Findings Of Fact Brenda H. Gipson applied for licensure as a Class F Unarmed Guard. On her application Gipson did not reveal that she had been arrested and convicted for attempted aggravated assault. Gipson admitted that she did not report on her application the fact that she had been convicted of attempted aggravated assault because she was afraid she would lose her job. The circumstances surrounding the attempted aggravated assault arose out of dispute with a family member in which Gipson threw a hammer at the family member. Gipson testified that she was sentenced to 24 hours in jail by the Municipal Judge of Venice, Florida. Abilio Suarez, Gipson's supervisor with Feick Security, who is the coordinator for the contract between Feick Security and Florida Power and Light Company, testified that he had known Gipson since July of 1978, when she began to work for Suarez. Suarez stated that Gipson was a reliable person, was punctual, and dependable. Her duties involved personnel security on facilities belong to or operated by Florida Power and Light Company. Suarez testified that notwithstanding her concealment from Feick Security of her arrest and conviction for attempted aggravated assault, Gipson was considered eligible for continued employment with the company.
Recommendation Although the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law indicate that the Petitioner did falsify her application for licensure, the facts surrounding the incident, the extremely light sentence of the municipal court, and the recommendation of her supervisor should be considered in mitigation. Based upon the facts in mitigation, the Hearing Officer would recommend that Brenda Gipson be issued a license as a Class F, Unarmed Guard. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Curington Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Brenda H. Gipson 3889 Charles Terrace Miami, Florida
Findings Of Fact Robert W. Barnard was initially issued a Class "D" security guard license on May 12, 1986, by the Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing. At the time of licensure the agency was aware that Barnard had been found guilty of the felony of aggravated assault by a jury verdict, but that adjudication of guilt was withheld and he was placed on probation for five years, on September 3, 1974. (Exhibit #1, Respondent's Memorandum in Response to Petition. Effective October 1, 1986, the legislature added the following to Chapter 493, F.S., relating to licensing for investigative and patrol services: 493.319 Grounds for disciplinary action.-- * * * (1) The following constitutes grounds for which disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken: * * * (p) The department shall deny an applicant or revoke a license when the person or licensee has been convicted of a felony, regardless of whether adjudication was withheld or whether imposition of sentence was suspended, unless and until civil rights have been restored and a period of 10 years has expired: * * * Chapter 86-193, Laws of Fla. This provision was renumbered and was amended in 1987, as follows: (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)(c) and subsection (2), the department shall deny an application or revoke a license when the person or licensee has been convicted of a felony, regardless of whether adjudication was withheld or whether imposition of sentence was suspended, unless and until civil rights have been restored and a period of 10 years has expired. A conviction based on a plea of nolo contendere shall create a presumption of guilt to the underlying criminal charges, and the department shall allow the person being disciplined to present any evidence relevant to the underlying charges and the circumstances surrounding his plea. Chapter 87-274, Laws of Fla. The agency issued a renewal certificate to Robert Barnard on March 17, 1988. (Exhibit #1, Respondent's Memorandum in Response to Petition) On September 19, 1989, the Department of State, Division of Licensing issued its Administrative Complaint, Case #89-01377, alleging that Robert W. Barnard's guard license should be revoked, based on his violation of Section 493.319(3), F.S.. Count I of the complaint alleges, "On September 3, 1974, Respondent was found guilty of one felony count of aggravated assault in Orange County, Florida." No other convictions or violations were alleged. Through counsel, Robert Barnard requested a formal hearing in response to the complaint. On November 1, 1989, Department of State Assistant General Counsel, Henri C. Cawthon, wrote to Richard Wallsh, Barnard's attorney, stating that it did not appear that material facts were in dispute and that an informal hearing would be more appropriate. The letter provided, in pertinent part: ... Because the Division will stipulate to the factual allegations in your petition, the only issue is a legal one: does Section 493.319(3), Florida Statutes (1987), require revocation when a licensee had adjudication withheld on a felony over ten years ago. It can also be stipulated that Mr. Barnard was licensed in spite of his criminal record, and that the Division is applying the statute retroactively. * * * (Attachment to Petition for Fees and Costs) On November 3, 1989, Robert Barnard petitioned for an informal hearing based on Mr. Cawthon's letter. On November 30, 1989, Robert Barnard filed his "suggestion of sealing of record", stating that on November 8, 1989, the ninth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Orange County, entered its order sealing the pertinent criminal records pursuant to Section 943.058, F.S. and Fla. R. Criminal Procedure 3.692. (Attachment to Petition for Fees and Costs) Counsel for the agency claims that he had informed Petitioner's counsel that sealing the criminal record would result in dismissal of the administrative complaint, although the agency was under no obligation to inform Petitioner of this option. (Memorandum of Law in Response to Petition) On December 11, 1989, in a letter from Assistant General Counsel, Henri Cawthon, to Richard Wallsh, the agency informed Robert Barnard that, based on the order sealing records, the administrative complaint was being withdrawn. The informal hearing scheduled for December 19, 1989, was cancelled. Robert W. Barnard is a "prevailing small business party", as defined in Section 57.111(3)(c) and (d), F.S. (parties' Stipulation of Facts). The agency was not a "nominal party" as provided in Section 57.111(4)(d), F.S. (parties' Stipulation of Facts) In successfully defending the administrative complaint, Robert Barnard incurred reasonable attorneys fees and costs totalling $1,527.07. (parties' Stipulation of Facts) In successfully pursuing fees and costs, Robert Barnard incurred additional reasonable fees and costs in the amount of $1,281.53, for a total of $2,808.60.