Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Donald C. Munafo was certified by the Department of Education and employed on continuing contract by the Pinellas County School Board as a physical education instructor at the 16th Street Middle School in Clearwater. He has been employed by the Pinellas County School Board for approximately 15 years. Munafo has been involved in photography for a number of years and has done professional photography for ten years as a sideline to his primary occupation as a school teacher. He is a member of Bay Photographic Association located in the Tampa Bay area, which is an affiliate of Florida Professional Photographers. In May 1984 Richard Norgrove, who also taught at 16th Street Middle School, formed Edventure Media, Inc., to provide himself and his wife with a tax shelter and to produce educational and training videos. Knowing Munafo to be a professional photographer, Norgrove consulted with him as to ideas on equipment Norgrove needed. After forming the corporation and making a few training films, Norgrove decided to produce a video of a "cat fight," which involves two females in brawl. He advertised for models to engage in a wrestling match and employed two who responded to his ad. Norgrove prepared a simple script and did the filming at his home. He requested Munafo to take some stills during the video filming to use to advertise copies of the cat fight for sale. To accommodate Norgrove, Munafo took still photographs of the models while Norgrove made the videotape of the girls tearing each others. clothes off and simulating a real fight. By the end of the video each girl was wearing only panties. This video was titled "The Dress." Shortly thereafter, Norgrove decided to make another cat fight video and again advertised for models. One of the girls answering the ad was Lisa Anderson. Norgrove again asked Munafo to take still shots while Norgrove made the videotape. Again Munafo agreed to help in the endeavor, knowing that the still shots would be used to promote the video and/or sold. Munafo received no compensation from Norgrove other than the cost to Munafo for supplies and for developing the pictures. During the taking of this video, which was titled "The Boyfriend," both of the models were reduced to complete nudity. Lisa Anderson was one of the girls involved in the video of "The Boyfriend." Lisa Anderson had answered Norgrove's ad by telephone, and they first met at a bar where Lisa was served alcoholic beverages. She had told Norgrove she was 23 years old and was anxious to make some money modeling and did not object to removing her clothes. Lisa subsequently signed a release stating that she was over 18 years old. As a matter of fact, Lisa was 17 when the video and subsequent photographs of her were taken. Lisa did not testify in these proceedings, but led Norgrove to believe she had been married twice and at the time the video was made was living with two men. One newspaper article (Exhibit 20) stated she was the mother of two children. Norgrove packaged "The Dress" and "The Boyfriend" on one cassette (Exhibit 8) and advertised it for sale in adult magazines under the title "Battling Beauties." He sold between 20 and 50 of these cassettes for approximately $60 each. Munafo took no part in promoting the cassette, mailing the cassettes, nor did he receive any percentage of the money Norgrove received for the sale of the cassettes. Following the filming of "The Boyfriend" Lisa called Norgrove several times to see if he had more jobs for her since she needed to make some money. Finally, Norgrove told her that he might be able to sell some nude photos of her to a publishing house but could not guarantee their sale. He offered to take the pictures and if they sold split the proceeds with her. Lisa agreed and Norgrove decided his sailboat would provide a good background location for the photo sessions. Again he requested Munafo to come along and take the photographs while he, Norgrove, ran the sailboat. At the appointed time they sailed out into open water where Lisa stripped and assumed various poses while Munafo took pictures. These pictures were admitted into evidence as Exhibits. Upon returning to shore, the three of them went to Munafo's house where Norgrove did another video of Lisa in the nude doing exercises. During the making of this video Munafo was downstairs and came up to the studio less than a minute before the video was completed. At this time Lisa was jumping on a small trampoline and Munafo suggested to Norgrove that he take some shots from the floor looking up. For the photos of Lisa taken in the sailboat, Munafo was again reimbursed only for the film and cost of developing the pictures he took. All told Eventure Media, Inc., paid Munafo less than $100.00 for the costs he incurred in shooting the pictures requested by Norgrove. Munafo's testimony was uncontradicted and corroborated by Norgrove that all Munafo expected to receive from his participation were his expenses and the expectation that he would meet a model he could later employ to pose for a figure study. Munafo is a serious photographer who participates in many of the competitions sponsored by photography groups, both local and statewide. Exhibit 16 was admitted as a copy of a figure study Munafo entered in a photo contest and took second place. In the interim the local police received information that Norgrove had been making pornographic videotapes and they alerted the United States Postal Inspectors. Their investigation revealed that Lisa Anderson was 17 years old at the time the videos and photographs were taken. 