The Issue Whether Respondent has complied with the Final Order of the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact On July 9, 1990 after an evidentiary hearing on the Petitioner’s charge of racial discrimination, a Recommended Order was issued in favor of Petitioner. On June 18, 1992, after reviewing Respondent’s exceptions to the Recommended Order and after argument of Respondent’s counsel at a hearing before the Commission, the Florida Commission on Human Relations entered a Final Order in favor of the Petitioner, Ronnie Wideman. The Final Order stated in part: That the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in unlawful employment practices of this nature; That Respondent offer to promote Petitioner to the next available Quality Support Process Engineer or substantially similar position; That Respondent pay Petitioner back pay and benefits to which he would have been entitled had he received the Quality Support Process Engineer position; That Respondent pay Petitioner reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in litigating this claim, and That the Respondent notify the Commission in writing within 20 calendar days of the date of filing this Order of the steps that have been taken to comply with this Order. The Final Order was received by Respondent, filed and forgotten. The person who was responsible for filing and notifying the Pensacola plant of the Order’s requirements was the same person who failed to show for the original hearing in 1990. No appeal of the Final Order was filed by the Respondent. There was no attempt by Respondent to comply with the provisions of the Final Order, including the reporting, promotional and salary requirements of the Final Order. There are two relevant categories of jobs at Respondent’s facilities. There are hourly paid or non-exempt jobs and salaried administrative or exempt jobs. The exemption refers to whether the job is exempt from the union contract and collective bargaining. All of the salaried jobs at Respondent’s facilities are graded based on job responsibilities. The grades range from Grade 8 to Grade 25. The grade of a position relates to a salary structure for each grade. The salary structure provides for a range of salaries divided into thirds. A salary range for a grade often overlaps the salary range for the adjoining grade levels. The salary grade schedules for 1988-1996 are contained in Appendix 1 of this Recommended Order. Petitioner has been continuously employed with Respondent since 1976. He has been employed as a “paper tester/technician” since before the original charge of discrimination was filed in this case and held such a position at the time of the final hearing in 1990. The actual position title has varied over the years and has been assigned to different work sections over the years. However, Petitioner’s work in his job has remained essentially one of testing the quality of the paper Respondent makes and entering the data in the computer for analysis. Although he has never been promoted to the position of shift supervisor, Respondent has at various times filled some of the duties of the shift supervisor’s position, Grade 14. Petitioner has been and continues to be considered a competent and capable employee by Respondent. The position of “paper tester/technician” was throughout the time period involved in the original charge of discrimination to the present an hourly-paid position. Hourly paid employees can be required to work overtime and are paid for overtime work at the rate of the employee’s hourly rate plus one-half the hourly rate. Hourly employees receive pension benefits through a non-contributory plan. Hourly employees also can participate in 401-K retirement plans. The hourly employee’s contributions to a 401-K plan are matched at .50 cents on the dollar by the Respondent. However, the maximum amount an hourly employee can contribute to that employee’s 401-K plan is capped at $800.00. Since 1988, Petitioner’s hourly rate of pay has been, as follows: Ronnie Wideman SSN 250-94-9677 Position Effective Date Hourly Rate of Pay Paper Test 3B 08/01/88 $13.39* Paper Test 4B 03/23/89 13.90* Paper Test 4B (GWI) 07/01/89 14.25* Paper Test 4B (GWI) 07/01/90 14.54* Paper Test 4B (GWI) 07/01/91 14.90* Paper Test 4BC 05/09/92 15.46* Paper Test 4BC (GWI) 07/01/92 15.85* Paper Test 4BC (GWI) 07/01/93 16.25* Central Lab D 12/13/93 16.67 Paper Test 4BC 05/10/94 16.25* Paper Test 4BC (GWI) 07/01/94 16.66* Central Lab D 07/18/94 17.09 Central Lab 2D 08/26/94 17.29 Paper Test 4BC 04/05/95 16.66* Paper Test 4BC (GWI) 07/01/95 17.16* Central Lab 2D 01/23/96 17.81 Central Lab 3D 03/04/96 18.04 Central Lab 4D 05/10/96 18.24 Central Lab 4D (GWI) 07/01/96 18.79 Central Lab Family E 10/03/96 19.71 Petitioner also received at various times throughout the time period shown above an additional $.73 cents an hour for every hour worked as a Continuous Process Allowance for the difficulties of maintaining a four-shift job schedule necessitating working approximately 2300 hours per year. The pay periods during which Petitioner received the added Continuous Process Allowance are marked with an asterisk. The position of Quality Support Process Engineer was the position to which Respondent unlawfully failed to promote Petitioner and formed the basis of the original charge of discrimination. In 1988, when Petitioner should have been promoted, there were two openings for a quality support process engineer. The grade level was not advertised, but Respondent was told by a lab technician that the salary would range from $40,000.00 to $45,000.00 per year. The $40,000.00 range would have caused the position to fall within the grades 11, 12, 13 or 14. 11. The position of Quality Support Process Engineer was a salaried position with an annual salary based on the position’s grade level and the employee’s credentials and experience. As a salaried employee, the employee does not receive overtime pay, but still may be expected to work overtime in order to perform all the responsibilities of the position. Salaried employees receive pension benefits and can make up to a 6 percent contribution to that employee’s 401-K retirement plan which is matched at .50 cents on the dollar by Respondent. There is no cap on the amount of the contribution other than the 6 percent contribution. The position involves the supervision of the work of the “paper testers/technicians” and the laboratory in which the paper testing is performed. The position also involves attempting to resolve poor paper quality issues, as well as coordinating paper quality problems or issues with senior and field engineers and customers. Respondent prefers a person with a science degree to fill this position, but, as is obvious from the promotions described later, also recognizes a person’s knowledge gained through work in the paper field. In the past, Respondent has promoted employees to the position of Quality Support Process Engineer or similar position’s based on field experience absent a scientific degree. The position has had various titles and been housed in different areas due to Respondent’s reorganization of the various processes of papermaking. Those processes are cutsize, offset, market pulp and pulp. Essentially, Respondent has reorganized its work force at least twice. Beginning in 1991, The technical (paper testers) department and the quality departments were combined into a centralized technical department. The reorganized department still had people which performed quality process engineer functions, shift supervisors and paper testers. In fact, the functions of each person’s job didn’t substantially change. In 1995, the centralized department was eliminated and the technicians, quality support and supervisors were distributed between the various systems of cutsize, offset, market pulp and pulp. At about the same time, the shift supervisor positions were eliminated. The people who filled those positions remained, but transferred to more defined quality support positions under a new engineer grade system. In August of 1988, Charles C. “Red” Bradford (white male) was promoted to one of the two Quality Support Process Engineer positions. Mr. Bradford had been employed at Champion since 1956. Considerably longer than Petitioner. For a year prior to his promotion, Mr. Bradford had worked as the shift supervisor. Prior to shift supervisor, he had been a paper tester along with Petitioner. Upon promotion he received a salary of $45,500.00, even though he did not have a college degree. The position carried a grade level of 14. Mr. Bradford’s promotion was not discriminatory because of his greater experience in papermaking. At the same time, Kathy Dyess (white female), who was hired in 1983 performed the duties of an administrative clerical secretary but had a college degree in biology, was promoted to the second opening for Quality Support Process Engineer. She received a salary of $26,500.00 The position carried a level of Grade 10. Her promotion was discriminatory because of her lesser qualifications for the position when compared to Respondent’s. Because she had fewer qualifications for the position her starting position and subsequent work history since 1988 cannot be used to establish the salary Petitioner should have had if he had been promoted instead of Ms. Dyess. Clearly, Petitioner was entitled to make more than Ms. Dyess given his greater qualifications. Promotions which occurred in later years to substantially similar quality support positions given to David Currey and William Findley reflect a salary and grade level of Neither David Curry, nor Charles Findley had a college degree in the hard sciences, David Currey was hired as an hourly employee in 1971, four years before Petitioner, but is the most similar to Petitioner. Charles Findley was hired as an hourly employee in 1959 and is more similar to Red Bradford based on his greater number of years of experience. Both Mr. Currey and Mr. Findley were shift supervisors prior to their promotions to positions similar to Quality Support Process Engineer. Thus, except for Kathy Dyess’ promotion to Quality Support Process engineer, the evidence demonstrates that the position of Quality Support Process Engineer to which Petitioner should have been promoted carried a grade level of 14 and in 1988 a salary range of $35,800.00 to $57,400.00.1 Moreover, what is very clear from the evidence is that even though Mr. Curry had considrably less work experience at Champion, both men received salaries around the mid-range of the grade 14 salary range throughout the years they were grade level 14 employees. As senior and junior employees the difference between their salaries varied but fell around $2300.00. Therefore, in 1988 Petioner was entitled to receive compensation approximately $2300.00 less than the compensation received by Mr. Bradford. Petitoner’s increase in salary should have been to an hourly rate based on an annual salary of $43,200.00 for a 40 hour work week and 52 weeks in a year, i.e. an hourly rate of $20.77. In the years following 1988, Petitioner should have received increases in his salary based on a mid-range performance rating of 3, utilizing the upper percentage increase for that performance rating. Generally, both Mr.Curry and Mr. Findley received slightly more than the highest percentage rate for their performance rating. The current equivalent positions to the Quality Support Process Engineer are spread over a grade 10 Assistant Engineer, grade 11 Associate Engineer, grade 12 Engineer, grade 13 Process Engineer and grade 14 Senior Process Engineer. The evidence demonstrated that both Findley and Curry were brought into the new job classifications at level 14 around 1995. Given the fact that David Curry’s career tract is simmilar to what Petitioner’s would have experienced if he had received the promotion he was entitled to, he would have in 1995 received a similar position to grade 14 Senior Process Engineer and is entitled to receive a salary within that range for 1995. However, by 1995, Findley and Curry both had the opportunity to increase their skills and maintain their salary grade level under the 1995 engineer grade positions. Had Petitioner been promoted in 1988, he to would have had the requisite experience and skills to qualify for a grade level 14 as defined in 1995. For that reason Petitioner is entitled to receive an equivalent level of pay. The issue is different as to what level of position would be substantially equivalent to what he should have received in 1988. The best