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED: That the Department of State, Division of Licensing pay Robert Barnard's attorney fees and costs in the amount of $2,808.60. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 3rd day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard I. Wallsh, Esquire 2699 Lee Road, Suite 505 Winter Park, FL 32789 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and the testimony of the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent holds a Class "D", unarmed security guard license, No. GD-0106713, which was most recently renewed on July 3, 1983. The Respondent also holds a Class "G", statewide gun permit (armed security guard license) , No. GG-0025231, which was issued on July 3, 1983. The Division of Licensing of the Department of State did not approve or deny the Respondent's application for a Class "G" license within a 90-day period from the date of receipt of the application and, accordingly, by operation of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, the Division was required to, and in fact did, issue a Class "G" license to the Respondent. Except for the operation of the 90-day provision in Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, the Division of Licensing would not have issued the Respondent a statewide gun permit because of the Respondent's criminal record. For the same reason, it was a mistake for the Division of Licensing to renew the Respondent's Class "D" license in 1983. On February 28, 1977, the Respondent was arrested on the roof of a department-store and charged with burglary, to which he entered a plea of nolo contendre. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for 5 years. During the summer of 1980, the Respondent and two of his friends apprehended two thieves who had stolen some personal property from a vehicle. Later, the Respondent appeared in court to testify against the two thieves. On April 15, 1981, the Respondent was arrested for grand larceny. On November 9, 1981, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to a larceny charge of failing to redeliver a hired motor vehicle. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for one year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is recommended that the De- partment of State issue a Final Order which (a) Would revoke Respondent's Class "D" and Class "G" licenses and (b) would order Respondent to forthwith return such licenses to the Department of State. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of September, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 25th day of September, 1984 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James V. Antista, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Stuart Phillip Coon 12824 Southwest 114 Terrace Miami, Florida 33183
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner be issued a Class "F" Unarmed Guard License. Upon certification of his employer that his duties require him to be armed, the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency issue the Petitioner a Class "G" Armed Guard License. The Hearing Officer further recommends that the agency adopt a rule restricting all guard agencies from utilizing armed guards where the nature of their assigned duties does not warrant the use of a firearm to carry out their assignment. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W.J. Galdwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 John F. Cuddy, Esquire 333 East Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue At issue is whether the respondent violated section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: During the period of time specified in the Administrative Complaint, May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, 24-Hour Security held a Class "B" Security Agency License, number B91-00117. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Richard R. Cullen was president of 24-Hour Security and held, among other licenses, a Class "M" Manager License, number M86-00152. 24-Hour Security, whose only office is located at 1515 South Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida, is in the business of providing security guards to businesses and condominiums. It employs licensed security guards and trains and supervises them to ensure that they adequately perform their duties and carry out the instructions of 24-Hour Security's clients. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Michelle T. Reilly was employed by 24-Hour Security and worked as assistant to Mr. Cullen. She began working for 24-Hour Security in September 1992 and has always been highly regarded as an employee by Mr. Cullen. He has trained her in all aspects of the private security service business in order for her to get the experience necessary to qualify for a chapter 493 manager's license. Prior to February 16, 1995, she had never held any type of license authorized by chapter 493 of the Florida Statutes. Mr. Cullen was aware that she was not licensed. Since the agency's inception, Mr. Cullen has designated himself manager of 24-Hour Security and has considered himself ultimately responsible for the operation of the agency. