Findings Of Fact Petitioner Coggin and Deermont, Inc. (C&D) has forty-odd employees. The company owns a building and, among other equipment, bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, graders, draglines, and dump trucks. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. C&D clears, grubs, grades, and otherwise prepares roadbeds and constructs roads through the stage called "base work." C&D has qualified as a prime contractor with respondent Department of Transportation. The firm also builds culverts and storm drainage structures, including head walls, and does other concrete work. After Mr. Deermont died, at age 94, his partner carried on their road- building business with the help of Ralph C. Carlisle, a 25-year employee, and, until recently, president of C&D. Mr. Coggin died last year at 88, and the Carlisle family decided to acquire the rest of C&D's stock. Mr. Carlisle's wife Bertha, nee Lopez, had inherited Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000) from her father, who, like her mother, was born in Mexico. Blonde and blue-eyed, Mrs. Carlisle herself was born in the United States, on April 26, 1929. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. FAMILY BUYS COMPANY On February 10, 1982, the Carlisles bought all of C&D's stock Mr. Carlisle did not already own. They used Bertha's inheritance to make a Six Thousand Dollar ($6,000) cash payment and executed a promissory note in the amount of One Hundred Seventy-three Thousand, Three Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($173,325), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, for the balance of the purchase price. The note was secured by a mortgage encumbering three parcels of real estate owned jointly by Ralph C. and Bertha L. Carlisle. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The expectation is that income from C&D will make it possible for Mr. and Mrs. Carlisle to make the installment payments promised in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. C&D owes some Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) to various banks. Mr. and Mrs. Carlisle are personally liable for some, if not all, of C&D's debt. They are not obligated to begin installment payments on the note they executed to pay for the stock until March 10, 1983. Mrs. Carlisle paid Two Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($225) per share for her stock. (T. 58.) Only one hundred (100) shares are outstanding. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Mrs. Carlisle holds fifty-one percent (51 percent) of C&D's stock, and her husband holds thirty-four percent (34 percent). Mr. and Mrs. Carlisle have two sons, Ralph C. III and Richard D., to whom they gave ten percent (10 percent) and five percent (5 percent) of C&D's stock, respectively. All the Carlisles are directors of the corporation. Dividends have not been paid since the Carlisles took over. At some point, the Carlisles "decided [they] were going to apply for minority business enterprise [certification] and use [Mrs. Carlisle's] ethnic origin." (T. 64.) PRESIDENT'S DUTIES Mrs. Carlisle did not bring any particular expertise to C&D, even though she had accompanied her husband on some of his travels for C&D (without compensation). After graduation from high school, attendance at "business school," and two years as a clerk in a stock broker's office, she married Mr. Carlisle and began a twenty-five-year career as a housewife, which was interrupted recently by a two-year stint as an interior designer in a gift shop. (T. 65.) When she became majority stockholder, Mrs. Carlisle voted herself president of C&D. She succeeded her husband in that office. Her salary is One Thousand, One Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($1,125) weekly, and his is Eight Hundred Ninety-five Dollars ($895) 1/ weekly. They "combine" their salaries. (T. 90.) Machinery is not Mrs. Carlisle's strong point; she has some difficulty distinguishing among the different types of heavy equipment C&D uses. Field operations are not her primary concern. As a matter of company policy, she ordinarily visits job sites only in the company of her husband. (T. 63, 66- 67.) Her routine upon returning from site inspections she described as follows: [W]hen I come back I always check my mail and my phone calls or--something like that. Most of the time when I go out on the job, like I say, it's quite a distance away from home and I go back to the office and check to see what problems we have had, I have had. He checks his desk and I check my desk. And then we'll go on home and that's when we confer with our sons again. And business starts all over again. (T. 67-68.) She also buys most of the office supplies and signs weekly payroll checks, which are prepared by an employee and countersigned both by her husband and Patricia Kirkland, who keeps C&D's books. Mrs. Carlisle has only limited knowledge of basic accounting concepts. (T. 85-86.) She acts as C&D's "EEO representative," (T. 53) a task she took over from a secretary, Mrs. Cook. Mrs. Carlisle has other duties in connection with bid preparation. She reads some ten newspapers published in Chipley, Florida, and surrounds "to see which jobs are going to be coming up" (T. 50) and orders the plans for jobs C&D might be interested in; she and her husband ["he's the engineer and has all the experience . . ." (T. 51)] inspect the site; she inquires by telephone