Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and agreements of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The costs and attorney fees sought by BTST in the amount of $2,344, are adequately substantiated and constitute reasonable costs and attorney fees for the representation of BTST in DOAH Case No. 88-3885. DOAH Case No. 88-3885 resulted in a Final Order granting recertification as a minority business enterprise to BTST. Therefore, BTST was a prevailing party in that case. The underlying agency action that resulted in DOAH Case No. 88-3885, was a Department letter of July 18, 1988, to BTST which notified BTST that its application for recertification was denied, stated the reasons for denial, and advised BTST of its right to request a hearing if it was dissatisfied with the Department's decision. The Department's letter of July 18, 1988, "initiated" the subsequent formal administrative proceedings. Business Telephone systems of Tallahassee, Inc., is a "small business party." The Department of General Services has the responsibility to certify and recertify minority business enterprises. The Department has developed a procedure which is followed by the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office in processing applications for certification and recertification. Upon receipt of an application, the entire business file is assigned by the supervisor of certification activities to an eligibility examiner, frequently referred to as a "reviewer." The reviewer conducts a desk audit and review, searches the Division of Corporation records, and by letter requests any items omitted from the application. The applicant then has 30 days in which to respond by sending the requested information to the Minority Business Enterprise Assistant Office. After receipt of requested additional information, the reviewer schedules an on-site interview with applicants whose eligibility for MBE status cannot be determined immediately. After the on-site review, the reviewer listens to the tape recording of the interview and completes the on- site review questionnaire form. At this point, all documents and on-site interview responses are reviewed by the eligibility examiner for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to grant or deny certification or recertification. The supervisor of certification activities reviews the recommendation and all materials related to the business for the purpose of either concurring or questioning the recommendation. The file is then referred to the coordinator of the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office for independent review. If the recommendation is for denial of MBE certification or recertification, the file is forwarded to the Office of the General Counsel for review of all documents, information, recommendations and findings by a staff attorney. By memorandum to the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office, the staff attorney will either concur in the recommendation or raise legal questions. In the case of concurrence, a letter of denial is prepared. Legal questions about the potential denial are generally resolved by discussion with all involved staff persons. BTST, a company principally engaged in sales, installation, and service of telephone systems and equipment, filed an application for recertification as a Minority Business Enterprise on April 13, 1988. The application was assigned to Stephen Johnson, an eligibility examiner of the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office. The initial recommendation to deny recertification of Petitioner was made by Stephen Johnson. Stephen Johnson received training by the Department in minority business enterprise certification and recertification review during his tenure at DGS. As the first step in the review process, Stephen Johnson, the eligibility examiner, performed a desk audit of the application, noting changes in ownership, management, daily operations, and domicile of the company. He also conducted a document search of State of Florida corporate records which revealed different corporate ownership than that which BTST stated in the application and different composition of the Board of Directors of three non- minority members and two minority members. Upon request of the eligibility examiner, additional documents were submitted by BTST. These documents named Mr. William Nuce as president and treasurer of BTST, listed a Board of Directors composed of one minority person and three non-minority persons, and included a BTST lease agreement signed by William Nuce as President of BTST and attested by Nancy Nuce, Secretary of BTST. An amendment to the lease dated May 4, 1988, was signed in the same manner. Upon review by the eligibility examiner and his supervisor of the information submitted by BTST, changes in the business raised the question of whether a minority person controlled the management and operations of the business. The application for recertification revealed that two of the three women owners of BTST "no longer performed any duties for the company." The minority owner who left the company possessed significant technical knowledge about the telephone systems business which in previous certifications of BTST had been a dispositive factor in the determination. William Nuce had not been working full-time for the company until January 1988. Until that time, the company had been run by three women, one being an out-of-state resident. With the concurrence of his supervisor, the eligibility examiner scheduled an on-site visit to BTST for the purpose of acquiring a new description of how the business operated and to establish whether the applicant owner was eligible for MBE certification. The on-site interview was tape recorded During the on-site review, Mrs. Nuce, the minority owner of BTST, made statements which were considered significant by DGS minority certification reviewers. Mrs. Nuce explained decision-making by her husband William Nuce and herself at BTST as "It is really a partnership." In response to the question, "Is anyone considered a supervisory person?", Mrs. Nuce stated, "Well, I guess Bill would be." Then she was asked, "Is he the installer supervisor?" and Nancy Nuce replied, "Yeah, I would say so." Continuing the on-site interview, in response to the question, "[W]ho employed Don?" Mrs. Nuce replied, "We both went to Jacksonville to where Don lived and interviewed Don in Jacksonville and we discussed it on the way back and when we got back Bill called him and offered him the job." She also said that William Nuce had invested "almost twice" as much as she had in the business. The occupational license issued by the City of Tallahassee was in the name of William Nuce. Concerning a truck which was the only large piece of equipment of the business, Mrs. Nuce said, "Bill signed the guarantee on it." Mrs. Nuce had never received a salary from BTST. During the on-site review, Mrs. Nuce confirmed the composition of the Board of Directors as having four members, one minority person and three non-minority persons. After this on-site interview, the eligibility examiner came back to his office, listened to the interview tapes, and reviewed his notes. He came to the conclusion that the minority owner of BTST did not have the capability, knowledge, and experience required to make the critical decisions in that the company heavily relied on Mr. Nuce's 20 years of experience in the installation and servicing of telephone systems, rather than Mrs. Nuce's limited prior experience and training in the bookkeeping area. The eligibility examiner further relied, as a basis for denial, on the fact that the Board of Directors at the time of the decision to deny recertification were Nancy' Nuce; William Nuce, a non-minority person; Peggy Ingram, a non-Florida resident (and therefore a non-minority person); and Don Ingram, a non-minority person. The corporate bylaws indicated that a majority of the directors legally controlled the management of the company. Since Mrs. Nuce was the only director who was a minority, the eligibility examiner concluded that, pursuant to the statutes, Mrs. Nuce did not have the legal authority to control the corporate Board of Directors and, therefore, the business of thee corporation.. After consultation and review of the BTST file, Stephen Johnson and Marsha Nims, the Labor Employment and Training Manager of the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office, reached the tentative decision to deny the recertification application of BTST. At the time of the decision to deny recertification of BTST, Ms. Nims was the Labor Employment and Training Manager in the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office and the supervisor of Stephen Johnson, the eligibility examiner. She had been with DGS since March of 1986. Her duties included supervision of the professional staff who conducted eligibility reviews of applications, assistance in eligibility determinations, advising the coordinator, supervision of staff involved in retention of records, preparation of documents, and preparation of the monthly MBE Directory. In evaluating the application for recertification of BTST, Marsha Nims reviewed the application and supporting documentation, the Desk Review and Audit by Stephen Johnson, the additional documents obtained by Stephen Johnson from Business Telephone Systems of Tallahassee, Inc., the Bylaws of BTST, the memo from Stephen Johnson to Marsha Nims, the reviewer's case management log, the on- site review questionnaire form and comments completed by Stephen Johnson, the denial recommendation drafted by Stephen Johnson, and the file of BTST on which previous certification had been based. Marsha Nims relied upon the information about BTST complied by the eligibility examiner. She had no reason to doubt the credibility of Stephen Johnson, the eligibility examiner. At the time of the decision to deny recertification to BTST, Marsha Nims was familiar with the Florida Statutes which governed certification and recertification of minority business enterprises as well as Chapter 13-8, Florida Administrative Code, which the Department promulgated to implement the statutes. Marsha Nims was familiar with the relevant Final Orders of the Department of General Services and the related Recommended Orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings. She concluded that the corporate structure analysis and the determination of lack of control over the management and daily business operations was consistent with the legal conclusions established in prior Department Final Orders denying certification. Following review by Ms. Nims, the entire BTST file described in Finding of Fact Number 15 was referred to Carolyn Wilson-Newton, the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Officer Coordinator. Mrs. Wilson-Newton was the person charged with making the final decision to grant or deny certification and recertification to applicants. At the time of the decision to deny recertification, Mrs. Wilson- Newton was familiar with the Florida Statutes which govern certification and recertification of minority business enterprises, Chapter 13-8, Florida Administrative Code, and the relevant Final Orders of the Department of General Services and Recommended Orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Carolyn Wilson-Newton concurred with the recommendations of Stephen Johnson and Marsha Nims to deny recertification as set forth in the denial recommendation prepared by Stephen Johnson, and made the decision to deny minority business enterprise recertification. The proposed denial was approved by Sandra Allen, an attorney in the General Counsel's Office with previous experience in review of minority business enterprise decisions. The denial letter was mailed to the applicant on July 18, 1988. Although BTST prevailed in Case No. 88-3885, it is important to note that some of the evidence presented at the formal hearing in that case was substantially different from the information furnished to DGS prior to the July 18, 1988, denial letter. Some of the differences resulted from new developments (such as eleventh-hour stock purchases and changes in the corporate provisions regarding directors). Other differences resulted from more careful and precise descriptions than had been furnished earlier. Four competent, experienced MBE certification reviewers for DGS concluded that the information in the possession of the Department at the time of the decision to deny recertification of BTST was sufficient to warrant denial of recertification of the Petitioner. The denial of recertification had a reasonable basis in fact at the time of the decision. This is especially true when note is taken of the fact that BTST's corporate provisions regarding directors at the time of the decision were essentially the same as corporate provisions which had been the basis for denial of certification in other Department final orders.