisfactory services to the Department. Additionally, she felt UPI had tremendous ideas on how to maximize treatment, their cost was affordable, and they proposed innovative solutions. Ms. Faulk ultimately recommended Gateway's alternate price offering for Regions 3 and 4 because she found them very innovative and treatment-focused. She felt they had extensive experience in a correctional setting providing substance abuse treatment, and their cost was very affordable. She recommended the alternate price offering because it was an innovative solution to increase services. Gateway's alternate price offering increased the number of available treatment slots and provided staffing which the Department found acceptable and appropriate, while at the same time offering a better price. Ms. Agerton recommended UPI for Regions 1 and 2 because she felt UPI brought an innovative solution in negotiations, as well as many different ideas. She felt that based on their incumbent status, they had knowledge of the Department's systems and were able to suggest improvements while remaining affordable. Ms. Agerton recommended Gateway for Regions 3 and 4 because they also brought innovative solutions, particularly an evaluator that would help with monitoring their implementation. She also felt Gateway was likewise affordable and energetic. Neither Ms. Faulk nor Ms. Agerton recommended GEO for any of the regions. Ms. Faulk felt GEO's cost was significantly higher than the other vendors. She also had concerns about some of GEO's responses during the negotiation sessions, particularly with regard to the problems at Everglades. Ms. Faulk felt GEO lacked innovation, it did not understand the problems at Everglades, and it lacked an effective strategy for how not to have the problems reoccur in the future. Ms. Agerton did not recommend GEO for any of the regions because she felt they were very expensive compared to the other vendors; so expensive, in fact, that their price exceeded the Department's budget. Ms. Agerton also had concerns about GEO's current contract performance at Everglades. A formal recommendation memorandum was prepared by the procurement officer and routed through various levels of the Department. The memorandum included a cost analysis, which reflected the total awarded price for all four regions for the initial five-year term to be $57,683,377.25. GEO's proposed price for all four regions for the same period was $80,558,693.75, approximately $22,000,000 higher than the Department's intended awards for all four regions. Notably, the formal recommendation memorandum mistakenly reflected 225 prevention slots in Region 3, instead of the 320 prevention slots included in Gateway's alternative proposal; and 200 prevention slots in Region 4, instead of the 320 prevention slots included in Gateway's alternative proposal. For Region 3, multiplying 320 slots times Gateway's per diem rate of $3.89 (and by 365 days a year), results in an annual total cost of $454,352; compared to the annual cost figure of $319,466.25 for 225 slots reflected in the memorandum. For Region 4, multiplying 320 slots times Gateway's per diem rate of $3.89 (and by 365 days a year), results in an annual total cost of $454,352; compared to the annual cost figure of $283,970 based on 200 slots. Thus, accounting for the increased prevention slots for Regions 3 and 4 results in an annual increase in cost of $305,267.75 above the $11,536,675.45, for a total annual cost for all four regions of $11,841.943.20, and a five-year cost of $59,209,716. On the other hand, GEO's proposed price for all four regions for the same period was $80,558,693.75, which divided by five results in an annual cost to the Department of $16,111,738.70. GEO eliminated the cost of Aftercare services because the Department intends to use an Alumni Program for zero cost in lieu of Aftercare services. GEO calculated that removing the cost to the Department of Aftercare services would result in $1,885.790.75 less, or a total annual cost of $14,225,948.70. Thus, removing the cost of Aftercare services from GEO's proposed price for all four regions would still result in a five-year cost to the Department of $71,129,743.50, which may exceed the amount appropriated, budgeted, and available to the Department for substance abuse treatment for Fiscal Year 2017- 2018, and which far exceeds the cost of $59,209,716 (the amount of the proposed award to Gateway and UPI for the same time period).4/ The recommendation memorandum was approved by the Department's secretary on January 9, 2018. GEO's Protest GEO's protest raises numerous issues, none of which warrant rescission of the Department's intended award to Gateway and UPI. Gateway's Reply to the ITN GEO contends Gateway submitted only a single "statewide" reply to the ITN, and no reply for any regions, and therefore, Gateway is ineligible for a regional award. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Gateway's reply was properly considered as a reply for multiple regions because Gateway clearly indicated its intent to be considered for multiple regions. Moreover, Gateway gained no competitive advantage over other vendors as a result of combining its statewide reply with a regional reply. In fact, the Department would have been inundated with replies if it required a vendor to reply for every conceivable combination of regions. UPI's Performance Guarantee GEO contends the Department materially deviated from the ITN and gave UPI a competitive advantage over it by allowing UPI to provide, in lieu of a performance bond, a cashier's check in the amount of $500,000 if awarded one region; $750,000 if awarded two regions; or $1,000,000 if awarded three regions. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the Department did not materially deviate from the ITN and give UPI a competitive advantage over GEO by allowing UPI to provide, in lieu of a performance bond, a cashier's check in the amount of $500,000 if awarded one region; $750,000 if awarded two regions; or $1,000,000 if awarded three regions. Notably, the ITN did not require proposers to submit a performance bond or letter of credit with its reply to the ITN, and none of the vendors submitted a performance bond or letter of credit with their replies. Instead, in replying to the ITN, a vendor was only required to "demonstrate its ability to meet the Performance Bond requirements." UPI satisfied the requirements of the ITN by demonstrating its ability to meet the performance bond requirements. In any event, the reduction in the amount of the bond agreed to by the Department ($750,000 in connection with the award of contracts for two regions) did not provide UPI with a competitive advantage over GEO. At hearing, Mr. Thurston estimated GEO's annual cost of providing a performance bond in connection with contracts to be awarded