evidence, reflects that such a position would fall into the Grade 12 Engineer category. The evidence did not show that such a position with the Grade 14 level of salary was offered to Petitioner, but were only discussed. Petitioner, therefore, remains entitled to the first available Engineer position or its substantial equivalent, but at the salary he should have received if he had been able to pursue a normal course of employment. Finally, Petitioner has had to pay attorney fees and costs for the original 1990 proceeding and this motion proceeding in the amount of $4,482.30 for attorney fees and $1,023.73 in costs. The costs for mail fees and car rental have been disallowed. These fees and costs are reasonable and Petitioner is entitled to receive them from Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Shirley Gibson, is a permanent status employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in Clearwater, Florida. She has been employed by HRS for over five years. On June 19, 1982, Petitioner took a voluntary demotion from the position of clerk typist III (pay grade 07) to secretary II (pay grade 06). The demotion appointment was properly made with permanent status, and she retained her full salary of $403.82 biweekly. On August 27, 1982, Gibson was promoted to the position of personnel aide (bay grade 10). In conjunction with her promotion she received a ten percent promotional increase which raised her salary to $442.52 biweekly. The minimum pay grade for the personnel aide class at that time was $396.80. Therefore, at the time of promotion, Gibson's salary exceeded the minimum salary for the class to which she was promoted. On September 1, 1982, Petitioner received the seven percent pay increase granted all state employees. This pay adjustment raised her compensation to $473.50 biweekly. In February, 1983 Respondent, Department of Administration (DOA), completed a comprehensive personnel program review whose purpose was to ensure that the overall administration of HRS's personnel program in Clearwater was in compliance with the Respondent's personnel rules. During the course of that review Gibson's personnel file was randomly selected for inspection, and the promotional increase given on August 27, 1982, was found to be in violation of Rule 22A-2.07(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The Department concluded that based upon the provisions of the rule, Petitioner's salary should have remained at $403.82 since she was ineligible for a promotional increase on August 27. Thereafter, it directed that her biweekly salary be reduced to $432.09 1/ effective April 8, 1983, and that she refund the difference ($561.91) between that amount and the $473.40 biweekly pay she received for the period August 27, 1982, through April 7, 1983. This refund is to be accomplished by payroll deductions from Gibson's salary over eight pay periods. On May 11, 1983, Petitioner filed a petition to have Rule 22A- 2.07(1)(c) declared invalid, and the entry of an order requiring the comptroller to refund all funds paid on the alleged overpayment of $561.91. Rule 22A-2.07, Florida Administrative Code, generally relates to the pay plan for career service employees. Subpara-graph (1)(c) thereof provides generally that once an employee is demoted without a reduction in salary, and is subsequently promoted within six months, he or she is not eligible for a promotional increase unless the salary is below the minimum for the class to which the employee is promoted. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that demotions and promotions are not artificially created to give salary increases not authorized in other parts of the personnel rules. Petitioner contends the rule is unfair and discriminatory because it does not distinguish between multi-step and single step promotions in its application. She also contended that HRS had given promotional increases to several other individuals in the past under similar circumstances. This was confirmed by a representative of HRS who noted that such increases had indeed been given until DOA had advised it was incorrect.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because of his disability by refusing to renew Petitioner’s contract for employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a private university located in Pasco County, Florida (Saint Leo or the university). Respondent employed Petitioner as an assistant professor from sometime in January 2000 until the end of the 2005-2006 school year in May 2006. Petitioner initially taught sports management courses in the Business Department of Saint Leo and, following the university reorganization, taught sports management courses in the Sports Management Department of the School of Business (the Department). The Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief allege, in relevant part, that Respondent violated Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004), when Respondent allegedly discriminated against Petitioner because of Petitioner's handicap. Neither the Charge of Discrimination nor the Petition for Relief expressly allege that Respondent violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101-12213 (2000). However, judicial decisions discussed in the conclusions of law instruct the trier of fact to make findings in a manner that is consistent with the ADA.1 Petitioner is a person with a handicap within the meaning of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2000). Petitioner was paralyzed in an automobile accident on December 19, 2001, and is a disabled person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 12112 (2004). Petitioner is a qualified person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 12111(8) (2004). Petitioner is a person with a disability who can perform the essential functions of a tenured employee. Petitioner was qualified for the position for which Respondent employed Petitioner in January 2000. Petitioner received his doctorate of education in sports management from the United States Sports Academy in 1990. Although Petitioner had no prior experience teaching at the college level, Petitioner was the only doctorate teaching sports management courses in the Business Department of the university when Respondent employed Petitioner in January 2000. At the time, Respondent needed a doctorate to teach sports management courses in order to satisfy the accreditation requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). Respondent does not allege that Petitioner is not qualified to perform the requirements of a tenured employee. Respondent argues, and submitted evidence intended to prove, that Petitioner either lacked the motivation to perform the required job duties or simply refused to perform those duties. On November 12, 2004, Respondent notified Petitioner that Respondent would not renew Petitioner’s teaching contract at the end of the 2005/06 school year. The refusal to renew Petitioner's teaching contract was an adverse employment action. There is no direct evidence that the adverse employment action was motivated by discrimination. However, the circumstantial evidence, taken as a whole, supports a reasonable inference by the trier of fact that the adverse employment action was motivated by both legitimate non-discriminatory and discriminatory reasons. Legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, in part, motivated the adverse employment action against Petitioner. When a third-year review of Petitioner's job performance began on August 26, 2004, Petitioner had not prepared sufficient papers for conferences, had not demonstrated consistency in presenting papers at conferences, and had not served on any conference panels. Petitioner had not published a sufficient number of articles or books and had not engaged in sufficient scholarly research. Petitioner did not submit any paper or abstract to present at a conference until June 2004. The first paper was accepted for publication in November 2004. In September 2004, Petitioner had his first test bank accepted for inclusion in a textbook published by another author. Petitioner utilized at least one course syllabus that was below grade level. The syllabus included some grammatical errors and inaccurate information. Petitioner episodically cited incorrect facts during class. Petitioner was occasionally late to class for up to five minutes. Petitioner frequently read from the textbook when lecturing students. Petitioner sometimes did not give prior notice to his supervisor of his unavailability for a class. The supervisor was unable to arrange for a substitute. Petitioner sometimes cancelled classes without providing class notes for the substitute. Petitioner failed to maintain consistent office hours for academic advice of students. One faculty member in an adjacent office provided academic advice to Petitioner's students in Petitioner's absence. Petitioner failed to attend a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, as a reviewer on a national council chaired by Petitioner's supervisor. Petitioner did not ascertain the correct starting time or location of the meeting. The failure to attend the meeting in Atlanta caused the council to be short a reviewer for one year. The inclusion of Petitioner as a reviewer on the council would have provided Petitioner with an opportunity to improve his national reputation and meet many influential people in his field of employment. Record evidence supports a reasonable inference that discriminatory reasons, in part, motivated the adverse employment action against Petitioner. Two of four evaluators in the third-year review of Petitioner's job performance that began on August 26, 2004, referred to Petitioner's disability in their formal evaluations. The two evaluators testified at the hearing that Petitioner's disability did not influence their evaluations. Their testimony is neither credible nor persuasive to the trier of fact. The testimony of the two evaluators, among other considerations, is not plausible. The testimony does not adequately explain why the evaluations address Petitioner's disability if the evaluators disregarded the disability in evaluating Petitioner.2 The immediate supervisor of Petitioner commented on Petitioner's disability in her third-year evaluation of Petitioner. The supervisor stated she was "extremely disappointed" during the previous academic year when Petitioner declined her request to "be a role model and show our students what individuals with handicaps could achieve." The supervisor further explained in her evaluation that "disability sport has - become a major segment of - our sport business industry - and there are many career opportunities for students in this area." The supervisor further stated in her third-year evaluation of Petitioner that she could not "fully understand what it is like to have [Petitioner's] disability." However, the supervisor stated that she had "worked with physically challenged individuals for approximately 16 years, and they never ceased to amaze [her] at what they could do." One of three outside evaluators also included references to Petitioner's handicap in the third-year evaluation of Petitioner. The evaluator devoted approximately one-third of the evaluation to a discussion of his experience working with one disabled colleague who had been seriously injured in a motorcycle accident and was, like Petitioner, wheelchair bound. After recounting the many laudable accomplishments of the evaluator's disabled colleague after becoming disabled approximately 12 years ago, the evaluator stated that his disabled colleague did not consider himself disabled. The evaluator explained that his disabled colleague "never makes excuses for his special challenge nor does he ask or demand special considerations due to his situation." The evaluator went on to compare Petitioner's paralysis with the evaluator's self-proclaimed "disability" following open heart surgery. The evaluator stated that he had undergone open heart by-pass surgery and did not let his "disability" prevent him from achieving performance standards. After recounting numerous professional accomplishments after his surgery, the evaluator explained: The reason I have provided this information is not to brag but rather to illustrate that if one has a positive attitude about life he/she can do anything he/she wishes whether or not they are disabled. A disability is an extra challenge in life not a sentence to do less. I have not let my disability negatively affect my career. Respondent's Exhibit 44 at 