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, Ms. Reilly's business cards identified her as "Branch Manager," and she was identified as such by licensed employees of 24-Hour Security. On one occasion during the Department's investigation, Ms. Reilly expressly identified herself to an investigator of the Department as manager of 24-Hour Security. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, in addition to performing secretarial and bookkeeping duties, Ms. Reilly assisted Mr. Cullen in (1) hiring and training licensed security guards; (2) preparing daily work schedules for the guards; (3) preparing post orders outlining the duties a guard is to carry out at a particular post, including the client's special instructions or requirements; (4) supervising the operation of the agency's dispatch center; (5) addressing clients' problems; (6) consulting with clients regarding proper security precautions; (7) conducting post inspections to ensure that the guards are at their posts, properly uniformed and carrying out their responsibilities; and (8) writing security proposals for clients and in developing new accounts. In assisting Mr. Cullen with these duties, Ms. Reilly at times was allowed by Mr. Cullen to direct and control the activities of licensed security officers and to operate the agency. When Mr. Cullen was advised by the Department that Ms. Reilly could not function as or be designated as "manager" of 24-Hour Security, he immediately removed her business cards from the office. Ms. Reilly applied for a Class "MB" manager's license on November 9, 1994. Her application was denied by the Department by letter dated January 17, 1995, because she had "not demonstrated the lawfully gained experience or appropriate training" required for licensure. Ms. Reilly was issued a Class "D" Security Officer license on February 16, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding 24-Hour Security, Incorporated, and Richard R. Cullen guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a fine of $500 for this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 25th day of April 1995. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on petitioner_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1 through 9: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 8. The following are my specific rulings on respondent_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 2 and 5. Paragraph 2: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the first sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact set out in the second portion of the first sentence and in the second, third, fourth, and fifth sentences are rejected as merely summaries of testimony. The proposed finding of fact in the final sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 3: The proposed finding of fact in the first sentence was adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 6. The remaining proposed findings of fact are rejected as argument. Paragraph 4: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as merely a summary of testimony; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as argument. Paragraph 5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 6: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 7: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as unnecessary; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 8: The proposed findings of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as legal argument. The proposed finding of fact in the last sentence is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 5. Paragraph 9: The proposed finding of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The proposed findings of fact in the last two sentences are rejected as argument. Paragraph 10: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 11: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 12: Rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard R. Cullen, President 24-Hour Security, Incorporated 1515 South Federal Highway Suite 109 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300-0250 The Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact The proceeding came on for hearing on the Petitioner's application for an armed security guard license. The Respondent, Department of State/Division of Licensing, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction over the licensing and regulation of security guards. The Respondent, on February 15, 1982, served notice on the Petitioner that it intended to deny his application for license, the Petitioner requested a hearing and the cause was set for hearing as delineated in the notice. Upon timely convening the hearing at 2:00 p.m. on April 28, 1982, the Petitioner failed to appear. The undersigned and the Respondent and the Respondent's witness remained in the hearing room for approximately one hour in hopes that the Petitioner might appear. The Petitioner failed to appear. The undersigned entered on the record the fact of the Petitioner's default and the fact that all concerned remained in the hearing room awaiting the Petitioner's arrival for approximately one hour. Thereupon the hearing was adjourned.