pursuant to the ITN would be approximately $67,500, well below the $200,000 per year that UPI was quoted for its bond. Moreover, the amount of $67,500 is insignificant compared to the significant disparity in the annual, total prices proposed by GEO and UPI in their BAFOs for Regions 1 and 2 (GEO: $9,299,141.50; UPI: $6,342,203, for a difference of $2,956,938.50 per year). At hearing, Mr. Thurston acknowledged he could have raised the issue of the performance bond during negotiations. As Mr. Thurston also acknowledged at hearing, even if GEO had been able to negotiate an elimination of the performance bond amount requirement in its entirety, GEO would not have been able to offer a price that would have remedied the disparity. Gateway's BAFO (Prevention Services Ratio) GEO contends Gateway's ratio for Prevention Services counselors of 1:80, as provided in Gateway's BAFO alternative price offering, is a material deviation from the RBAFO requirements. As detailed above, this alternative offering was expressly permitted by the RBAFO and was further clarified by the Department to Gateway before its BAFO was submitted. Moreover, increasing the prevention capacity to 80 per institution adds an additional 605 inmates served at any one time, resulting in the Department being able to serve more inmates for the same appropriation amount. This is precisely the type of innovative thinking the Department sought to reach its goals. GEO did not submit an alternative pricing model, and it never asked the Department if the ratios for Prevention Counselors were negotiable. At hearing, GEO could not say how much it could have lowered staff levels, if at all, if it attempted to negotiate ratios. Gateway was not given a substantial advantage over GEO by increasing the prevention capacity. In addition, although chapter 65D-30 does include required ratios for certain types of services, there is no maximum caseload requirement applicable to Prevention Services. Gateway's BAFO (Part-Time Positions) GEO also contends Gateway violated GPR-037 in the RBAFO because Gateway's staffing models included part-time positions. However, the Department interprets the phrase "unless otherwise specified" to mean that unless the vendor specifies a position in its reply as part time, the Department will assume that any positions referenced in the reply are full time (40 hours). GEO never asked the Department for clarification on the meaning of the phrase "unless otherwise specified." At hearing, Mr. Thurston could not say whether its BAFO would have been adjusted had GEO asked about negotiating the positions, in terms of being full time. In any event, the Department currently utilizes part- time staff under the contracts being replaced by the ITN. Part- time staff may provide a more cost-effective solution than full- time staff. Gateway's BAFO (Clerical Positions) GEO also contends Gateway's alternate price offering provided for a reduction in clerical staff positions contrary to GPR-035 as set forth in Addendum 6 and the RBAFO. GPR-035 required that each vendor provide a minimum of one clerical position for up to 136 treatment slots, and one-half position for each additional 68 treatment slots. In support of its position, GEO presented Exhibit 1. However, GEO's Exhibit 1 is based on incorrect assumptions, and it is unreliable and unpersuasive. First, the ratios calculated by GEO are impermissibly "rounded-up." Secondly, contrary to GEO's position, the Department only calculates an additional one-half position once the full 68 treatment slots have been achieved. GPR-035 does not require one-half positions for "up to each additional 68 slots." A plain reading of GPR-035, consistent with the Department's reasonable interpretation, is that an additional one-half position is required only after the full 68 slots have been achieved. Gateway's base price offering fully complied with the staffing ratios when the ratios are calculated according to a plain reading of GPR-035, which is bolstered by the Department's practice in calculating ratios. Gateway's alternative price offering providing for a reduction in clerical positions to one full-time employee per facility was a cost-saving measure discussed with the Department and a product of negotiations. Even if Gateway's alternative price offering deviated with regard to the clerical positions, given the discrepancy between GEO's and Gateway's price offerings, the deviation is so small that it is a minor irregularity and not a material deviation. Gateway's BAFO (Pricing) GEO also contends Gateway failed to provide region- specific pricing or a final, firm pricing offer of any kind for the initial term or the renewal term. During negotiations and in its BAFO, Gateway reiterated that it would accept a regional or multi-regional award. Under Section 4.12 of the ITN, the Department reserved the right to seek clarification from vendors regarding their BAFOs and to reopen negotiations after receiving BAFOs. The negotiation team recommended awarding Gateway's alternate price offering for Regions 3 and 4 contingent upon clarification from Gateway that its pricing would be applicable to Regions 3 and 4. Although vendors were invited and could have attended the public meeting and heard this for themselves, none of them chose to attend. Four days later, on November 21, 2017, the Department's procurement officer reached out to Gateway's representative asking it to confirm that the pricing listed in the alternate price offering would remain the same if awarded individual regions as opposed to the entire state. Gateway's representative responded that the alternate prices included in Gateway's BAFO could remain in effect with a modified administrative personnel staffing plan if Gateway was awarded more than one region. At the time of this exchange, the Department's negotiation team had already recommended Gateway for Regions 3 and 4; so, the Department knew there would be no need to renegotiate pricing because Gateway was recommended to receive more than Region 4. According to Ms. Faulk, the Department understood Gateway's response to mean that the per diem pricing provided in Gateway's BAFO would apply to Regions 3 and 4. Gateway would reduce the oversight positions to two or three positions, consistent with the smaller level of responsibilities required for two regions instead of four. This exchange occurred prior to the drafting of the award recommendation memorandum, which was dated November 28, 2017. It was not signed by Ms. Faulk until January 3, 2018, or the Secretary until January 9, 2018. Gateway's per diem statewide pricing applied equally to Regions 3 and 4. Although Gateway did not provide a grand total price on its BAFO price sheet, the Department calculated the grand total price using the correct per diem unit prices provided. The ITN stated that