4. When prima facie evidence shows that an adverse employment action is motivated by both non-discriminatory and discriminatory considerations, an employer does not escape liability under the ADA on the ground that the adverse employment action was not motivated "solely" by prohibited discrimination. Rather, judicial decisions discussed in the conclusions of law require the trier of fact to apply a so- called motivating-factor standard, or mixed-motive standard.3 The motivating-factor standard requires the trier of fact to determine whether the prohibited discriminatory motive made the difference in the decision to take the adverse employment action.4 The motivating factor standard has been judicially explained as a "but-for" standard.5 Liability for prohibited discrimination requires the trier of fact to find that Respondent would not have taken the adverse employment action but-for the prohibited discrimination. The but-for standard requires the trier of fact to determine whether the evidence supports a reasonable inference that Petitioner's failure to comply with performance standards for tenure was caused by his handicap.6 If the evidence supports such an inference, the adverse employment action would not have been taken but-for the prohibited discrimination. The record evidence supports a reasonable inference that Petitioner's failure to comply with performance standards for tenure by the beginning of the third-year review on August 26, 2004, was caused by his handicap. The inference is supported, in relevant part, by comparing the record evidence of Petitioner's performance during his employment before his disabling accident on December 19, 2001, with Petitioner's performance from the date of the accident until the beginning of the third-year review on August 26, 2004. Prior to the accident on December 19, 2001, Petitioner taught classes at Saint Leo for four semesters.7 Petitioner received four evaluations by three different evaluators. Even though it was Petitioner's first teaching experience at the college level, all but one of those evaluations rated Petitioner's job performance as "outstanding." The one exception rated Petitioner's job performance in his first year as "satisfactory." In the second year, however, the same evaluator rated Petitioner's job performance as "outstanding." The supervisor for Petitioner during the first and second academic years of employment was the acting chair of the Business Department at Saint Leo. The supervisor rated Petitioner's job performance during the first year as "satisfactory." However, a second-line evaluator who was also a dean at Saint Leo rated Petitioner's job performance during the first year as "outstanding." In the second academic year, the supervisor rated Petitioner's job performance as "outstanding." The supervisor found that Petitioner was "developing into a highly competent and effective classroom teacher." An outside evaluator retained to evaluate Petitioner during the second academic year found that Petitioner had made "positive contributions to [the] sport management program." The evaluator recommended that Respondent retain Petitioner based on Petitioner's academic background, sport management experience, and teaching performance. Prior to the accident, Petitioner was selected to serve on the Panel of Reviewers for the Sport Management Program Review Council (SMPRC) to review institutional portfolios. The selection provided Petitioner with an opportunity for professional development, an improved national reputation, and enhanced professional relationships. However, the opportunity was postponed due to the accident that paralyzed Petitioner. On January 29, 2002, Petitioner received a fifth evaluation by a fourth evaluator. The dean of the School of Business (the Dean) evaluated Petitioner's job performance for the four academic semesters that Petitioner worked before the accident. The Dean found that Petitioner was: cademically competent and very committed to Saint Leo University and the well being of his students. Stewart is relatively new to university level teaching and the expectations associated with this level of performance. His classroom manner is casual yet he holds the students to high performance standards. Stewart will need to identify an area of research interest and begin to prepare papers for the conferences in his discipline. I approached him with an idea and a willingness to co-author a paper. Unfortunately, due to his accident, Stewart will be involved full-time for the next six months in rehabilitation and relearning. Stewart has excellent potential to develop into an effective senior faculty member. Respondent's Exhibit 10. After the accident on December 19, 2001, Petitioner taught three academic semesters before his third-year review that began on August 24, 2004, and led to the adverse employment action on November 12, 2004. During the semester that began in January 2002, Petitioner was on medical leave to undergo surgery and recover. Petitioner worked during the semester that began in August 2002, but returned to medical leave during the semester that began in January 2003 in order to undergo additional surgery. Petitioner worked the two semesters that began in August 2003 and January 2004. On August 24, 2004, at the start of the fourth semester of work after the accident, Respondent began the third-year review that led to the adverse employment action on November 12, 2004. During the three semesters that Petitioner worked between the accident and the start of the third-year review, the Dean, who evaluated Petitioner on January 29, 2002, did not pursue the idea he had described for co-authoring a paper with Petitioner. Petitioner was learning to adjust to life in a wheel chair. Petitioner experienced, and continues to experience, a great deal of pain unless Petitioner takes pain medication. Petitioner has also had to learn new toileting skills and has expressed embarrassment over his condition. Petitioner did not attend the council meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, because he became confused over the correct time and location of the meeting. Petitioner did not make a volitional choice not to attend the meeting. On December 5, 2003, Dr. Michael Moorman was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Dr. Moorman found that the quality of Petitioner's classroom teaching was "outstanding." After December 5, 2003, Respondent changed the job performance standards for employees teaching sports management courses at Saint Leo.8 While Petitioner was on medical leave, each school at Saint Leo designated a program as a "flagship" program. Each flagship program would be funded and supported in an effort to enable the program to grow into a nationally recognized program that would serve as a paragon for other Saint Leo programs to emulate. The job performance requirements in each flagship program were also intended to establish a standard for emulation by other programs. The School of Business designated the Sport Management Program as its flagship program and reorganized the program into the Sport Management Department. In February 2003, Respondent commissioned an outside study of the Department. The study concluded that the Department lacked academic rigor, failed to challenge students, and was poorly organized for the purpose of becoming a flagship program for Saint Leo. Respondent searched for a nationally known professor to chair the Department. Respondent wanted someone who could make the necessary curriculum changes, improve the Department's national recognition, increase the academic rigor of the Department, and enhance the national reputation of its professors, including Petitioner. In August 2003, Respondent selected a person to chair the Department. After December 5, 2003, the new chair succeeded Dr. Moorman as Petitioner's immediate supervisor. The new chair found, during the academic semester that began in January 2004, Petitioner did not meet the job performance requirements of the new flagship Department of Sport Management. One deficiency the chair described in her third- year evaluation of Petitioner pertained to errors in a syllabus used by Petitioner. For example, the syllabus continued to use the title "Saint Leo College" instead of "Saint Leo University." The new chair confided to an associate in the Department that the vice president of Academic Affairs (Vice President) had told the new chair in so many words that Petitioner would have been fired long ago if Petitioner had not been in a car accident. The associate testified to the statement she attributed to the new chair, and the associate's testimony is found to be credible and persuasive. The Vice President denied making the statement to the new chair during his testimony, and that portion of his testimony is found to be credible and persuasive. The statement attributed to the Vice President that he would have fired Petitioner but-for the accident conflicts with the predominantly "outstanding" job performance of Petitioner prior to his accident. The testimony of the new chair also conflicts with two evaluations of Petitioner's job performance by different deans on January 29, 2002, and December 5, 2003. Both of those evaluations occurred after the accident, but before the new chair became the immediate supervisor of Petitioner sometime after December 5, 2003. It is more likely that the new chair expressed her own view that the university was holding Petitioner to a lower standard of job performance because of his disability. When the third-year review process began on August 26, 2004, Petitioner was no longer the only doctorate employed in the Department. However, he was the only disabled doctorate employed in the Department. The record evidence supports a reasonable inference that Respondent required Petitioner to comply with standards exemplified by unidentified disabled persons described in two of the four third-year evaluations of Petitioner.9 Respondent did not require non-disabled employees to comply with similar standards. The Vice President testified that the references in the evaluations to standards exemplified by other disabled persons did not influence his decision to take the adverse employment action on November 12, 2004. That portion of the testimony of the Vice President is neither credible nor persuasive. The Vice President, in relevant part, relied on the third-year evaluations. His denials of influence conflict with other relevant evidence. Before the Vice President began the third-year review process on August 26, 2004, he conferred with the new chair and reviewed Petitioner's record, including Petitioner's record of "outstanding" performance on or before December 5, 2003. In a letter to Petitioner dated August 26, 2004, the Vice President told Petitioner, in relevant part, that he had "serious concerns regarding your performance." The Vice President instructed the Dean and the new chair to "carefully monitor" Petitioner's "teaching and professional development activities in the fall semester of 2004." However, neither the Dean nor the chair monitored Petitioner's activities, and the Vice President initiated the adverse employment action on November 12, 2004, prior to the conclusion of the fall semester. Respondent applied a different timeline to Petitioner's tenure track than the timeline that Respondent generally applied to the tenure track of other employees. Tenure track employees may apply for tenure after their fifth year of employment, but may apply no later than their seventh year of employment. Most tenure track employees apply for tenure during their sixth year of employment. Employees on tenure track at Saint Leo receive annual contracts for their first, second, and third years of employment. Tenure track employees that receive a favorable third-year review are given a two-year employment contract after the third and fifth years of employment. Petitioner began his tenure track in January 2000. The seventh year of his tenure track would have expired at the end of the academic semester in December 2006.10 The third year of Petitioner's tenure track would have expired at the end of the academic semester in December 2002. Due to the accident on December 19, 2001, however, Respondent extended the time for the third-year review until August 26, 2004. The extension provided Petitioner with seven academic semesters, rather than six, before the third-year review began.11 Although Respondent extended the time for beginning the third-year evaluation, Respondent did not extend the seven- year