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case was whether Petitioner, F & M Concrete Company, Inc., should be recertified as a disadvantaged business enterprise, pursuant to Chapter 14-78, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, F & M Concrete Company, Inc., was a bridge and culvert construction company doing business in the State of Florida with principal offices in Plant City. Respondent, Department of Transportation, is the state agency responsible for certifying minority and disadvantaged business enterprises for bid award purposes with the Department. Prior to February 3, 1988, the Petitioner had been certified by the Department as a minority business enterprise, (women owned). Petitioner's stock is owned as follows: Jaretha Fletcher,. 43.3% Kathleen Fletcher,. 33.0% Jennifer Fletcher Prado,......21.67%, and Vesta Thomas,. 2.0%. All of the above, with the exception of Ms. Thomas, the retired bookkeeper, are members of the Fletcher family. Kathleen is W. Eddie Fletcher's mother, Jaretha is his wife, and Jennifer Fletcher Prado, is his sister. W. Eddie Fletcher is the President of F & M Concrete Company, Inc., and Chief Operating Officer. Kathleen Fletcher is Chairman of the Board of Directors. For approximately 15 years prior to the last 2 years, the stock owned by Jaretha Fletcher was owned in joint tenancy with W. Eddie Fletcher. Approximately 2 years ago, the ownership was transferred to Jaretha Fletcher alone. There is no evidence as to the consideration for that transfer. Mr. Fletcher claims he is not his wife's heir, and will not inherit her stock should she predecease him. Kathleen Fletcher, Mr. Fletcher's mother, has had tuberculosis for many years, and is incapable of taking a substantial, active part in the business. However, she comes to the office approximately once a week, and speaks with Jaretha by phone periodically. Jaretha is employed in the corporate office in a training capacity. Jennifer Fletcher Prado works for the Hillsborough County Road Department as an inspector, and in the course of her travels about the county, periodically sees Petitioner's crews at work. Though she does not interfere with or become involved in the supervision of those crews, if she sees something that causes her to question the crew's performance, she will phone Mr. Fletcher and demand an explanation. This is the extent of her participation in the operation of the business with the exception of serving as a member of the Board of Directors. When she retires from her position with the county, because of her experience, she will be eligible to work with Petitioner corporation but would have to spend some time gaining experience in the contracting end of the business before she could assume any managerial position. On November 1, 1988, Jaretha Fletcher, as Assistant Secretary of F & M Concrete Company, Inc., submitted the corporation's application for DBE certification. The application indicates that the firm was established in September, 1956, and is engaged in the business of building bridges, concrete pavements, curbs, sea walls, storm drainage systems, and culverts. It has 35 full time employees, of whom 57% are minority, and it serves the geographical areas incorporating numerous counties in the central part of the state. The firm is 100% woman owned in that the four individuals mentioned above own 100% of the 100 shares of stock authorized and issued. The firm is managed by a President, Vice President, Assistant Secretary, and Secretary-Treasurer. W. Eddie Fletcher is President. W. Randall Fletcher is Vice President. Jaretha Fletcher is Assistant Secretary, and Dori M. Keeler is Secretary- Treasurer. The Board of Directors is made up of the three Fletcher women. W. Eddie Fletcher received a salary of $33,800.00 in 1987; W. Randall Fletcher received $28,600.00; Dori Keeler received $20,800.00; Kathleen Fletcher received $13,520.00; Jaretha Fletcher received $7,800.00, and David L. Cox, General Manager, received $28,600.00. Question 18 of the application for recertification reflects that policy making and financial decisions are made by Kathleen Fletcher as Chairman of the Board, Jaretha Fletcher, and Jennifer Prado. Management personnel are hired and fired by the Board. Hourly personnel are hired and fired by Mr. Cox and the four job foremen. At question 19 of the application, Petitioner indicates that any decision to bid on a job is made by W. Eddie Fletcher as President and Jaretha Fletcher as Assistant Secretary. Since Mrs. Fletcher is currently serving the corporation as a trainee, her contribution to the decision making process must be minimal. Job estimating is done by W. Eddie Fletcher and David Cox. Purchases of equipment are approved by the Board upon the recommendation of W. Eddie Fletcher. Supervision of field operations is accomplished by Mr. Cox. Jaretha Fletcher, as Assistant Secretary, along with Randall Fletcher, shop foreman and Vice President; W. Eddie Fletcher, President; and Dori M. Keeler, Secretary-Treasurer, all sign the payroll checks. The application was mailed to the Department by certified package delivery on November 1, 1988 and was received by it on November 2, 1988. This was 94 days before the Petitioner's then current certification expired. On December 2, 1988, the Department mailed a letter to the Petitioner requesting additional information. This was 31 days after the date of receipt of the application, which exceeds the rule period of 30 days or requesting additional information. However, Petitioner responded to the request on December 7, 1988, one day after receipt. The additional information requested by the Department was forwarded to it by Petitioner on December 21, 1988, with the exception of two forms that had to be procured from the Department of State. After all the requested information was submitted, the Department set up an onsite review of the Petitioner's operation. According to Petitioner, though the rule governing MBE certification requires that the Department conduct the on- site review within 60 days of receipt of application, it was not done in this case until the 98th day after the application was submitted. The rule also states that approval or denial must be announced within a 90 day period from application. This was not done here until March 14, 1989, when Mr. Pete Davis, DBE Certification Coordinator for the Department, notified the Petitioner by certified mail that its application had been denied. Since the application was submitted on November 1, 1988 and received on November 2, 1988, March 14, 1989 terminates a period of 132 days from the date of receipt of application. Mr. Donnie Alford, an engineer, works for the Department's construction office and is a member of the DBE Certification Committee which considered Petitioner's application. This committee, which consists of three voting members and one nonvoting member, reviewed Petitioner's file. The application was reviewed by all committee members before a vote was taken and Mr. Alford, as a voting member, considered all the information in the file including such items as gross receipts, ownership, directorship, the officers, their salaries, the ethnic status and span of control of the ownership and other personnel, and all other matters mandated for consideration by Rule 14-78 F.A.C. Mr. Alford noted that Jaretha Fletcher, the majority stockholder, was paid the smallest salary of any salaried employee. This indicates to him that the rule in question, which dictates that salary should be consistent with ownership and job responsibility, was not followed. The committee also examined the resumes of the officers and directors with a view toward minority owners. Mr. Alford noted that prior to 1986, two years before the application in question, Mrs. Jaretha Fletcher had been a housewife, and he was concerned that her background did not qualify her to make business decisions. According to Mr. Fletcher, Jaretha signs all checks issued by the corporation though she does not prepare them. She has worked on the preparation of at least one bid. She has acted as signatory for insurance policies covering the operation of the business. She was a personal guarantor on the last capital loan taken out by the business. In addition, the company has developed a computer program which would enable Jaretha to prepare bids on all curb related projects. This, has not yet been implemented, and absent a showing of how much independent judgement and authority she would exercise, by itself, it is not particularly probative of anything. She is also assuming more responsibility in the bidding process though she is not yet qualified to prepare a bid. She has learned to take company owned equipment charges and the daily reports received from the field foremen to prepare reports for the comptroller. She works with the comptroller in determining who of the various business creditors get paid at any given time, and she has begun to serve as a liaison between the corporation and the various contractors who utilize its services. Further, she is in training to use the computer to prepare the weekly payroll. On the other hand, Jaretha is not qualified to go into the field by herself as a supervisor and by her own admission, is "afraid to drive outside the Plant City area." She works in the office daily from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM except on those days when she has to be with her children. There is substantial evidence to indicate that the participation in business control and operation by Kathleen Fletcher and Jennifer Fletcher Prado is minimal, other than as members of the Board. The Board of Directors' primary function is to set policy for the operation of the Petitioner's business. The business is operated by W. Eddie Fletcher who is employed by the Board as President. He makes the day to day business decisions and decides what matters should be taken to the Board for ratification and approval. It is quite clear from the evidence as presented and all the permissible inferences and presumptions which may be drawn therefrom, that the operation and control of F & M Concrete Company, Inc., is exercised by W. Eddie Fletcher, and the Board of Directors does what he requests of it and provides what he asks. There is evidence, for example, that though the Board must provide for the purchase of major equipment, it "gives approval for whatever Eddie wants." In fact, two contracts, introduced by Respondent, which were prepared and executed by Petitioner with others in the operation of its business, for substantial sums and major projects, failed to reveal the signature or participation of any of the minority owners. All execution was accomplished by W. Eddie Fletcher on behalf of the corporation. After considering all the available information, the Department's committee voted to deny Petitioner recertification. The vote of the committee is not, however, binding on the Director of Administration who has final discretion to approve or disapprove the application for certification. Here the application for recertification was disapproved primarily because it was evident to the committee members and the Director of Administration, that the minority owners did not exercise the requisite amount of control over the operation of the business required under the intent and language of the rule governing minority business enterprise certification. The Department does not claim that the arrangement between the minority owners of the Petitioner corporation and Mr. Fletcher is in any way inappropriate or improper, nor does it deny that Jaretha Fletcher is now learning to participate in the operate in the operation of the business. However, the degree of control over the day to day operations of the business by the minority ownership, notwithstanding the propriety of the delegation of management to Mr. Fletcher, is not sufficient to qualify Petitioner as a minority owned business enterprise. Rule 14-78, F.A.C., allows management to be contracted out, but it does not allow delegation of the policy making function. Here, the committee and the Director of Administration concluded, and it is so found, that the owners of F & M Concrete Company, Inc. did not exercise sufficient control over the business to qualify it for certification. It is abundantly clear from the evidence adduced at the hearing, that Mr. Fletcher is, in fact, F & M Concrete Company, Inc. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that he is closely related by blood and marriage to the three principal owners; that prior to 1987 he owned 43.3% of the stock in the corporation jointly with Jaretha; that none of the principal owners other than Jaretha participate in the decision making process except as members of the Board; and that the Board does not engage in operating the business. Bids are not approved by the Board and operating decisions are within the exclusive province of the management team headed by Mr. Fletcher. Notwithstanding that the terms of the employment agreement between Mr. Fletcher and the Board provide that it may be terminated by the Board at any time for cause, from a pragmatic standpoint, with the Board's makeup being so closely related to Mr. Fletcher, the likelihood of this happening is remote. Instead, it becomes abundantly clear that the attempt to divest Mr. Fletcher from ownership of the corporation and demonstrate a bona fide minority owned and operated business enterprise is in form only and a sham and while the organization is in no way illegal or improper, it is not, in reality, a minority operated business so as to qualify for certification as such.