18 USC §2251, et seq., makes it a federal crime to use anyone under the age of 18 as a participant in a sexually explicit film or to transmit such film through the United States mail. After obtaining copies of the video cassettes and still photographs, the federal authorities obtained an indictment against Norgrove and Munafo and arrested them on March 4, 1985. The time of their arrest was the first inkling either had that Lisa Anderson was under the age of 18. News of the arrest of three Pinellas County school teachers (Norgrove's wife was also arrested) charged with distributing sexually explicit films involving minors received wide dissemination from the local press and, by reason of the implications of "kiddie-porn," the events leading to the trial in federal court and the results of that trial were closely followed and reported by the press. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the Norgroves negotiated a plea of guilty of conspiracy and received a lenient sentence. Munafo went to trial and was acquitted of all charges by the jury (Exhibit 17). Following the arrest of Munafo and the Norgroves, they were suspended by the School Board and hearings were requested. The Department of Education preferred charges to discipline their certificates based on the same allegations made by the School Board in their suspensions, and all cases were consolidated for hearing. Continuances were granted to await the outcome of the federal proceedings before conducting these administrative proceedings. Following the Norgroves negotiating a plea in the federal court trial, they withdrew their request for a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing and were dropped from these proceedings. No evidence was presented that Respondent showed explicit sexual films or pictures to other teachers as is alleged in the charging document by the Superintendent. Nor was any testimony presented to show that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system was seriously reduced by the publicity associated with his arrest, trial and subsequent acquittal. The primary, if not sole, basis for the disciplinary action proposed by the School Board and the Department of Education is whether the actions of Munafo in taking sexually explicit photographs of Lisa Anderson and another woman constitute immorality, misconduct in office, gross immorality or moral turpitude, or conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness in the Pinellas County school system. The photographs which form the basis of these charges are similar to those published in adult magazines such as Penthouse, Hustler, Playboy, Cavalier, etc., which are transmitted through the United States mail and are displayed on the magazine racks of vendors of newspapers and magazines in drugstores, airports, bookstores, and newsstands open to the general public. Petitioner produced two witnesses to testify to the immorality of one who would take explicit sexual photographs. Neither of these witnesses is a professional photographer although one teaches photography in a Pinellas County school. He did not believe a teacher should be held to a higher moral standard respecting activities totally unassociated with the school than is a member of the general public, but his personal moral convictions would preclude him from taking such pictures. Petitioner's other witness, John F. Joyce, Ed.D., opined that it was immoral for a school teacher to take such photographs as were taken by Respondent. Dr. Joyce, however, did not think it immoral for a teacher to look at pornographic photographs in Hustler magazine with prurient interests or even to be editor of such a magazine. How the work of an editor, in deciding which I pornographic photographs will sell the most magazines and still be within the letter of the law so as to avoid prosecution or a ban of the sales in a magazine, can be all right while the mechanic (or artist), who opens the shutter of the camera to expose the film and record the pornographic pose is immoral, completely eludes me. Accordingly, little weight is accorded this opinion. Nor is the age of Lisa Anderson at the time these photographs were taken relevant to the charge of immorality. Respondent certainly thought he was taking a photograph of a woman over the age of 18; and such opinion was justified by the physical appearance of Lisa, by the model release form she signed (Exhibit 10) stating she was over 18, by her marital history, and by her reported living arrangements (with two men). The photographs taken on the sailboat (Exhibits 1-5) clearly fit the category of sexually explicit and are more pornographic than are the stills Munafo took during the videotaping of he cat fights. Accordingly, the outcome of these proceedings can be said to stand or fall on whether the