unit prices would control in the event of a mathematical error. As it pertains to the price sheet instructions, the RBAFO stated that the vendor's pricing should represent the best price the vendor is willing to offer the Department. Gateway provided both a base price offering and an alternate price offering. The base price offering's price sheet contained the required per diem prices for both the original contract term and the renewal contract term. Under the section titled "TOTAL PRICE," Gateway appeared to sum the individual per diem prices rather than provide an actual grand total contract amount. Gateway did the same for its alternate price offering price sheet. Although Gateway did not provide a grand total price on the price sheet, it included a detailed budget breakdown for both its base price offering and alternate price offering. The Department felt these breakdowns offered additional transparency into Gateway's pricing. Section 4.10, Tab F, of the ITN provided that all calculations would be verified for accuracy by the Department's Bureau of Support Services staff, and that unit prices submitted by a vendor would prevail in the event a mathematical error is identified. Ms. Faulk testified the Department could calculate a grand total price by using the per diem pricing provided on the price page. She explained the Department could multiply the per diem price for each service type by the number of slots for that service, and then multiply that number by 365 days to arrive at the yearly price for a particular service. The Department could then add those prices together to obtain an annual total. She also explained these same calculations could be done for the renewal pricing. UPI's BAFO (Clerical Positions) GEO contends UPI deviated from the staffing requirements by providing fewer clerical support positions than required by the RBAFO. Specifically, GEO contends UPI had a deficit of six clerical support positions, and that if GEO knew it could reduce the staffing complement by six, it would have been worth approximately $270,000. UPI's clerical staffing ratios deviated from GPR-035, because its ratios were calculated based on the belief that prevention slots were not "treatment" slots. The ITN and RBAFO refer to prevention slots as treatment slots. Nevertheless, given the discrepancy between the prices submitted by GEO and UPI, UPI's deviations from the clerical staffing requirements are so small that they are minor irregularities and not material deviations. UPI's BAFO (Pricing) GEO also contends UPI's BAFO failed to include the Revised Price Sheet. Specifically, in paragraph 24 of its amended petition, GEO alleged: "UPI appears to have created its own form that emulated the format of the required form but provides many more spaces for additional information. Other Vendors that used the ITN required form did not have the opportunity to include this additional information." Although UPI did not use the specific Revised Price Sheet form, it provided per diem prices for each level of treatment as required by the form and additional information for the Department's consideration. GEO failed to include per diem pricing for Residential Therapeutic slots in Regions 2 and 4. GEO also modified its price sheets and submitted additional information in the form of annotations denoted by asterisk. In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the Department appropriately determined that the proposed awards to Gateway and UPI will provide the best value to the Department based on the selection criteria. Any irregularities in Gateway's and UPI's replies and BAFOs as alleged by GEO were minor and not material deviations. The Department's intended awards to Gateway and UPI are not contrary to the Department's statutes, rules, the ITN specifications, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order dismissing the protest of GEO Reentry Services, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2018.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Petitioner, Classie Sales, Inc. (Classie), is entitled to be compensated for produce sold and delivered to Respondent, Tolar Farms (Tolar), and if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact On June 30, 1990, Roger Harloff, on behalf of Roger Harloff Farms, and John A. Tipton, Secretary of Classie Sales, Incorporated, a sales agent founded by Harloff, entered into a written agreement whereby Classie would serve as sales agent for all sales of produce grown by or on Roger Harloff Farms. Between October 17, 1995 and December 9, 1995, Classie, on behalf of Roger Harloff Farms, sold watermelons with a total net sales price of $170,839.27 and tomatoes with a total net value of $1,720.00 to Tolar Farms. These sales were not direct sales to Tolar but transactions wherein Tolar was to sell the produce to whomever would buy it at an agreed price and would withhold its 3/4 per pound commission from the sales price, remitting the balance to Classie. Trucks arranged for by Tolar picked the produce up at the growing field and at the time of pickup, Classie issued to Tolar a packet jacket for each load sold. As the loads were sold Tolar would issue a ticket for that load which bore the shipping date, the lot number, the farmer, the transporting trailer's tag, the truck broker, the truck driver, and the weight of the product. Sometime later, when the produce was sold, Tolar issued an invoice bearing Classie Sales' logo, reflecting Tolar as the buyer and showing the lot number which corresponded to the load ticket, the shipping date, a description of the produce, the quantity, the unit price for that load, and the extended price from which was deducted Tolar's commission and an unspecified assessment. These documents were then forwarded to Classie. The terms of the sale between Tolar and Classie, on behalf of Harloff, were loose. The invoice documents reflected a net due 21 days after invoice date. The first delivery in issue here was made on October 17, 1995, and 21 days after that is November 7, 1995. The amount reflected by the deliveries made after that date is $27,509.72. Respondent, Preferred, claims that since Classie continued to make deliveries to Tolar's drivers after it was not paid within 21 days after the first shipment, it failed to mitigate its damages and should not be paid for any deliveries made after November 7, 1995. Classie was not paid for any of the instant invoices by Tolar, but Classie did not become concerned about Tolar's failure to make timely payment until January 1996. Tolar's payment and pricing practices were no different during this time than in years past. Typically, Tolar would start out quickly notifying Classie of the sales. As the number of shipments grew, however, the time for notification grew longer. It must be noted that less than two months transpired from the date of the first shipment in issue to the last.