limit for tenure. Respondent thereby reduced the time after the third-year evaluation in which Petitioner had to correct his deficient job performance to a period less than that enjoyed by non-disabled employees. Other tenure track employees normally have 14 academic semesters in which to complete their seven-year tenure track. Upon the expiration of six academic semesters, Respondent conducts a third-year evaluation. A tenure track employee then has eight more academic semesters, or four academic years, in his or her tenure track. Respondent reduced Petitioner's tenure track by a semester when Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment at the end of the academic semester in May 2006, rather than at the end of the academic semester in December 2006. By extending the third-year evaluation by a semester and reducing the remaining tenure track by an additional semester, Respondent reduced by one year the period that non-disabled tenure track employees have after their third-year review to complete their tenure track requirements. The Vice President has conducted third-year reviews on approximately 20 tenure track employees at Saint Leo since 1997. He has terminated the employment of two of those candidates. Petitioner is one of the two terminated from employment. The Vice President acknowledged in his testimony that he may have given Petitioner more time if the adverse employment decision were based solely on research and acceptable publication levels. Petitioner's teaching performance on and before December 5, 2003, was predominantly "outstanding." Moreover, one of the outside evaluators found that syllabi deficiencies were nothing that could not be easily corrected. Another evaluator found the syllabi "are consistent with guidelines established by NASSM/NASPE." It is unlikely, therefore, that the adverse employment action was motivated by job performance deficiencies in teaching, research, and syllabi. The Vice President relied on findings of evaluators that evaluated Petitioner, in relevant part, on Petitioner's inability to comply with standards exemplified by other disabled persons. The Vice President articulated no intelligible standards he used for discerning whether, or to what degree, the disability of Petitioner influenced the negative opinion of the evaluator. Moreover, the Vice President did not undertake an independent determination of whether Petitioner's handicap prevented Petitioner from complying with applicable job performance requirements by August 26, 2004. The job performance requirements for tenure are prescribed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and a Faculty Handbook (FHB). The CBA provides, in relevant part: Promotion and tenure decisions at Saint Leo University are made on the basis of documented and evaluated performance in three areas: (1) teaching; (2) scholarly growth [sic] (3) institutional and community service. (a) Tenure and Promotion: The primary criteria for decisions regarding reappointment, tenure and promotion are excellence in classroom teaching and in facilitating student learning. Teaching Faculty must demonstrate excellence in teaching, a part of which is academic advising. Teaching faculty must demonstrate excellence in either (1) scholarly growth or (2) institutional and community service. Scholarly growth may be demonstrated through professional development and/or research. The definition of professional development and scholarly research will be determined by the relevant School. The University will recognize both traditional and non- traditional means of demonstrating professional development and/or research. Respondent's Exhibit 1 at 44. The FHB describes guidelines for promotion and tenure applications in terms similar to those in the CBA. The FHB provides, in relevant part: Promotion and tenure decisions at Saint Leo University are made on the basis of documented and evaluated performance in three areas: teaching; professional development, research, and scholarly growth; and institutional and community service. For teaching faculty excellence in teaching and demonstrated student learning are essential to tenure and promotion. Either professional development, research and scholarly growth or institutional and community service must be judged excellent for tenure. Respondent's Exhibit 2 at 73. The School of Business does not provide written job performance requirements that determine the tenure requirements for scholarly research and professional development. Testimony at the hearing suggested tenure requires at least two publications or presentations each year. However, that testimony is belied by predominantly "outstanding" job performance evaluations of Petitioner during his first two academic years in which Petitioner published no articles and made no presentations. In the three complete academic semesters that Petitioner had available to him after the accident to pursue his scholarly research, one article authored by Petitioner was accepted for publication and a test bank authored by Petitioner was included for publication in a text book. Petitioner also attended three conferences.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief for the reasons stated herein, and reinstating Petitioner to his position of employment with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 29th of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner was formerly employed by Respondent as a Human Services Worker assigned to the Landmark Learning Center, a residential facility located in Dade County. She began her employment on May 10, 1985. On January 13, 1989, Petitioner received the following memorandum from the Residential Services Director of Facility I at Landmark: In reviewing your time and attendance record from August, 1988, I have observed that you are exhibiting excessive absences and/or tardiness. These frequent absences place an unfair burden on your coworkers and interfere with the operations of this center. Therefore they will no longer be tolerated. Effective on the date you receive this communication, the following restrictions will be in effect: As always, you are expected to have all leave time approved in advance by your immediate supervisor. You are expected to submit a doctor's statement justifying your absence prior to the approval of any sick leave, annual-sick leave, or family-sick leave. You will not be allowed to substitute any other type of leave for these absences. Failure to comply with the above restrictions will result in disapproved leave without pay for the dates in question, and a recommendation for disciplinary action based on absence without authorized leave. In addition a continued pattern of excessive absence could result in disciplinary action for excessive absence/tardiness. All disciplinary [action] will be in accordance with HRS-P-60-1, Employee's handbook. I am confident that you will correct this situation in a satisfactory manner. At no time prior to the termination of Petitioner's employment with Respondent were the "restrictions" imposed by this memorandum lifted. In early 1990, Petitioner sustained an on-the-job injury. As a result of the injury, Petitioner was on authorized leave from February 25, 1990, until April 4, 1990. When she returned to work on April 5, 1990, Petitioner was assigned to "light duty" in the field office of which Sylvia Davis, a Senior Residential Unit Supervisor, was in charge. Petitioner's working hours were 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Petitioner was advised that Roberta Barnes would be her immediate supervisor during her "light duty" assignment. On April 5, 1990, Petitioner worked six and a half hours. She was on authorized leave the remainder of her shift. On April 6 and 7, 1990, she worked her full shift. On April 8 and 9, 1990, Petitioner did not report to work. She telephoned the field office before the beginning of her shift on each of these days and left word that she would not be at work because she was experiencing pain in her lower back and right leg; however, she never received supervisory authorization to be absent from work on these days. April 10 and 11, 1990, were scheduled days off for Petitioner. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on April 11, 1990, Petitioner telephoned the field office and gave notice that, inasmuch as her physical condition remained unchanged, she would not be at work the following day. Petitioner did not report to work on April 12, 1990. Although she had telephoned the field office the night before to give advance notice of her absence, at no time had she received supervisory authorization to be absent from work on April 12, 1990. On April 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1990, Petitioner did not report to work because she was still not feeling well. She neither telephoned the field office to give advance notice of her absences, nor obtained supervisory authorization to be absent on these days. April 17 and 18, 1990, were scheduled days off for Petitioner. Prior to the scheduled commencement of her shift on April 19, 1990, Petitioner telephoned the field office to indicate that she would not be at work that day because she had a doctor's appointment, but that she hoped to return to work on April 20, 1990. Petitioner did not report to work on April 19, 1990. Although she had telephoned the field office to give advance notice of her absence, at no time had she received supervisory authorization to be absent from work on that day. On April 19, 1990, Petitioner was sent the following letter by the Superintendent of Landmark: You have not called in or reported to work since April 12, 1990 and therefore you have abandoned your position as a Human Services Worker II and are deemed to have resigned from the Career Service according to Chapter 22A-7.010(2)(a) of Personnel Rules and Regulations of the Career Service System. Your resignation will be effective on the date that you receive this letter or on the date we receive the undelivered letter advising you of your abandonment. You have the right to petition the State Personnel Director, 530 Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 for review of the facts. Such petition must be filed within twenty (20) calendar days after receipt of this letter. At approximately 12:40 a.m. on Friday, April 20, 1990, unaware that she had been deemed to have resigned her position, Petitioner telephoned the field office to give notice that she would be out of work until after her doctor's appointment on Monday, April 23, 1990. On April 23, 1990, Petitioner again telephoned the field office to advise that she had to undergo further medical testing and therefore would remain out of work until the required tests were performed. Petitioner's call was transferred to Elaine Olsen, a Personnel Technician II at Landmark, who told Petitioner about the letter the Superintendent had sent to Petitioner the previous Thursday. Petitioner received the letter on April 30, 1990. Petitioner did not report to work during the period referenced in the Superintendent's letter because she was not feeling well. She did not intend, by not reporting to work on these days, to resign or abandon her position. It was her intention to return to work when she felt well enough to do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order (1) finding that Petitioner did not abandon her career service position, and (2) directing Respondent to reinstate Petitioner with back pay. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of May, 1991. 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 16th day of May, 1991.