taking of these photographs (Exhibits 1-5) constitutes immorality or gross immorality by a school teacher. In making this ultimate finding of fact it is significant that such photographs are protected by the First Amendment provided the model is over 18 that such photographs can be sent through the United States mail system without any violation of the law (again if the model is over 18) that the sole basis for the criminal charges preferred against this Respondent was the age of the model used that it would not be considered an offense involving moral turpitude or jeopardize any license they have if a lawyer, doctor, banker, or broker took such photographs that Munafo was acquitted of these criminal charges that in these criminal charges specific intent is not an element of the offense and that Munafo reasonably believed that Lisa Anderson was over 18 at the time these photographs were taken. Lisa Anderson had no apparent connection to the Pinellas County school system and none of the filming had any connection to a school or school system or in any way indicated the model was a minor. From these findings comes the ultimate finding of fact that taking these photographs of Lisa Anderson does not constitute immorality, gross immorality, or misconduct in office.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint, as amended, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters At all times material hereto, respondent, Eston Mansfield, held Florida teaching certificate number 691581, covering the area of middle grades mathematics, grades 5 through 9. Such certificate expired June 30, 1995. At the time of the incidents at issue, respondent was, from time to time, employed as a substitute teacher by the School Board of Dade County, Florida, and the School Board of Broward County, Florida. Moreover, during such times, respondent was also self-employed, as a professional photographer. The incident in question In or about February 1993, A. E., a fifteen year old female, was referred to respondent, who she understood to be a professional photographer. 2/ At the time, A. E. was entertaining an interest in modeling, and had need for a modeling portfolio. A. E. and respondent spoke by telephone, and respondent agreed to do the photographs for the portfolio, and quoted a price between $1,500 and $2,000. When A. E. told respondent she could not afford the cost, respondent countered by telling her that he was looking for a model to practice some nude photography and that if she would agree to pose for the photographs he would do the photographs for the portfolio at no charge. A. E. agreed to the trade. At the time A. E. spoke with respondent, she was not a student, having "legally withdrawn" from school, was sharing an apartment with her older sister, age 18, and their respective boyfriends. A. E.'s boyfriend at the time was older than A. E., and A. E., although underage, was not a stranger to alcohol. Although A. E. and respondent had no personal contact prior to their telephone conversation, respondent had visited with her sister in the past, in an effort to interest her in a wedding portfolio, and was aware of A. E. and her living arrangements. Respondent was further aware that A. E. was the younger of the two sisters and knew, before the photography session hereinafter discussed, that A. E. was 15 years of age. In February or March, 1993, A. E., together with her friend, Wendy Colvin, went to respondent's home for the anticipated photography session. As described at hearing, respondent's home included an area that was suitably equipped for professional photography and the session, based on the persuasive proof, appears to have been conducted in a professional manner. 3/ Before the session began, respondent offered and A. E. accepted an alcoholic drink to help her "relax". Thereafter, A. E. posed in several sets of lingerie that she had brought for the session, and then posed for a number of nude photographs. Apart from the observation that some of the lingerie A. E. wore was her sister's wedding lingerie, the record is devoid of any descriptive observations from which one could draw any reliable, as opposed to speculative, conclusion as to its character. Likewise, the record is largely devoid of any descriptive observations of the lingerie or nude photographs, such that one cannot draw any reliable, as opposed to speculative, conclusion regarding their character or content. Notably, the photographs were not exhibited or offered at hearing, and only the vaguest of descriptions elicited from the witnesses. In A. E.'s opinion, some of the photographs "were tasteful, some were not." In respondent's opinion, some of the photographs that might be described as "tasteless" did not meet "a professional standard," which he attributed to A. E.'s amateur status and unfamiliarity with proper positioning or posing. 4/ Given the paucity of proof concerning the character or content of the photographs, it cannot be concluded that the photographs, in whole or in part, offended contemporary community standards by predominantly appealing to prurient, shameful or morbid interest, that the photographs were without any serious artistic value, or that the photographs were otherwise obscene, as that term is commonly understood. Moreover, there was no proof offered, by student, teacher, or otherwise, that respondent's practice of nude photography, albeit with a 15-year-old girl, otherwise offended community values or reduced his effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be rendered dismissing the charges filed against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1996.