of "salesmen and people to get the prices" (T. 52) for pipe, concrete, and other materials, but does not negotiate prices. According to Mrs. Carlisle, her "husband is the one that is doing all of the figuring on the job," (T. 52) but Mrs. Carlisle works at figuring, particularly when she travels with her husband to Tallahassee. MINORITY OWNERS Both sons work for C&D and had held salaried positions with C&D before the Carlisles bought out the other owners. Their combined experience amounted to less than five years. The older boy, Ralph C. III, serves as corporate treasurer and as general superintendent "overseeing all the work that the company has under construction" (T. 20) and overseeing maintenance. He has power to hire and fire and has exercised it. As treasurer, he reviews a treasurer's report prepared by Mrs. Kirkland and signs rental agreements. He can operate every piece of equipment C&D owns. He has never supervised a road-building project from start to finish, but he worked on one project as a timekeeper and grade man from start to finish. He worked for C&D for a year after he graduated from high school. Since then he has had two years of college; he took math, engineering, and accounting courses. After college, he worked for Ardaman & Associates in Tallahassee for eight or nine months taking soil samples, before returning to C&D in February of 1982. He is paid Two Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($225) weekly. Richard D. works as foreman of a six-man crew, at a salary of One Hundred Seventy Dollars ($170) per week, and has full authority in the field in his father's absence, including the power to hire and fire the men he supervises. He began at C&D as a laborer. He has finished 60 hours of drafting technology courses at a junior college and may graduate in December. EFFECTIVE CONTROL As vice-president and general manager, answerable only to his wife, Ralph C. Carlisle has charge of C&D and manages day-to-day operations. He is trained as an engineer and does surveying for C&D. He is "the job estimator" (T. 90); he stakes out jobs and prepares cost reports. Richard D. Carlisle testified as follows: Q: Who do you report to? A: My daddy. Q: Do you receive instructions from him? A: Mostly. And I receive instructions from my brother and my mother. She will help us out. (T. 13.) Ralph C. Carlisle III testified, as follows: Well, basically I have the control of field supervising. If I make a decision in the field and it doesn't work then I ask [my father] to make a decision. That way he has a little more experience than I do, not a little more, a lot more. I make ninety- nine per cent of the decisions in the field. (T. 28-29.) He explained the lines of authority at C&D in these words: Totally to my mama, I'm totally responsible to her. But in the meantime I'm still re- sponsible to my daddy too. What I'm saying is, basically I do not have to report my day to day activities to anybody. If I have to, if there is something that arises I tell my mama first, being the stockholder, if she is available. If not then I go over it with my daddy. Basically my daddy and I have a little conference every evening on the field activ- ities, which my mama is also in on. We have a little conference every evening. We do report our activities to each other every evening. When it gets right down to it we don't have to. When asked whether decisions she makes in the field are joint decisions, Mrs. Carlisle answered: Yes. Just really because I'm president of the company that still doesn't mean -- that still means that we share it. My husband has a lot of say so just like I do. He has more knowledge in this field than I have. And this is what he is educated in too. (T. 70.) Mrs. Carlisle does not make policy for C&D by herself. (T. 76.) Mr. Carlisle is involved with all technical decisions. (T. 91.) The four owners live together as a family and discuss business at home as well as on the job.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1982.
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 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
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.
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 should be certified by Respondent as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc. (Jupiter), is an environmental testing laboratory established in October 1995. The services performed by Jupiter include testing samples of water, oil, soil, and waste water in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency standards. Jupiter also tests for inorganic and organic compounds by mass spectrography and gas chromatography. Jupiter is owned 70 percent by Glynda Russell, a female, and 30 percent by her husband, Edward Dabrea, who is a non- minority. Prior to forming Jupiter, Ms. Russell had not worked in a laboratory such as Jupiter. Her work experience had been in real estate and selling women's apparel. According to Ms. Russell she did gain some knowledge and experience in environmental testing because she was a customer of testing laboratories while she was in the real estate business. She became familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency's requirements while she was investigating environmental impacts when she was a realtor. Mr. Dubrea has a degree in earth science (geology) and has done post graduate studies in geoscience (organic geochemistry). He has extensive