The Issue The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether the Department’s intended award of state term contracts for information technology staff augmentation services was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for procuring state term contracts. See §§ 287.012(28), 287.042(2)(a), 287.056-057, Fla. Stat. A “state term contract” is a term contract that is competitively procured by the Department. § 287.012(28), Fla. Stat. A “term contract” means an indefinite quantity contract to furnish commodities or contractual services during a defined period. § 287.012(29), Fla. Stat. The Department initiated this competitive procurement to establish a state term contract for information technology (“IT”) staff augmentation services. The procurement’s objective is to enable state agencies and other eligible users (“Customers”) to supplement their IT staff. The solicitation at the center of these protests is Request for Proposals for Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services – 3rd Bid, RFP 15- 80101507-SA-D (the “RFP”). The RFP is intended to replace an existing state term contract for IT staff augmentation services. The current contract has an estimated annual spending volume of approximately $66,800,000. As described in the RFP, the Department intends to award up to approximately 200 vendors with the ability to provide (temporary) IT staff services per specific position. Thereafter, a Customer who desires IT staff assistance will issue a Request for Quote, which is available for review by all vendors awarded with the state term contract (the “Contractors”). A Contractor who desires to fulfill the request responds to the Customer’s Request for Quote agreeing to provide IT staff who possess the technical skills needed. A Request for Quote also allows Customers to obtain pricing and service information from interested Contractors. See § 287.056(2), Fla. Stat. If selected, the Contractor will then charge the Customer for the assigned personnel on an hourly basis.6/ In other words, the Department will competitively procure IT staffing services from multiple vendors/Contractors. A vendor who is awarded a contract under the RFP is not given an actual IT job, but rather is included on a list of Contractors as a potential source to fill an IT position in the future. Thereafter, Customers may obtain IT staff assistance, through a Request for Quote, without having to conduct a separate, independent solicitation. The Department issued the RFP on February 5, 2019.7/ On February 11, 2019, the Department posted Addendum No. 1 to the RFP. Addendum No. 1 notified vendors that the RFP was a “new solicitation,” and that the previous solicitation had been cancelled and rebid. The Department subsequently posted Addendum No. 2 to the RFP revising and clarifying the bid specifications. The Department posted Addendum No. 3 to the RFP on May 20, 2019.8/ Addendum No. 3 instructed vendors that all proposals were due by March 19, 2019. On or before March 19, 2019, the Department received proposals from 378 vendors,9/ including ArnAmy and Seva. Under the RFP’s evaluation methodology, vendors’ proposals were scored in four Evaluation Criteria, as follows: Evaluation Criteria Maximum Possible Points IT Experience Certification (Attachment B) 100 Staffing Resource Management Plan 300 IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience 200 Price (Attachment C) 400 per Job Title Total Score Possible Per Job Title 1000 Regarding the IT Experience Certification criteria, vendors submitted information on an IT Experience Certification Form which was included in the RFP. The form was scored based on the number of years the vendor had been in the IT business. The Procurement Officer identified in the RFP, Joel Atkinson, scored this criteria. (Both ArnAmy and Seva received the maximum 100 points in this category.) Regarding the Staffing Resource Management Plan (the “Management Plan”) and the IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience (“IT Staff Contract Experience”) categories, the Department appointed three individuals (the “Evaluators”) to independently score these sections of each proposal. (The three Evaluators are referred to as the “Scoring Team”.) The Scoring Team consisted of Stephanie Reaves, Denise Roberts, and Heather Shoup. For the Management Plans, the Evaluators were to assign point values based on whether the vendors demonstrated “exceptional ability” (300 points); “intermediate ability” (200 points); “minimal ability” (100 points); or “fails to demonstrate ability” (0 points). For the IT Staff Contract Experience category, the Evaluators were to assess a point value based on whether the vendor demonstrated “extensive” experience (200 points); “intermediate” experience (150 points); “minimal” experience (100 points); or “fails to demonstrate experience” (0 points). Regarding the Price criteria, each vendor was required to complete a price sheet wherein the vendor quoted an hourly rate for each specific IT staff service for which the vendor desired to contract. The price sheet divided each staff service into “Job Families.” Within each Job Family, the RFP listed multiple “Job Titles.” The RFP included a total of 130 different Job Titles for which vendors could submit proposals. In addition, the price sheet further divided the majority of Job Titles into “Scope Variants,” which are degrees of experience within an individual Job Title (typically up to three Scope Variants per Job Title). For example, in the Job Family of Applications Development, the Job Title of Systems Analyst was broken out into Scope Variant levels of Entry, Intermediate, and Advanced.10/ Further, the RFP attached a “Ceiling Rate” to each Scope Variant. The RFP explained that the Department would not consider or evaluate a vendor’s proposal for a particular Job Title if the hourly rate the vendor quoted was higher than the Ceiling Rate. Finally, the price per hour the vendor quoted for the Job Title was considered a “not to exceed” price. In other words, after the state term contract was awarded, when a Contractor received a Request for Quote from a Customer, the Contractor could not charge a higher hourly rate than the price listed in its proposal. However, the RFP permitted Contractors to respond with a (competitively) lower hourly rate for the IT staffing services it would agree to provide. RFP, section 5.2.4 set forth a formula to calculate the score for the prices the vendors quoted for the specific Job Titles. The Department designed the formula to establish a base line with which to compare proposals. Using the formula, the vendor with the lowest price per Job Title or Scope Variant11/ was awarded 400 points (the maximum). Thereafter, every other vendor received points for price per Job Title using the following calculation: (X) x 400 = Z (N) Where: X = lowest price of all Proposals submitted per Job Title N = Respondent's submitted total price per Job Title Z = points awarded The Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, (not the Scoring Team) calculated and assigned the points for price. The Vendors’ scores for IT Experience Certification and Price (from the Procurement Officer) were added to the Evaluators’ scores for the Management Plan and Staff Contract Experience for a total score for each proposal. Upon winning a contract, Contractors are only permitted to provide services for the specific IT positions awarded through the solicitation. As explained in RFP, Exhibit A, STATEMENT OF WORK, the Contractors agree to provide IT staffing services described in a document entitled “Job Families Descriptions.” The Contractors will be responsible for the following activities: The Contractor shall possess the professional and technical staff necessary to allocate, outsource, and manage qualified information technology staff to perform the services requested by the Customer. The Contractor shall provide Customers with staff who must have sufficient skill and experience to perform the services assigned to them. All of the information technology staff augmentation services to be furnished by the Contractor under the Contract shall meet the professional standards and quality that prevails among information technology professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout Florida under the same or similar circumstances. The Contractor shall provide, at its own expense, training necessary for keeping Contractor's staff abreast of industry advances and for maintaining proficiency in equipment and systems that are available on the commercial market. The Contractor shall be responsible for the administration and maintenance of all employment and payroll records, payroll processing, remittance of payroll and taxes, and all administrative tasks required by state and federal law associated with payment of staff. The Contractor shall, at its own expense, be responsible for adhering to the Contract background screening requirements, testing, evaluations, advertising, recruitment, and disciplinary actions of Contractor’s information technology staff. The Contractor shall maintain during the term of the Contract all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the information technology staff augmentation services. In short, the Contractors are responsible for finding, hiring, and recruiting qualified IT personnel. Thereafter, the Contractors must provide and manage their IT staff pursuant to the terms of the Request for Quote. Awards under the RFP were made by Job Title. RFP, section 5.3, explained the Basis for Award as follows: The Department intends to make multiple awards from this solicitation and anticipates awarding 200 contracts per Job Title. Contracts will be awarded to the responsible and responsive Vendors that are determined to be the most advantageous to the state based on, per Job Title, the highest total evaluation criteria scores, which includes price, IT Experience Certification, Staffing Resource Management Plan, and IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience scores. The maximum possible total score per Job Title is 1000. * * * For those Job Titles where, in determining the 200th awarded Vendor, there are multiple responsible and responsive Respondents with the same numeric score, the Department reserves the right to award more than 200 contracts per Job Title to those responsive and responsible Respondents who are tied for the 200th contract award. Awards will be made per Job Title. A vendor was not required to submit a response for every Job Title. Instead, vendors were free to bid for only those Job Titles for which they desired to provide IT Staffing services. However, if a vendor did respond to a specific Job Title, the vendor was required to provide a price per hour for every Scope Variant within that Job Title. On June 5, 2019, the Department held a public meeting during which the three Evaluators, as well as the Procurement Officer, confirmed their scores. On June 24, 2019, the Department posted its Revised Notice to the Vendor Bid System listing all vendors to whom the Department intended to award IT staffing contracts. The Department awarded contracts to the top 200 vendors (plus ties) for each of the 130 Job Titles. ArnAmy bid for all 130 Job Titles. The Department awarded ArnAmy 21 out of 130 Job Titles. In other words, ArnAmy finished in the top 200 for 21 of 130 Job Titles. Seva bid for all 130 Job Titles. The Department did not award Seva any Job Titles. In other words, Seva did not finish in the top 200 for any of the Job Titles. ARNAMY’S PROTEST: ArnAmy protests the Department’s decision to award it a state term contract for only 21 of 130 Job Titles offered through the RFP. Mr. Datta Kadam testified on behalf of ArnAmy. Mr. Kadam is the founder and chief executive officer of ArnAmy. Mr. Kadam prepared and submitted ArnAmy’s response to the RFP. Mr. Kadam initially relayed that ArnAmy was formed in 2007 as an IT consulting and software development company. He further expressed that ArnAmy has extensive experience under the current (2016) state term contract, for which it is authorized to support all 130 IT staff positions. Approximately 85-90 percent of ArnAmy’s IT consulting practice is dedicated to providing IT staff augmentation services through contracts such as the Department’s state term contract. ArnAmy also services staffing contracts for Maryland and Texas. ArnAmy (through Mr. Kadam) presented three primary arguments protesting the Department’s award. The Scoring Team Failed to Evaluate ArnAmy’s Final Management Plan: ArnAmy argues that the Scoring Team was not provided with the final version of its Management Plan. Instead, the three Evaluators scored an incomplete, preliminary draft. Mr. Kadam believes ArnAmy would have received higher scores for Job Titles had the Evaluators scored the correct version of its Management Plan. ArnAmy attributes this mistake to a possible error in the MyFloridaMarketPlace (“MarketPlace”) program that interfered with or prevented Mr. Kadam from uploading, saving, and/or submitting the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan for scoring. MarketPlace is the State of Florida online procurement system. MarketPlace served as the “web portal” for vendors to access the Department’s procurement documents, as well as a guide to assist them through the purchase process. The RFP required vendors to submit proposals through MarketPlace. The main software component of MarketPlace is a program