The Issue Whether the decision of Respondent, Seminole County School Board, not to include Petitioner, Cady Studios, LLC, in its award of a yearbook and photography services contract was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, School Board, operates the public school system established for the School District of Seminole County, Florida. See § 1001.30, Fla. Stat. The School Board oversees 37 elementary schools, 12 middle schools, nine high schools, and seven special centers. The Seminole County School District includes over 67,000 students. The School Board is an authorized governmental entity allowed to contract for commodities or services using the competitive solicitation process set forth in section 287.057, Florida Statutes. See §§ 1010.04 and 1001.41(4), Fla. Stat. On July 18, 2017, the School Board published [Request for Proposal] #17180001P-LL, Yearbook and Photography Services (the “RFP”). Through the RFP, the School Board solicited qualified vendors to provide Photography Services to Seminole County Public Schools. The initial contract for the Photography Services runs for three years, with a possible extension of another two years. Prior to this RFP, the School Board had never used a request for proposal to solicit the Photography Services. Thirteen photography and yearbook vendors, including Cady Studios, responded to the RFP. Ultimately, as further explained below, the School Board determined to offer the top seven vendors a contract to provide the Photography Services. Cady Studios was ranked eighth. Consequently, Cady Studios was not selected under the RFP. Cady Studios is a family-owned portrait company based in Florida and has provided school portrait services since 1998. Cady Studios has partnered with over 50 schools in central Florida, and is an approved vendor in 35 Florida school districts. The School Board published the RFP, as well as an Addendum, on VendorLink and Demand Star websites. The School Board used these two on-line platforms to disseminate information regarding the solicitation to interested vendors. The School Board provided links to VendorLink and Demand Star on the district’s website. After the School Board posted the RFP on July 18, 2017, the School Board did not receive any protests to the terms, conditions, or specifications contained in the RFP.5/ Pertinent to this matter, Cady Studios never protested the RFP’s terms, conditions, or specifications, or the School Board’s decision to competitively solicit bids for the Photography Services under section 287.057. As stated in the RFP, the School Board conducted a pre- proposal conference on July 27, 2017. During this meeting, the School Board offered interested vendors the opportunity to ask questions about the RFP, as well as educate themselves about the process. Cady Studios did not attend the pre-proposal conference. On August 2, 2017, the School Board posted an Addendum to the RFP which requested specific pricing information for the Photography Services to be offered to high schools, middle schools, and/or elementary schools in Seminole County. Proposals for the Photography Services were due on August 15, 2017. Thirteen school photography and yearbook vendors, including Cady Studios, presented proposals in response to the RFP. RFP, Section V, directed each vendor to deliver “One (1) original, One (1) copy, and ten (10) electronic [USB] thumb drive version[s]” of its proposal to the School Board. To score the proposals, as set forth in RFP, Section IV, 1.A, the School Board formed an Evaluation Committee. The voting members consisted of an executive director from an elementary school, a middle school, and a high school (or their designees), as well as a local business advisory member. A non-voting School Board member was also included on the Evaluation Committee. The individuals selected to serve as the voting members of the Evaluation Committee included Dr. Trent Daniel (Principal, Lake Brantley High School); Byron Durias (Principal, Sanford Middle School); Tina Langdon (Principal, Sabal Point Elementary School); and Donald Miller (Business Advisory Member). Karen Almond served as the non-voting School Board member. After the School Board assembled the Evaluation Committee, the four voting members received training on the RFP’s scoring procedure. The training was conducted by Luangel Lowder, the School Board’s Purchasing Agent, on August 17, 2017. Ms. Lowder drafted and prepared the RFP. She also facilitated the RFP process. Ms. Lowder distributed training notes to each evaluator, which included guidance on how to score the proposals. In her written comments, Ms. Lowder wrote, “The Vendor Submittals are on Individual Jump Drives. I do have a hard copy if needed.” Ms. Lowder also provided “Adjectival Descriptor Rating