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, F & M Concrete Company, Inc.'s application for recertification as a disadvantaged business enterprise be denied. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11.-13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17.&18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19.-21. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Eddie Fletcher President F & M Concrete Company, Inc. Post Office Box 938 Plant City, Florida 34289-0938 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel DOT 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 K.N. Henderson, P.E. Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Ruth B. Dillard, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact General Contractors & Construction Management, Inc. (Petitioner), is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of general contracting and construction (construction and renovation of commercial and residential buildings), including subcontracting, since 1985. Petitioner's President is Ms. Akram Niroomand-Rad and its Vice-President is Mr. Kamran Ghovanloo, Ms. Niroomand-Rad's husband. Petitioner is a small business concern as defined by Subsection 288.703(1), Florida Statutes. Prior to April 1990, Ms. Niroomand-Rad owned 50 percent of Petitioner's stock. In April 1990, she acquired 100 percent of the stock and became the Petitioner's sole owner. Ms. Niroomand-Rad is a minority person as defined by Subsection 288.703(3), Florida Statutes. According to Petitioner's articles of incorporation and by-laws, its corporate business is conducted by a majority of the board of directors. Petitioner has two directors, Ms. Niroomand-Rad and Mr. Ghovanloo, 1/ and as such, the minority owner does not control the board of directors. Also, according to Petitioner's by-laws, Petitioner's President manages its business and affairs subject to the direction of the board of directors. Petitioner's licensed contractor is Mr. Ghovanloo who is a certified general contractor. Ms. Niroomand-Rad is not a licensed contractor although she is taking course work to become a licensed contractor. Mr. Ghovanloo is Petitioner's qualifier, and, as its qualifier, brings his expertise and license to the business. Further, as qualifier, he is also responsible for the finances of Petitioner and for pulling the necessary permits in order for Petitioner to perform the contractual work. Additionally, Mr. Ghovanloo performs Petitioner's estimating, handles quality inspection of job sites, assists in the evaluation and preparation of bids, and attends some of the pre-bid meetings on projects. Ms. Niroomand-Rad has been involved in soliciting bids, reviewing bids and estimates, negotiating contracts, visiting clients, responding to correspondence, overseeing financial activities, hiring and firing, and visiting job sites. However, Ms. Niroomand-Rad relies heavily upon Mr. Ghovanloo's technical expertise, expert opinions, and judgment and upon others for guidance and for handling the technical aspects of the business. Further, Ms. Niroomand-Rad relies heavily on Mr. Ghovanloo, and others to a lesser degree, regarding the purchasing of goods, equipment, or inventory, and services needed for the day-to-day operation of the business, including evaluating and retaining subcontractors. Mr. Ghovanloo is authorized to sign checks without restriction. Ms. Niroomand-Rad was reared in a construction environment. Also, she has completed a construction management course offered by the City of Miami and is a licensed real estate broker. Petitioner has been certified as an MBE by Dade County and the Dade County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development enter a final order denying General Contractors & Construction Management, Inc., certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 24th day of July, 1995.
The Issue The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Reguest for Statement of Qualification for Petroleum Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. Attachment F to the solicitation sought information related to utilization of minority business enterprises as subcontractors. Points were available for said utilization. The Department awarded zero points to parties which failed to include the three pages of the attachment in the responses to the solicitation. The issue in this case is whether the Department acted in accordance with law in awarding zero points for failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F.
Findings Of Fact On March 1, 1991, The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSOQ) for Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. As stated in the RFSOQ, the DER's objective is to enter into approximately ten contracts for petroleum cleanup services with contractors most qualified to perform the services. It is in the best interests of the state and the DER to enter into such contracts with the most qualified contractors available. Selected firms will be placed under contract with the DER to respond to task assignments. There is no work guaranteed to any contractor as a result of being selected and placed under contract. The cover sheet to the DER Solicitation #9111C identifies Attachment B as "General Instructions", Attachment C as "Instructions for Preparation of an SOQ", Attachment F as "Minority Business Certificate" and Attachment N as an "SOQ Checklist." In the RFSOQ, the DER specifically reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. The general instructions set forth at Attachment B provide, that the DER "may waive minor informalities or irregularities in the SOQs received where such are merely a matter of form and not substance, and the corrections of which are not prejudicial to other contractors." The DER is not required to waive all minor irregularities. The ability to waive such defects is within the jurisdiction of the agency. The evidence establishes that the DER applied such discretion consistently. There is no evidence that, at any time prior to the SOQ opening, did the Petitioner or Intervenors seek additional information from the DER regarding the agency's discretion to waive minor irregularities. Attachment C provides that "ANY AND ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY A CONTRACTOR IN VARIANCE WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE REVIEWED OR EVALUATED (e.g. pages beyond the 20-page SOQ limit will not be reviewed) or may result in the response being deemed non-responsive and rejected as noted." The purpose of the statement was to discourage responders from submitting information beyond that required by the RFSOQ, in order to provide a common basis for the evaluation of all SOQs submitted. The provision also provided the DER with the ability to reject an SOQ which failed to substantially comply with the agency's solicitation. Attachment C states that an SOQ shall consist of three parts, a one- page transmittal letter, a 20-page SOQ, and "other required information". According to Attachment C, the SOQ was to contain an introduction, a section on the company's background, a statement of experience and knowledge related to the qualifications required by the RFSOQ, a description of project organization and management appropriate to the tasks assigned, a list of personnel responsible for completion of assigned task, a list of "a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the FDER" and related information. Work performed for the DER was to be set forth separately in addition to the ten non-DER clients. "Other required information" included minority business utilization information. Attachment C provides as follows: Contractors submitting SOQs under this solicitation must identify intended minority subcontractors and estimated percentage of total contract amount to be awarded to minority firms on Attachment F of this Request for Statement of Qualifications. Use of any document other that Attachment F shall result in disallowance of any credit for use of minority subcontractors. (emphasis supplied.) Evaluation points were available on a scaled basis to contractors based upon their commitment to utilization of minority businesses enterprises in their SOQs. Attachment B provides that "Minority Business Utilization will be evaluated. provided that the responder complies with the reporting requirements contained in Attachment F...." (emphasis supplied.) Attachment F, page 1 of 3, provides as follows: Directions: Each contractor and/or subcontractor which meets the definition of a certified small minority business, as described below, shall submit an originally signed copy of page 1 of this Attachment in the response package to this solicitation. If more than one minority business is to be used, the prime contractor shall copy this page and have each minority business complete that copy as though it were an original. A prime contractor which intends to utilize subcontractors meeting the definition of small minority business is responsible for completing page 2 of this Attachment. A prime contractor which meets the definition of a small minority business is responsible for completing page 3 of this Attachment. If a particular page of this Attachment is not applicable, the prime contractor shall so indicate on that page and include the page as part of the response package. At a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit-- this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization. (emphasis supplied.) Attachment N, the "SOQ checklist," provides a list of items which are to be "properly completed, signed and enclosed" in order to "ensure that your SOQ is responsive to FDER Solicitation No. 9111C...." Item 3.b. of Attachment N reads: "Minority Business Utilization Form - if applicable (Attachment F)". As stated in Attachment B to the RFSOQ, on March 13, 1991, a mandatory pre-bid meeting was held in Tallahassee, Florida, at the DER's offices for all contractors wishing to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ). Failure to attend the meeting would have resulted in rejection of SOQs submitted by non- attending contractors. The Petitioner and Intervenors were represented at the pre-bid meeting. The meeting provided an opportunity during the solicitation process to have technical, legal or administrative questions answered. Accordingly, potential responders are expected to have read the complete RFSOQ prior to the meeting. At the pre-bid meeting, the DER did not review every part of the solicitation, but invited questions from participants. The DER official conducting the meeting stated that "any and all information submitted by a contractor in variance with these instructions will not be reviewed or evaluated," however, the other directions provided in the RFSOQ were otherwise reviewed only upon request. Although there was a specific discussion of the requirements for reporting proposed minority business utilization, there were no questions asked with regard to the requirements for completion of Attachment F. There were no questions asked regarding the DER's right to waive irregularities, or whether the failure to submit Attachment F in accordance with the directions would be regarded by the agency as a minor irregularity. Potential responders also had an opportunity to submit written questions prior to a time certain. There is no evidence that questions were raised related to the requirements of Attachment F or to the DER's application of it's discretionary authority to waive minor irregularities. On March 22, 1991, the DER issued an addendum, not material to this case, to the Request for SOQs. The addendum was sent by certified mail to each contractor represented at the March 13, 1991 meeting. On March 27, 1991, a second addendum was sent to each contractor. The addendum, among other things, changed the date for submission of an SOQ from April 1, 1991 to April 15, 1991 at 2:00 P.M. On April 15, 1991, SOQs were submitted by the Petitioner and Intervenors in this case. The bids were opened at 2:00 P.M. or shortly thereafter, and subsequently evaluated and scored by DER personnel. In some categories, points were awarded on a weighted basis, which provided a relative ranking of responders. For example, the prime contractor with the highest minority business enterprise subcontractor utilization received 13 points, with lesser ranked contractors receiving fewer points. On June 