called “Ariba,” which is a suite of programs or tools. MarketPlace (through Ariba) allowed vendors to electronically submit their responses to the RFP. A vendor may take three distinct actions within MarketPlace/Ariba: (1) upload documents; (2) save documents; and (3) submit documents to the Department. Mr. Kadam maintained that the version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan that the Evaluators scored was an “intermediate working copy” that he had saved “locally” to MarketPlace. Mr. Kadam testified that he uploaded and saved at least three versions of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to MarketPlace. He intended the Department to score the last version of the Management Plan that he saved and submitted on March 18, 2019. Mr. Kadam explained that he was not aware that the Department did not score the appropriate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan until after the Department posted its Revised Notice on July 24, 2019. Upon learning that ArnAmy was only awarded 21 Job Titles, Mr. Kadam conducted a “root cause analysis” to determine the reason. He initially reviewed the scores of several other proposals “to obtain a baseline of comparison.” He soon discovered that the Management Plan the Evaluators scored for ArnAmy was not the last (and correct) version he believes he uploaded to MarketPlace. Mr. Kadam suggests that a glitch occurred within the MarketPlace program that replaced or substituted an earlier version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan for the final version. At the final hearing, Mr. Kadam relayed that he did not find any error at the “front” or “user’s” (ArnAmy’s) end of the system. Nor did he receive any error messages after submitting ArnAmy’s Management Plan. He did, however, offer several possible, “logical” causes for the inconsistency. His theories included “deadlock,” or a situation that occurs on the system when one document is in use on the server that prevents another document (i.e., ArnAmy’s Management Plan) from being properly uploaded. Mr. Kadam explained that the difference between the early version and the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan was significant. RFP, section 5.2.2, instructed vendors to recite how they proposed to recruit, staff, and manage requests for IT services. The intermediate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan did not include the information referenced in RFP, section 5.2.2.B, which specifically directed vendors to identify and describe the roles and expertise of their Principal Personnel.12/ Mr. Kadam represented that the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan did contain this information. ArnAmy argues that if the MarketPlace error had not occurred, its proposal would have received a much more favorable score. Mr. Kadam specifically pointed to the score from one Evaluator, Stephanie Reaves, who only awarded ArnAmy’s Management Plan 100 out of 300 points. Mr. Kadam contends that if Ms. Reaves had just increased her score to the next level (200), ArnAmy would have been awarded most, if not all, of the 130 Job Titles. As more fully discussed below, despite Mr. Kadam’s detailed analytical investigation into the MarketPlace program, ArnAmy did not produce conclusive or direct evidence to support his theory that an error within MarketPlace was responsible for the submission of an intermediate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to the Department, instead of Mr. Kadam’s final version. During his testimony, Mr. Kadam stated that “a lot could have happened” to the documents he uploaded. However, he conceded that he did not know exactly what that might have been. The Scoring Team was Not Qualified to Score the Proposals: ArnAmy also charges that the Department failed to properly train the three Evaluators or provide them adequate guidance on how to effectively score the vendors’ proposals. Specifically, ArnAmy asserts that the Department failed to select Evaluators with the requisite background, experience, and knowledge in the subject matter of the RFP, i.e., information technology. Consequently, the Evaluators could not have conducted a comprehensive or sound review of the IT staffing services listed in the RFP. In other words, the Department could not have competently or fairly decided that ArnAmy should not be awarded an IT staff augmentation contract because the Evaluators did not know how to properly score its proposal. To support its argument, ArnAmy points out that not a single Evaluator possessed IT experience. ArnAmy contends that the technical details involved in evaluating proposals for IT staff services require direct experience in the IT field or in acquiring and/or utilizing IT staffing services. Because the Evaluators were unqualified, as well as the fact that the Evaluators were under time pressure to evaluate all 374 proposals, ArnAmy alleges that they inconsistently applied the RFP’s evaluation criteria, and, in some cases, failed to apply it altogether. As discussed below, the facts adduced at the final hearing support a finding that the Evaluators were suitably qualified to score the vendors’ proposals. Therefore, the undersigned finds this argument insufficient to reverse the Department’s award. Evaluator Stephanie Reaves Incorrectly Scored ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience: Finally, as a direct result of the Scoring Team’s inexperience, ArnAmy asserts that one of the three Evaluators, Stephanie Reaves, failed to properly score its IT Staff Contract Experience. ArnAmy specifically alleges that, in her haste to review ArnAmy’s proposal, Ms. Reaves overlooked key information included in its IT Staff Contract Experience submission. RFP, section 5.2.3, advised that a vendor “will be scored” based on “the best representation of its experience in providing IT Staff Augmentation.” Section 5.2.3 specifically asked vendors to include information regarding: Total number of IT Staff Augmentation contract/purchase orders. Total combined dollar amount of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders. At page 19 of its response to section 5.2.3, ArnAmy reported on its IT Staff Contract Experience document that ArnAmy had 11 years of IT staffing experience with the State of Florida involving 147 total contracts worth over $19,600,000. As discussed in paragraphs 93, 146, and 147 below, ArnAmy’s argument on this point has merit. Ms. Reaves awarded ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience 150 out of 200 points. At the final hearing, Ms. Reaves admitted that she did not see this information in ArnAmy’s proposal prior to formulating her score. SEVA’S PROTEST: Seva was not awarded any of the 130 Job Titles for which it bid. Seva protests the Department’s award arguing that the RFP’s scoring formula was built on an arbitrary evaluation system and a mathematically deficient price scoring system. Consequently, the evaluation process resulted in unfair and unreliable awards that should not have excluded Seva’s proposal. Danny O'Donnell spoke on behalf of Seva. Mr. O’Donnell prepared and submitted Seva’s proposal to the RFP. In addition, at the final hearing, Mr. O’Donnell was accepted as an expert in statistics, data presentation, and pattern analysis. Mr. O’Donnell explained that he is very competent at extracting and compiling data from spreadsheets and reports and presenting that information in a form that is more easily understood. Mr. O’Donnell testified that Seva is an IT consulting and software development services firm headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida. He further represented that Seva has extensive experience providing IT staffing services to the State of Florida. Seva has provided temporary IT staff for state agencies since 2009, and has participated in a total of 120 IT staffing contracts with the state worth over $19,800,000. Further, Seva is an active vendor supporting 129 of the 130 IT jobs awarded in the 2016 state term contract. Mr. O’Donnell also commented that Seva’s 2019 proposal was substantially the same as its 2016 submission. Further, the 2019 RFP criteria was very similar to the 2016 procurement terms. In 2016, Seva received good (and winning) scores for its Management Plan. Consequently, Mr. O’Donnell was puzzled why Seva received such low scores under this RFP. To understand the reason the Department did not award Seva any Job Titles, Mr. O’Donnell culled through reams of Department data, charts, and spreadsheets. Based on his statistical analysis, Mr. O’Donnell reached two primary conclusions why the Department’s scores for the 2019 RFP are unsound. The RFP’s Price Scoring System: Initially, Mr. O’Donnell argued that the RFP’s “extremely flawed” price scoring formula set forth in RFP, section 5.2.4, produced arbitrary and unreliable scoring results. Specifically, the formula allowed vendors to propose “low-ball,” “unrealistic,” and “unsustainable” prices that are excessively below the market value for IT staffing services in order to procure higher scores for their proposals. Consequently, vendors who submitted these “unbalanced” bids received an unfair competitive advantage over vendors who presented realistic prices (i.e., ArnAmy and Seva) for their IT staffing services. Mr. O’Donnell further urged that the formula caused a very narrow “band compression of price points,” which gave rise to “price neutralization.” In other words, vendors who offered legitimately low, but realistic, prices for Job Titles received no corresponding benefit because the unbalanced bids “caused the relative value of the pricing criteria to be neutralized in value.” Concomitantly, the two subjectively scored criteria graded by the Scoring Team (Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience) took on much greater significance in determining whether a particular vendor was awarded a state term contract. A vendor could lose more points on pricing than it could earn for its Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience. As a result, vendors who tendered “unbalanced” bids (with unreasonably low prices) obtained an inequitable and unwarranted benefit. Mr. O’Donnell asserted that there is no correlation between winning vendors having the best price, and the responsible and responsive vendors who can provide the best IT staffing service to Customers. Mr. O'Donnell testified to his belief that the Department did not account for or prevent these artificially low, “unbalanced,” bids. Consequently, it was his opinion that the Scoring Team did not select vendors whose proposals will be the most advantageous to the State of Florida (i.e., Seva). Therefore, the Department’s decision not to award the IT staffing contract to Seva must be overturned. Mr. O’Donnell alleged that his extensive statistical analysis reveals that the three Evaluators used markedly different standards to review, then score, vendors’ proposals. To support his argument, Seva produced a chart showing that Ms. Reaves awarded 161 of the 374 Management Plans a top score of 300. Ms. Shoup awarded 116 Management Plans with 300 points. Ms. Roberts awarded only 66 Management Plans the maximum 300 points. Mr. O’Donnell stressed that these diverse scores indicate an arbitrariness that is outside any zone of reasonable results. Consequently, as a matter of fairness, all proposals must be reevaluated. Mr. O’Donnell further argued that the inequity is compounded by the fact that the Department limited state term contracts for each Job Title to 200 vendors (and ties). Not only is restricting the available Contractors to 200 arbitrary, but the 200 Contractor cap impacts whether legitimate vendors were awarded IT staffing contracts. In addition to Mr. O’Donnell’s analysis and conclusions, Seva presented expert testimony from Dr. Wei Wu. Dr. Wu is a professor in the Department of Statistics at Florida State University. Dr. Wu was accepted as an expert in statistics, including the chi-square correlation test, as well as the “p value” as applied to the solicitation scoring. To formulate his opinion, Dr. Wu applied basic statistical methods and tools. He explained that he conducted a “standard chi-square test” to determine whether the three Evaluators produced the same scoring distribution. Dr. Wu then analyzed the data, reviewed the intuitive results, and formulated his conclusion. He rechecked his data to ensure that it was mathematically correct. Based on his statistical analysis, Dr. Wu announced, with “very high confidence,” that the three Evaluators did not apply