Guidelines,” which the voting members were to use to score the proposals. Regarding a score of “0,” the guidelines explained: Unsatisfactory (0): Not responsive to question. “Unsatisfactory” is defined as a response not meeting the requirements without major revisions and proposes an unacceptable risk. “Unsatisfactory” demonstrates a misunderstanding of the requirements; the approach fails to meet performance or capability standard and contains major omissions and inadequate detail to assure the evaluator that the respondent has an understanding of the requirement. RFP, Sections IV and V, also listed the specific evaluation criteria, as well as the adjectival scoring system, the Evaluation Committee was to use to determine each vendor’s score. RFP, Section V, directed that “[e]ach response shall be organized and presented in the following sequence and will include the following at a minimum”: Tab 1-Respondent’s Profile and Submittal Letter (Non- Scored) Tab 2-Experience of Personnel (Weighted Value 25) Tab 3-Technical Approach Methodology (Weighted Value 30) Tab 4-References (Weighted Value 10) Tab 5-Fee Schedule (Weighted Value 35) Tab 6-Confidential Materials, Financial Statement and Litigation (Non-Scored) Tab 7-Exceptions to Draft Contract (Non-Scored) Tab 8-Addenda (Non-Scored) Tab 9-Required Documents (Non-Scored) The proposals were to be scored on a scale of 0 to 4 with a score of 0 as the least favorable, and a score of 4 as the most favorable in all sections. RFP, Section IV, 1.C, noted that a vendor’s response would receive a score of 0 if it was “Unsatisfactory: Not responsive to the question.” The RFP did not provide objective measures for the evaluators to score the proposals. Instead, the School Board relied on the experience and judgment of each evaluator as to what score to award in each category. The RFP notified vendors that, after the proposals were evaluated, the Evaluation Committee might conduct interviews or presentations from a shortlist of vendors. Per the terms of the RFP, the School Board required each winning vendor to enter into a Master Services Agreement. The Master Services Agreement was to ensure that each vendor for the Photography Services complied with, and operated under, the same terms and conditions. These standard terms and conditions included, but were not limited to, requirements for background checks, licenses, certificates of insurance, as well as the use of a common commission’s structure. Thereafter, the School Board intended for each district school to select a company from the list of approved vendors from whom they desired to obtain the Photography Services. After the 13 vendors presented their proposals on August 15, 2017, the School Board distributed a thumb [USB] drive from each vendor to each Evaluation Committee member. At that point, each committee member separately scored each proposal using the four weighted criteria listed in RFP, Section V: Experience of Personnel (25 points), Technical Approach Methodology (30 points), References (10 points), and Fee Schedule (35 points). On September 21, 2017, the Evaluation Committee convened a “short-list meeting” to discuss the scores each committee member awarded to each vendor. When Cady Studios’ proposal came up for review, two committee members, Dr. Trent Daniel and Byron Durias, announced that the USB drives they had been given for Cady Studios were blank. Dr. Daniel had tried her USB drive on two computers with similar results: the USB drive did not contain any files. Ms. Lowder then asked both members if they wished to review another USB drive or a paper copy of Cady Studios’ presentation so that they could score its proposal. Dr. Daniel declined. On her score sheet for Cady Studios, Dr. Daniel wrote before the short-list meeting, “could not read USB - empty.” During the discussion between the other evaluators, Dr. Daniel added: “notes, experience limited, reference from school, senior package high, presentation of bid, partnership w/ Herff Jones.” At the end of the discourse, because she had no proposal to score, Dr. Daniel disclosed to the Evaluation Committee that she awarded Cady Studios a score of “0” in every category. Mr. Durias, however, was willing to evaluate Cady Studios during the short-list meeting. Therefore, Ms. Lowder provided him another USB drive that did contain Cady Studios’ proposal. After his review, Mr. Durias awarded Cady Studios: 3 – Experience of Personnel, 2 – Technical Approach Methodology, 1 – References, and 2 – Fee Schedule. Each USB drive that Tina Langdon and Donald Miller received for Cady Studios contained its proposal, which they scored. Ms. Langdon awarded Cady Studios: 3 – Experience of Personnel, 2 – Technical Approach Methodology, 3 – References, and 3 – Fee Schedule. Mr. Miller awarded Cady Studios: 3 – Experience of Personnel, 2 – Technical Approach Methodology, 3 – References, and 2 – Fee Schedule. At the final hearing, Dr. Daniel explained that she passed on the opportunity to rescore Cady Studios’ proposal because, in her mind, a blank response (or USB drive) equated to a nonresponsive proposal. In other words, she scored what she had been given. Cady Studios’ proposal was “unsatisfactory” because it