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a Final Order in this matter directing Tony and Robert Tolar, d/b/a Tolar Farms, to pay Classie Sales, Inc., the sum of $172,559.27. In the event this sum is not paid by Tolar, the Department should apply the bond posted by Preferred National Insurance Company in the amount of $75,000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-1776A To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein as the testimony of the witness. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the issues. Accepted and incorporated herein. Respondent Preferred's Proposed Findings of Fact. Preferred accepted all of Classie's Proposed Findings of Fact but suggested an amendment to Number 14. The suggested amendment was made a part of the Findings of Fact made by the Hearing Officer. Respondent Tolar's Proposed Findings of Fact: Tolar consented and agreed to all Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact except for Number 9. The substance of Tolar's objection to Classie's Number 9, relating to a provision for a commission, has been made a part of the Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer. COPIES FURNISHED: Hywel Leonard, Esquire Carlton Fields Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Scott R. Teach, Esquire Meuers and Associates, P.A. 2590 Golden Gate Parkway, Suite 109 Naples, Florida 34106 David A. Higley, Esquire Higley and Barfield, P.A. The Maitland Forum 2600 Lake Lucien Drive, Suite 237 Maitland, Florida 32751-7234 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Akers Holdings, LLC, and its surety, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, are liable for funds due to Petitioner from the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. Petitioner operates a nursery supply company that produces trees, plants, and other landscaping supplies at a location in Bunnell, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. At the time of the transactions in question, Respondent was a landscape distribution company and a licensed dealer in agricultural products supported by a surety bond provided by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. This matter arose over an Agent Complaint filed by Petitioner on March 23, 2005, in which it alleged that Respondent owed $136,942.49, based upon numerous invoices for nursery goods delivered to various job sites where Respondent was providing landscaping services. Respondent Akers Holdings, LLC, by its agent or employee, R. Dean Akers, signed a Promissory Note on March 23, 2005, in the amount of $137,445.47 plus ten percent simple interest per annum. Under the note, Respondent agreed to repay its outstanding debt to Petitioner at the rate of $12,083.64 per month, commencing March 15, 2005, until paid in full. Respondent made payments under the note as follows: Date of Payment Amount Paid Check No. 3/15/2005 $12,083.64 13536 4/15/2005 12,097.81 1360 5/13/2005 12,090.51 13657 6/14/2005 12,129.37 1372 7/29/2005 12,103.41 13782 The payment dated 7/29/2005 was received by Petitioner on August 8, 2005. No subsequent payments were made by Respondent, Akers Holdings, LLC, after that date. At the time of hearing, based upon the evidence presented by Petitioner, the amount due to Petitioner under the Promissory Note was $81,655.81, and the amount due to Petitioner on open account was $30,734.58. Respondent, Akers Holdings, LLC, offered no excuse for its nonpayment of either the Promissory Note or the open account with Petitioner. Accordingly, Respondent Akers Holdings, LLC, or its surety, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, owe Petitioner $81,655.81 on the Promissory Note and $30,734.58 on open account, for a total amount owed of $112,390.39.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, or its surety, to pay Petitioner $112,390.39 for unpaid invoices. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 26th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Alves Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 87 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 R. Dean Akers Akers Holdings, LLC 5006 20th Avenue, South Tampa, Florida 33619 Donald M. DuMond Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 2970 Hartley Road, Suite 302 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Christopher E. Green, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Marketing 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact K & B Enterprises, Respondent, purchased plants from Roy Amerson, Inc., Petitioner, and they were delivered to Respondent on February 19, 1980. Respondent had ordered Bottlebrush and Cuban laurel (Ficus Nitida) packaged in wire baskets to protect root ball in shipment. Upon arrival Respondent noted that the wires were mangled and some root balls appeared separated from the roots. Before the trees were unloaded Mrs. Benway telephoned the salesman for Petitioner and told him about the condition of the trees. The salesman advised her to accept the trees, water them, and they (Amerson) would make an allowance for the damage. This, he said, would be better and cause less damage to the trees than if they were sent back on the truck that brought them. The driver was requested by Mr. Benway to note the condition of the trees on the invoice accompanying the shipment (Exhibit 1). No such notation was made. The driver did note the date of delivery. Respondent Benway acknowledged receipt of the merchandise by signing Exhibit 1 below the following statement printed near the bottom of Exhibit 1: STOCK MAY BE REFUSED AT TIME OF DELIVERY FOR A DEFINITE REASON, BUT ONCE SIGNED FOR CUSTOMER ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR TOTAL AMOUNT OF INVOICE. OPEN ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BY THE 10TH OF THE MONTH. 1 1/2 PERCENT CHARGE ADDED IF NOT PAID BY THE 25TH WHICH IS ANNUAL RATE OF 18 PERCENT. Respondent is a plant retailer and landscape contractor. After accepting the February 19, 1980 delivery the Cuban laurel was planted as were the other plants. Attempts to settle the dispute with Petitioner's salesman were unsuccessful. Nine of the Bottlebrush died but all of the Cuban laurel have survived. At the instruction of the salesman these plants were watered but not trimmed or fertilized. Respondent paid for the other plants received on this invoice and for the damaged plants as they have been sold. As of the date of the hearing the balance owed on the stock delivered on Exhibit 1 was $1,494.90.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mecca Farms, Inc. (MFI), is a grower and shipper of fresh produce in Lantana, Florida. Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc. (MBE), is an agricultural dealer in Pompano Beach, Florida, subject to the licensing requirements of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (agency). As such, MBE is obligated to obtain a dealer's license from the agency, and to post a surety bond executed by a surety corpora- tion to ensure that payment is made to producers for agricultural products purchased by the dealer. To meet this latter require- ment, MBE has obtained a surety bond in an undisclosed amount from respondent, Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast. This controversy involves a dispute over payment for a shipment of produce purchased from MFI by MBE, acting as a broker, for further sale to an out-of-state distributor. The origins of the dispute began on or about March 13, 1986, when MFI's sales manager, Peter Andolina, accepted a telephone order from MBE's vice-president, Paul Boris for 1,000 boxes of large peppers. According to the parties' oral agreement, the peppers were to meet U.S. Grade No. 1 standards and were priced at $9.75 per box, or a total price of $9,750. In order to meet U.S. Grade No. 1 standards, the peppers had to be top-grade, and free from bruises, discoloration and decay. As is usual in the business, Andolina had no knowledge who the ultimate buyer was, or where Boris intended to ship the peppers. Boris and Andolina had been dealing with each other for at least six years on a fairly frequent basis. Both understood the shipment was to be free on board (FOB), although they disagree as to whether it was FOB place of destination or FOB place of shipment. If it was the latter, title to the goods passed from MFI to MBE when the goods were loaded on the truck in Lantana. Conversely, a destination contract means the seller (MFI) bears the risk of loss until tender of delivery at final destination. The invoice supporting the transaction does not clarify the matter for it makes no reference to FOB. However, the prior course of conduct between Use parties suggests they intended a destination contract, as did the conduct of Andolina in later dealings with Boris involving this same shipment. On March 13, or the day the order was received, the peppers were placed in cartons at MFI's facility and then stacked inside a refrigerated truck for shipment. Prior to their loading, MFI's foreman claimed he made a cursory inspection of five or ten boxes of peppers and found them to be of satisfactory percent quality. However, he could not recall the details of any other shipments made that day, nor could he recall any other occasion when he inspected a shipment ordered by MBE. Consequently, his testimony is not considered credible, and does not establish whether the goods delivered that day met U.S. Grade No. 1 specifications. It is also noted that there was no requirement in the parties' agreement that MBE perform an inspection prior to loading since MBE relied upon MFI's word and reputation that it would furnish top quality produce. This was not unusual since at least sixty percent of all buyers do not personally inspect the produce at MFI's facility prior to it being shipped to the ultimate buyer. The shipment was destined for a Stop and Shop distributor in Readville, Massachusetts. Although the testimony is conflicting as to normal transit time between Lantana, Florida and the State of Massachusetts, it is found that three to four days transit time is not unusual, although some loads are delivered there in less than two days if the driver puts the pedal to the metal. In any event, petitioner has conceded that if the truck was properly refrigerated, the peppers should have remained in good condition for four days. On March 17, 1986, or some four days after being picked up in Lantana, the peppers were delivered to Stop and Shop in Readville. Stop and Shop apparently made an inspection of the produce prior to being unloaded and found some of the peppers not meeting U.S. Grade No. 1 standards. A federal Department of Agriculture inspector was then called in to make an inspection. The inspection report, which has been received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 1, reflects that the shipment met "quality requirements, but fails to grade U.S. No. 1, only account of condition." Stop and Shop accordingly refused to accept delivery. There is no evidence that other factors such as carrier negligence, inability to unload at destination, or unusually lengthy transit time caused a deterioration in the quality of the produce after being picked up at MFI's facility. After being contacted by Stop and Shop, Boris telephoned Andolina and advised him the shipment had been rejected. Andolina told Boris to "try to give Stop and Shop an adjustment" on the price. Boris did so but was unsuccessful. Boris then telephoned Andolina a second time and asked for instructions on what to do with the peppers. Andolina told Boris to "place the peppers." This meant Boris should sell the produce at a reduced price to a commission merchant who deals in produce that fails to meet grade. It also meant MFI was accepting responsibility for the peppers failing to meet grade. Boris then sold the shipment for $3.57 per carton to W. H. Lailer & Co., Inc., a commission merchant in Chelsea, Massachusetts. After transportation ($1.70 per box) and handling charges and Lailer's commission were taken out of the proceeds, Boris received only $897.50 for the entire shipment. This amount was then forwarded to MFI on April 18, 1986. MFI endorsed the check and deposited it a few days later. Andolina acknowledged at hearing that once goods are rejected by the ultimate buyer because they fail to make grade, it is MFI's standard practice to have the rejected produce sold at the best price possible. It does so by using its own commission merchant, or having the broker perform this task. By following this procedure, MFI accepts responsibility for the less-than-grade produce, and has done so on a number of prior occasions when MBE was forced to sell MFI's produce after it was rejected by the ultimate buyer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the relief requested in the amended complaint filed by Mecca Farms, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 1987.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether Lester Towell Distributors, Inc., is indebted to Carol Vreeland for produce, i.e., squash, sold to Lester Towell Distributors by Carol Vreeland's son, Kurt Vreeland, as grower.