the same methodology when scoring Management Plans. Dr. Wu specifically opined that he was “99.99 percent confident that, of the three evaluators; they don’t have the same standard to give the score.” In other words, his research indicated that the Evaluators did not have the same, common understanding of the RFP’s scoring criteria. On the contrary, the Evaluator’s scoring distributions were arbitrarily and unreasonably different. Further, Dr. Wu expressed that the scores awarded for price were “crunched” in the final results, thereby reducing their importance in the proposals’ total scores. Dr. Wu testified that, if the Evaluators had followed the same scoring standard, the score distributions across the 374 proposals would not have been so varied. Dr. Wu acknowledged that some deviation between Evaluators is expected, but not this much. Based on Mr. O’Donnell’s analysis, as supported by Dr. Wu, Seva asserts that statistical data confirms that each Evaluator applied dissimilar grading scales, which manifested itself into erratic scoring. Each Evaluator appears to have a different understanding of what a vendors’ proposal would have to show in order to earn a top-ranked score. Despite his conclusions, however, Mr. O’Donnell conceded that he has no previous experience forming statistical inferences from procurement criteria. Neither does he feel qualified to explain the meaning of his statistical analysis of the scores. Consequently, he could not testify “why” the data shows what it shows. Similarly, Dr. Wu acknowledged that he has never researched procurement scoring formulas, scoring of requests for proposals criteria, or the scoring behavior of procurement evaluators. Nor did his opinion take into account the subjective opinions of the three Evaluators. The Scoring Team was Not Qualified to Score the Proposals: Secondly, similar to ArnAmy, Seva asserts that the wide-ranging scores show that the Department failed to select Evaluators with the requisite experience and knowledge in IT. Seva further charges that the Department neglected to effectively train the Scoring Team. The Department only provided the three Evaluators poorly defined guidelines explaining how to evaluate the vendors’ Management Plans. In addition, Seva argues that amount of time the Department allotted for scoring (eight weeks) was too short to reasonably evaluate 374 separate proposals. DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO THE TWO PROTESTS: In response to ArnAmy and Seva’s challenges, the Department asserts that it properly acted within its legal authority, as well as the RFP specifications, to award the RFP to qualified responsive and responsible vendors. The Scoring Team Selection/Qualifications: Initially, the Department rejects ArnAmy and Seva’s allegations that the Scoring Team members lacked the requisite experience and knowledge to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. To score a procurement in a request for proposals solicitation, section 287.057(16)(a)1 directed the Department to appoint: At least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought. In accordance with section 287.057(16)(a)1, the Department appointed three individuals (Ms. Reaves, Ms. Roberts, and Ms. Shoup) to serve on the Scoring Team. The three Evaluators were selected by Cliff Nilson (Deputy Director of the Division of State Purchasing), and Joel Atkinson (the Department’s Procurement Officer). Thereafter, the Evaluators were approved by the Department’s Secretary. At the final hearing, Mr. Nilson testified as the Department’s corporate representative. In his role as Deputy Director of State Purchasing, Mr. Nilson oversees the Department’s procurement process, as well as the state term contracts awarded under the RFP. Initially, Mr. Nilson discussed how the Department selected the three Evaluators. Mr. Nilson explained that the state term contract in this solicitation is fundamentally a “staffing” contract. Mr. Nilson characterized the procurement as “essentially . . . a human resource function that’s outsourced to a vendor to recruit, employ, and manage those people.” Mr. Nilson explained that the RFP’s purpose is to solicit vendors who will find, recruit, and manage IT personnel; then effectively provide those employees to Customers to use on an hourly basis to perform IT work. Vendors awarded with a state term contract are only responsible for providing “a person,” not directing or overseeing an IT project. Accordingly, the Department sought evaluators who had experience in human resources and staff management. Further, Mr. Nilson did not believe that a working knowledge of IT services was necessary for a fair and reasonable evaluation of the vendors’ proposals. Mr. Nilson relayed that, because the RFP’s purpose was to identify staffing companies, extensive knowledge of the IT tasks and responsibilities listed in the 130 Job Titles was not necessary when reviewing the vendors’ Management Plans and IT Staff Contract Experience. At the final hearing, the Department elicited testimony from Mr. Kadam (for ArnAmy) and Mr. O’Donnell (for Seva) admitting that the “deliverable” under this state term contract is people and their time and expense, not the various vendors’ IT prowess. During the hearing, both Mr. Kadam and Mr. O’Donnell acknowledged that their primary responsibilities would be to find, recruit, and place suitable IT staff with a state agency. Regarding training the Evaluators, Mr. Nilson conveyed that the Department anticipated that scoring would be fairly straightforward. Therefore, the Department did not plan a lengthy training regime for the Evaluators. Mr. Nilson further commented that the grading criteria described in the RFP did not require specific knowledge of IT services. The Evaluators were to review how each vendor proposed to hire, manage, and retain persons with IT skills. The Evaluators were not scoring the specialized knowledge of the vendors or their employees. Before starting their reviews, the Department arranged for each Evaluator to receive a copy of each proposals’ Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience section. The Evaluators also received an Evaluators Guide, as well as Instructions for the Evaluator Score Sheet. Each Evaluator also received and signed a document entitled Evaluator Instructions for Ethics, Sunshine Law, and Conflict of Interest. Finally, the Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, contacted each Evaluator separately to explain their role and answer any questions. The RFP gave the three Evaluators eight weeks to review and score every proposal. Mr. Nilson envisioned the Evaluators spending approximately 30 minutes on each proposal. Mr. Nilson recognized that the scoring would entail hard work, but he was comfortable that the Evaluators would have enough time to perform their responsibilities. The Evaluators scored Petitioners’ proposals as follows: ArnAmy: Management Plan (out of 300 points): Ms. Reaves: 100 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points Ms. Shoup: 200 points IT Staff Contract Experience (out of 200 points): Ms. Reaves: 150 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points (maximum) Ms. Shoup: 200 points (maximum) Seva: Management Plan (out of 300 points): Ms. Reaves: 100 points Ms. Roberts: 0 points Ms. Shoup: 100 points IT Staff Contract Experience (out of 200 points): Ms. Reaves: 150 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points (maximum) Ms. Shoup: 200 points (maximum) Mr. Nilson testified that he was not concerned that the Evaluators’ scores were slightly different. He commented that in his experience, a one-step difference in the scoring spread between evaluators was “not unusual at all.” At the final hearing, each of the Evaluators testified about their background and experience in state procurements and IT staffing contracts as follows: Stephanie Reaves: Ms. Reaves testified that she has worked in the field of human resources for her entire career. She has hired, managed, recruited, and trained employees. At the time Ms. Reaves was selected as an evaluator, she was employed as the Director of Human Resources for the Department of Children and Families. During the RFP process, she transferred to the Department of Environmental Protection where she works as an Employee Relations Specialist. In addition, Ms. Reaves was previously employed with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, where she reviewed and scored proposals submitted in response to requests for proposals for public contracts. Ms. Reaves also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration, as well as a Masters in Human Resource Development. Prior to this RFP, however, she has never been involved in procuring IT staff services. Ms. Reaves declared that she had a firm grasp of her responsibilities as an evaluator. Before she scored the proposals, she reviewed and understood the scoring criteria described in RFP, section 5. She also read the Evaluators Guide, as well as the score sheet instructions. She further relayed that she spoke with the Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, who provided general guidance. Ms. Reaves expressed that she felt adequately trained to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. She also believed that she had the necessary human resources experience to discern whether vendors sufficiently described their staffing abilities in their proposals. Ms. Reaves explained that, when evaluating a proposal, she read the vendor’s submission twice, as well as reviewed the applicable RFP sections. She then compared the proposal to the RFP evaluation criteria. At that point, she scored accordingly and submitted her scores electronically to the Department. Ms. Reaves spent approximately 20-30 minutes per proposal. Ms. Reaves rejected any concerns that her lack of IT knowledge affected her evaluation. She relayed that she did not find scoring difficult. She did not encounter terms in the RFP or the various vendors’ proposals that she did not understand. Ms. Reaves asserted that she worked fairly and independently. Further, she testified that she used the criteria set forth in the RFP and applied the scoring criteria consistently to each proposal. She relayed that she held vendors to the same standard and used the same method when evaluating each proposal. Finally, despite the large amount of commitment and work this evaluation required, Ms. Reaves firmly asserted that she had sufficient guidance and time to review and score each proposal. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Reaves testified that she awarded ArnAmy 100 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that, for a perfect score of 300, a proposal would have to “demonstrate exceptional ability.” This score meant that she thoroughly understood how a vendor would provide prospective IT staff to Customers, and the vendor did an excellent job in describing how it would identify potential IT staff that would respond to a Customer’s Request for Quote. ArnAmy’s Management Plan, however, only showed minimal ability to meet the RFP’s objectives. Specifically, ArnAmy did not explain “how” it intended to accomplish or implement a plan to provide IT staff to Customers. In addition, ArnAmy failed to include information regarding the experience of its Principal Personnel to manage IT staff. Regarding ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience, Ms. Reaves awarded ArnAmy 150 out of 200 points. Ms. Reaves explained that she did not find in ArnAmy’s proposal responses to two specific requests for information: 1) the total number of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders; and 2) the total combined dollar amount of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders. However, as became apparent during the final hearing, ArnAmy’s proposal did, in fact, include information on these two specific points. What appears to have happened is that Ms. Reaves missed this information because ArnAmy presented these numbers at the very end (page 14) of its IT Staff Contract Experience section (and in tiny print).13/ In RFP, section 5.2.3, the total number of IT contracts and their combined dollar amount are the first two bullet points listed in the IT Staff Contract Experience criteria section.14/ Accordingly, Ms. Reaves looked for this information in the order set forth in the RFP, i.e., at the beginning of each vendors’ response to this section. (For example, Seva inserted its contract history in the first two lines of its IT Staff Contract