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Karl Harry Wilson be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Karl Harry Wilson Aquarius Restaurant Aquarius Condominium Route A1A 2751 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida 33019 Stephan Nall, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State Winchester Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are: 1) whether either of the Petitioners' bids were responsive to the Invitation to Bid #298-730-310-W; 2) whether either Petitioner should be awarded portions of the bid; and 3) whether DGS should reject all bids. The parties' positions on these issues are summarized: DGS argues that its intended action to reject all bids is compelled by its rules governing the competitive bid process. It contends that Tel Plus was initially considered non-responsive but was deemed the responsive low bidder on some portions of the bid after it agreed to substitute equipment. DGS contends now that substitution is improper. Inter-tel was consistently considered non- responsive by DGS because of alleged non-compliant data in its technical literature. DGS concedes that, but for this non-compliance, Inter-Tel would be lowest responsive bidder in various categories. Tel Plus argues that its bid was responsive as it proposed to provide equipment previously required in DGS' specifications for other bids. Tel Plus claims that its equipment is equivalent to the equipment now required in the DGS specifications and DGS should have known that. Tel Plus argues that the transposition of numbers in the model number of the equipment was a typographical error which can be corrected after the bid opening. In the alternative, Tel Plus argues that it should be able to substitute equipment as DGS has allowed substitution in the past. Further, the equipment in issue is a small component of the overall system and, comparing its price to the price of the whole, it is a non-material change in the bid. Inter-Tel claims that its bid was responsive as the technical literature it submitted was merely an installation manual providing an optimum range of temperatures provided. Its equipment allegedly meets the specifications, and the company should have been permitted to explain its bid as the prior practice of DGS was to allow such explanations.
Findings Of Fact The Invitation to Bid (ITB) On May 7, 1986, the Department of General Services (DGS) mailed ITB No. 298-370-310W to approximately 100 vendors. The ITB sought bids for various sizes of electronic key telephone systems that would then be available for purchase by state agencies and others entitled or required to participate in the state purchasing system administered by DGS. The ITB specified technical requirements for seven sizes or configurations of systems. An addendum to the ITB divided the state into four geographical service areas. The vendors were invited to bid on any or all of the configurations for each of the service areas; a total of twenty-eight separate awards was, therefore, possible. Specifications in the ITB required a powerline surge protector, a small device which plugs into an electrical outlet and protects the electronic system against voltage surges through a powerline. In the past, DGS bid specifications for similar equipment required a model TII 428 surge protector or equivalent. However, agencies were experiencing extensive and expensive damage to electronic equipment, so DGS' Division of Communications investigated other equipment and determined that a model PTS-120 HP was more efficient. The technical specifications in the ITB here at issue required a PTS-120 HP "or an approved equivalent". (Joint exhibit #1, p. 68, paragraph 3.6) Another requirement of the technical specifications related to the environment for the key service unit (KSU), the heart of the electronic key telephone system. Paragraph 3.7 required that the KSU "... shall be fully operable during the following environmental conditions: Temperature 40 degrees F to 100 degrees F (4 degrees C to 38 degrees C) Relative Humidity 20 percent to 80 percent (Joint Exhibit #1, p. 69) These environmental conditions are significant because the KSU is heat sensitive and the equipment is commonly installed in closets or equipment rooms that are neither vented nor climate-controlled. The ITB included at least two provisions relating to the bidder's responsibility to provide technical literature. Paragraph 5 of the General Conditions provides: MANUFACTURERS' NAME AND APPROVED EQUIVALENTS: Any Manufacturers' names, trade names, brand names, information and/or catalog numbers listed in a specification are for information and not intended to limit competition. The bidder may offer any brand for which he is an authorized representative, which meets or exceeds the specifications for any item(s). If bids are based on equivalent products, indicate on the bid form the manufacturer's name and number. Bidder shall submit with his bid, cuts, sketches and descriptive literature and/or complete specifications. Reference to literature submitted with a previous bid will not satisfy this provision. The bidder shall also explain in detail the reason(s) why the proposed equivalent will meet the specifications and not be considered an exception thereto. The State of Florida reserves the right to determine acceptance of item(s) as an approved equivalent. Bids which do not comply with these requirements are subject to rejection. (emphasis added) Included in the Special Conditions, page 6, is this provision: Technical Literature Technical literature is a requirement of this bid to accommodate an evaluation to assure products offered meet or exceed the specification attached hereto. Bidder shall furnish with his bid, for all equipment offered, technical information consisting of two sets of manufacturers specifications, graphs, charts, sketches, photographs, circuit diagrams, instruction manuals, station user guide and attendant user guide pamphlets and equipment lists. Failure to provide such data with the bid may result in rejection of the bid. (Joint Exhibit #1) There were no questions or protests from the vendor community regarding the change in specifications related to the powerline surge protector. (transcript, p. 82) Approximately fifteen bids were received and were opened by DOS on July 7, 1986. (transcript, p. 20) Tel Plus Bid Tel Plus Florida, Inc. (Tel Plus) bid on each of the seven configurations for the four service areas. The equipment list provided for each configuration in its bid consistently listed "T11248 Surge Protector", rather than the PTS 120 HP called for in the ITB specifications. Although Tel Plus submitted some technical literature, (its