contained no response to the questions. Dr. Daniel further commented that Cady Studios’ failure to ensure that its proposal was properly copied onto all of its USB drives was irresponsible and unprofessional. This carelessness gave Dr. Daniel apprehension about the quality of service Cady Studios would provide if it could not follow the RFP’s explicit directions. Following the discussion and scoring of the vendors’ proposals, the Evaluation Committee members ranked all 13 vendors by overall total weighted scores. The Evaluation Committee’s final list of vendors and their scores read as follows: Grad Images: 1335 Life Touch: 1290 Leonard’s: 1272.5 Dean Stewart: 1140 Strawbridge: 1095 Josten’s: 1030 Walsworth: 1010 Cady Studios: 720 Barksdale: 715 Nation Wide: 710 Monden Studios: 705 Herff Jones: 670 Ritoba: 585 As shown above, Cady Studios received the eighth highest score. The Evaluation Committee then discussed which vendors it should invite back for informal interviews. After a brief deliberation, the Evaluation Committee reached a consensus that it should extend an interview to the top seven vendors on the scoring list. Dr. Daniel and Ms. Lowder explained that this division was chosen because of the “natural break” in the scores between the seventh ranked vendor (Walsworth) and the eighth ranked vendor (Cady Studios). Ms. Lowder relayed that the relatively large scoring differential between Walsworth (1010) and Cady Studios (720) (nearly 300 points) appeared to separate the top vendors from the others. Therefore, to narrow down the list of vendors to those most qualified to provide the Photography Services, the Evaluation Committee chose this gap as the dividing line. Dr. Daniel relayed that she had previously used this “natural break” scoring technique in cheerleading and dance competitions. Ms. Lowder testified that the RFP did not establish an exact number of vendors the School Board should select to provide the Photography Services. Neither did the RFP state how the vendors were to be condensed, if at all. The Evaluation Committee, however, felt that the number of approved vendors should be limited. A truncated list of vendors would provide a more manageable group for the School Board to oversee to ensure that each vendor offered a similar pricing structure and consistent services. This action would also make it easier for individual schools to select the vendor with which they desired to work. As a result of the Evaluation Committee’s “natural break” methodology, Cady Studios was not grouped with the winning vendors for the Photography Services. As a non-selected vendor, Cady Studios was not authorized to offer Photography Services to the district schools for the length of the RFP contract period (3 to 5 years). Cheryl Olsen serves as the School Board’s Director of Purchasing and Distribution. In this role, she supervised the procurement activities. After the Evaluation Committee’s short- list meeting, Ms. Olsen prepared a “Short List Letter” for the top seven vendors. The letter notified the vendors of their ranking on the short list and invited them back for informal interviews with the Evaluation Committee. On September 22, 2017, Ms. Lowder forwarded Ms. Olsen’s letter to the seven short-listed vendors. The interviews were scheduled for September 28, 2017. On September 28, 2017, the Evaluation Committee met with each of the seven short-listed vendors. Following the interviews, the Evaluation Committee decided that the School Board should offer the Photography Services to all seven short- listed vendors. That afternoon, Ms. Olsen drafted a Notice of Intended Decision announcing the intent to award the RFP to the top seven vendors. Ms. Olsen posted the Notice of Intended Decision on-line through both VendorLink and Demand Star. The Notice of Intended Decision stated: The Purchasing and Distribution Services Department hereby notifies all firms of an intended decision regarding the award of the [RFP] as outlined below or attached. The firms on the attached list will be recommended to the School Board on October 17, 2017 with final contracts to be presented at a future meeting. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of the proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.[6/] Attached to the Notice of Intended Decision was the list of the seven vendors who the Evaluation Committee intended to recommend to the School Board for award of the RFP. Cady Studios was not included on the list. On October 10, 2017, the School Board formally approved an award of the Photography Services to the seven vendors identified in the Notice of Intended Decision. On November 7, 2017, the School Board entered into a Master Services Agreement with each of the seven winning vendors for the Photography Services. The initial term of the Master Services Agreements runs from November 8, 2017, through November 7, 2020. Jimmy Smith works as the Market Vice President for Cady Studios. In his role, Mr. Smith oversees all of Cady Studios’ photography services in Florida. Mr. Smith prepared Cady Studios’ proposal for the RFP. Mr. Smith explained that he is familiar with the competitive solicitation process. He has previously submitted proposals