work experience in environmental testing laboratories. Both Ms. Russell and Mr. Dabrea are jointly liable for a $50,000 loan from the Small Business Administration and a $15,000 line of credit. Ms. Russell has also incurred debt of over $100,000 on her personal credit card for Jupiter's expenses. The company has three equipment leases which Ms. Russell signed and indicated she was personally liable. Ms. Russell also signed the lease for the space occupied by the business. Ms. Russell is the president of the corporation. Her duties include directing all marketing, sales, and financial operations. She is responsible for recruiting and hiring personnel, maintaining state certifications, prioritization of work flow (sample pick-up, sample log-in and report generation), bid pricing, selection of subcontracting laboratories, customer service and purchasing of supplies. Mr. Dabrea is the Technical Director for the company. In addition to working for Jupiter, he does freelance research. His resume states that his work at Jupiter includes the following: Planned and organized all technical details for new laboratory, including equipment requirements and analytical supplies. Received and setup instrumentation, performs necessary calibrations. Coordinates information with Laboratory Director and QA/QC Officer. Develops new methods and provides research assistance to clients with unusual assessments. Coordinates between laboratory and governmental agency to ensure compliance. Submits performance evaluation studies to E. P. A. for certification on quarterly basis. Responsible for ensuring adequate instrument capacity for continued growth of the company. Cliff Ross, a non-minority, is the Laboratory Director and works part-time for Jupiter. Start-up funds for Jupiter were contributed by Ms. Russell and Mr. Dabrea. Ms. Russell contributed $25,000 in cash, and computer equipment worth approximately $8,000. Mr. Dabrea contributed an $11,000 truck and $5,000 in computer equipment. Ms. Russell contributed 67 percent and Mr. Dabrea contributed 32 percent. Jupiter is certified in certain categories of environmental water testing by the State of Florida, Department of Health, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. In order to acquire such certification, tests must be performed in the laboratory by qualified technical personnel with the proper educational credentials. In order to acquire the certification for Jupiter, the tests were performed by Mr. Dabrea and Mr. Ross. Ms. Russell is not technically or educationally qualified to perform the tests required for certification. It is not necessary to have the certification to operate an environmental laboratory, but many companies acquire the certification as a marketing tool. Ms. Russell indicated in her response to the denial of her certification that "current market conditions make it all but impossible to get work without it." (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Ms. Russell can perform the extractions. Once the extractions are done for certain types of testing, the testing is automated. She cannot do chromatography. The Quality Assurance Director for Jupiter is Pamela Shore-Loeb. Her duties include responsibilities for all quality assurance and quality control requirements to ensure continued State of Florida laboratory certifications and project management to a growing client list. She, along with Ms. Russell, developed the quality assurance manual used by the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner, Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc., meets the requirements of Rule 38A-20.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, but does not meet the requirements of Rules 38A- 20.005(3)(c), (d)1, 4 and (6) and (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Consequently, the final order should deny Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc.'s application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Glynda E. Russell, President Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 220 Venus Street, Suite 16 Jupiter, Florida 33458 Douglas L. Jamerson, 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 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. Although FEC shares office space with other business entities, it is an independent business operation not affiliated with any other 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 year. 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 practice 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 acceptance 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 it recertification affidavit under the current rule, the request was denied. Mr. Fabian has been aware of the Department's position regarding his requests for certification from the outset. 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. The standard devised afforded a narrowly drawn, recognizable criterion. 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.