The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact By application dated February 6, 1998, Petitioner requested certification as a minority business enterprise. Respondent received the application on May 20, 1998, and denied the application on July 31, 1998. In denying the application, Respondent cited several reasons, including various rules, for why it was denying Petitioner's request for minority business certification. The letter cites Rules 38A-20.001(8) (statutory definition of "minority business enterprise") and (15) (lack of real control); and 38A-20.005(2) (ownership tests) and (3)(a) (control subject to restrictions), (b) (determining quorum of board of directors), (c) (minorities must be sufficiently capable and responsible to maintain control), and (d) (control may not be distributed among non-minority family members so that minority lacks dominant responsibility for management and daily operations, including purchase of inventory and equipment and financial control). Respondent does not dispute that Darlene S. Maki is a minority--i.e, female--and that Petitioner is a "small business concern." The application discloses that Petitioner is a Florida corporation in business as a machine shop. The application discloses that the only minority associated with the corporation is Ms. Maki, who at all times has owned 51 percent of the stock and serves as the president and treasurer. Initially, Mr. Maki's husband owned 14 percent of the shares; Mr. Rodhe owned 12.5 percent of the shares; Ms. Maki's other son, Michael Gritton, owned 12.5 percent of the shares; and Ronald Maki owned 10 percent of the shares. The application states that the initial board of directors consisted of three persons: Ms. Maki; her husband, Mark Maki; and one of Ms. Maki's sons, Randy L. Rodhe. In fact, the original board of directors consisted of Ms. Maki, her husband, her two sons, and Ronald Maki, the brother of Ms. Maki's husband. Petitioner is a family-owned and -operated business. Originally, Ms. Maki's husband served as vice-president, and Mr. Rodhe as secretary. The owners have had varying degrees of involvement in the corporation, ranging from Ms. Maki, who has been most involved, to Ronald Maki, whose involvement has been limited to his initial investment of $25,000. The only other persons to contribute cash for their shares were Ms. Maki and her husband. According to the application, Ms. Maki contributed $18,500, and her husband contributed $8000. The application understates their cash contributions. Individually, Ms. Maki contributed $32,000 in cash, which she raised by liquidating her Section 401(k) plan ($20,000) and bonds ($12,000). Individually, Ms. Maki's husband contributed $8000 in cash. Jointly, Ms. Maki and her husband contributed another $60,000 in cash, consisting of $30,000 in loan proceeds from a mortgage on their jointly owned home and $30,000 in charges on their joint credit cards. Prior to incorporating Petitioner in August 1997, Ms. Maki, who is 56 years old, had 20 years' experience working in a machine shop operating noncomputerized drill presses. She also worked five years as an assistant vice-president of a bank, supervising mortgage loan operations. Although Ms. Maki does not know how to operate the newer computer-assisted machines, her background would permit her to learn to do so with minimal training. However, due to a progressively debilitating disease that struck her in 1989, Ms. Maki is confined to a wheelchair and lacks feeling in her hands. Thus, she cannot efficiently operate the older manual machines or newer computer-assisted machines used in machine shops. Ms. Maki's husband lacks any experience in machining tools. He has worked over 25 years as an automobile mechanic. His brother has no experience in machining tools; he is in the construction business in Miami. Ms. Maki's sons have considerable experience in machining tools, including training and 14 and 20 years' experience in using the newer, more complicated computer-assisted equipment, which Petitioner owns. They received their stock in return for their agreement to work for wages well below what they could have earned elsewhere. Given the minimal cash flow and concerns about jeopardizing her Social Security disability payments, Ms. Maki did not withdraw money from Petitioner. However, her husband received a salary of an undisclosed amount until September 1998. Her sons also received a salary, but only about $100 weekly, mostly to cover their expenses. In May 1998, Mr. Rodhe terminated his involvement with Petitioner. At that time, he transferred his stock to Petitioner, apparently without any payment to him. The effect of this transfer was to increase Ms. Maki's percentage ownership of Petitioner. At the time of Mr. Rodhe's departure, his brother replaced him as secretary, and the board of directors were reduced to four members. These are the present officers and directors of Petitioner. Pursuant to the articles of incorporation, the board of directors directs the affairs of Petitioner. Nothing in the articles of incorporation overrides the provisions of Section 607.0824(1), Florida Statutes, which provides that a majority of directors constitute a quorum, or Section 607.0808(1), Florida Statutes, which provides that the shareholders may remove directors without cause. Ms. Maki and her husband are each authorized signatories of checks drawn on Petitioner's checking account. Each check requires only one signature. However, Mr. Maki does not typically sign the checks, consistent with his relatively little involvement with Petitioner. Someone at the bank suggested to Ms. Maki that Petitioner should authorize her husband to sign checks in case anything happened to Ms. Maki. Ms. Maki and her husband are the guarantors on a lease for a major piece of equipment used by Petitioner. In a later lease, the lender allowed only Ms. Maki to sign as a guarantor. Business has slowly been building. In July 1998, Petitioner hired a machinist and purchased another machine. When confronting a major decision, such as purchasing a new machine, Ms. Maki presents the issue to the board of directors, which then makes the decision. Ms. Maki solely handles hiring, firing, payroll, purchasing material, bidding, and scheduling jobs. She is present at the shop every workday from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM and supervises all of the activities in the shop.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 25th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene Maki Qualified Representative RGM Precision Machine, Inc. 18923 Titus Road Hudson, Florida 34667 Joseph L. Shields Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary B. Hooks Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact Wanda Forbess is an American woman. She is the president of the Petitioner corporation, Center Office Products, Inc. She owns 5l percent of that corporation's outstanding stock. The stock is full voting stock and there are no agreements in existence or anticipated which would cause any change in the percentage of ownership of Wanda Forbess, nor any change in the voting power of her stock. The Petitioner corporation and Wanda Forbess has no affiliation or relationship with any other business and Wanda Forbess is not an employee of any other business. The net worth of the Petitioner as of the date of hearing is less than one million dollars. It has also been stipulated that the Petitioner, that is, Wanda Forbess, has been performing a useful business function and operating the Petitioner's business since 1981. Wanda Forbess is the mother of Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess and the wife of Thomas D. Forbess. In 1981 her children were almost out of school, with her youngest child being about to enter college. She decided she wanted to start her own business. She had been active as a homemaker, a volunteer and active member of civic organizations. She decided to enter the office supply retail business in 1981 because of the low initial investment required due to the presence of two wholesale suppliers in Jacksonville who could supply goods for inventory on a rapid basis. She also chose to enter this business because there were no particular special skills, training or licenses required and because she knew something about it, since her husband worked for twenty-five years in one phase of the business, that of sales of paper products. This decision being made, Ms. Forbess approached her sons, Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess, to persuade them to enter into the business with her. They agreed to join her in the venture and she set about to form the Petitioner corporation. She desired to incorporate in order to limit the liability which she and her sons would be exposed to in operating the business. She retained an attorney to incorporate the business, but paid no particular attention herself concerning how the shares were to be issued and held or as to the manner of appointment of the members of the board of the directors. She simply followed her attorney's instructions who advised her to do the "standard type" of incorporation. The corporation estab- lished by her attorney provided, in its by-laws, that there would be three directors. Wanda, Ray and Thomas Forbess were each named as directors since they were the only three individuals involved with the Petitioner at its formation. The attorney also issued stock certificates for 200 shares each to the three directors. Wanda Forbess was appointed as president and chief executive officer of the Petitioner corporation. This was because the formation of the business and the company was Mrs. Forbess' idea and she had provided more than five times the amount of capital of each of the other two owners, her sons. In fact, she had