general description, installation and service manual for "Tel Plus 816 Electronic Key Telephone System"), no technical literature nor explanation was submitted for the surge protector. (Joint exhibit #2, Inter-Tel Exhibit #1) Tel Plus intended to include the TII 428 surge protector throughout its bid; the model designation "248", was a typographical error. (Transcript, p. 129-133) Inter-Tel Bid Like Tel Plus, Inter-Tel bid each of the seven configurations, state- wide in all four service areas. (Joint Exhibit #3) Inter-Tel's technical response to ITB specification 3.7 relating to KSU operating temperatures stated: Comply. Environmental conditions listed are assumed to be for KSU interior. Installation manuals list ambient conditions with free air circulation. (Joint Exhibit #3, Technical response, p. 2.) Inter-Tel does not have a document containing full systems specifications. For its technical literature back-up it submitted several pages from an installation manual and several volumes of its installation and field maintenance manual. (Transcript, p. 187-188; Joint Exhibits #3 and 9). Those submittals provide in pertinent part: Environmental Requirements 3.05 The environmental requirements for the KSU are as follows: Requirements In Operation Temperature 32 to 80 F 0 to 26.5 C The manuals are guides to service personnel and contain recommendations to installers for climate conditions. The manuals do not include specifications of the temperature limits to which the equipment can be subjected and still operate. While some testimony was provided at the hearing that the equipment could operate at the extremes described in ITS specification 3.7, that information was not included anywhere in Inter-Tel's bid. (Transcript pp. 182-183, Joint Exhibits #3 and 8). Review and Disposition of Bids by DOS After opening, the bids were reviewed by the staff of the Division of Purchasing, Bureau of Procurement, and were then sent to the Division of Communications for a technical evaluation. The Division of Communications had prepared the technical specifications for the ITB in this case. (Transcript pp. 18, 24.) In his review of the bids, Roger Fisher, a communications engineer in the Division of Communications, found a problem with some of the vendors who submitted other than the designated PTS 120 HP surge protector on their equipment list and failed to provide technical literature to verify that it was "equivalent". He called approximately ten vendors and gave them the option of sending the technical literature or sending a letter stating that the specified equipment would be provided at no additional cost. (Transcript pp. 42, 43.) In response to the phone call, Jim Begue of Tel Plus sent a letter dated August 28, 1986, stating that the PTS powerline surge protector would be provided at the same prices quoted in his company's bid. (Joint Exhibit #2B) Inter-Tel was not contacted with regard to the discrepancy between its response, "comply", and its technical literature addressing temperature ranges for operation of the KSU. Inter-Tel's bid was determined to be non-compliant. On September 23, 1986, the bid tabulations were posted and Tel Plus was designated the lowest responsive bidder in eighteen of the twenty-eight configurations. Inter-Tel was the lowest bidder on eighteen of the twenty-eight configurations, but as indicated above, was considered non-responsive. (Joint Exhibit #6) The posting was withdrawn on September 24, 1986, because of some question with regard to the compliance of Tel Plus and other bidders' description of the "hands-free" features of their systems. It was determined that the systems were in compliance with the ITB. (Joint Exhibit #6 and #7) On October 3, 1986, a second list was posted indicating that Tel Plus was the lowest responsive bidder in twenty-one of the twenty-eight configurations. Inter-Tel was still the lowest bidder in eighteen configurations and was still deemed non-responsive in all configurations. (Joint Exhibit #8) Once more, DGS purchasing and communications' staff evaluated the process, and after meeting with the department attorney, decided that the contacts resulting in change of bid response were inappropriate. (Inter-Tel Exhibit #3, pp 12-13). The re-evaluation eliminated all but one responsive bidder. The bid was deemed non-competitive. On October 28, 1986, certified letters were sent to the bidders from William Monroe, Director of the Division of Purchasing, advising that all bids in response to Bid No. 298-730-310-W were being rejected pursuant to General Condition #8 of the ITB (reserving the right to reject all bids or waive minor irregularities or technicalities in bids received). The letter states, in pertinent part: .... Bidder confusion regarding ITB Protection, has resulted in non-responsive bids and unintentional procedural irregularities (Tel Plus Exhibit #1) Both Tel Plus and Inter-Tel filed timely protests of that intended action. Were the Bids Responsive? A small, inexpensive component in comparison to the entire electronic telephone system, the surge protector is nonetheless a highly significant piece of equipment, as it reduces the incidence of expensive damage to the larger system. Assuming that the inadvertent transposition of model numbers could be ignored, Tel Plus failed to provide with its bid any technical literature to substantiate that the surge protector it proposed was equivalent to the PTS 120 HP specified in the ITB. The company was unjustifiably presumptuous in its expectation that DGS would consider the two as equivalent since the TII 428 had been the specified model in the past. On the contrary, the change should have alerted bidders to some problem with the previous model. Reason dictates that if the two models were deemed "equivalent" by DGS the change in specifications would not have been necessary. The ITS General Conditions, paragraph 6. provides access prior to bid opening by vendors with questions regarding conditions