Findings Of Fact Richard Vreeland and Carol Vreeland (Petitioner) are husband and wife. Kurt Vreeland is their adult son. Kurt Vreeland did not appear at the hearing. In prior years before the incident in this case, Richard Vreeland had grown and sold produce. However, for the 1992 season, because of a neck injury, he had decided not to grow and sell produce. Kurt Vreeland who had no experience in the growing of produce convinced his parents to allow him to grow and sell the produce, i.e., squash. Petitioner and her husband agreed but placed certain conditions on their son. The conditions were that Kurt Vreeland would rent the land from his parents and that from the proceeds of the sale of the squash, he would reimburse his parents for the expenses they incurred in growing the produce and that Kurt Vreeland would receive the balance of the proceeds from the sale of the squash. The squash was grown on land owned by Petitioner and her husband. Supervision for the crop of squash was performed by Rodney Willis. Willis had an oral agreement with Kurt Vreeland to supervise the growing of the crop of squash, and in return Kurt Vreeland would pay him for his services and labor expenses that he, Willis, incurred. Willis was aware that the squash would be transported to Lester Towell Distributors, Inc. (Respondent) for sale. Willis has never received any payment from Kurt Vreeland for his services or the labor expenses that he incurred. Respondent is a company in the business of selling produce for growers at a commission plus expenses. On or about April 1, 1992, an individual who identified himself as Kurt Vreeland, offered to sell squash to Respondent. Respondent had no reason to doubt that the individual was Kurt Vreeland. No evidence was presented that the individual was not Kurt Vreeland. On April 14, 1992, a "Packing and Sales Agreement" (Agreement) was entered into by Kurt Vreeland and Respondent, represented by Fred Towell who is Respondent's President. On April 16, 1992, the Agreement was executed by them. In the Agreement, Kurt Vreeland was specifically referred to as "Grower," and Respondent, at times, as "Grower's Agent." The Agreement states in pertinent part: [W]hereas, Grower desires to retain LESTER TOWELL DISTRIBUTORS, INC. as its agent for the purpose of sale of the Grower's produce and for the performance of such other services in connection therewith as may be specifically set forth, and whereas, * * * Now, therefore, it is agreed as follows: FIRST: Grower hereby retains Grower's Agent during 1992 farm year and entrust him from time to time for the purpose of sale, with the possession and control of Grower's produce. SECOND: Prior to delivering any produce to the Grower's Agent, Grower will apprise Grower's Agent whether Grower has pledged any of the crop proceeds or granted a security interest therein to any third party and if so the name and address of such third party. Grower will, at all times during the term of this agreement, apprise Grower's Agent of any such additional liens placed on his crops as soon as such has occurred. Grower shall indemnify Grower's Agent from all losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees incurred by Grower's Agent caused by (1) failure of Grower to promptly furnish such information and (2) any misstatements with regard to the information provided. THIRD: Grower's Agent shall receive at LESTER TOWELL DISTRIBUTORS, INC. located at 900 Lester Towell Blvd., in Belle Glade, Florida 33430, Growers, produce for the purpose of shipping and selling the same at the ten percent (10 percent) of sales charge established between the Grower and Grower's Agent which shall only be changed by mutual agreement. Grower's Agent shall be respon- sible for the INVOICING AND ACCOUNTING of all Grower's produce received by and or sold by Grower's Agent. * * * SIXTH: Accounting and/or payment shall be made to Grower within sixty (60) business days from the date Grower's produce is deliv- ered and sold on the terms accepted, but only on the basis of the actual final selling price. By the execution of this agreement, Grower permits that there may be deducted from the actual selling price all actual ex- penses as described in paragraphs Fourth and Fifth, and the agreed upon charges set forth in paragraph Third. * * * GENERAL CONDITIONS AND STATEMENTS UNDER THE PERISHABLES AGRICULTURAL COMMODI- TIES ACT, 7 U.S.C. S499 (a)et seq AND REGU- LATIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL- TURE, IT IS REQUIRED THAT THERE BE MADE A STATEMENT OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE GROWER'S AGENT WILL HANDLE PRODUCE FOR THE GROWER. THE FOLLOWING IS THAT AGREE- MENT BETWEEN THE GROWER AND THE GROWER'S AGENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONTRACT TERMS OF THIS DOCUMENT. * * * 2. Grower shall haul and deliver all produce to Grower's Agent packing house at Grower's expense. Produce must be delivered either in crates, Grower's pallet box or such other containers as have been agreed to by the Grower's Agent. * * * Grower's Agent shall issue receipts to Grower for all produce received. A lot num- ber or other positive means of identification shall be assigned by Grower's Agent to each lot in order to segregate the various lots of produce received from different Growers for similar produce being handled at the same time, and each lot shall be so identified and segregated throughout all operations con- ducted by Grower's Agent. At the end of April 1992 or first of May 1992, Petitioner telephoned Respondent notifying Respondent that checks for the sale of the produce should be made payable to Petitioner and Kurt Vreeland. Petitioner spoke with Margaret Jeanne "Jeannie" Woodward. Petitioner was assured by Ms. Woodward that the checks would be made payable to Petitioner and her son. What Ms. Woodward had agreed to do was contrary to Respondent's standard operating procedure which was to issue checks for the sale of produce only to persons with whom Respondent had entered into a contract. In April 1992, Respondent sold squash supplied to it by Kurt Vreeland. On or about May 4, 1992, a check for squash sold was issued by Respondent and made payable to Petitioner and Kurt Vreeland and was mailed to an address other than Petitioner's address. The check was prepared and signed by Ms. Woodward. On or about May 19, 1992, Kurt Vreeland and another person appeared at Respondent's place of business, requesting another check, indicating that he had never received the original check. Ms. Woodward attempted to issue the check payable to Petitioner and Kurt Vreeland, but he objected, insisting that the check be made payable only to him, since the contract was with him and no one else. Ms. Woodward complied with the demand and issued another check payable only to Kurt Vreeland. Ms. Woodward complied with Kurt Vreeland's demand because: 1) The contract was in fact with Kurt Vreeland and no one else; 2) Respondent's standard operating procedure was to issue checks only to persons with whom Respondent had entered into a contract; and 3) Kurt Vreeland was demanding that Respondent comply with the contract that he, and only he, receive payment. On the same day the new check was issued, it was cashed at Respondent's bank, showing an endorsement by Kurt Vreeland. Subsequently, after