provided $11,000 of her own money as initial capital and her two sons provided $2,000 each. Notwithstanding their equal ownership status and the equal vote each of the three has on the Board of Directors, as well as the requirement in the bylaws that a majority vote of the Board is controlling, Mrs. Forbess has been in control of the Petitioner corporation's operations from the day of its inception. Her sons do not question that control and established the fact of it in their own testimony at the hearing. The vice- president is Raymond D. Forbess and the secretary treasurer is Thomas J. Forbess. The bylaws provide that the property and business of the corporation is managed by its Board of Directors and that a majority of those directors shall be necessary and sufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The act of the majority of the directors present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be deemed to be the act of the board. It is also provided in the bylaws that the holders of the majority of shares of stock may remove a director at any time, with or without cause, at a duly called meeting. The president of the Petitioner is empowered to call such a meeting at any time. Any vacancy occurring as a result of removal of any director by the majority shareholders may be filled by the affirmative vote of the majority of remaining directors, even if less than a quorum shall be present. Directors are not required to be shareholders. Therefore, as a holder of 51 percent of the shares of the Petitioner, Wanda Forbess has control over the board of directors by the power to elect or remove any director by voting shares accordingly at a meeting which she may call at any time, with or without notice, as the president of the Petitioner corporation. Replacement directors could then be appointed by her vote alone and could be any person she elects, including, for example, an employee over who she has authority and who she may direct to vote a certain way. In any event, from 1981 through 1987, the Petitioner grew from a company with three employees to a company of 18 employees and more than $280,000 gross monthly sales. During this time, the Petitioner enjoyed some State of Florida contract business. Some time in 1987, Mrs. Forbess became aware that she would soon be unable to continue doing business with the state because her business was not a certified minority business enterprise. In fact, however, the Petitioner had been, from its inception, an American woman-controlled corporation in actual practice. On June 1, 1987, Mrs. Forbess directed her sons to convey sufficient stock to her so that she could become a 51 percent shareholder of the Petitioner corporation. This transfer was done to comply with section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, concerning the definition of "minority business enterprise." It was also done to formally reflect what had been the case, as a practical matter, since the inception of the corporation: that Wanda Forbess controlled the Petitioner corporation. The company by that time had significant value reflected in the value of its stock, but neither son required payment for his stock which he conveyed to Mrs. Forbess. They considered that she was the controlling owner of the corporation from its inception anyway due to the fact that the business was her idea and that she had contributed by far the most significant amount of initial capital. Mrs. Forbess spends a majority of her time conducting the financial affairs of the Petitioner. She is more familiar and more involved with the financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation then any other owner, officer, director or employee. In that capacity, she sets all the salaries, including the salaries of her sons and her husband. All salaries are set completely at the discretion of Mrs. Forbess and always have been. She pays her two sons and her husband a higher salary than she pays herself because their financial requirements are greater, but the salient point here is that she is the manager with the discretion to set their salaries. In 1985, after the Petitioner had been operating successfully for four years, Thomas J. Forbess, the husband of Mrs. Forbess, retired from his position with Jim Walter Paper Company after 25 years of employment with that firm. Prior to that time he had no involvement with the formation, operation or management of the Petitioner corporation. He has never had an ownership interest in the Petitioner. He is an employee of the corporation and assists in some of the operations, including preparation and submittal of bids for some of the work the corporation undertakes. Mrs. Forbess controls the purchase of goods, equipment and business inventory and services used and needed in the day- to-day operation of the business. She frequently purchases significant items used in the business, such as computers, trucks, and postage machines, as well as inventory. In addition to this, the major purchases made by the business by any co-owner or employee must be made only with her approval. Evidence was offered showing the lease agreements and notes evidencing that corporate debts related to large purchases were signed by all corporate officers as a basis for an attempt to show that decisions are made by "consensus" or are joint decisions. However, the fact that lenders and lessors require all corporate officers to sign documents evidencing leases or debts does not mean each corporate officer had an equal part to play in making the decision involved. The record is replete with evidence and testimony from employees and the other owners that Wanda Forbess has a veto power on all decisions concerning purchases, loans, leases of real property and every other major business decision the Petitioner confronts. Further, the fact that discussions are had amongst the owners and officers of the business prior to making major decisions is really a sound business practice and does not mean that one of the owners, directors or officers does not have final authority to make a binding decision. The person who has final authority for such major decisions is Wanda Forbess. Mrs. Forbess also has the authority to hire and dismiss employees, a requirement of subsection 3(b) of Rule 13-8.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. She herself has interviewed employees from time to time and also has final authority to approve all hiring and discharge decisions or to veto them in those instances where she has delegated that authority. She controls which professional services are obtained by the Petitioner corporation, as shown by her decision to discontinue the services of the former company accountant. Indeed, she has delegated some of the hiring processes, given the fact that the Petitioner corporation has grown to be a business with 18 employees. That however, is a normal, acceptable business decision. The delegation of the advertising of a position, the interviewing of prospective employees and the conveying of offers of employment to prospective employees in no way indicates that the delegator does not have the final authority to hire or dismiss the employees. Wanda Forbess also controls all financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation. She thus has unsurpassed knowledge in relation to the other owners, officers and directors, of the financial structure and operations of the business. In fact, the bulk of her time spent working for the Petitioner, corporation since its inception, has been in the field of financial matters. She makes the decisions concerning debt to be incurred by the Petitioner, and approves any major expenditure, without which approval expenditures may not be made. It is significant that Mrs. Forbess has veto authority over the extension of credit to customers and establishment of credit accounts by customers. One instance was described by Jeannine Silcox and Raymond Forbess concerning Raymond Forbess' attempt to open an account to service a particular customer on a credit basis. Mrs. Forbess opposed that procedure and ordered that the account not be opened. The account was not opened. This demonstrates effectively that not only does Mrs. Forbess control the financial affairs of the company, but also wields ultimate authority amongst the co-owners of the Petitioner. Additionally, it is undisputed that Mrs. Forbess writes the vast majority of checks on the Petitioner's two checking accounts, in terms of the requirement, at subsection 3(D) of the above-cited rule, that she control the accounts of the business. She estimates that she writes 97 percent of the checks and there is no evidence to refute that estimate. Thomas J. and Raymond B. Forbess are each authorized signatories on the accounts, but their names are simply there as a matter of convenience and the only instances in which they sign checks are when there is an immediate need for the check to be paid and Mrs. Forbess is unavailable to sign herself. There is no question that Mrs. Forbess is the ultimate authority controlling the Petitioner's bank accounts. In order to comply with subsection 3(e) of the above cited rule, the minority owner must demonstrate capability, knowledge and experience in making decisions concerning the business involved. At the time of the business's inception, neither Mrs. Forbess nor her co-owner sons had the capability, knowledge or experience required to make many of the decisions concerning the retail office supply retail business. Over seven years of operation however, Mrs. Forbess has actively supervised and managed the business of the Petitioner and has developed to a high degree those attributes, in making decisions involved in operating that business successfully. She has delegated certain aspects of the company's business to the