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's recertification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6777 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 through 25, 28 through 31, 33 through 41, 43, 44, 46 through 50, 60, 64, and 70 are accepted. The first sentence in paragraph 8 is accepted. With regard to the second sentence it is accepted that the neighbors et al enjoyed Cuban food and cultural aspects but spoke Spanish. No proof was submitted that a language of "Cuban" was spoken by the community. The last sentence of paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant, otherwise the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as an incomplete statement of fact which, of itself, is insufficient to stand without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 26 is rejected as repetitive and unnecessary. With regard to paragraph 27 it is accepted Mr. Fabian has 16 years of experience, otherwise rejected as repetitive and unnecessary. The first sentence of paragraph 32 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as not supported by the evidence or irrelevant. Mr. Fabian does have a phone number whether that number is listed in the telephone book is not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 42 is rejected as irrelevant. The first two sentences of paragraph 45 are accepted. It is also accepted that Lewis & Thompson have used other minority subcontractors. Whether they "regularly" use them is irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 51 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as comment or argument. With regard to paragraph 52, it is accepted that Mr. De La O did not visit a job site; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 53, 54, and 55 are accepted as the applicable law of this case, not fact. Paragraph 56 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 57 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence; the definition also applies to other minorities. Paragraph 58 is accepted as a partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is accepted as a partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 61 is accepted as a partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 63 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 65 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 66 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 67, 68, and 69 are rejected as irrelevant or incomplete statements. Paragraphs 71 through 73 are rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary or repetitive. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 17 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the first, second, sixth and seventh sentences are accepted; the remainder is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not statements of fact. The first sentence of paragraph 3 is accepted, the remainder is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not statements of fact. The first sentence of paragraph 9 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as argument or partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. The second and third sentences of paragraph 11 are accepted, the first rejected as recitation of testimony, not statements of fact. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument or partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as argument or partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Coppins Gwendolyn P. Adkins Cooper & Coppins, P.A. 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Cindy Horne Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel Suite 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Suite 307 Knight Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sylvan Strickland Acting General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Suite 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Haul-It, Inc., is a trucking company in the business of hauling road building materials. It owns 19 trucks and 13 trailers worth about $106,000; and owes between $75,000 and $79,000 to a bank. Occasionally petitioner engages additional trucks and drivers. All but eight of its 15 or 16 employees are truck drivers. Haul-It, Inc., was organized in 1973. Jack Taylor and his father started the business but later sold out to Hubert E. Real, the president, half- owner and operator of Columbia Paving, and Wiley Jinwright, a 24-year employee of Columbia Paving. Mr. Jinwright became president of Haul-It, Inc., and Jack Taylor stayed on as truck foreman. Messrs. Real and Jinwright each owned 20 shares of stock, representing half interest in petitioner. Columbia Paving itself has never held any of the 40 shares of stock that petitioner has issued. In November of 1980, Mr. Real conveyed all 20 of his shares to his wife, Helen Real; and Mr. Jinwright conveyed one share to Mrs. Real. Both transfers of stock to Mrs. Real were gratuitous. She knew at the time that her ownership might help Haul-It, Inc., qualify as a minority business enterprise. In addition, Mr. Real "had had a couple of heart attacks" (T. 14) and Mrs. Real "thought it would be nice to have a related [to Columbia Paving] business." (T. 14.) The evidence did not reveal whether Mr. Real has spent more, less, or the same amount of time with petitioner's affairs since his divestiture as before. Mr. Real remains active as president of Columbia Paving. From November of 1980 to the time of hearing, Mrs. Real has owned 52.5 percent of petitioner's stock and Mr. Jinwright has owned 47.5 percent. Petitioner's only offices are housed in a trailer located on land owned by Columbia Paving. Haul-It, Inc., pays Columbia Paving rent for the land on which its office trailer, trucks, and other equipment are parked. At the time of the hearing, between 70 and 80 percent of Haul-It, Inc.'s work was being