on behalf of Cady Studios for school photography services in Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Brevard Counties. In a typical school portrait arrangement, the parents/students directly pay the studio for the photography services. The studio then pays a commission back to the school. Prior to the RFP, Cady Studios was an approved vendor for the School Board. Cady Studios had worked with approximately four schools in the Seminole County School District. Mr. Smith was also familiar with VendorLink and Demand Star, the on-line platforms the School Board used to publish information regarding the RFP. Mr. Smith learned about the RFP after the School Board had already posted notice of the solicitation on July 18, 2017. However, by August 9, 2017, Mr. Smith had registered Cady Studios with VendorLink, and began receiving the notifications regarding the RFP. On Sunday, September 24, 2017, Mr. Smith found out about the Evaluation Committee’s short-list from another vendor. Mr. Smith then accessed the VendorLink website and spotted the Evaluation Committee’s invitation to the seven top vendors to return for informal interviews. When he discovered that Cady Studios was not included on the list, he concluded that Cady Studios would not be awarded the Photography Services contract. Mr. Smith promptly wrote an e-mail to Ms. Lowder. He asked her for any information as to why Cady Studios did not make the Evaluation Committee’s shortlist. Ms. Lowder received Mr. Smith’s e-mail the following morning on Monday, September 25, 2017. She replied to Mr. Smith both through an e-mail, as well as a phone call. During the phone call, Ms. Lowder offered to meet with Mr. Smith for a “debriefing” to review the Evaluation Committee’s decision. Ms. Lowder did not offer any information as to why Cady Studios was not included with the short-listed vendors. Ms. Lowder and Mr. Smith scheduled the debriefing meeting for Thursday, October 5, 2017. In the meantime, Mr. Smith received the School Board’s Notice of Intended Decision on September 28, 2017. He did not contact Ms. Lowder to reschedule the debriefing meeting. On October 5, 2017, Mr. Smith met with Ms. Lowder and Ms. Olson for the debriefing meeting. They reviewed the results of the Evaluation Committee’s short-list meeting, as well as each evaluator’s scores. During this meeting, Mr. Smith first discovered that one evaluator (Dr. Daniel) scored Cady Studios’ proposal with a “0” in every category. Mr. Smith further learned that Cady Studios received this score because the USB drive Dr. Daniel had been given was blank. At the final hearing, Mr. Smith adamantly declared that all 10 USB drives that he produced for the School Board contained Cady Studios’ proposal. He had no idea why two of the drives were blank when opened by Dr. Daniel and Mr. Durias. Mr. Smith also pointed out (correctly) that the RFP contained no provisions regarding what an evaluator was supposed to do with a blank USB drive. The RFP certainly did not direct the evaluator to score the proposal with all zeros. In his communications with Ms. Lowder, Mr. Smith never indicated that Cady Studios intended to protest the School Board’s ranking of vendors, or challenge the School Board’s decision in any other manner. However, on October 12, 2017, legal counsel for Cady Studios, Jeff Childers (Cady Studios’ counsel in this administrative matter), wrote to Ms. Olsen questioning the results of the RFP. Mr. Childers referenced the fact that one evaluator failed “to assign any points in any category to Cady.” Mr. Childers concluded by requesting that the School Board consider resolving this issue informally by allowing Cady Studios “to join the other seven authorized proposers” to provide Photography Services to district schools. On October 16, 2017, Ms. Olsen responded to Mr. Childers in a letter saying: The Notice of Intent to Award this solicitation was posted on September 28, 2017 at 2:24 p.m. In accordance with School Board Policy 7.71, Resolution of Bid Protests, “Any person who claims to be adversely affected by a proposed award of a bid and who has standing to protest an award of a bid, may file a written notice of protest with the Office of the Superintendent or Clerk of the School Board not later than seventy-two (72) hours of the time of the posting of the bid tabulation.” Ms. Olsen then noted that, as of the date of her letter, Cady Studios had not filed a written notice of protest with the Office of the Superintendent or Clerk of the School Board. At the final hearing, Ms. Olsen (as well as Ms. Lowder) explained that, because the School Board posted its Notice of Intended Decision on Thursday, September 28, 2017, the 72-hour deadline to file a protest fell on Tuesday, October 3, 2017. (Saturday, September 30, 2017, and Sunday, October 1, 2017, are excluded in the computation of the 72-hour time period. See § 120.57(3)(b), Fla. Stat.) The fact that Mr. Smith’s debriefing meeting occurred two days after the 72-hour period had elapsed did not change the protest calculation. As described above, the School Board’s Notice of Intended Decision specifically stated, in pertinent part: Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of the proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Similarly, RFP, General Purchasing Terms and Condition, Paragraph 10, entitled, RFP TABULATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PROTEST, addressed the possibility of a bid protest and stated: Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3) Florida Statutes will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes and School Board Rules.