3, 1991, at 10:05 A.M. bid tabulation results were posted in the DER's contract office. The Petitioner and Intervenors in this case submitted responsive SOQ's to DER solicitation #9111C. The result of the DER's evaluation was the development of a short list of contractors permitted to make oral presentations to agency officials after which the DER will initiate contract discussions with approximately ten contractors. The SOQs were reviewed by DER officials who initially identified information submitted which did not comply with the requirements of the RFSOQ. Irregularities were identified and discussed with DER legal counsel to determine the materiality of the irregularity and to ascertain the appropriate treatment of the defects. The DER officials did not disclose the identity of the responder during the discussions, although the person identifying the defect was aware of the related responder. However, there is no evidence that the three DER officials were aware of an individual non-complying contractor's identity, or that the decision to waive such irregularities was based upon the identity of the participants. The DER determined that, in order to be equitable to all participants, it would not waive irregularities where the directions were clear and the consequences for noncompliance were specifically set forth. If the solicitation were less clear, or the consequence of noncompliance with the requirement was not specifically identified, the Department attempted to be more lenient regarding the waiver of such irregularities. Where the DER waived irregularities, such waivers were awarded on a consistent basis without regard to the individual responders involved. Information which was not to be reviewed or evaluated was concealed by either covering the information with white paper, or stapling excess pages together. The DER waived several types of minor irregularities in the SOQs received for Solicitation #9111C. Some contractors submitted transmittal letters consisting of multiple pages rather than the one page letter specified in the RFSOQ. The transmittal letter received no evaluation points. The DER stapled multiple page letters together and considered only information contained on the first page. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the one- page limit was not reviewed or evaluated. The DER did not waive the failure to attach a transmittal letter. DER waived some irregularities related to subcontractor letters. Multiple page letters were stapled together and only page one information was reviewed. The DER decision to waive such defects was based upon the fact that such subcontractors were less familiar with the DER's submission requirements than were the prime contractors, that such letters were submitted by the subcontractors, that it was unfair to penalize the prime contractors for the minor irregularities of the subcontractor letters, and that the tasks to be performed by subcontractors were generally not critical to the successful completion of the prime contractor's assigned responsibilities. There was sufficient information to permit the DER to conclude that the subcontractor and prime contractor were committed to the project. There is no evidence that the identities of the subcontractors was considered in determining whether such defects should be waived. The DER waived other irregularities related to subcontractor letters, including the failure of a subcontractor to sign the letter. There was no specific requirement that the subcontractor sign the letter. However, the DER did not waive the failure to submit subcontractor letters. In instances where no letters were submitted, the DER awarded zero points and references to the subcontractor in the SOQ were deleted. The DER's actions related to subcontractor letters was reasonable and appropriate. Another irregularity waived by the DER was the failure to supply a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the DER, with work performed for the DER set forth separately. The DER did not waive the failure to submit ten references, however, in some cases, not all ten references were acceptable. Attachment C does not state that the failure to submit ten acceptable references shall result in an award of zero points. In such instances, the DER reduced the number of points available to reflect the percentage of acceptable references provided. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the requirements, such as unacceptable references, was not evaluated. The DER acted reasonably and consistently with the provisions set forth in the RFSOQ. The DER requested that responders identify three "deliverables" required through an ongoing contract which had been effective within the past year. The DER did not consider deliverables related to contracts which had not been effective within the past year. The DER checked the references and awarded no points for unacceptable references. Several SOQ's did not appropriately identify key personnel as required. The DER did not consider information which was not reported as required by the RFSOQ. Where minor irregularities were waived, the waiver was applied consistently to all responders. The DER did not waive the failure of any responder to submit the three pages of Attachment F, as clearly required by the directions to the attachment. All parties which failed to submit all three pages of the attachment received a score of zero. There is no evidence that the DER, at any time, indicated that the directions set forth on Attachment F were optional. Approximately 20 of 45 of contractors submitting SOQs failed to include all three pages of the MBE utilization form, Attachment F to the Request for SOQs. Most failed to include page three of the attachment. The Petitioner, as well as Intervenors ERM-South, ITC and Westinghouse, were included in the 20 responders which failed to submit all three pages of Attachment F. As provided in the directions to Attachment F, failure to include all three pages of the attachment resulted in a score of zero points for MBE utilization. The DER could have made certain assumptions about the applicability of Attachment F to specific responders to the solicitation. However, given that the directions were clear and the penalty for not complying with the directions was equally clear, the DER did not waive the failure to submit all three pages of the attachment as part of the SOQs. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the DER's action was outside the agency's discretion or the requirements of law. Extensive testimony was offered in support of the assertion that the directions related to reporting of minority business utilization were confusing and ambiguous. However, the directions to Attachment F are clear and provide that, "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." There is no credible evidence to establish that such directions are confusing or ambiguous. The instructions to the RFSOQ consistently refer to Attachment F as being the only acceptable means of reporting minority business utilization information. Attachment F consists of three pages, with the "Directions" for completing and submitting the attachment set forth at page one, paragraph one. The Petitioner and Intervenors timely filed SOQ's and are substantially affected by the DER's determination that responders failing to submit all three pages of Attachment F were awarded zero points for minority business utilization. There is no evidence that the Petitioner or Intervenors are unable to perform the tasks identified in the RFSOQ.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (Case No. 91-4318B1D), as well as Cases No. 91- 43I6BID and 91-4317B1D, as set forth in the preliminary statement to this Recommended Order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-4316B1D, 90-4317B1D, and 90-4318B1D The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected as to the implication that DER had no right to waive minor irregularities, contrary to the evidence. 12, 16, 19. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected. Such additional points appear to have been awarded to M&E in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 24-25. Rejected. Although the specific waivers are factually correct, the implication of the proposed finding is contrary to the weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER waives such irregularities, even though the instructions were clear, where the consequences for failing to comply with each specific instruction were unclear. There was no penalty set forth at the requirement that a document be signed or not exceed one page in length. The evidence establishes that the DER's actions were reasonable, logical, and within the authority of the agency. 29-32. Rejected. Contrary to the clear "Directions" of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." Responders were referred to Attachment F by the instructions cited in the proposed finding. 33-34, 36-38, Rejected, irrelevant. 39. Rejected, immaterial. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by M&E and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40-41 Rejected. A logical reading of the checklist reference to Attachment F would be that, if the attachment were applicable, the attachment should be included. The clear and specific directions to Attachment F require the submission of the three page package to receive points. 42-43. Rejected, irrelevant. 44. Rejected. The failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F resulted in zero points, as provided in the directions to the attachment. The DER policy related to waiver of irregularities does not include the waiver of irregularities where the instructions are clear, the penalty for noncompliance is specific, and a responder fails to comply. The policy is reasonable and was applied consistently. 47. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. It appears that M&E's assertion that it would be included in the "short list" requires addition of points awarded by the DER in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 49-50. Rejected. While "instructions in a competitive bidding solicitation can be rendered ambiguous by their location," in this case, the instructions contained in the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. Attachment F's directions are not ambiguous or confusing. 51-53. Rejected, immaterial. This proposed finding is also contrary to the suggestion that the instructions were unclear, and indicates, not that the instructions were unclear, but that the M&E representative did not read the RFSOQ. It is not possible to find that a careful and intelligent reader of the directions to Attachment F could misunderstand the meaning of "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 54-61. Rejected, immaterial. The fact that a substantial number of responders failed to comply with the clear directions of Attachment F does not establish that the directions are confusing. The instructions to the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. The first paragraph of Attachment F is entitled and contains "Directions" which are clearly set forth. There is nothing at all ambiguous about the requirement that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 62-65. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no requirement that the DER waive all irregularities. Such irregularities may be waived at the Department's discretion. The DER chose not to waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for failure to comply with said requirements, were clear. The DER applied this policy appropriately and consistently. There was no appearance of favoritism when the agency's policy is fairly and consistently applied. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER expects potential responders to have read the RFSOQ prior to the pre-bid meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to answer questions and provide clarifying information. The fact that no questions were asked regarding the requirement to submit all three pages of Attachment F indicates that participants either clearly understood the requirement or had not read the RFSOQ prior to the only mandatory opportunity to obtain clarification. In any event, the DER is not obligated to read every sentence of the RFSOQ aloud at a pre-bid meeting in order to make certain that responders who fail to read the document will submit responsive SOQs. Rejected, cumulative. 68-69. Rejected, immaterial, unnecessary. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 23. Rejected as to the implication that Attachment C, Page 1, indicated the DER could not waive any irregularities. Cited language states that information submitted in variance with instructions would not be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence establishes that information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated, but was disregarded. 28. Rejected. It is not clear what is meant by this proposed finding. 37-39. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. 41. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. 42-43. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible, especially given M&E/PIECO's correct submission in response to similar requirements of RFSOQ #9003C. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. The fact that the cited witness understood the directive and failed to comply due to oversight does not suggest that the directive was unclear. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. The reason for the cited witnesses failure to comply is unclear. Rejected, cumulative. 48. Rejected, unnecessary. 50-51. Rejected, immaterial. The issue in this case is not whether to goals of the minority business utilization program are met, but whether the DER acted inappropriately in reviewing SOQs submitted in response to the DER RFSOQ #9111C. 52-53. Rejected, unnecessary. 54-56. Rejected, unnecessary, cumulative. Intervenor ERM-South The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, cumulative. 14-19. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. 21. Last sentence rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER applied the language of the RFSOQ in a reasonable way, and that material information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated. 32-39, 41. Rejected, immaterial. The issue is whether the failure to follow the clear directions of Attachment F should result, as the directions provide, in zero points being awarded. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by ERM-South and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. There is no evidence that the omission of Attachment F, page three, is the sole basis for exclusion of a contractor from the short list. The short list was determined by ranking scores awarded. As stated in the directions to Attachment F, the result of noncompliance with said directions was an award of zero points for minority business utilization. 42-46. Rejected, cumulative, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER's action in reviewing the submitted Attachment F was reasonable, logical, and was applied in a consistent manner. As to whether the DER should have contacted other agencies to determine MBE status, the agency is under no obligation to do so. 47-49. Rejected, contrary to the clear directions of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." It is simply not possible to find, as suggested in the proposed finding, that such language cannot be relied upon to put contractors on notice that the failure to submit the three pages would result in zero points. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. Rejected, irrelevant. 52-54. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. 55-57. Rejected, irrelevant. 59-64. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. Intervenor ITC The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Proposed findings of fact #7, #10 and #14-16 relate to evidence introduced at hearing by ITC to support it's position that it had been excluded from the "short list" due to DER's clerical error. As stated in the preliminary statement, ITC failed to timely file a notice of protest subsequent to the posting of the bid tabulation results challenging the DER's clerical error. Accordingly, this Recommended Order does not set forth Findings of Fact related to the clerical error due to ITC's failure to timely file a written notice of protest as required by Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes. 12. Rejected. The M&E formal written protest does not allege that the DER had improperly drawn the line for the "short list." 18-20. Rejected. Although likely correct, the proposed findings are irrelevant to the issue in this case. Rejected. Such additional points awarded to M&E by the DER appear to have been awarded contrary to Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. Rejected, cumulative. ITC had an opportunity to timely file a written notice of protest subsequent to the bid tabulation posting, but failed to do so. An intervenor takes the case as it is found. Rejected, cumulative. 25. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The evidence does not establish that the failure to complete all of Attachment F was based on it's inapplicability. Attachment F clearly states that inapplicable pages should be so marked and submitted with the response package. If such pages were not returned, as suggested, because there did not apply, then it is reasonable to conclude that the responder failed to read the clearly stated directions to Attachment F. 26-29. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER did nothing more than apply the clearly stated direction that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package" and imposed the clearly stated penalty, stating that "[f]ailure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 32-33. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence that the DER did not waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for noncompliance with said requirements, were clearly stated. The DER did waive other irregularities where the instructions were ambiguous or confusing, or where there was not a specific penalty attached for the failure to follow a specific requirement. The evidence establishes that the DER actions were appropriate. 34. Rejected, immaterial. All three pages of Attachment F were clearly required to be submitted or a score of zero would be awarded. Intervenor E&E The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-3. Rejected, cumulative. 12. Rejected, contrary to the cited evidence. Although Attachment F was discussed in terms of reporting requirements, there were no questions asked related to the directions for completing or submitting the attachment. 21. Rejected, cumulative. Intervenors EBASCO, ABB, OHM, Cherokee and Westinghouse jointly filed a proposed recommended order. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 13, 16-17, 43-45, 47. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esq. Carlos Alvarez, Esq. 123 S. Calhoun Street Post Office Drawer 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 M. Christopher Bryant, Esq. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George N. Meros, Esq. 101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barrett G. Johnson, Esq. 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rex D. Ware, Esq. 106 East College Avenue Highpoint Center, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Robert Venzina, III, Esq. Mary M. Piccard, Esq. 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0589 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esq. Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner’s certification as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Locker Services, Inc., is a business owned by Kimberly Gates and her husband, James Gates. Kimberly Gates is a Caucasian female. There is no evidence that James Gates is within a protected classification under the minority business enterprise certification program. Kimberly Gates is the president of the corporation and owns 60 percent of the stock. James Gates is the vice-president of the corporation and owns the remaining 40 percent of the stock. The bylaws on record for Locker Service, Inc., establish that the Board of Directors directs the corporation’s business affairs. The Board of Directors consists of Kimberly Gates and James Gates. According to the by-laws, both Mrs. and Mr. Gates manage the business. Both Kimberly Gates and James Gates are authorized to sign checks on the corporate checking account. A General Indemnity Agreement underwrites the corporation’s bonding requirements. James Gates is a signatory on the agreement and is personally liable as an Indemnitor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order denying the Petitioner’s application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Gates, President Locker Service, Inc. 2303 Bayshore Drive Belleair Beach, Florida 33786 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Sheri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Hartman Building, Suite 303 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact Iris Reed and her husband, Mark Reed, own and operate a business known as Reed Landscaping, Inc., the Petitioner in this cause. Mrs. Reed is an American woman and owns 60 percent of the subject business. Her husband owns the remaining 40 percent. The Reeds previously owned a lawn maintenance business in New York but moved to Florida several years ago and started doing business as "Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance by Mark." Eventually, approximately 1992, "Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance by Mark" changed its name to Reed Landscaping, Inc. As to Petitioner and all former entities, Mrs. Reed has held an office position with the company while Mr. Reed has operated the field crew or crews. Mr. Reed has the experience and expertise necessary to handle the work at each site for the business. On the other hand, Mrs. Reed has the office and management skills to direct the "paperwork" side of the business. This includes insurance matters and personnel for the office. Mrs. Reed is particularly active in this business since she put up the capital that largely funded the business enterprise. Although her personal financial investment is primarily at risk, creditors and bonding companies require both Reeds to sign for the company and to be individually obligated as well. Mrs. Reed serves as President/Treasurer of the Petitioner and Mr. Reed is Vice-President/Secretary. Both are authorized to sign bank checks for the company. Mr. Reed has formal training and education in landscape architecture and horticulture as well as extensive experience in this field. Mrs. Reed is responsible for many decisions for the company but relies on the opinions of others and delegates, where appropriate, duties to others as well. Among the delegated duties are: all field work for the company (delegated to Mr. Reed, another foreman, or to crews working a job); estimating or preparing bids (an estimator helps with bids); bookkeeping; contract review; and purchasing (some of which she does herself with input from others). As to each delegated area, however, the Reeds stress teamwork; that they are all working together for the common good of the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 16th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5684 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: None submitted. Iris Reed on behalf of Petitioner submitted a letter summary of her position concerning the hearing which, if intended to be a presentation of fact, is rejected as argument or comment not in a form readily reviewable for either acceptance or rejection as required by rule. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Shields Senior Attorney Commission on Minority Economic & Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Iris F. Reed, Pro se 951 Southwest 121st Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33325 Veronica Anderson Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic & Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005
The Issue Whether the Respondent properly rejected the Petitioner's bid for Board of Regents (BOR) project 658 because it did not comply with the good faith effort requirements of the General and Special Conditions of the project's specifications?