performed under contract to Columbia Paving. As far as the evidence showed, petitioner has always performed most of its services under contract to Columbia Paving. Although it has had other customers, Columbia Paving is petitioner's only regular customer. (T. 27.) Petitioner uses Columbia Paving's computer to keep its books and shares a bookkeeper with Columbia Paving. Each company pays the bookkeeper a separate salary. Mrs. Real sits on Columbia Paving's board of directors. Neither Columbia Paving nor any other entity uses petitioner's hauling equipment unless it has contracted to do so. When Haul-It, Inc., "bid[s] through Columbia Paving" (T. 39) in response to invitations by the Department of Transportation, Columbia Paving personnel check the bid over to make sure that it "fits whatever plan or whatever estimates they feel are in order." (T. 40.) Soon after she became owner of a majority of petitioner's Stock, Mrs. Real became petitioner's vice-president, secretary, and treasurer, even though she had had no prior experience in the trucking business. Mr. Jinwright remains president of Haul-It, Inc. It was also in November of 1980 that Haul-It, Inc., applied for certification as a minority business enterprise. At that time and for some months afterward, Mrs. Real was not working for Haul-It, Inc., on any regular schedule. On the basis of the information petitioner furnished with its application, respondent, in November of 1980, "certified them for 12 months, on the condition that an on-site review would be conducted and at that time the decision would be made as to the ownership and control and whether this minority business enterprise should be continued as certified." (T. 61.) In April of 1981, respondent's Mr. Nath conducted an on-site review. At that time, Mr. Nath requested additional documents which petitioner eventually mailed to respondent. In September of 1981, respondent for the first time communicated to Haul-It, Inc., its intention to disqualify petitioner as a minority business enterprise. After receiving this news, Mrs. Real began going to work for petitioner daily. She has an office in the trailer that she shares with Mr. Jinwright, whose role in Haul-It, Inc., was reduced to cosigning checks when Mrs. Real began working full time. Most of Mr. Jinwright's time is now spent as Superintendent of Columbia Paving's four asphalt plants. Even so, he still draws a salary from Haul-It, Inc., equal to Mrs. Real's salary. Despite their respective titles, both Mr. Jinwright and Mrs. Real act on the assumption that she, rather than he, has ultimate authority in the conduct of Haul-It, Inc.'s business. Mrs. Real has full authority to hire and fire, authority which she has delegated, in the case of the truck drivers, to Jack Taylor. She has the final say on all questions of policy and operations that arise in the business. Haul-It, Inc., cannot borrow money or make expenditures without her permission. Jack Taylor and two other employees buy for Haul-It, Inc., but she cosigns all checks with Mr. Jinwright. She has not learned how to prepare a written bid for the Department of Transportation, although she is involved with bidding. Mrs. Real relies heavily on Jack Taylor's bidding expertise, as have petitioner's other owners. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation reflect the good work done in this case by counsel on both sides. To the limited extent proposed findings have not been adopted, they have been deemed immaterial or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny Haul-It, Inc., certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick E. Hurley, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Ella Jane P. Davis, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner should be certified as a Minority Business Enterprise, (Woman-Owned).
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Commission On Minority Economic and Business Development, now the Division of Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security, was the state agency in Florida charged with the responsibility for certifying minority and women-owned businesses for most state agencies. It is required, by statute, to ensure that the preference for minority business firms obtained by the certification process are awarded only to those firms for which the benefit is intended. Petitioner, Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc., is a small business corporation registered in Florida on August 7, 1985. At the time of the original incorporation of the corporation, 1,000 shares of corporate stock were issued of the 7,000 shares authorized in the Articles of Incorporation. Of these, 510 were issued to John D. Richeson, the individual who, with his brother in the late 1970's, started the window cleaning business while a student in college as a means of supporting himself and, later, his wife and family. The remaining 490 shares were issued to Hope L. Richeson, his wife. The funds utilized to start the business and ultimately incorporate were jointly owned by Mr. and Mrs. Richeson. The Articles of Incorporation, as filed initially, list John D. Richeson as incorporator and registered agent, and John D. Richeson and Hope L. Richeson as the Initial Board of Directors. On January 1, 1986, an additional 500 shares of corporate stock was issued in her name to give her a total of 990 shares out of a total 1,500 shares issued and