not receiving any money from Respondent, Petitioner telephoned Respondent. Ms. Woodward notified Petitioner that the checks could only be made payable to Kurt Vreeland because the contract for sale of the squash was with him only. Further, Petitioner was informed by Ms. Woodward that she must present proof to Respondent that she, not Kurt Vreeland, owns the produce. This was the first time that Ms. Woodward had experienced this type of situation and was not sure what kind of evidence or proof Petitioner would need to submit. Petitioner and her husband telephoned Respondent several times attempting to convince Respondent that they, not their son, Kurt Vreeland, owned the produce and that checks should be made payable to Petitioner and her son. However, their efforts were to no avail. On May 9, 1992, Petitioner mailed a letter to Respondent, by certified mail, reiterating that the produce was owned by her and checks should be made payable to her and her son. Respondent received the certified letter on May 21, 1992. On May 19, 1992, prior to receiving Petitioner's certified letter, Respondent issued to Kurt Vreeland another check in the amount of $3,346.20 for the sale of additional squash delivered by Kurt Vreeland to Respondent. The check was prepared and signed on behalf of Respondent by Ms. Woodward. That same day, the check was cashed at Respondent's bank, showing an endorsement by Kurt Vreeland. After mailing the certified letter, Petitioner and her husband believed that the matter, regarding the checks, had been resolved, but shortly discovered that they were mistaken. Merchants to whom their son had written checks and with whom Petitioner and her husband did business, were complaining to Petitioner and her husband that their son's checks had been returned for insufficient funds. This new development caused Petitioner and her husband to again contact Respondent by telephone. At that time, Respondent informed Petitioner and her husband of the check issued on May 19, 1992, made payable only to Kurt Vreeland, reiterating that the contract was only with their son. Further, Respondent informed them that Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) had verbally made a claim on the proceeds from the squash on behalf of Kurt Vreeland's ex-wife for his children and that Respondent was not complying with HRS' request either because it had shown no proof that the ex-wife was entitled to the proceeds. On June 19, 1992, Ms. Woodward issued to Kurt Vreeland a check in the amount of $1,774.35 for more squash that it had sold in May 1992 on behalf of Kurt Vreeland. That same day, the check was cashed at Respondent's bank, showing an endorsement by Kurt Vreeland. Before the June 19, 1992 check was issued, Petitioner and her husband made numerous telephone calls to Respondent attempting to convince Respondent to make the checks payable to Petitioner and her son, Kurt Vreeland. Again, all to no avail. After the June 19, 1992 check, Kurt Vreeland did not provide Respondent with any more squash for it to sell. Consequently, no further checks were issued. At one point in time, out of frustration, Respondent requested Petitioner and her husband to remove some remaining squash that had been brought to Respondent by Kurt Vreeland. However, the squash was not removed. At all times material hereto, Petitioner and her husband were aware of the different periods that their son removed squash from the land to take to Respondent for sale. At all times material hereto, at no time did Kurt Vreeland inform Respondent that either Petitioner or her husband had ownership in the squash. Neither Petitioner nor her husband have received any money from their son, Kurt Vreeland, for the expenses they incurred with the 1992 crop of squash, nor for rent of their land to grow the produce.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issue a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of August 1993. ERROLL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of sex discrimination in employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the relevant statute. Respondent is a wholesale food cooperative, which pools the wholesale purchasing power of numerous independent grocers. Respondent purchases goods from manufacturers and then sells them to the grocers, which are members of Respondent. The grocers offer the goods for sale at retail. Respondent also operates as a wholly owned subsidiary an insurance agency, which sells insurance to members and nonmembers. Although independent from the wholesale food operation, the insurance operation is housed in the same Tampa office building/warehouse complex as is the wholesale food operation. On June 19, 1991, Respondent hired Petitioner to work in the wholesale food operation. She was hired as an executive secretary or assistant to Gary Rinehart, who is the Vice President of the wholesale food operation. Petitioner had applied to work in the insurance operation, but was offered only the job in wholesale food. From the start, Petitioner told Mr. Rinehart that she wanted to move into insurance at the first opportunity. Mr. Rinehart had no objections as long as he was not left short- handed. Petitioner's primary responsibilities in wholesale food was to support the salespersons who travelled in the field assisting member-grocers with purchasing and displaying products. When the salespersons needed assistance while they were on the road, they would call Petitioner, who, from the Tampa office, would coordinate the efforts to solve a member's problems or get information or product to a member. Petitioner's ready availability was an important element of her job performance. Petitioner's immediate predecessor had quit after she had married another employee of Respondent. However, the evidence fails to establish that Respondent maintained a policy of requiring female employees who married another employee to leave upon their marriage. In any event, nothing surrounding the circumstances of the departure of Petitioner's predecessor suggests that her termination had anything to do with dating, which presumably preceded the marriage for some period of time. Mr. Rinehart discouraged dating among employees. When he first announced to his group that he had hired Petitioner, someone--presumably a travelling salesman--asked if she were married. Mr. Rinehart responded by telling his group that he did not like his employees to date each other. When Petitioner first began work, she did an excellent job, although she quickly developed a problem leaving work early and arriving late. She also failed to take a shorthand class that Mr. Rinehart had asked her to take, as Respondent's expense, since she joined Respondent. By the end of 1991, Petitioner evidently felt underchallenged by her assignment and had lost her enthusiasm for