supervision of her sons. Thomas J. Forbess, for example, is involved in developing additional retail operations. Raymond B. Forbess is more actively involved in the delivery of merchandise to customers and the monitoring of customer accounts, as well as maintaining and accounting for inventory. Nonetheless, neither of the other owners effects any significant decisions without consulting Mrs. Forbess first and gaining her approval or veto. Through this supervision and control over the past seven years, as well as her current direct involvement in managing the Petitioner's affairs, Mrs. Forbess has developed the capability, knowledge and experience required to make decisions regarding the office supply business involved herein. Her operational and managerial capabilities are demonstrated by the fact that under her leadership the business started with three employees and has grown to an 18 employee business with gross sales in the neighborhood of $280,000 per month in just over seven years. Finally, Mrs. Forbess has displayed independence and initiative in conducting all major operations and details of the Petitioner since its inception, (as required by subsection (f) of the above rule). Although she has done little bid negotiating directly, she has the ability to do so and has some experience in that activity. Further, bid proposals are submitted to her for approval and are not made without her knowledge and assent. Further, she herself negotiates leases and other contracts on behalf of the Petitioner.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in proposing to award to Intervenor, The Weitz Company, Inc., a contract for Project No. DGS-88114000.
Findings Of Fact On February 18, 1992, Respondent Department of General Services issued its Invitation to Bid on Project No. DGS-88114000, the construction of the Fort Pierce Regional Service Center. The bid package contained a copy of the Department's Advertisement for Bids, together with the bid specifications, evaluation criteria, and criteria for award of the contract. The Department's Advertisement for Bids identified the project, advised that sealed bids would be received and opened at 2:00 p.m. on March 12, 1992, stated that the Bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation would be posted at 4:00 p.m. on that same date, and contained the following language: MINORITY PROGRAM: In accordance with Florida Statute 287.057(6), at least 21 percent of the project contracted amount will be expended with DGS certified minority business enterprises. If 21 percent is not attainable, the Division of Building Construction will recognize Good Faith Efforts by the Bidder. The Bidder is advised to review these requirements in the Section B-13B "Employment of and Reporting of DGS Certified Minority Business Enterprises Participation" immediately, in order to schedule the necessary tasks to accomplish Good Faith Efforts. Page 2 of the bid package was the Invitation to Bid form letter which contained the identical language as that quoted above. Section B-13B found on page 14 of the bid package under Instructions to Bidders provides as follows: B-13B EMPLOYMENT OF AND REPORTING OF DGS CERTIFIED MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PARTICIPATION Florida Statute 287.042 and the Department of General Services Rules 13-8 and 13-9, encourages the employment of and requires the reporting of DGS Certified Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) participation in state contracting. The Department has as its goal to spend twenty-one percent (21 percent) of construction contracts with DGS certified minority business enterprises. The overall goal for construction contracts are as follows: 4 percent Black Americans 6 percent Hispanic Americans and 11 percent American Women The Division Director of the Division of Building Construction recognizes the need to take affirmative actions to insure that Minority and Women business enterprises and minority and women employees are given the opportunity to participate in the performance of the Division of Building Constructions' construction programs. This opportunity for full participation in our free enterprise system by traditionally, socially and economically disadvantaged persons is essential to obtain social nd [sic] economic equality and improve the functioning of the State economy. Accordingly, it is the policy of the Division of Building Construction to foster and promote the full participation of such individuals and business firms in the State's building construction program. The Contractor, by bidding on this Contract, acknowledges his understanding and support for the social policy herein stated and pledges to fully cooperate with the State in the implementation of this policy, and further to exert a good faith effort to solicit and obtain the participation of such individuals and firms as subcontractors, suppliers and employees on this Contract. Prior to the execution of a contract, the bidder shall provide the following information on his contract or subcontracts for all DGS certified minority business firms to be utilized on the project: * * * Contractor's Schedules of Values and Requests for Partial Payments shall also reflect the payments made to each MBE subcontractor, using the name, minority vendor code, type of business and amounts. The contractor shall make a good faith effort to use services or commodities of minority business enterprises by: Attending any presolicitation or prebid meetings that were scheduled by the division to inform minority business enterprises of contracting and subcontracting opportunities; Advertising in general circulation, trade association, and/or minority-focus media concerning the subcontracting opportunities; Providing written notice to a reasonable number of specific minority business enterprises that their interest in the contract was being solicited in sufficient time to allow the minority business enterprises to participate effectively; Following up initial solicitations of interest by contacting minority business enterprises or minority persons to determine with certainty whether the minority business enterprises or minority persons were interested; Selecting portions of the work to be performed by minority business enterprises in order to increase the likelihood of meeting the minority business enterprise goals, including, where appropriate, breaking down contracts into economically feasible units to facilitate minority business enterprise participation; Providing interested minority business enterprises or minority persons with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract or the availability of jobs; Negotiating in good faith with interested minority business enterprises or minority persons, not rejecting minority business enterprises or minority persons as unqualified without sound reasons based on a through [sic] investigation of their capabilities; and Effectively using services of available minority community organizations; minority contractors' groups; local, state, and federal minority business assistance offices; and other organizations that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of minority business enterprises or minority persons. Prior to the issuance of the Invitation to Bid, the St. Lucie County Democratic Executive Committee directed a letter to Governor Lawton Chiles concerning the high rate of unemployment in the construction industry in the Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County area. That letter requested that language be included in the invitation for bids for the Fort Pierce Regional Service Center specifying that priority be given to the available resident work force, first, from within the city of Fort Pierce and, second, from within St. Lucie County. That correspondence reached the Department of General Services, with the result that the following language was included within the bid specifications on page 14a: B-13C EMPLOYMENT OF LOCAL LABOR, SUBCONTRACTORS AND MATERIAL SUPPLIERS The procurement by General Contractors and Sub- contractors of persons for skilled and unskilled worker positions, the sub-contracting by General Contractors for Sub-contractor services and the purchase by General Contractors and Sub-contractors of materials, equipment, supplies and services is highly encouraged to the maximum extent possible, to be from persons residing within or businesses located within Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie County. A Pre-bid Conference was conducted on February 28, 1992. The Minutes from the Pre-bid Conference reflect that Addendum No. 1 to the bid specifications provided to potential bidders a copy of the Department's Minority Business Enterprise Construction Directory listing DGS-certified minority business enterprises as of December 1991. Those Minutes also contain the following entry: Highlights of front-end of Project Manual * * * Page 14, Paragraph B-13B for reporting minority participation stipulates 21 percent goal: 4 percent Black 6 percent Hispanic 11 percent American Women Contractors must thoroughly document their good effort. Procedure for documenting good effort can be obtained from Susan Hodge. * * * K. Page 89 - Post Bid Qualifications: Form is to be completed and submitted within 7 days after Bid Opening. A few of the lowest Bidders will probably be required to submit this form. At 2:00 p.m. on March 12, 1992, the Department received and opened eleven bids for the construction of the Fort Pierce Regional Service Center. Two of those bids were from Petitioner D. I. C. Commercial Construction Corp. (hereinafter "D.I.C.") and from Intervenor The Weitz Company, Inc., (hereinafter "Weitz"). At 3:00 p.m. on March 12 the Department posted its Bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation. That Bid Tabulation