outstanding. Mrs. Richeson's percentage of ownership, after the issuance of the additional 500 shares, was 66 percent. Share certificates reflect this fact. No additional funds were contributed to the corporate assets by Mrs. Richeson as consideration for the issuance of those shares. Mrs. Richeson, currently the President of the company, attended Bible College in Kansas for three years, graduating in 1978. She moved to Florida in 1980 where she attended Hillsborough Community College (HCC), taking as many business education courses as she could in pursuit of an Associates Degree in Business. In addition to that, she has taken the Small Business Administration Class offered by the University of South Florida. She married John Richeson in 1982 and they have worked together in the window cleaning business since that time. After graduating from HCC Mrs. Richeson contacted a family friend, an attorney, for the purpose of incorporating the business. It was at this time she began to run the business. Without asking any questions about the division of duties or the responsibility for leadership in the business, the attorney drafted the incorporation papers making Mr. Richeson the president. Ms. Richeson took the position of vice-president. She admits she did not, at the time, understand the ramifications of that action. Had she known the importance of the title, she would not have acquiesced in having her husband made president. Even though Ms. Richeson was the de-facto head of the business from the time of its expansion from a one-man operation, John D. Richeson served as president of the corporation from inception up to January 1, 1996, when Hope L. Richeson was elected president. At the annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the corporation, held on December 20, 1995, attended by Mr. and Mrs. Richeson, the two directors, the Board recognized Mrs. Richeson's control over the operation of the business since its inception and made her president effective January 1, 1996, when Mr. Richeson, the incumbent, became vice- president Mrs. Richeson indicates, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that neither she nor her husband had any specific training in order to operate the business. What was most important was a general business sense and a knowledge, gained by reading trade periodicals and from experience, of specific window cleaning products. Most of the major business contracts obtained by Petitioner come from bids to government entities and corporations. Other than herself, several employees, namely those who were brought into the business because of their experience with large cleaning projects, evaluate prospective jobs and prepare proposals. This proposal is then brought to her for approval before it is submitted to the potential client. These individuals are her husband and the Van Buren brothers. Based on a job costing formula learned in school, Mrs. Richeson then evaluates the bid to determine if it is too low or too high. She determines if the company can do the job for the price quoted. In addition to bidding, Ms. Richeson claims to oversee every aspect of the business. These functions range from buying office supplies to costing jobs. No one but she has the authority to purchase supplies or equipment other than minor items in an emergency. She also supervises the finances of the operation, determining how earnings are to be distributed and how much corporate officers and employees are to receive as compensation. By her recollection, on several occasions, due to a shortage of liquid funds, she has waived her right to be paid for a particular work period. She claims not to have taken a withdrawal from the corporation for a year, but the corporation's payroll documents reflect otherwise. The salary of each employee is set by Mrs. Richeson. Employees are paid on a percentage of job income. Those employees who do the high-rise jobs receive 40 percent of the income from those jobs. From her experience in the business, this arrangement for paying washers works far better than paying a straight salary. On the other hand, office personnel are paid on an hourly basis. In the event the business were to be dissolved due to insolvency, Mrs. Richeson would lose her 66 percent stock interest in the corporation and her husband would lose his 34 percent interest. There are no other owners of the company, and no one other than the Richesons would bear any loss. Not only can no one but Mrs. Richeson make purchases for the company, even Mr. Richeson cannot sign company checks by himself nor can he pay bills or make any major business decisions. Only she has the authority to borrow money in the name of the corporation. This was not always the case, however. In 1994, Mr. Richeson purchased a new vehicle for the corporation, signing the finance arrangement as president of the company, but even then, Mrs. Richeson signed as co-buyer. Also, the 1994 unsigned lease agreement for the company's use of real property owned by the Richesons calls for Mr. Richeson to sign as president of the company. Mrs. Richeson is the only one in the company who has the authority to hire or fire employees. While she believes the company would go out of business if she were not the president, she also believes she would be able easily to hire someone to replace Mr. Richeson if he were to leave the company. These beliefs are confirmed and reiterated by Mr. Richeson who