working in the wholesale food operation. Mr. Rinehart was receiving numerous complaints about Petitioner not being at her desk when needed, being on personal calls during working hours, and not relaying messages. She was also not doing her clerical tasks, like typing, accurately. Mr. Rinehart spoke with Petitioner about her work- related problems, but no improvement was seen until, in mid- December, 1991, Petitioner secured Mr. Rinehart's permission to seek a transfer into the insurance operation. Before the transfer was made, Petitioner had assisted in the preparation for an insurance seminar in Orlando sponsored by Respondent in late 1991 and had also begun attending the Monday morning meetings of the insurance sales staff. By mid-January, 1992, Petitioner had discussed with Harry Britton the possibility of her transfer into insurance. Mr. Britton is the general agent for Respondent's insurance agency and also serves as the Director of Human Relations. In February, 1992, Mr. Britton informed Petitioner that she could transfer into insurance if it was acceptable to Mr. Rinehart. Mr. Rinehart agreed, as long as Petitioner trained her replacement. She did and, at an undisclosed point in the month, transferred to the insurance operation. Petitioner's timing was unfortunate, assuming that she would have preferred her prior secretarial job to none at all. When Petitioner joined Respondent, it was still struggling to recover from the loss of the business of Kroger, which, when it withdrew from Florida, had accounted for over half of Respondent's gross sales. Respondent's performance had been poor for sometime, and it had already sold buildings, equipment, and leases in order to cut its expenses. Before taxes, on a consolidated basis, Respondent had the following earnings/(losses) for fiscal years ending 1987 through 1992, respectively: $482,000, $289,000, ($1,275,000), ($1,909,795), ($398,489), and ($1,503,543). The insurance operations accounted for the following earnings/(losses) for fiscal years ending 1988 through 1992, respectively: ($18,417), ($8207), $18,180, and $1810. In early 1992, Respondent confronted the facts that it had lost over $2.5 million over the past five years, was in the process of losing $1.5 million--the largest loss in Respondent's history--in 1992, and had already sold various assets. Additionally, it was entering the slow spring wholesaling season. Respondent's top management decided to make a reduction in force. The decision to make layoffs was made and communicated to Messrs. Rinehart and Britton around February 10-13, 1992. The decision had been discussed for about two months previously. The record does not disclose exactly when Petitioner transferred to insurance, but it appears to have been in early February, 1992. On February 22, 1992, Mr. Britton informed Petitioner that she would be laid off. Seven other employees were laid off at the same time, including others in the insurance operation. Layoffs were generally based on seniority with Respondent or in a particular department, and the layoff of Petitioner was consistent with this policy. Mr. Rinehart laid off four persons in his department. Although all of them hadmore experience than did Petitioner, her replacement as executive secretary, who had less experience with Respondent than did Petitioner, was not laid off. Unlike others laid off, Petitioner was given an indefinite period of time to look for work while remaining on Respondent's payroll and as much time off the job as she needed while she looked for work outside the office. Mr. Britton gave Petitioner special treatment because he wanted her to remain parttime. He offered her a parttime job in insurance at the meeting at which he informed her she was being laid off and again several times over the ensuing months. She refused each offer of parttime employment. After some difficulty, Mr. Britton eventually filled Petitioner's former position with a parttime person. On March 13, 1992, Petitioner announced that she did not want to remain employed by Respondent any longer, even under the special circumstances outlined above. She quit and Respondent paid her through March 20, 1992. Since the last quarter of 1991, Petitioner had been dating another employee of Respondent. This situation was known to Messrs. Rinehart and Britton. Although Mr. Rinehart was not reluctant to discourage employees from dating, there is no indication in the record that he took any action against Petitioner for dating an employee. The man whom Petitioner dated has also dated other employees of Respondent, evidently without adverse consequences to himself or the other employees, and remains employed with Respondent. More importantly, Mr. Britton, who laid off Petitioner, did not share Mr. Rinehart's concerns about dating among employees. Petitioner asked Mr. Britton at least twice if he had any problems with her dating an employee, and he replied that he did not. The record does not indicate that he took any action against Petitioner for dating an employee. Respondent had a legitimate, nonpretextual reason for laying off Petitioner--or, more precisely, converting Petitioner's position from fulltime to parttime. The reason was economics. Additionally, Petitioner had been a marginal employee in the wholesale food operation, so it is hard to interpret her untimely transfer to insurance as part of a conspiracy to rid Respondent of her for reasons of gender. If Respondent were discriminatorily focusing on the female employee of a male- female dating duo, it is not apparent from the record how Respondent would have addressed its "problem" by retaining Petitioner in parttime employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. ENTERED on December 20, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 20, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-321 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1, 4, 6, 8: rejected as subordinate. 2-3, 5, 7, 10: rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. (additional evidence): stricken as outside the record. (first): adopted. 9 (second): rejected as legal argument. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3, 13-15, 17-18, 20-26, 30-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: rejected as legal argument and recitation of testimony. 5-7, 9, 11-12, 16 (except for fact that Petitioner approached Messrs. Rinehart and Britton): rejected as subordinate. 8: rejected as repetitious and recitation of testimony. 10, 27-29: rejected as recitation of testimony. 19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40-43: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Peggy J. Thornton, pro se 6802 North Branch Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 W. Reynolds Allen Kevin O'Toole Hogg Allen 324 South Hyde Park Avenue, Suite 350 Tampa, Florida 33606