Findings Of Fact Call for Bids was issued by the Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, for Board of Regents ("BOR") project numbered 658, Southeast Campus Building - Davie at Broward Community College Central Campus, in Florida Administrative Weekly. (Stipulated). The Project Manual is the volume assembled which includes the bidding requirements, sample forms, and Conditions of the Contract and Specifications (Jt. Ex. 1 at pp. 8 of 106 pages). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that at least fifteen (15) percent of the project contracted amount will be expended with minority business enterprises (MBE) certified by the Department of General Services as set forth under the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. If fifteen percent were not obtainable, the State University System would recognize good faith efforts by the bidder (Jt. Ex. 2). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that the bidder be advised to review the Good Faith Efforts requirements in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual immediately, in order to schedule the necessary tasks to accomplish Good Faith Efforts. The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that all bidders must be qualified at the time of their bid proposal in accordance with the Instruction to Bidders, Article B-2. The Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2 at page 9 of the Project Manual, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides in pertinent part, that in order to be eligible to submit a Bid Proposal, a bidder must meet any special requirements set forth in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-23 at page 16 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the contract will be awarded by the Respondent for projects of $500,000 or more, to the lowest qualified and responsible bidder, provided the bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Respondent to accept it. The award of the contract is subject to the demonstration of "good faith effort" by any bidder whose Bid Proposal proposes less than fifteen (15) percent participation in the contract by MBEs (Minority Business Enterprise). Demonstrated "good faith effort" is set forth in the Special Conditions. The contract award will be made to that responsible bidder submitting the low responsive aggregate bid within the preestablished construction budget. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-25 at page 17, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes requires the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The Respondent/Owner has adopted a program for the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The application of that program is set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26 at page 17 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26, at page 15 provides that falsification of any entry made on a bidder's proposal will be deemed a material irregularity and will be grounds for rejection. The Project Manual, Special Conditions, Article 1, subparagraph 1.1.1, at page I-1 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that the SUS has established a Construction Minority Business Enterprise Program in compliance with the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. The expenditure of at least fifteen (15) percent of the Base Bid with certified MBEs is a requirement of this contract, unless Good Faith Effort, as identified in paragraph 1.7 can be demonstrated by the Bidder. MBEs not certified by Department of General Services will be deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, and evidence of Good Faith Effort in lieu thereof will be required as identified in subparagraph 1.1.2 and paragraph 1-7 of these Special Conditions. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article I, subparagraph 1.1.2 at page I-2 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that evidence of good faith efforts will be required as specified by the Respondent/Owner within two working days after the opening of bids. Incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of paragraph 1.7 of the Special Conditions shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the Bidder. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article 1, paragraph 1.6 at page I-3 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1) states that MBE's participating in the State University System Minority Construction Program must be certified as a MBE by the Florida Department of General Services (hereinafter referred to as DGS) at the time of bid submittal. Certification identifies and limits the Specialty Area of business the MBE can perform and still qualify as a certified MBE. Therefore, the trade service listed on the Proposal for each of the MBEs must be within the scope of the Specialty Area. The bidder is required to ascertain that a listed MBE is certified by the DGS in the appropriate specialty area to perform the services for which it is listed. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-15, at p. 13). On January 17, 1992, Petitioner, Centex-Rooney Consturction Company, Intervenor, State Paving Corporation, and ten other bidders submitted bids on BOR Construction Project No. BR-658. After review of the bids and preparation of the bid tabulatio it was announced by FAU that Centex-Rooney was the apparent low bidder, but that Centex-Rooney had failed to meet the fifteen percent (15%) MBE participation requirement, and therefore, would be required to submit evidence of Good Faith Efforts within two days. The bid submitted by Centex-Rooney listed four (4) subcontractors which Centex-Rooney represented as DGS certified MBE firms, for a total of $867,000 which was 9.56% of the base bid of $9,067,000. (Stipulated). Since the bid submitted by Centex-Rooney was less than fifteen (15) percent required participation in the contract by MBEs, the University Planning Office requested that Centex-Rooney submit documentation to demonstrate "good faith effort" as set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney timely submitted its good faith documentation on January 22, 1992. (Stipulated). The Board of Regents with representatives of Centex-Rooney on February 25, 1992 to give Petitioner an opportunity to clarity and submit any additional good faith evidence in support of its bid. After reviewing the additional evidence, the Respondent contended that Centex-Rooney was in non-compliance with paragraphs 1.1.1 and 1.6.1 of the Special Conditions of the Project Manual, requiring at least 15% participation by MBEs at the time of bid opening, and at least one good faith effort criteria, paragraph 1.7.4, Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney was informed of the Board of Regents decision to reject its bid for non-compliance with Respondent's MBE requirements, and on March 6, 1992, the Chancellor of the Florida Board of Regents awarded the contract to State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). ^ The Board notified by letter dated March 6, 1992, all bidders of its award of contract for BR-658 project to the next lowest responsive bidder, State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest on March 10, 1992. (Stipulated). On March 19, 1992, Petitioner timely filed its Petition for Formal Written Protest for BR-658. (Stipulated). A representative from Centex-Rooney attended the pre-bid/pre- solicitation meeting. (Jt. Ex. 10, R-115, 116). The minority business enterprise program was discussed and the Board of Regents' requirements for good faith efforts were reviewed. (R-116, 117, 131). Centex-Rooney submitted its bid proposal on January 17, 1992. (Jt. Ex. 13). On page 2, paragraph c., of the bid proposed form submitted by Centex- Rooney, it provides that expenditure with minority business enterprises shall be consistent with the requirements of Article 1. of the Special Conditions, Minority Business Enterprise Requirements. Centex-Rooney listed four subcontractors on its List of Subcontractors and MBE participation form as DGS certified MBEs for a total of 9.56% participation (Jt. Ex. 13, Jt. Ex. 31). The List of Subcontractors form is an integral part of the proposal (Jt. Ex. 13, List of Subcontractors Form page 1) and it is required of all bidders that MBEs must be certified at the time of bid opening for bona fide participation. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-3 of I-26 pages, R-163, 174). Two of the four subcontractors listed by Centex-Rooney, Quality Concrete and S&S Roofing, were not DGS certified MBEs at the time of bid submittal. (R-19, 150, 163, 164, 174). Therefore, the two non-DGS certified subcontractors were deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, so that the total DGS certified MBE participation of Centex-Rooney at the time of bid submittal was 5%. (Jt. Ex. 1, Spec. Conditions 1.1.1, page I-1, Jt. Ex. 13, R-19, 150, 163-4, 174). Therefore, Centex-Rooney was required to show a good faith effort to engage MBE's. See Paragraph 16 above. Ms. Patricia Jackson, MBE Coordinator for Respondent, testified that requiring the DGS certified MBEs to be named at the time of bid opening makes the contract bidding procedures consistent, and eliminates any unfair price differentials between contractors. (R-151). Centex-Rooney was pressed for time in responding to the bid. It called a large number of the MBEs listed the documentation provided, and wrote letters to those subcontractors who expressed an interest and to other subcontractors. Mr. Charles Federico was chairman of the MBE advisory committee at Florida Atlantic University (Jt. Ex. 6, R-115). The committee reviewed the good faith efforts submitted by Petitioner (Jt. Ex. 6, 25, R-115, 140). The good faith effort submittal to FAU from Centex-Rooney contained nine sections (Jt. Ex. 25) with the following consecutive headings: Pre-Bid Meeting Attendance, Advertisements for MBE Participation, Solicitation Letter to Minority Businesses, Follow-Up Contacts to Minority Businesses, Selected Items (or portions) of Work for Minority Businesses, Specific Project Bidding Information made available to Minority Businesses, Utilization of Minority Businesses in Bid, Solicitation of Available Minority Organizations to Recruit Minority Businesses, and a Table of Contents. Under the third heading in Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, Solicitation Letters to Minority Businesses, Petitioner provided 55 form letters in his submittal to FAU and a bulletin. The text of each form letter provided the following: Centex-Rooney is bidding as general contractor on the Southeast Campus Building for FAU and BCC, Central Campus, Davie, FL and invites your firm to submit a quotation for the materials and/or labor on any portion of said project which falls within your scope of work. Please review the attached notices with respect to pertinent information pertaining to the bid. If your firm will be unable to submit a bid on the project, please state your reasons on the enclosed unavailability certificate form, sign and return to the Office of C-R. By doing this, it will help maintain an active MBE directory at Centex-Rooney and continue to indulge you on our bid list. Centex-Rooney encourages that participation of MBE contractors will be more than happy to answer your questions regarding this project. Under the section heading, Follow-up Contracts to Minority Businesses, for Petitioner's good faith submittal to FAU Petitioner included a 14 page log gridded with subcontractor/ vendor names, telephone numbers, MBE designation, will bid, bid submitted, low bid, date contacted and remark sections. The FAU MBE advisory committee found Petitioner in non-compliance with 1.7.3, 1.7.4, 1.7.7 and 1.7.8 of the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual that contains the good faith efforts requirements of Respondent. (Jt. Ex. 6, Jt. Ex. 12). The committee based its findings on the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. (R-119). The committee found non-compliance with 1.7.3 because the 55 form letters submitted by Petitioner were dated January 9, 1992. The committee determined that a letter dated January 9 was too late to give MBEs time to respond to the January 17 bid opening date. (R.121). In regard to 1.7.4, the committee found the Petitioner in non- compliance because no follow-up letters, telegrams, or meetings notes were provided in the good faith documentation. (R-122, 124). Mr. Federico testified that the committee found non-compliance with 1.7.7 of the Good Faith Effort requirements (R-125, 126) and 1.7.8. (R-126, 127). The advisory committee determination was sent to the Vice-President of Administration and Finance at FAU, Ms. Marie McDemmond. (R-128). The University President recommended award of the contract to Centex- Rooney. (Jt. Ex. 2, R-129). The University President is not authorized to award Board of Regents contracts. The Board of Regents awards contracts for projects of $500,000 or more. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-23, at page 16). Centex-Rooney could not utilize the two additional subcontractors, Kings Plumbing and Eagle Electric Distributors, because they were not listed on the Subcontractor/MBE form submitted by Centex-Rooney at the time of bid opening. (R-129, 130, 131). The University reconsidered its recommendation (Jt. Ex. 29), and subsequently recommended State Paving for award. (Jt. Ex. 32). The Handbook distributed by FAU at the pre-bid/pre-solicitation meeting contains a disclaimer which states that it is not intended to replace or supplement any information in the Project Manual or conditions for contract award (R-31, 132). State Paving met and exceeded the 15% MBE participation requirements for BR-65 (Jt. Ex. 14, R-20). Centex-Rooney's bid plus three alternatives was $9,590,000, and State Paving's bid plus three alternates was 9,592,500, so that the two bidders were $2,500 apart. (Jt. Ex. 7). At least seven of the twelve bidders on BR-658 met the 15% MBE participation goal (R-19). The FAU committee has reviewed many bids and has had several that met good faith efforts and several where the low bidders had met 15% MBE goal. (R- 117, 142). Ms. Jackson received a telephone call from Centex-Rooney regarding the FAU advisory committee's determination of non-compliance. (R-149). Ms. Jackson contacted Mr. Federico and reviewed the bid proposal and good faith efforts of Centex-Rooney on behalf of the Board of Regents. (R-148, 149). Ms. Jackson reviewed Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts as submitted to FAU and found non-compliance with 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions in the Project Manual for BR-658. (R-149). The Special Conditions of the Project Manual at page I-5 for 1.7.4, provide that the State University System requires that a bidder shall make no less than one written follow-up contact per initial contact. In the event a positive response is obtained, the Bidder shall request, in writing, a meeting between the MBE and Bidder's staff. The documentation required in the Special Conditions for 1.7.4 are copies of letters, telegrams and/or meeting rates. Ms. Jackson testified that the telephone log submitted by Centex-Rooney to document compliance with 1.7.4 did not meet the Special Conditions requirements because it was not a letter nor a telegram or a meeting note. (R-149). Nor did the telephone log reflect one written follow-up per initial contact as required by the University implementation of 1.7.4 in the Special Conditions (R-149, 157). Ms. Jackson contacted Centex-Rooney by phone and informed it of her finding that Centex-Rooney's reversal of the telephone calls and letters did not conform to the requirements of 1.7.4. (R-152). Thereafter, a meeting was arranged between Ms. Jackson and other BOR staff to provide Centex-Rooney an opportunity to provide supplemental evidence of good faith effort. (R-152). The Special Conditions section, at I-2, paragraph 1.1.2 provides that incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of Paragraph 1.7 (good faith requirements) shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the Owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the bidder. (R- 152). Centex-Rooney supplemented its submittal with 55 form letters dated January 24, 1992. These form letters were not considered satisfactory by Respondent as a written follow-up to each initial contact or to meet any other requirements in 1.7.4 because the letters were dated after the date of the bid opening. (Jt. Ex. 27, R-157, 158). Pursuant to Centex-Rooney's request at the February 25, 1992 meeting, Ms. Jackson again reviewed the company's documentation of its good faith efforts, evaluating the January 9, 1992 letters originally submitted as documentation for 1.7.4, as documentation for 1.7.3, and evaluating the telephone log, originally submitted as documentation of follow-up contact for 1.7.4 as initial solicitation documentation for 1.7.3. (R-153, 154). Considering Centex-Rooney's efforts in their best light, it was still determined by BOR that Centex-Rooney was not in compliance with 1.7.4. because there was no initial written contact and no written follow-up for each positive response. The telephone log is deemed to be analogous to meeting notes; however, the documentation viewed most favorably for Petitioner does not meet the written requirements of the Special Conditions which cannot be waived. (R- 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171). Two spread sheets were provided to BOR as supplemental documentation (Jt. Ex. 26). The Summary (Jt. Ex. 37) and other spread sheets (Jt. Ex. 36) were not provided to FAU by Centex-Rooney nor to Respondent in its subsequent review or as part of its option to permit supplementary documentation for good faith compliance. (R-55, 70, 71). Petitioner did not obtain the 15% MBE participation for BR 658. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.1.1 of the Special Conditions. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-1). Two of the MBEs listed by Petitioner with its bid proposal were not certified by DGS at the time of bid submittal. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.6.1. (Jt. Ex. 2, I-3). The telephone log submitted by Petitioner was insufficient as required documentation. Petitioner did not meet the good faith efforts requirement set out in 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions (Jt. Ex. 2, page I-4). (R-175, Jt. Ex. 28, 29). The telephone log, as presented by Centex-Rooney was not a copy of a letter, a telegram or a meeting note. The telephone contact did not constitute a written follow-up contact per initial contact as required by the Special Conditions, nor did it suffice as a request in writing for a meeting between the MBE and bidder's staff if a positive response was obtained from an MBE. (R-149, 157). Conversely, as proposed by Petitioner, the telephone contact was not acceptable under the terms of the Special Conditions as an initial notice under 1.7.3 because the contact was not by letter as required. Also, there was not a letter for each initial telephone contact, and the January 9 letters did not request meetings with those MBEs who responded positively, nor did the letters provide evidence of any meeting notes. (R-157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Centex-Rooney's bid for project BR-658 was properly rejected by the Respondent, and that the Board of Regents may proceed with its award of the contract to the Intervenor, State Paving. DONE and ENTERED this day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of May, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-2272BID Board of Regent's proposed findings were read and considered. The findings of the BOR were adopted except for Paragraph 22 which was deemed a conclusion of law. State Pavings' proposed findings were read and considered. The following list indicated which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: 1 through 3. Adopted. Was not specifically adopted, but is correct and is subsumed in other findings. Subsumed in other findings. Rejected that Centex-Rooney "freely admits" their bid failed to meet 15% requirement, a contrary to the evidence. Subsumed Paragraphs 32, 33 and 34. Subsumed Paragraphs 44, 45, 46 and 47. Subsumed Paragraph 50. Subsumed Paragraph 29 re documentation. Comments re Mr. Hamlin are argument and rejected. Rejected in part a restatement of statutes and law, and subsumed in other findings. Adopted that Centex-Rooney complied with 1.7.1, 1.7.2, and failed to comply with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. Centex-Rooney did comply with 1.7.5 and 1.7.6 and 1.7.8. To the extent that the evidence in this case did not show Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, 1.7.7 was not proven. Rejected as argument. Subsumed Paragraph 35. Subsumed Paragraphs 39 and 41. Rejected as argument. Subsumed in Paragraphs 55, 56 and 57. Rejected as conclusion of law. The Petitioner's proposed findings were read and considered. The following list which of the findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. Paragraphs 1 through 11. Adopted. Adopted, Paragraph 23. True; adopted in part in Paragraph and in Paragraphs 23 and 28. 14 and 15. Rejected as irrelevant. True, subsumed in Paragraph 28. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32 and 46. True, but irrelevant. There was no allegation that Centex-Rooney failed to advertise. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28 and 33. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32, 48 and 52. True but irrelevant because Centex-Rooney had fewer than 15%. True but irrelevant. Subsumed in various paragraphs. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35. True subsumed in Paragraphs 36 and 37. Subsumed in Paragraphs 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51. Irrelevant because it does not establish compliance with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. BOR properly rejected this evidence which was presented after the bid opening. Copies furnished: Charles B. Reed, Chancellor Florida Board of Regents State University System 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 James E. Glass, Esquire 6161 Blue Lagoon Dr., Suite 350 Miami, FL 33126 Jane Mostoller, Esquire 325 W. Gaines St., Suite 1522 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 J. Victor Barrios, Esquire 1026 Ease Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Virginia Valletti, an American woman, within the meaning of Section 288.703, Florida Statutes, holds 75 percent of the stock of Petitioner, Commercial Air Tech, Inc., (Commercial Air). Sam Valletti, the husband of Virginia Valletti, owns 15 percent of the stock of Commercial Air, and the two daughters of the Valetti's each owns five percent of the stock of the business. Sam Valletti is not a minority person as defined in Section 288.703, Florida Statutes. Article II, Section 1 of the bylaws of Commercial Air provides that "All Corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business affairs of the corporation shall be managed under the direction of, the Board of Directors." The bylaws state that the corporation shall have two directors. Those directors are Virginia and Sam Valletti. Article III, Section 2 of the bylaws of Commercial Air sets out the duties of the President of the company as follows: The President shall be the chief executive officer of the corporation, shall have general and active management of the business and affairs of the corporation subject to the directions of the Board of Directors, and shall preside at all meetings of the shareholders and Board of Directors. Commercial Air provides heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) services and is required by Florida statutes to be qualified by a licensed contractor. Sam Valletti holds the contractor's license which qualifies Commercial Air. Virginia Valletti testified that she does not believe that she could pass the contractor's test to become the qualifying agent for the company. Sam Valletti is authorized to sign checks on the account of Commercial Air, but Virginia Valletti signs the majority of the checks for the business. Sam Valletti signed the business lease for Commercial Air. Sam Valletti or a male employee, signs the contracts on behalf of the business. According to Virginia Valletti, the two men sign the contracts for appearance sake because the HVAC business is a male-dominated industry. According to the application submitted to the Respondent, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office (Department), Virginia Valletti's major responsibilities in the business are as follows: Open and close office Monday through Friday Transact all accounts receivables and payables Answer customer calls and inquiry's [sic] all on customers to insure their needs are being met Dispatch technicians to job sites Compose all company forms and form letters and contract forms Track job costs Analyze profit & loss statement, balance sheet and other financial reports Oversee office personnel - hire, review (all personnel) and fire (office only) Shop and purchase all insurance (workman's comp., liability, bond, etc) Figure payroll and all associated taxes Negotiate credit lines and loans Track truck maintenance and inventory Place orders with vendors and track shipments to job sites The application submitted to the Department lists Sam Valletti's major responsibilities as follows: Estimates jobs in construction and service Troubleshoots equipment problems with technicians Recommends and designs new installations with property managers and owners Keeps up to date on So. Florida code changes, labor laws, and union regulations Finds new resources and seeks out leading edge technological advances Customer liaison for technical questions Hires, reviews, and fires service personnel Purchases company vehicles Sam Valletti receives approximately $16,000 per quarter in wages from Commercial Air, and Virginia Valletti receives approximately $3,000 in wages.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Commercial Air, Tech Inc.'s request for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Edmond L. Sugar, Esquire 950 South Federal Highway Hollywood, Florida 33020 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 303, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to be certified as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact West Construction, Inc., is a Florida corporation that is engaged in the construction business. The focus of the business is the renovation and new construction of commercial buildings. Petitioner has been certified as a minority business enterprise by several local governmental entities. Petitioner regularly bids on governmental contracts. Petitioner's application to the Respondent for certification as a minority business enterprise was denied. Petitioner is a "small business" as that term is defined by Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes. 1/ At the time of the formal hearing, Martha A. Morgan owned 51 percent of the issued shares of stock in West Construction, Inc., served as one of two members of the Board of Directors, and was the President, Treasurer, and Assistant Secretary of the corporation. Ms. Morgan is an American woman. 