and specifications: 6. INTERPRETATIONS: Any questions concerning the conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than 10 days prior to bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. This provision was not utilized by Tel Plus. The range of operating temperatures for the KSU is also significant, given the unit's sensitivity to heat and the adverse conditions sometimes existing at the installation site. Inter-Tel apparently also did not avail itself of the Interpretation's clause but rather attempted to clarify what it perceived as an unclear use of the specification terms, "environmental conditions". Its bid response qualifying its system's compliance only created additional confusion. Within the special conditions of the ITB, the purpose for requiring technical literature is unambiguous. See paragraph 5, above. The literature provided by Inter-Tel was in clear conflict with the ITB specification. Both the Inter-Tel and Tel Plus bids suffered from the same basic infirmities: both bids included facially obvious material conflicts with the specifications; both bids failed to explain why those conflicts did not exist. Tel Plus was initially an opportunity to correct its bid.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has a department General Services Administration (hereinafter “GSA”) responsible for providing security to County departments and facilities. GSA provides security services by contracting with private vendors. Two of the private security vendors are Delad Security (hereinafter “Delad”) and Forrestville Security (hereinafter “Forrestville”). In 2005, GSA, on behalf of Respondent, entered into a contract with Delad and Forrestville to assign security guards at County posts. The “General Terms and Conditions” of the contract provide in pertinent part: 1.16 Responsibility As Employer The employee(s) of the successful Bidder shall be considered at all times its employee(s) and not employee(s) or agent(s) of the County or any of its departments. . . . The County may require the successful bidder to remove any employee it deems unacceptable. . . Even though Delad and Forrestville as vendor companies provide security officers through a contract with Miami-Dade County, only the vendor companies have the authority to terminate one of its employees. Dangervil secured his security officer position by applying for employment through the vendor companies who set his schedule, administered his leave time, paid his salary and taxes, monitored his actions to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract, as well as provided his job duties and assignments. Dangervil is a black male whose national origin is Haitian. On June 27, 2007, Dangervil was working for Delad assigned to the 140 West Flagler Building for his security post. His job duties were patrolling the parking lot and checking the floors in the building. Joseph Wolfe (hereinafter “Wolfe”), a white male, is the GSA supervisor responsible for County facilities. On June 27, 2007, he reported to the 140 West Flagler Building location to look into a complaint about a possible disturbance on the 16th floor during a code compliance hearing. When he arrived on the 16th floor, Wolfe met Dangervil who was dressed in a uniform Wolfe determined had a sweat-stained shirt. Wolfe began to ask Dangervil a series of questions regarding his being assigned to the disturbance location, but was unable to ascertain why Dangervil was there. Dangervil did tell him "I don't work here." Wolfe determined that Dangervil was not properly prepared for the security detail and that Dangervil lacked the requisite ability to effectively communicate using the English language. After the incident, Wolfe contacted a Delad supervisor who confirmed that Dangervil had been instructed thru the chain of command to go to the hearing location for his post June 27, 2007. Section 3.41 of the security contract with Delad provides an English proficiency qualification for security personnel and states in relevant part: * * * C) Ability to Communicate in English . . . all Contractor Security personnel must be fully literate in the English language, (e.g., able to read, write, speak, understand, and be understood). Oral command of English must be sufficient to permit full communication. . . . The contract further allows a security guard to be removed from the contract if s/he has difficulty understanding or speaking English. Wolfe subsequently wrote a Guard Infraction Report against the security vendor directing that Dangervil be removed from the Delad contract with the County stating: I was dispatched to location ref a code compliance hearing and protesters carrying signs criti[c]izing Dade County. Upon arrival to the 16th floor I met with S/O Dangervil, Brunel. Dangervil was unable to tell me why he was there, stating, "I don't work here." Then he asked someone on their way to attend hearing to help me as if he thought they were a county employee. It was determined the officer was not pro[p]erly briefed prior to being sent to the detail. The officer was allowed to work with what appeared to be a sweat stained uniform shirt. Dangervil's removal from the Miami-Dade contract did not affect Dangervil's employment status with Delad. On October 26, 2007, GSA dispatched Wolfe to the Opa Locka Elderly Facility, a County public housing facility, to investigate a complaint that a Forestville security officer did not want to work his assigned post. David Thibaudeau (hereinafter “Thibaudeau”), Wolfe's supervisor and GSA Deputy Chief, and GSA Supervisor Sanchez also reported to the Opa Locka Elderly Facility after receiving a call from the dispatch center. There had been several reports from security vendors that officers were being assaulted and Thibaudeau and Sanchez went to the location to help resolve the problem regarding the security officer assigned to the post and the supervisor refusing to work at the post. On duty at the location was Dangervil, the