[7/] Paragraph 10 also referenced School Board Policy 7.71, Resolution of RFP Protest, and included a link to the School Board’s policy webpage where the Policy 7.71 could be accessed. Policy 7.71, Section V, states: Notice of Protest - Any person who claims to be adversely affected by a proposed award of a bid and who has standing to protest an award of a bid, may file a written notice of protest with the Office of the Superintendent or Clerk of the School Board not later than seventy-two (72) hours of the time of the posting of the bid tabulation. In the event notice of intent to award a bid is issued by certified mail or express delivery service return receipt requested, the notice of protest must be filed on or before 4:30 p.m. on the third day following the date of receipt of the notice. In computing the deadline for filing, Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays observed by the School Board shall be excluded. Despite Ms. Olsen’s letter, as well as the language regarding protests in the RFP and the Notice of Intended Decision, Cady Studios formally filed a Notice of Protest with the School Board on November 9, 2017. At the final hearing, Mr. Smith acknowledged that 72 hours following the Notice of Intended Decision (not including Saturday and Sunday) fell on October 3, 2017. Therefore, to explain the delay in submitting Cady Studios’ Notice of Protest, Mr. Smith testified that he did not become aware of the material deficiencies in the Evaluation Committee’s review of Cady Studios’ proposal until he met with Ms. Lowder on October 5, 2017. Mr. Smith further admitted that he was not fully aware that Cady Studios only had 72 hours in which to protest the Notice of Intended Decision. Instead, he relied on Ms. Lowder to explain the RFP process, as well as the basis for the Evaluation Committee’s selection of the winning vendors. Consequently, Mr. Smith asserted that Cady Studios “was misled or lulled into inaction by” the School Board’s (Ms. Lowder’s) action of not scheduling a debriefing meeting until two days after the 72-hour protest window had closed. Mr. Smith maintained that if he had been informed of the deadline, Cady Studios would have filed immediately. Mr. Smith conceded that he was familiar with the protest language contained in the RFP’s General Purchasing Terms and Conditions, and was generally aware that the RFP referred to section 120.57(3). Mr. Smith further disclosed that he had read RFP, Paragraph 10, which identified Policy 7.71. However, he did not click the link to actually read the policy. Mr. Smith estimated that, by not making the School Board’s list of approved vendors for the Photography Services, it will lose approximately $2,000,000 worth of business and opportunity costs every year over the life of the contract. At the final hearing, Ms. Lowder responded to Mr. Smith’s testimony by pointing out that, even if Dr. Daniel had awarded Cady Studios with a “1” in each category, Cady Studios’ score would only have increased to 820. As the next lowest score to Cady Studios was 1010, Cady Studios’ adjusted score would still have fallen significantly below the top seven vendors. Continuing to conjecture, Ms. Lowder commented that if Dr. Daniel had given Cady Studios scores similar to the lowest score awarded by the other committee members, Cady Studios’ score would have equaled 935. This score is still below the “natural break” threshold of 1010. On cross examination, however, Ms. Lowder agreed that if Dr. Daniel awarded Cady Studios scores similar to the highest score awarded by the other committee members, Cady Studios would have received a score of 990--much closer to, but still below, the “natural break.” Ms. Lowder and Ms. Olsen also remarked that November 9, 2017, the date Cady Studios eventually filed its Notice of Protest, was 27 business days after the deadline to file a bid protest (and 25 business days after Mr. Smith learned the Evaluation Committee’s scores at the debriefing meeting). Cady Studios’ Notice of Protest was also submitted after the School Board had entered into a Master Service Agreement with each of the seven winning vendors. As discussed in detail below, the evidence presented at the final hearing establishes that Cady Studios failed to timely file its notice of protest within 72 hours after the School Board posted its Notice of Intended Decision. Further, Cady Studios did not prove that it may circumvent the filing deadline based on the defense of equitable tolling. Therefore, Cady Studios’ challenge of the School Board’s intended award of the Photography Services must be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board enter a final order dismissing Cady Studios’ protest as untimely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 23rd day of January, 2019.