reflected that The Weitz Company of West Palm Beach submitted the lowest bid, in the amount of $5,545,800, and that D.I.C. Commercial Construction of Fort Pierce submitted the second lowest bid, in the amount of $5,553,600. The Bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation further provided as follows: This is to advise you that the Division of Building Construction, Department of General Services, State of Florida, Has recommended that the contract for the referenced project be awarded to the firm of: THE WEITZ COMPANY, INC. in the amount of $5,545,800.00, accepting the BASE BID AND ALTERNATE #1 AND #2, determined to be the lowest acceptable qualified bid. Any bidder disputing the contract award recommendation must file . . . . Written notice of protest within seventy-two (72) hours after posting of this notice. A formal written protest by petition in compliance with Rule 13-4.12, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, within ten (10) days after the date on which he filed the notice of protest. * * * The Executive Director of the Department of General Services, State of Florida plans to act on the above recommendation after expiration of the seventy-two (72) hour notice period. That proposed bid award took into consideration only the amount bid by each of the eleven bidders. In making its proposed bid award, the Department gave no consideration to its bid specifications that required the inclusion of at least 21 percent participation by subcontractors who were DGS-certified minority business enterprises (hereinafter "MBEs"), and which "highly encouraged to the maximum extent possible" the use of "persons residing within or businesses located within Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie County." On March 16, 1992, D.I.C. timely filed its Notice of Protest to the proposed award of the contract to Weitz. On March 26, 1992, D.I.C. timely filed its Formal Notice of Protest to that proposed bid award. Since the Weitz bid did not achieve the required 21 percent MBE participation, Weitz was required to submit documentation of its "good faith effort" to the Department along with other post-award qualification documentation. Weitz submitted its "good faith effort" documentation on March 16, 1992. Although the Department was aware that a Notice of Protest had been filed on March 16, the Department commenced its "good faith effort" review on March 17, 1992. Weitz's good faith submittal recited that it had achieved a total DGS- certified MBE participation of 13.6 percent in its attempt to reach the goal of at least 21 percent. Of the required classes of 4 percent Black Americans, 6 percent Hispanic Americans, and 11 percent American Women, Weitz reported it had achieved 3.2 percent, 8.9 percent, and 1.5 percent respectively. One of the MBEs included within the percentage of Hispanic Americans was improperly included since that minority subcontractor is an Asian subcontractor, which is a different certification classification and not one of the types of minorities specifically required to be included in this project. That Asian subcontractor represented almost one-half of the Hispanic participation claimed by Weitz. Accordingly, Weitz failed to achieve the required overall percentage and failed to achieve the required percentage in any of the three categories. Weitz's submittal also showed that it had included within its achieved percentages of participation subcontractors who were not yet DGS-certified, by listing three of those subcontractors under the heading of "pending minority certification." Although one of those did become certified by the time of the formal hearing in this cause, the other two have never applied for certification. Although the bid specifications use the language DGS-certified MBE subcontractors for inclusion in the 21 percent participation requirement, it is clear that D.I.C., Weitz, and the Department believed that the bid specifications meant certified or certifiable. The Department's policy is that the MBE must be certified by DGS, not on the date of bid submittal, but by the time that the Department enters into the construction contract with the prime contractor. It is also clear that the Department began tracking the efforts of Weitz's subcontractors to become certified by DGS and became involved in the certification process for Weitz's subcontractors who were not yet DGS-certified. Although Weitz had received 21 bids from DGS-certified MBEs, it chose to use the bids of only five. The bids of the others were rejected because Weitz had made the prior determination that it would use the bid of a DGS- certified MBE only if that subcontractor submitted the low bid for that particular portion of the work. In other words, Weitz's focus was on submitting the lowest possible bid rather than on submitting a bid which included the required MBE participation goal. On the other hand, when D.I.C. received and reviewed its bid package, it made the determination that the Department's requirement of at least 21 percent minority participation was easily achievable. Accordingly, D.I.C. did not prepare any "good faith effort" documentation since the bid specifications clearly stated that the Department would consider good faith efforts only if the 21 percent goal were not attainable. D.I.C. made the decision that it would include the required percentage, both overall and in each individual category, in its bid submittal and that, if it could not, it would simply not submit a bid on this construction project. D.I.C. included in its bid the bids of MBE subcontractors who it believed were either DGS-certified or certifiable for a total participation of 26.5 percent. Included within that overall participation D.I.C. exceeded the required percentage for Black Americans, exceeded the required participation for Hispanic Americans, and fell barely short of meeting the required participation for American Women. After D.I.C. filed its Notice of Protest, although the Department freely communicated with Weitz and Weitz's subcontractors in the Department's efforts to certify those subcontractors to be used by Weitz who were not certified, the Department ceased communication with D.I.C. and D.I.C.'s subcontractors. Further, the Division of Building Construction of the Department commenced and continued in its efforts to review Weitz's "good faith" submittal. The Department further rejected communication from the supervisor in its own Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office regarding the Department's good faith efforts review. When conducting its good faith review, the Department looked only at the documentation submitted by Weitz. It made no effort to ascertain if there were things that Weitz could have done that Weitz chose not to do. Further, in conducting its good faith effort review, the Department reviewed Weitz's documentation under the belief that there was no specific MBE goal for this project. The Department's belief that there was no required MBE participation for this project, contrary to the bid specifications, was based upon the fact that the Legislature had given the Department a goal of at least 21 percent minority participation with the breakdown for the three categories of MBEs listed in the bid specifications as an overall Department goal. Although not disclosed in the bid specifications, the Department looked to meet its goal through the totality of its construction contracts and not pursuant to any individual contract. By March of 1992, the Department had already exceeded its statutorily-imposed goal by 140 percent for that fiscal year. Further, it was the Department's policy and practice to include in its reports to the Legislature concerning whether the Department had met its own statutorily- imposed MBE participation goal the participation of all minority subcontractors in all of the Department's construction contracts without regard to whether those subcontractors were DGS-certified by the time that the Department entered into those construction contracts with the prime contractors. In reviewing Weitz's good faith efforts, the Department utilized the criteria set forth in the bid specifications. It looked at each of the eight criteria listed in the bid specifications and then looked at the documentation submitted by Weitz to ascertain if there had been an effort to comply. The first criterion considers whether the contractor attended presolicitation meetings scheduled by the agency to inform minority business enterprises of the subcontracting opportunity. Since the Department held no such meeting regarding this construction project, none of the bidders could have met this criterion. The second criterion relates to advertising in general circulation, trade association, and/or minority-focus media. Weitz ran an ad one time only on Sunday, March 1, in the Palm Beach Post and in the Fort Lauderdale News/Sun- Sentinel. Weitz placed no other ads. The third criterion requires providing written notice to a reasonable number of specific minority business enterprises that their interest is being solicited in sufficient time to allow them to participate effectively. Weitz sent 98 letters throughout the state of Florida to MBEs listed in the Department's December 1991 directory. That letter was dated February 25, 1992. The fourth criterion requires following up initial solicitations by contacting MBEs or minority persons to determine with certainty whether they are interested. Weitz sent a follow-up letter dated March 4 to the same 98 addressees as its prior letter. The fifth criterion requires selecting portions of the work to be performed by MBEs to increase the likelihood of meeting the MBE goals, including, where appropriate, breaking down contracts into economically feasible units to facilitate MBE participation. Weitz's