assigned security officer. Upon arriving, Thibaudeau had a conversation with Dangervil, Wolfe, and two Forrestville supervisors. The Forrestville supervisor explained that Dangervil did not want to work the post and was going to leave. Dangervil explained to Thibaudeau that he didn't want to work the location because he heard bad things happened at the location.1 Subsequently, Thibaudeau instructed the Forrestville Supervisor to work the post since Dangervil was leaving. The supervisor also refused to work the facility but ultimately agreed when Thibaudeau explained that he would have to call their company to get the project manager to resolve the issue. Wolfe recognized that Dangervil was the same Delad security officer he had dealt with in June 2007 at the 140 West Flagler incident. Dangervil had been placed on a “do not hire” list by Wolfe because of the previous incident that took place at the 140 building. Wolfe wrote up a second Guard Infraction Report which directed that Dangervil be removed from the Forrestville contract. The report narrative stated: While conducting an inspection of the post during an afternoon to mid shift change I recogni[z]ed the on coming [sic] midnight shift officer as being previ[o]usly removed from the contract by me while he was employed by Delad security. Prior to being removed again S/O Dangervil refused to stay at post because of the previous incidents. Dangervil was not removed from the contract because he was Haitian or Black.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 July, 2009.
The Issue Whether, in making a preliminary decision to award a contract for the subject services, Respondent acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, policy, or project specification; and, if so, whether such misstep(s) was/were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition. Specifically, Petitioner challenges the evaluation of the past performance section of the responses to the procurement document. Also at issue is whether Respondent violated the Sunshine Law in deciding to reject Petitioner’s bid protest.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida and is the procuring agency in this proceeding. Petitioner is a not-for-profit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Florida. On September 21, 2009, the Department issued the subject RFP. The RFP sets forth the purpose of the procurement (on Page 1 of the RFP) as follows: Request for Proposals (RFP): A 36-slot Facility-Based Day Treatment Program as described in the Services to be Provided (Attachment I) in a Provider owner/leased facility in Circuit 11, Miami-Dade County. The provider shall provide the day treatment program for youth placed on probation, and youth transitioning back into the community who are referred for conditional release or post-commitment probation services. The provider shall design, develop, implement and operate an evidence-based, facility- based day treatment program with the capability to provide an after- school/evening component. Petitioner submitted a timely response to the RFP. On December 18, 2009, Respondent posted its Notice of Agency Action which indicated its intent to award the contract to PSF. On December 28, 2009, Petitioner filed a Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Hearing (Petition) pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (2009), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-110.004. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2009), representatives from Petitioner and Respondent met in an attempt to settle or to resolve the formal bid protest filed by Petitioner. Respondent's representatives at the January 13, 2010, meeting included Tonja W. Matthews, Amy Johnson, Paul Hatcher, and Shahin Iranpour. Petitioner's representatives at the January 13, 2010, meeting were Thomas Petersen and Jennifer Fiorenza. No public notice was given ahead of, and no minutes were taken at, the meeting between Petitioner's representatives and Respondent's representatives on January 13, 2010. Respondent's representatives briefly met separately after hearing from Petitioner to determine whether or not any further questions or information was needed from Petitioner.1 After January 13, 2010, and before January 21, 2010, Respondent's representatives Amy Johnson, Rex Uberman, and Paul Hatcher individually or collectively discussed Petitioner's Bid Award Protest with some or all of the Respondent's personnel present at the January 13, 2010, meeting with Mr. Petersen and Ms. Fiorenza. They ultimately decided to uphold Respondent's Notice of Agency Action (issued December 18, 2009) as to the subject RFP. No public notice was given of the proposed agency action, i.e., Respondent's intended decision to uphold its Notice of Agency Action as to the subject RFP, nor were minutes taken which recorded this intended action. In a letter dated January 21, 2010, Respondent notified Petitioner of its decision to uphold its decision to award to PSF and inquired as to whether Petitioner wished to proceed with a formal hearing before DOAH. Petitioner responded in the affirmative, Respondent forwarded the Petition to DOAH, and this proceeding followed. Past Performance Section XIX of Attachment B sets forth "General Instructions for Preparation of the Proposal." Subparagraph F of Section XIX (found at page 17 of 73 of Joint Exhibit 1) provides, in part, as follows: F. Past Performance - (Volume 3) The purpose of this section is for the prospective Provider to demonstrate its knowledge and experience in operating similar programs by providing information requested on Attachment C, part I, II, and/or III. Each prospective Provider shall limit the Past Performance section to no more than 15 pages. These pages shall include the information requested on Attachment C, Parts I, II, and/or III and all required supporting documentation. . . . Attachment C, Part 1, is a form styled "Data Sheet: Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs" (page 