2/ At the time of the formal hearing, Donald West owned the remaining 49 percent of the authorized and issued shares of stock, served as the other member of the Board of Directors, and was Vice-President and Secretary of the corporation. Mr. West is not a "minority person". Ms. Morgan and Donald West have been married to each other since 1985. West Construction, Inc. was incorporated by Donald West and his father in 1977 after they had operated as a partnership for several years. The corporation is authorized to issue 1,000 shares of common stock. When it was incorporated, a total of 200 shares of stock were issued, with Donald West and his father each being issued 100 shares of stock. When Donald West's father retired in 1984, the corporation repurchased his 100 shares of stock and distributed to him an amount equal to 50 percent of the assets of the business. This distribution adversely impacted the corporation's ability to secure performance bonds for projects. After that repurchase, the only issued shares of stock were the 100 shares that had been issued to Donald West in 1977. Prior to her marriage to Mr. West in 1985, Ms. Morgan had her own separate assets. She contributed these assets to the marriage. The marital assets were thereafter used to obtain performance bonds for the corporation and served as security for other obligations of the company. Ms. Morgan is a college graduate with a degree in Business Administration. Her experience includes working as a certified legal assistant for a land development company. In 1985, Ms. Morgan started working for West Construction doing accounting, posting, and general record keeping. In 1989, she began to take a more active role in the affairs of West Construction in that she did more of the day to day bookkeeping, including payroll and accounting. Since December 1992, Ms. Morgan has been licensed by the State of Florida as a certified building contractor. Ms. Morgan became the majority owner of the company on January 1, 1993, when Donald West transferred to her 51 of his 100 shares of stock in the corporation. Donald West remained the only other stockholder with 49 shares of stock. Effective January 1, 1993, Ms. Morgan became the President, Treasurer, and Assistant Secretary of the corporation. Ms. Morgan and Mr. West became the only two members of the board of directors of the corporation. One of the reasons for the transfer of stock was to qualify the corporation for certification as a minority business enterprise. The consideration for the transfer of the stock to Ms. Morgan was the contribution she had made to the marital assets and the work she had done on behalf of the corporation. There was no separate payment of money by Ms. Morgan for this stock. Donald West has been in the construction business all of his adult life. He has a degree from the University of Florida in building construction and has a general contractor's license and a building contractor's licensed from the State of Florida. Mr. West's construction licenses were used to qualify the firm for construction work between 1977 and December 1992, when Ms. Morgan obtained her building contractor's license. Ms. Morgan's license has been used to qualify the corporation since she obtained it. Ms. Morgan is in charge of managing the finances of the company. Ms. Morgan keeps the company books, pays the bills, and invests any profits. She is responsible for payroll, insurance, bonding, accounts receivables, and billings. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. West have the authority to sign checks, make withdrawals and deposits on company accounts, and execute bank documents. Both have the authority to draw on a line of credit that has been established by the company, but neither has had the need to do so. Mr. West has the authority to sign company checks, but he seldom does so. Ms. Morgan and Mr. West are jointly and severally liable as indemnitors on the company's bond, and their personal assets, including the jointly owned marital assets, act as security for this risk. Both serve as guarantor's on the company's line of credit. At the time of her application for certification, Mr. West and Ms. Morgan were paid the same salary. Between that time and the formal hearing, Ms. Morgan had increased her salary so that she was being paid $3,000 per month and Mr. West was being paid $2,000 per month. Ms. Morgan testified that she determined her own salary without consulting Mr. West. Ms. Morgan arranged for the financing of the latest vehicle purchased by the company, she determined that the building out of which the company operates should be financed. She made the decision as to how the company's idle capital would be invested. In addition to Mr. West and Ms. Morgan, the company has two other full time employees who were employed by Mr. West before Ms. Morgan became an owner, officer and director of the company. One of these employees is a carpenter and the other is a general laborer. Mr. West is the direct supervisor for these two employees. Ms. Morgan reviews submittals from subcontractors and works as the liaison between subcontractors and the project architect. Mr. West supervises the work of subcontractors. Ms. Morgan is also responsible for finding projects for the company to bid upon. The company subscribes to two services that provide information to potential bidders as to public works projects. Ms. Morgan reviews that information and determines the projects upon which the company will bid. Ms. Morgan obtains and reviews the bid packages, secures any other information she deems necessary by communicating with the contract letting agency or architect, and attends the pre-bid meeting. Both Mr. West and Ms. Morgan work on the company's bid. Mr. West's role is to prepare quantitative takeoffs from the bid plans. Ms. Morgan determines the overhead by factoring in the amount of current business undertaken by the company, the complexity of the project, and the difficulty of the project. Both Mr. West and Ms. Morgan attend pre-construction meetings. Ms. Morgan usually signs the company bids and any resulting contracts as its president and uses her license to qualify the company. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. West develop the company's work schedule. Despite being licensed as a certified building contractor, Ms. Morgan has never supervised a construction project from beginning to conclusion. The actual construction projects undertaken by the company are supervised and managed by Mr. West. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. West order materials and supplies for construction projects. Ms. Morgan would have to hire someone to manage the construction projects if Mr. West were not available. The management of this family run company is divided between Ms. Morgan and Mr. West. Petitioner established that Ms. Morgan takes a meaningful role in the management of the affairs of the corporation, but it is also clear that Mr. West takes a meaningful role. The managerial functions performed by both stockholders are essential to the operation of the company. One was not established to be more important than the other. It is found that Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Morgan exercises dominate control of the affairs of the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development enter a final order that denies West Construction, Inc.'s application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Haul-It, Inc., is a trucking company in the business of hauling road building materials. It owns 19 trucks and 13 trailers worth about $106,000; and owes between $75,000 and $79,000 to a bank. Occasionally petitioner engages additional trucks and drivers. All but eight of its 15 or 16 employees are truck drivers. Haul-It, Inc., was organized in 1973. Jack Taylor and his father started the business but later sold out to Hubert E. Real, the president, half- owner and operator of Columbia Paving, and Wiley Jinwright, a 24-year employee of Columbia Paving. Mr. Jinwright became president of Haul-It, Inc., and Jack Taylor stayed on as truck foreman. Messrs. Real and Jinwright each owned 20 shares of stock, representing half interest in petitioner. Columbia Paving itself has never held any of the 40 shares of stock that petitioner has issued. In November of 1980, Mr. Real conveyed all 20 of his shares to his wife, Helen Real; and Mr. Jinwright conveyed one share to Mrs. Real. Both transfers of stock to Mrs. Real were gratuitous. She knew at the time that her ownership might help Haul-It, Inc., qualify as a minority business enterprise. In addition, Mr. Real "had had a couple of heart attacks" (T. 14) and Mrs. Real "thought it would be nice to have a related [to Columbia Paving] business." (T. 14.) The evidence did not reveal whether Mr. Real has spent more, less, or the same amount of time with petitioner's affairs since his divestiture as before. Mr. Real remains active as president of Columbia Paving. From November of 1980 to the time of hearing, Mrs. Real has owned 52.5 percent of petitioner's stock and Mr. Jinwright has owned 47.5 percent. Petitioner's only offices are housed in a trailer located on land owned by Columbia Paving. Haul-It, Inc., pays Columbia Paving rent for the land on which its office trailer, trucks, and other equipment are parked. At the time of the hearing, between 70 and 80 percent of Haul-It, Inc.'s work was being performed under contract to Columbia Paving. As far as the evidence showed, petitioner has always performed most of its services under contract to Columbia Paving. Although it has had other customers, Columbia Paving is petitioner's only regular customer. (T. 27.) Petitioner uses Columbia Paving's computer to keep its books and shares a bookkeeper with Columbia Paving. Each company pays the bookkeeper a separate salary. Mrs. Real sits on Columbia Paving's board of directors. Neither Columbia Paving nor any other entity uses petitioner's hauling equipment unless it has contracted to do so. When Haul-It, Inc., "bid[s] through Columbia Paving" (T. 39) in response to invitations by the Department of Transportation, Columbia Paving personnel check the bid over to make sure that it "fits whatever plan or whatever estimates they feel are in order." (T. 40.) Soon after she became owner of a majority of petitioner's Stock, Mrs. Real became petitioner's vice-president, secretary, and treasurer, even though she had had no prior experience in the trucking business. Mr. Jinwright remains president of Haul-It, Inc. It was also in November of 1980 that Haul-It, Inc., applied for certification as a minority business enterprise. At that time and for some months afterward, Mrs. Real was not working for Haul-It, Inc., on any regular schedule. On the basis of the information petitioner furnished with its application, respondent, in November of 1980, "certified them for 12 months, on the condition that an on-site review would be conducted and at that time the decision would be made as to the ownership and control and whether this minority business enterprise should be continued as certified." (T. 61.) In April of 1981, respondent's Mr. Nath conducted an on-site review. At that time, Mr. Nath requested additional documents which petitioner eventually mailed to respondent. In September of 1981, respondent for the first time communicated to Haul-It, Inc., its intention to disqualify petitioner as a minority business enterprise. After receiving this news, Mrs. Real began going to work for petitioner daily. She has an office in the trailer that she shares with Mr. Jinwright, whose role in Haul-It, Inc., was reduced to cosigning checks when Mrs. Real began working full time. Most of Mr. Jinwright's time is now spent as Superintendent of Columbia Paving's four asphalt plants. Even so, he still draws a salary from Haul-It, Inc., equal to Mrs. Real's salary. Despite their respective titles, both Mr. Jinwright and Mrs. Real act on the assumption that she, rather than he, has ultimate authority in the conduct of Haul-It, Inc.'s business. Mrs. Real has full authority to hire and fire, authority which she has delegated, in the case of the truck drivers, to Jack Taylor. She has the final say on all questions of policy and operations that arise in the business. Haul-It, Inc., cannot borrow money or make expenditures without her permission. Jack Taylor and two other employees buy for Haul-It, Inc., but she cosigns all checks with Mr. Jinwright. She has not learned how to prepare a written bid for the Department of Transportation, although she is involved with bidding. Mrs. Real relies heavily on Jack Taylor's bidding expertise, as have petitioner's other owners. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation reflect the good work done in this case by counsel on both sides. To the limited extent proposed findings have not been adopted, they have been deemed immaterial or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny Haul-It, Inc., certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick E. Hurley, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Ella Jane P. Davis, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