documentation reflected that the work of several trades had been broken down into smaller units. The sixth criterion requires providing interested MBEs or minority persons with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract or the availability of jobs. The advertisement placed by Weitz gave no information other than that it was seeking bids from certified MBEs for construction of the Regional Service Center in Fort Pierce, that the bid deadline was March 12, and that plans were available for review at Weitz's office in West Palm Beach. The first letter sent by Weitz advised the recipient of the square footage of the project, that Weitz might assist subcontractors on their bonding requirement, and that plans were available for review at Weitz's office in West Palm Beach and at local plan rooms, or full sets of plans and specifications could be purchased from Weitz at a price of $300 a set. The letter further gave the names of two persons at Weitz's office who could be contacted. The follow-up letter sent by Weitz contained the same information. The seventh criterion requires negotiating in good faith with interested minority business enterprises or minority persons and not rejecting them as unqualified without sound reasons based upon a thorough investigation of their capabilities. The Weitz documentation contained a statement saying that it had not rejected any minorities as being unqualified. The eighth criterion requires effectively using services of available community organizations; minority contractors' groups; local, state, and federal minority business assistance offices; and other organizations that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of minority business enterprises or minority persons. Weitz sent letters to six organizations in the state of Florida stating that it was seeking proposals for the Fort Pierce Regional Service Center, that it had contacted those companies listed in the December 1991 directory, that plans were available for review at Weitz's office in West Palm Beach and at local plan rooms, and that the recipients should refer any known interested persons to Weitz. It is clear that Weitz made an effort to obtain minority participation. It did not, however, use its "best ability and effort" to obtain minority participation. Weitz's efforts did result in the receipt of a substantial number of bids from DGS-certified MBEs. It does not, however, appear that Weitz used its best effort to assist interested MBEs to participate in the construction project since it did not use any subcontractor's bid unless it was the low bid. Weitz's documentation contains a copy of each of the letters sent to the 98 businesses in the state of Florida and also contains some notations of telephone contact between Weitz and some MBEs. The documentation does not support the proposition, however, that Weitz used its best efforts to work with individual MBEs to solicit their interest; to ascertain with certainty their level of interest; to make the plans and bid specifications available to them; to organize the scope of work into smaller units, if necessary, to enable MBEs to effectively participate in the bidding process; and, most importantly, to utilize bids received by those MBEs. Although the bid specifications specifically stated that the minority participation was to be at least 21 percent and, if that 21 percent was not attainable, the Department would consider good faith efforts, the Department made no independent determination of whether 21 percent DGS-certified MBE participation on this project was attainable. Contrary to the language of the bid specifications, the Department interpreted the criteria to be a requirement that the bidder either attain 21 percent or submit good faith efforts. Since Weitz was the apparent low bidder by price, and since Weitz did not achieve the 21 percent participation, the Department assumed that such level of participation could not be attained and that Weitz could instead submit its "good faith effort." Although a provision was specifically written into the bid specifications for this project that the bidders were encouraged to use local labor from the Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County areas, the Department developed no criteria by which to judge whether the bidders attempted to comply with that bid specification. Additionally, the Department failed to review the bids received for this construction project to see if efforts had been made to include local labor. In essence, this bid specification was ignored by the Department. Although Weitz included in its "good faith effort" submittal a statement that it would utilize local labor by using its own employees, Weitz is located in West Palm Beach, not in St. Lucie County or in Fort Pierce. Although Weitz further included a statement that it might utilize up to twelve companies located in that area, the Department made no determination as to the number of qualified companies located there. The Department was not aware of the fact that Weitz had solicited only by letter two DGS-certified subcontractors in St. Lucie County and only three DGS-certified subcontractors in surrounding counties. On the other hand, D.I.C. had expended extensive efforts to involve businesses in the Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County area. Although Weitz attached to its Petition to Intervene in this proceeding a list of St. Lucie County firms which were encouraged to submit bids and a list of other firms who employ a majority of St. Lucie County employees on projects located in Fort Pierce which were encouraged to submit bids, those documents were never presented to, or considered by, the Department when it evaluated Weitz's bid. Section B-21 of the bid specifications provides, in essence, that the contract would be awarded to the bidder submitting the lowest bid. Weitz's bid was slightly lower than that of D.I.C.--a difference of $7,800 on bids of over five and a half million dollars. D.I.C.'s bid could have been $60,000 lower if it had not sought to comply with the 21 percent MBE requirement set forth in the bid specifications. Its bid would have been lower if it had, like Weitz, rejected all bids from DGS-certified MBE subcontractors who were not also the lowest bidder in that particular trade. D.I.C.'s belief that the Department would require compliance with all provisions in the bid specifications caused D.I.C.'s bid to be higher than that of Weitz, which placed emphasis on the lowest price rather than the lowest price plus effective effort at meeting the MBE participation specification. By focusing on one bid specification and not on all of the bid specifications, the Department gave Weitz an unfair advantage over other bidders. By allowing Weitz to submit "good faith effort" rather than comply with the 21 percent minimum participation requirement, the Department, in essence, allowed Weitz to make a subjective determination that the 21 percent requirement was not attainable. It was the Department's duty under the bid specifications to make its own objective determination that the 21 percent bid specification was not attainable before the alternative consideration of "good faith effort" became relevant to the bid award recommendation. The Department could have, for example, looked at the other bids submitted to see if the other bidders had attained the 21 percent participation requirement. Under the Department's approach, i.e., relying solely on Weitz's representation and considering only Weitz's bid, it is possible that the other bidders attained the 21 percent requirement and that only Weitz did not comply with that bid specification. The Department's procedure rendered the 21 percent bid specification meaningless, which fact was not known in advance by all of the bidders. By failing to determine whether the goal for MBE participation set forth as a bid specification was attainable, the Department failed to determine whether Weitz had complied with all bid specification requirements. Accordingly, the Department did not in fact make a determination that Weitz was a responsive bidder by meeting all bid specifications. Further, the Department made no determination in fact as to whether any of the other bidders, including D.I.C., were responsive to the Department's own bid specifications. Accordingly, there has been no determination that Weitz, or any other bidder, is the lowest responsive bidder. Similarly, the Department made no determination as to whether Weitz had complied with Section B-13C of the bid specifications which provided that bidders were "highly encouraged to the maximum extent possible" to utilize persons residing within or businesses located within Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County. D.I.C., with offices in Fort Pierce, submitted a bid which included 67 percent local participation. Weitz, with offices in West Palm Beach, submitted a bid representing that it would utilize its own employees for 15 percent of the contract (a different bid specification) and represented that it would probably utilize up to a dozen local companies. Since it is clear that Weitz solicited subcontractors from all over the state of Florida, Weitz made no showing that it had attempted "to the maximum extent possible" to utilize persons and businesses from Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County. Additionally, Weitz's single advertisement in the two newspapers chosen by it does not show an intent to obtain local participation since the Fort Lauderdale News/Sun-Sentinel is not sold in either Fort Pierce or St. Lucie County and the Palm Beach Post is obtainable in Fort Pierce only at 7-11 convenience stores and in newspaper vending machines. The Department made no determination as to whether Weitz, or any other bidder, was responsive to this bid specification. Further, the Department did not advise bidders that it might not enforce this bid specification in the same manner that the Department did not advise all bidders that it might not enforce the 21 percent bid specification. In short, the procedures utilized by the Department in evaluating the bids submitted for this project did not afford fair and equal review of all bids submitted. Further, Weitz was given a competitive advantage by the Department's determination that Weitz should be given the bid award based solely on the Weitz bid being the lowest submitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered rejecting all bids on Project No. DGS- 88114000 for the Fort Pierce Regional Service Center. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-2370BID Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, 7-14, 17, 20, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 43, 45-48, and 55 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5, 6, 15, and 18 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 16, 21-28, 34, 37, 38, 40, 42, 49-52, and 54 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 19 and 53 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 31, 32, 41, and 44 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24-28, and 37 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 5, 6, 20, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38-41 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 9, 10, 12-14, and 34 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 15, 16, 18, 30, and 32 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 23 has been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 7, 12, 15, and 16 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Melinda S. Gentile, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 200 East Broward Boulevard Post Office Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 309 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Bruce G. Alexander, Esquire Boose Casey Ciklin Lubitz Martens McBane & O'Connell Suite 1900 515 North Flagler Drive Post Office Box 024626 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Neil H. Butler, Esquire Butler & Long, P.A. Post Office Box 839 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 307 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Susan Kirkland, General Counsel Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 309 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
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 Whether Petitioner is eligible for certification as a "minority business enterprise" in the area of landscape contracting?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a Florida corporation that was formed and incorporated by Margaret Gordon, who is the corporation's sole shareholder and its lone officer and director. Gordon is an American woman. Before forming Petitioner, Gordon held various jobs. Among her former employers are Florida Maintenance Contractors and Scenico, Inc. She worked for the former from 1984 to 1991, and for the latter from 1984 to 1990. As an employee of Florida Maintenance Contractors and Scenico, Inc., Gordon supervised landscaping projects. As a result of this work experience, Gordon has the managerial and technical knowledge and capability to run a landscape contracting business. Petitioner is such a landscape contracting business, although it has not undertaken any landscaping projects recently. Its last project was completed two years prior to the final hearing in this case. Since that time, the business has been inactive. Gordon's two sons, working as subcontractors under Gordon's general supervision, have performed the physical labor and the actual landscaping involved in the previous jobs Petitioner has performed. Gordon herself has never done such work and she has no intention to do so in the future. Instead, she will, on behalf of Petitioner, as she has done in the past, use subcontractors (albeit not her sons inasmuch as they are no longer available to perform such work.) Petitioner filed its application for "minority business enterprise" certification in the area of landscape contracting in March of 1994.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a "minority business enterprise" in the area of landscape contracting. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of October, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 9th day of October, 1995.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should certify Petitioner as a minority business enterprise ("MBE").
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for granting or denying applications for MBE certification in accordance with Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes,1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 60A-2.001 and 60A-2.005.2 Petitioner is an applicant for MBE certification. Petitioner is engaged in the business of installing traffic signal devices. Petitioner is a closely held Florida corporation that was organized in 1990. Minority Ownership All of Petitioner's stock is owned by Ms. Burita Allen. Ms. Allen is a minority person within the meaning of Section 288.703(3) (the "minority owner" or "minority shareholder"). The minority shareholder is majority shareholder. She owns at least 51 percent of Petitioner's stock within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(2)1. Financial Risk And Control The minority ownership of Petitioner is real, substantial, and continuing within the meaning of Rule 60A- 2.005(3)(d)3. The minority owner provided all of the $100,000 used for Petitioner's initial capitalization on April 4, 1995.3 Petitioner was inactive from 1990 until it began its first job on May 11, 1995. Petitioner now has completed or started a total of eight jobs. The minority owner has knowledge and control of Petitioner's financial affairs. She has sole control of the day to day operations of the company and its profit and loss. She contributed all of its initial capital, writes the checks, and contracts with employees, subcontractors, and customers. Operating And Management Control The minority owner has operating control of Petitioner and is technically qualified to manage and operate Petitioner's business. She has generated significant growth for Petitioner. Operating revenues have increased from zero to $170,736.28 in less than two years. Petitioner has another $90,268.08 in work performed but not billed. Petitioner's clients include the Florida Department of Transportation, the United States Navy, and Nassau County, Florida. Petitioner has also performed jobs for private companies such as Georgia Pacific, Target, and Haynes & Sons Inc. Affiliation Petitioner's minority owner gained the knowledge and experience needed to operate Petitioner successfully as an employee of J.W. Buckholz Traffic Engineering, Inc. ("Buckholz Engineering"). Buckholz Engineering is a closely held Florida corporation owned by five individuals. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. She owns 52 percent of the stock of Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner shares office space, equipment, and staff with Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner's minority owner allocates approximately 40 percent of the 70 to 102 hours she works each week to Petitioner. The remainder of her work week is allocated to Buckholz Engineering. The affiliation between Petitioner, its minority owner, and Buckholz Engineering does not impair the minority owner's ownership and control of Petitioner. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner's minority owner has an unimpeded legal right to share Petitioner's income, earnings, and other benefits in proportion to her stock ownership within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(2)(b). Neither the exercise of discretion by Petitioner's minority owner, her financial risk, nor her equity position in Petitioner is subject to any formal or informal restrictions within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(3)(a). There are no provisions in any purchase agreement, employment agreement, voting rights agreement, or the corporate by-laws that vary or usurp the minority owner's discretion. Buckholz Engineering assisted Petitioner in obtaining greater bonding limits than Petitioner could obtain on its own. Petitioner was capable of obtaining bonding on its own but increased the amount of bonding by adding Buckholz Engineering as co-applicant. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. Buckholz Engineering is a professional service corporation that provides design services by licensed professional engineers. Buckholz Engineering utilizes professional liability insurance. It is not a construction company and has no need to be bonded. Petitioner derived its name in part to benefit from the goodwill of Buckholz Engineering. However, the two companies are not engaged in the same business. Buckholz Engineering is a professional engineering firm that performs professional services including the design of traffic control systems. Petitioner installs traffic signal devices. Unlike Buckholz Engineering, Petitioner does not need a professional engineering license to conduct its business. Electrical License Petitioner does not offer a trade or profession to the state which requires a trade or professional license within the meaning Section 287.0943(1)(3)1.4 Unlike the professional engineers in Buckholz Engineering, no state statute requires the minority owner to be licensed in a particular trade or profession in order for Petitioner to install traffic signals. Petitioner's minority owner satisfies all certification requirements that are generally required for Petitioner to conduct its business. The minority owner is certified by the International Municipal Signal Association ("IMSA") and by the American Traffic and Safety Association ("ATSA"). In a particular job, Petitioner's customer may require that a licensed electrician pull the necessary permits for the job or that a licensed electrician approve the job. This customer requirement comprises only a de minimis portion of Petitioner's business. Of the eight jobs contracted by Petitioner, only one customer has required the permit to be pulled by a licensed electrician. Petitioner can satisfy these occasional customer requirements by subcontracting with a licensed electrician at a cost that is a small portion of the job cost.