claims that his role in the company from its very beginning has been that of services rather than management. On August 14, 1995, Mrs. Richeson, who at the time owned 990 of 1,500 shares of corporate stock, filed an application for certification as a minority business enterprise. The application reflected Mrs. Richeson as the owner of a 66 percent interest in the corporation, but also reflected Mr. Richeson as president. This was before the change mentioned previously Melissa Leon reviewed this application as a certification office for the Commission in September 1995. She recommended denial of the application on several bases. The Articles of Incorporation submitted with the application reflect the Director of the corporation as John D. and Hope Richeson and list only John Richeson as incorporator in August 1985. The corporate detail record as maintained in the office of the Secretary of State also reflects the resident agent for the corporation is John Richeson. The corporation's 1993 and 1994 federal income tax returns show John Richeson as 100 percent owner. No minority ownership is indicated. Income tax returns are afforded great weight by the Commission staff in determining ownership. Though Mrs. Richeson claims to own the majority interest in the corporation in her application, the tax returns do not reflect this. In addition, the corporation payroll summaries for February 28, 1995, March 31, 1995 and April 30, 1995 all show John Richeson receiving more income from the business than did Hope Richeson. In the opinion of Ms. Leon, Mrs. Richeson's salary was not commensurate with her claimed ownership interest. The same records for the last three months of 1995 and through April 1996 reflect Mrs. Richeson as receiving more than Mr. Richeson, however. Other factors playing a role in Ms. Leon's determination of non- qualification include the fact that the purchase order for the truck reflected Mr. Richeson as president; the lease agreement shows him signing as president; the bank signature card reflects him as president in 1994 and the corporate detail record shows Mrs. Richeson as resident agent by change dated May 14, 1996, after the filing of the application. Upon receipt of the Petitioner's application, Ms. Leon reviewed the documents submitted therewith and did a telephone interview with Mrs. Richeson. Based on this information and consistent with the guidelines set out in the agency's rules governing certification, (60A-2, F.A.C.), she concluded that the application did not qualify for certification. Not only was the required 51 percent minority ownership not clearly established, she could not determine that the minority owner contributed funds toward the establishment of the business. Ms. Leon determined that the payroll records, reflecting that from February through April 1995, Mrs. Richeson drew less than Mr. Richeson, were not consistent with the same records for the period from October 1995 through April 1996, which reflected that Mrs. Richeson was now earning more than her husband. Further, the amount Mrs. Richeson earned constituted only 53.2 percent of the salary while her ownership interest was purportedly 66 percent. A further factor militating toward denial, in Ms. Leon's eyes, was the fact that there were only two directors. Since Mrs. Richeson was one of two, she could not control the Board, and minority directors do not make up a majority of the Board. While the documents played an important part in Ms. Leon's determination, the telephone interview was also important. Here Ms. Leon found what she felt were many inconsistencies between what was stated in the interview and Mrs. Richeson's testimony at hearing. Therefore, Ms. Leon concluded at the time of her review that the business was jointly owned and operated. It was not sufficiently controlled by the minority party, to qualify for certification. Nothing she heard at hearing would cause her to change her opinion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order denying Minority Business Enterprise status to Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5913 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the last sentence which is rejected as a legal conclusion. Accepted that she ran the operation. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as a restatement of the testimony of Mrs. Richeson and a generalized agreement with the comments made. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein, 11. - 12. Accepted. 13. - 14. Accepted. 15. - 17. Accepted. 18. - 19. Not proper Finding of Fact, but accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. 20. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 25. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contradicted by the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that until after the application was filed, Mr. Richeson was paid more than Mrs. Richeson, but the difference was not great. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not consistent with the evidence of record except for the allegation concerning Mr. Richeson's authority to sign corporate checks, which is accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam L. Sumpter, Esquire 2700 North Dale Mabry Avenue, Suite 208 Tampa, Florida 33607 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 303 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
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