21 of 73 of Joint Exhibit 1). That form has column headings for the vendor to insert the required information as follows: "Program Name," "Contract Number," "Program Type," "Contract Begin Date," "Contract End Date," "Most Recent QA Performance Percentage Score," "Most Recent QA Compliance Percentage Score (if evaluated prior to 2007)," "Failure to Report," "Number of Completions during FY 2006-2007," "2006-2007 Recidivism Rate," QA Deemed Status." Each column heading has a footnote that clarifies the type information required. For example, a footnote explains that QA is a reference to Quality Assurance. The column headed "Program Type" contains a footnote (footnote 3) which sets forth the non-residential programs that qualify for evaluation under the category "Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs" as follows: 3. During the past year from the date of the RFP issuance, the program type (Supervision, Day Treatment, Conditional Release, Respite, Independent Living, Diversion, Juvenile Assessment Centers) for the majority of the time the Vendor operated the program. Footnote 3 explicitly sets forth Diversion Programs and Juvenile Assessment Centers (JAC) as programs that will qualify for evaluation under the category "Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs." Petitioner did not file a challenge to the specifications of the procurement document within 72 hours of its posting as required by Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The scoring criteria and methodology for Past Performance are set forth in the RFP. Petitioner and PSF only operate programs in Florida. The scoring at issue in this proceeding is that of "Part I - Evaluation for Past Performance in Florida". Under that category, a vendor could receive a maximum of 420 points. Paul Hatcher is Respondent's employee who evaluated the responses to the Past Performance section of the RFP. Petitioner is the current provider of the services being solicited by the subject RFP. In its response to Attachment C, Petitioner listed that program in the appropriate columns of Attachment C. The program operated by Petitioner was appropriately listed because it is categorized by Respondent as being a non-residential program. There is no contention that Mr. Hatcher failed to appropriately evaluate Petitioner's Past Performance. Petitioner was awarded a total of 268 points under the Past Performance category, Part I - Evaluation for Past Performance in Florida. In its response to Attachment C, PSF listed one diversion program and two juvenile assessment centers (JAC) as non-residential programs it operated in the State of Florida. One JAC did not qualify for evaluation because it had not been in operation for a sufficient period of time. Mr. Hatcher evaluated PSF's Past Performance on the basis of the diversion program and one of the two JACs. PSF was awarded a total of 312 points under the Past Performance category, Part I - Evaluation for Past Performance in Florida. Mr. Hatcher appropriately included the diversion program and the JAC program in his evaluation of PSF's Past Performance for Non-Residential Programs because Footnote 3 explicitly includes those programs as programs non-residential programs that qualify for evaluation.2 There is no contention that Mr. Hatcher failed to score PSF's Past Performance in accordance with the scoring criteria and methodology set forth in the RFP. The RFP provides that vendors who operate DJJ contracted non-residential programs in Florida can be awarded a maximum of 1905 points. Respondent awarded PSF the higher overall score of 1422.27 points. Respondent awarded Petitioner a score of 1327.34 points. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent incorrectly scored the two responses to the RFP, and it failed to establish that Respondent incorrectly determined to award the procurement to PSF. Sunshine Law Section 120.57(3)(d)1., Florida Statutes, provides the following after a bid protest is filed: (d)1. The agency shall provide an opportunity to resolve the protest by mutual agreement between the parties within 7 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays, after receipt of a formal written protest. The purpose of the meeting on January 13, 2010, between the employees of Respondent and the representatives of Petitioner identified above, was to provide Petitioner an opportunity to argue why PSF should not be awarded the procurement. The group of employees represented Respondent's legal counsel and representatives from Respondent's Probation Programs (headed by Mr. Uberman) and its Bureau of Contracts (headed by Ms. Johnson). The purpose of the meeting was to determine the factual and legal basis for Petitioner's bid protest. The group of Respondent's employees who met with Petitioner's representatives on January 13, 2010, did not vote either during the meeting or after the meeting's conclusion. A day or two before she wrote her letter of January 21, 2010, Ms. Matthews contacted by telephone Ms. Johnson to determine whether the Bureau of Contracts thought some action other than the award of the procurement to PSF should be taken. Ms. Matthews also contacted by telephone Mr. Hatcher, who represented the Probation Programs, with the same inquiry. Ms. Johnson made the decision that the position of the Contract division was to uphold the award to PSF. Mr. Hatcher, after consulting with Mr. Uberman, made the decision that the position of the Probation Programs was to uphold the award to PSF. In separate telephone calls the Contract division and the Probation division advised Ms. Matthews that the award to PSF should be upheld. Ms. Matthews thereafter prepared and sent the letter that advised the vendors of the DJJ's decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order that denies Petitioner's bid protest and upholds the award of the procurement to PSF. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 1st day of December, 2010.