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and therein GRANT Petitioner's application for MBE certification. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Anthony Charles Fabian, a journeyman electrician, is the president of Fabian's Electrical Contracting, Inc. (FEC). Mr. Fabian owns 51 percent of the stock in FEC. FEC was incorporated in 1984 and since that time has been continuously engaged in the electrical contracting business. In 1987, FEC applied for and received certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE). Mr. Fabian has at all times maintained he is entitled to MBE status as a Hispanic American. Mr. Fabian was born in Tampa, Florida and lived in a Hispanic neighborhood there until he was six years old. During the time he resided in Tampa, Mr. Fabian's neighbors, family, and friends used Spanish as their predominant language. The family culture was Cuban as was that of the area where the family resided. At age six Mr. Fabian moved from Tampa to Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Fabian later moved from Pensacola to Tallahassee mid-way through his sixth grade. School mates in Pensacola and Tallahassee called him various ethnic nicknames, all related to his Hispanic ancestry. Such names included: "Julio," "Taco," "Spic," "El Cubano," and "Cuban Wheatman." Other than an affection for Cuban food, Mr. Fabian currently has no cultural practices to tie him to his Hispanic heritage. Mr. Fabian does not speak Spanish. Mr. Fabian does not reside in a predominantly Hispanic community. Mr. Fabian does not practice the religious faith of his progenitors. Mr. Fabian does not instruct his child in any Cuban cultural practice. Mr. Fabian does not know of any Spanish cultural aspect that came to him from his family. Mr. Fabian has never been refused work because of his Hispanic heritage. Mr. Fabian's mother has no Hispanic progenitors. Mr. Fabian's father, also born in Tampa, Florida, has the following ancestors: his father (Mr. Fabian's grandfather) was born in Spain, his mother (Mr. Fabian's grandmother) was born in Key West. Mr. Fabian's grandmother, Anna Rodriguez Fabian, who Mr. Fabian spent time with in Tampa spoke Spanish and claimed Cuban heritage as both of her parents had immigrated from there to Key West. For this reason, Mr. Fabian maintains he is a Cuban from Tampa. None of Mr. Fabian's grandparents was born in Mexico, South America, Central America, or the Caribbean. He has never claimed otherwise. Sometime after FEC obtained certification as a MBE, the Department adopted what is now codified as Rule 60A-2.001(8), Florida Administrative Code. Such rule defines "origins" as used in Section 288.703(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to mean that a Hispanic American must substantiate his cultural and geographic derivations by at least one grandparent's birth. In July, 1992, when FEC submitted its recertification affidavit, the Department notified Mr. Fabian that he had failed to establish that at least one of his grandparents was born in one of the applicable geographic locations. Accordingly, Mr. Fabian was advised his request for recertification would be denied. Approximately eleven other persons have been denied minority status because they were unable to substantiate origin by the birth of a grandparent. Of those eleven, none had been previously certified. FEC is the only formerly certified MBE which has been denied recertification because of the rule. However, when FEC was granted certification in 1987 it was not based upon the Department's agreement that Mr. Fabian met the statutory definition of a Hispanic American. Such certification was issued in settlement to the preliminary denial of certification since the word "origins," as used in the statute, had not as yet been defined by rule. Additionally, the recertification of FEC was based upon Department error and not an agreement that Mr. Fabian met the "origins" test. Finally, in 1991, the Department cured the rule deficiencies to create parallel requirements for certification and recertification for MBE status. When FEC submitted its recertification affidavit under the current rule, the request was denied. Mr. Fabian has been aware of the Department's position regarding his requests for recertification from the outset; i.e. since 1987. The Department promulgated the "origins" rule in response to a number of applications for MBE status from persons with distant relations or ancestors within the minority classifications. The necessity for an "origins" rule was demonstrated since the Department needed a clear standard, which staff and the public could recognize as the dividing line for who would and would not qualify as a Hispanic American, and since the purpose of the program is to provide preferences in contracting to businesses run by individuals who have been disadvantaged. In deciding to use the grandparent test, the Department looked to outside sources. Since there was no legislative history resolving the "origins" issue, the Department sought guidance from dictionary definitions and statutory uses in other contexts. In promulgating the rule, the Department gave notice to outside sources, including groups listed in the publication Doing Business in Florida, such as the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Commerce, small business development centers, community development corporations, local minority business certification offices, and the Minority Business Advocate's office. At the public hearing conducted for the purpose of receiving input regarding the grandparent test, no one offered opposition to the "origins" definition. Mr. Fabian is not a black American as defined in Section 288.703(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters concerned herein, either the Department of Management Services, or its successor, the Commission of Minority Economic and Business Development, was the state agency in Florida responsible for certification of Minority Business Enterprises in this state. Johnston was started by Mrs. Cloversettle's grandfather and operated by him and his three sons, including Conrad Johnston, Mrs. Cloversettle's father, for many years. As a child and young woman, Mrs. Cloversettle worked at the place of business in differing capacities and learned something of the business operation. At some point in time, she married Mr. Cloversettle who was and has been an employee of the firm, and over the years, he operated much of the equipment used in the business. Mrs. Cloversettle is also a licensed cosmetologist, and owns and operates a beauty salon through a corporation she owns with her husband. He does much of the handyman work at that shop and she works, part time, as a cosmetologist. Most of her time, however, is occupied with the affairs of Johnston. There are currently 60 shares of common stock issued in Johnston Lithograph & Engraving, Inc.. Seven and three quarters shares are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Cloversettle. Three and three-quarters shares came from her father, and she acquired four additional shares at the time she bought the business. Three and three quarters shares are owned by Mrs. Cloversettle's aunt, Ms. Sims, who lives in North Carolina; fifteen shares are held in the name of her father, Conrad Johnston; and eighteen and three-quarters shares each are held by his two brothers, Bert and Don. Ms. Sims takes no income from Johnston, does not participate in the management of the company, and plays no role in it other than as share owner. At one point, Mr. Cloversettle owned a one-half interest in the four shares his wife got at the time of purchase, but she considered herself the owner in that they were titled jointly only "for simplicity", just as the house and their bank accounts are also owned jointly. On April 26, 1994, after the initial denial of Petitioner's application for MBE certification, the joint ownership was terminated and the shares registered in Ms. Cloversettle's name only without any exchange of consideration therefor. Much the same pertains to the company bank accounts. Before the denial, both George and Brenda Cloversettle could sign company checks. Since then, however, George Cloversettle has been removed as an authorized signatory on company accounts. The shares owned by Ms. Cloversettle's father and his brothers, Donald, Bertram, are presently held as "security" for the payment of the purchase of Johnston by Mrs. Cloversettle. The shares are not voted and are held in escrow under an escrow agreement. A stock pledge agreement, dated February 7, 1986, to which the Cloversettles were not parties, produced after the hearing, pertains only to the corporation and Conrad and Margaret Johnston. Its terms, somewhat confusing, can best be interpreted as providing that upon default in payment, the stock held in escrow would revert to the original holder as titled on the face of the certificate or, at the option of the original owner, be sold. At the time of denial, the shares owned by Donald and Bertram had not been properly endorsed into the escrow but this was done prior to formal hearing when, by affidavit dated August 1, 1994, the escrow agent indicated both Donald's and Bertram's shares were subject to the 1986 escrow agreement. The 1986 agreement prohibits the issuance of any new or additional shares of stock until the purchase obligation is paid off. This provision may have been violated when the four additional shares were issued to the Cloversettles in 1990. The shares owned by both Bertram and Donald were the subject of a stock sale agreement for $93,000.00 for each block of eighteen and three-quarters shares. Both the date of the agreement and the signatures of the parties are not evidenced on the documents, however, but it appears Bertram deposited fifteen of his shares with the Tampa 1st National Bank in 1975, some fifteen years prior to the Cloversettle's 1990 purchase of the company. Conrad Johnston entered into a purchase agreement in 1985 with the original owners which did not include the Cloversettles. His fifteen shares were signed into escrow on February 6, 1986. These discrepancies in capital ownership were not clarified at hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Cloversettle entered into the agreement to buy the company from the Johnstons in 1990 for a purchase price of $300,000. Though in an earlier deposition, Mrs. Cloversettle indicated only about $3,000 of the purchase price had been paid, which money allegedly came from the proceeds of an insurance policy loan and a mortgage on their home, at hearing, she testified $30,000 had been paid, all of which came from the mortgage on their home. No payments on the obligation are currently being made by the Cloversettles because each of the original owners executed an agreement deferring payment until the company is financially able to make regular payments. The minutes of a special shareholder's meeting held on July 8, 1994, reflect the above-noted Johnston brothers' certificates were surrendered for cancellation in July, 1990. However, the minutes also note that the sale and redemption of the certificates was subject to an escrow pursuant to the February, 1986 escrow agreement which, in November, 1993, was affixed to an amended agreement naming Edward Hill as Escrow Agent, which referred to the Johnston brothers not as stockholders but as secured creditors. Because of the complex manipulation of the shares and their status, it is impossible to determine the relative ownership of the parties. Petitioner has not established with any degree of clarity that Brenda Cloversettle, though a minority owner, has actual and real ownership of at least 51 percent of the company equity free of any residuary or reversionary interest which could divest her of her 51 percent ownership. The shares covered by the escrow agreement, while classified by Petitioners as treasury stock, cannot legitimately be so considered since it is still in the name of the original owners and does not become property of the company until the obligation incurred for its purchase is satisfied. While, as noted previously, no additional payments have been made on the purchase price, the company maintains a life insurance policy on each Johnston which Ms. Cloversettle indicates is to be used to pay off the outstanding debt upon their respective deaths. She admits however, there is no document requiring the insurance proceeds to be used that way, and no independent evidence of the policies' existence was forthcoming. The primary business of Johnston is commercial printing/graphics. Ms. Cloversettle is the sole director of the corporation whose bylaws, as of July 8, 1994, require all directors to be minority persons. She has asserted, and it was not disproved by evidence to the contrary, that she has the primary role in decision-making concerning the company's business transactions and she is the sole person required to execute any transaction related documents. She has final authority as to all corporate decisions and is not required to consult with anyone else when corporate decisions are being made, though she may do so. Johnston does not keep inventory on hand but purchases supplies necessary on a job driven basis. According to Ms. Cloversettle, she controls the purchase of inventory and determines the need and appropriateness of equipment rentals or purchases. She seems to be familiar with and to understand the use of the products utilized by the company in its daily operations. She has a fundamental knowledge of the equipment used in the company's operation and, though she may not be fully qualified to operate every piece, can operate some of it. Though she periodically consults with her husband regarding business operations, she is not required to do so and has the responsibility for the hiring and management of employees. She alleges she sets employment policies, wages, benefits, and employments conditions at the company without the need to coordinate her actions with anyone. However, in a phone interview with the Department's representative, in February, 1994, Ms. Cloversettle had difficulty correctly answering many of the technical questions she was asked at hearing. Mr. Cloversettle, who has worked with the firm for approximately twenty years, is its key employee in computer graphics and serves as production manager and vice-president. Without doubt, along with Mr. Ezell, the firm's printer, he is primarily responsible for the daily plant operations, supervising the other employees, planning daily work flow, and insuring the vendors who supply the needed raw materials do so in a timely fashion. Ms. Cloversettle is college trained and, as noted previously, a licensed cosmetologist. She has done bookkeeping for the firm and acted as office manager, but has no formal training in printing, or graphics, other than years of observation as she grew up with the operation when it was operated by her father. Her primary hands-on experience is in book bindery and shop cleaning but she can run some of the smaller, less exotic equipment. She is not familiar with all the terms and duties involved in the operation of this business and could not accomplish them all. She acknowledges she spends most of her time in the office. She claims to be solely responsible for the financial affairs of the company and is the only one currently authorized to sign company checks. This situation, as has been noted, is of but recent origin, however. Nonetheless, Mr. Cloversettle continues to remain subject to equal debt responsibility with Ms. Cloversettle because of his prior co-signing of risk documents relative to loans taken by the company prior to the application, denial and hearing. Ms. Cloversettle's testimony regarding her method of evaluating the company's ability to perform potential jobs creates the impression that she is aware of the company's limitations and its abilities. She does not run the cameras or the presses and she need not do so. She does not solicit business but she hires a salesperson to do so and has the authority and capability to evaluate and accept or reject the work brought in. In the last two quarters of 1993, according to company payroll records, Mr. Cloversettle was paid approximately $6,426.00 while Ms. Cloversettle was paid only $2,650.00. However, after the application was denied, the ratio was changed dramatically to where she now earns $180.00 per week, and he, only $52.95.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Johnston Lithograph & Engraving, Inc.'s request for certification as a minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted as to the shares of Ms. Cloversettle and Ms. Sims. However, this does not indicate acceptance of the proposition that there are no other shareholders, or that the transfer of shares from Mr. Cloversettle to his wife was bona fide. 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted. However, as noted in the body of the Recommended Order, it is impossible to clearly define the actual status of the brothers' and father's retained shares or whether they have the potential to dilute Ms. Cloversettle's shares. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Not proven. 9. Not proven. 10. - 12. Accepted, but based entirely on unsupported testimony of Ms. Cloversettle. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted, but based entirely on unsupported testimony of Ms. Cloversettle. 19. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 22. & 23. Accepted. 24. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 25. Not an appropriate Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: First four sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance accepted as a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Not a proper Finding of Fact but more a comment on the state of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted but more as a comment on the state of the evidence. - 12. Accepted and incorporated more briefly herein. More a comment on the evidence and a Conclusion of Law than a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. First two sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance more a comment on the meaning and effect of the basic fact. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. First three sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance comment on the evidence. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23. & 25. This is a restatement of testimony by both sides. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire Langford, Hill, Trybus & Whalen, P.A. Post Office Box 3277 Tampa, Florida 33601-3277 Wayne H. Mitchell, Esquire Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building, Suite 201 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John Thomas Interim Executive Director Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
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.