Experience submission.) The RFP did not contain any specific instructions on how a vendor was to format its response to this section. At the final hearing, Ms. Reaves testified that she would still have given ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience a score of 150, even if she had found the entry for total IT contracts. It does appear, however, that Ms. Reaves plainly overlooked this information when evaluating ArnAmy’s proposal. Regarding Seva, Ms. Reaves awarded it 100 points (out of 300) for its Management Plan. She explained that she did not believe Seva adequately explained “how” it was going to accomplish “what was critical” to performing the IT staffing contract. On the contrary, Seva’s proposal lacked specifics, which left Ms. Reaves questioning Seva’s ability to provide quality IT staff for potential Customers. Ms. Reaves awarded Seva 150 out of 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She testified that she could not determine the level or type of Seva’s staffing experience from its proposal. Denise Roberts: Ms. Roberts has spent her entire public service career working in the procurements field for various state agencies. When she was selected to serve as an evaluator, Ms. Roberts was employed as a Purchasing Agent for the Agency for State Technology. During her evaluation, Ms. Roberts moved to the Department of Lottery where she processed procurements, solicitations, and purchase orders. Notably, Ms. Roberts has previously procured IT staff augmentation services, as well as obtained quotes for IT staff assistance for the Agency for State Technology, the Department of Corrections, as well as the Department of Transportation. Additionally, Ms. Roberts is a Certified Public Professional Buyer and a Florida Certified Contract Manager. She does not, however, have any IT experience or training. Nor did she have knowledge of what the IT Job Titles listed in the RFP specifically entailed. Ms. Roberts testified that, before she scored the proposals, she reviewed and understood the RFP, as well as the documents she was to score. In addition, she spoke with the Department’s Procurement Officer (Mr. Atkinson) who provided general guidance on how to score the proposals. Ms. Roberts expressed that she followed the instructions the Department gave her and felt sufficiently trained to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. She also believed that she had enough experience to evaluate proposals regarding IT staffing services. Ms. Roberts explained that she generally conducted the following evaluation process: Initially, she read the vendor’s proposal, followed by a review of the RFP’s requirements. She then reviewed the proposal again to determine how the vendor complied with the RFP criteria. At that point, she scored the proposal. When scoring, Ms. Roberts handwrote all scores onto the RFP’s scoresheet. Thereafter, she input her scores online and submitted them electronically to the Department. Ms. Roberts spent about 30 to 45 minutes evaluating each proposal. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Roberts testified that she awarded ArnAmy 200 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that, for a perfect score of 300, a proposal had to meet every aspect the RFP requested in great detail, as well as describe how the vendor was going to accomplish the RFP’s tasks. ArnAmy’s Management Plan, however, was missing information and provided less detail than she expected. Specifically, Ms. Roberts did not find a response to the RFP’s requirements that ArnAmy list the “Respondent’s Principal Personnel who will make management decisions concerning staff placement for services under the contract(s),” or the “role each Principal Personnel” would have in the contract. Regarding ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience, Ms. Roberts awarded ArnAmy the maximum 200 points. She found that ArnAmy provided “quite a bit” of information regarding its prior experience. Regarding Seva, Ms. Roberts awarded it 0 points for its Management Plan. She explained that she did not believe Seva’s proposal provided the information the RFP requested. Specifically, Seva did not explain “how” it was going to accomplish “any” of the RFP’s staffing requirements. Seva simply offered general comments with no details or step-by-step processes describing how it would acquire, then manage, IT personnel for potential Customers. Neither did Seva include the role its principals would play in its Management Plan. Conversely, Ms. Roberts awarded Seva with the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that Seva provided all the information requested regarding its prior contract experience. Ms. Roberts asserted that she worked independently and did not communicate with the other Evaluators. Further, she testified that she conscientiously used the criteria set forth in the RFP and gave each proposal consistent and fair consideration. Despite the large amount of proposals, Ms. Roberts confidently voiced that she had adequate time to consider, then score, each proposal. Heather Shoup: Ms. Shoup currently serves as the Director of Human Resources for the Department. In this position, she oversees all human resource activities for the Department, including recruitment and retention, benefit administration, classifications, compensation, employee relations issues, orientation, and retirement coordination. Ms. Shoup testified that her professional experience has been primarily in the areas of financial and human resources. In addition, she has experience hiring and managing individuals who provide IT services. However, she has no prior experience in public procurements. In preparing for her evaluations, Ms. Shoup met with the RFP’s Procurement Officer (Mr. Atkinson), as well as reviewed the RFP criteria, the Evaluators Guide, and the Instructions for the Evaluator Score Sheet. Ms. Shoup expressed that she understood her responsibilities and had sufficient training and time to evaluate each proposal. When evaluating, Ms. Shoup relayed that she worked independently through each proposal and scored as best as she could. For a perfect score, she was looking for answers to all RFP criteria. She wanted to see clear, precise responses that provided all information the RFP requested. She specifically reviewed “how” the vendor intended to deliver IT staff support for Customers. Ms. Shoup testified that she spent approximately ten minutes per evaluation. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Shoup awarded ArnAmy 200 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that ArnAmy’s Management Plan was missing information regarding its Principal Personnel who would make management decisions under a potential staffing contract. On the other hand, Ms. Shoup awarded ArnAmy the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that ArnAmy’s proposal reflected extensive IT staffing experience. Regarding Seva, Ms. Shoup awarded it 100 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that Seva’s proposal was “too broad.” Specifically, Seva did not answer the “how” questions in multiple categories. Conversely, Ms. Shoup awarded Seva with the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that Seva’s proposal clearly showed its prior IT contract experience. Finally, Ms. Shoup testified that she fairly scored each proposal she evaluated. She did not have difficulties reviewing the various submissions. Ms. Shoup also expressed that she had adequate time to consider, then score, each proposal. Based on the testimony received, the Department persuasively demonstrated that the Scoring Team “collectively [had] the experience and knowledge” required to score the RFP. Each Evaluator convincingly conveyed her ability to ably participate in the Department’s solicitation process. Although, none of the Evaluators had prior experience in the IT profession, each possessed the acumen and ability to competently conduct a procurement for IT staffing services. Ms. Reaves and Ms. Shoup both had extensive experience in personnel and human resource functions, including hiring and managing employees. Further, Ms. Roberts had broad knowledge in procuring services, including IT staff augmentation services. Finally, upon reviewing their scores again at the final hearing, each Evaluator testified that they would not change their scores. They each credibly expressed that neither ArnAmy nor Seva adequately addressed some or all of the criterion set out in the RFP. Therefore, based on their various professional and educational backgrounds and vocational experience, the undersigned finds that the Scoring Team was fully capable and proficient to review and score all aspects of each of the 374 vendor proposals. The Evaluators were adequately knowledgeable of, and sufficiently experienced for, their task of understanding and evaluating the vendors’ IT staffing plans. Conversely, neither ArnAmy nor Seva established that the Department’s appointment of a Scoring Team consisting of Stephanie Reaves, Denise Roberts, and Heather Shoup was contrary to the governing authority in section 287.057(16)(a)1. The RFP was not Contrary to the Department’s Governing Statutes, Rules, Policies, or the Solicitation Specifications: In addition to describing the Evaluator selection process, Mr. Nilson explained why the RFP limited the number of awards to 200 Contractors per Job Title (plus ties).15/ Initially, Mr. Nilson conveyed that the Department desired that vendors continue to compete to provide staffing services. Two hundred potential Contractors for each Job Title would maintain active competition when Customers requested price quotes. This arrangement would help ensure that Customers would continue to receive fair and reasonable prices in response to a Request for Quote. Secondly, restricting the number of Contractors to 200 would enable the Department to more easily monitor the large pool of vendors. Finally, the Department hoped to keep the Request for Quote process as simple and straightforward as possible for the Customers. When seeking IT staff services, Customers would have a definite and finite list of prospective Contractors. Further, Mr. Nilson added that market research indicated that only about 90 vendors actually participated in the prior/currently existing state term contract. Consequently, the Department determined that economical and fair competition for IT staff services would reasonably end at approximately 200 Contractors. Finally, the Department called Kimberly Stiver to discuss the possibility that an error occurred in the MarketPlace online system that impeded ArnAmy’s attempt to submit the final version of its Management Plan to the Department. MarketPlace is operated by Accenture. Ms. Stiver is Accenture’s Program Manager for MarketPlace. Ms. Stiver testified that, after learning of ArnAmy’s allegations, she and her staff investigated the MarketPlace system to uncover any evidence that would justify ArnAmy’s claim. Ms. Stiver reviewed event logs, the attachment history log, and the system logs to determine whether an error took place within MarketPlace related to the uploading, saving, or transmitting of ArnAmy’s Management Plan. Initially, Ms. Stiver explained that responding to a solicitation takes two steps. First, the vendor uploads the document. Then, the vendor “submits” the document to the agency. After uploading the document, but prior to submitting it, MarketPlace allows vendors to replace, revise, or upload additional documents. After a vendor has “submitted” the document, the agency then accesses the last uploaded and successfully saved version of the document in MarketPlace. At the final hearing, Ms. Stiver declared that, following her detailed inquiry, she found no indication within MarketPlace that ArnAmy was not able to, was prevented from, or encountered any difficulties in properly submitting its Management Plan to the Department. Expanding on her assertion, Ms. Stiver explained that each procurement in MarketPlace is a unique and distinct “event” that tracks key activity from the vendor community. ArnAmy’s activity on MarketPlace relating to this RFP shows that ArnAmy submitted a Management Plan at approximately 1:41 p.m. on March 18, 2019. Based on the event log, Ms. Stiver stated that ArnAmy logged onto MarketPlace only one time on March 18, 2019, and that ArnAmy only uploaded one document identified as its Management Plan at that time. The event log does not support Mr. Kadam’s suggestion that he uploaded multiple versions of a Management Plan which may have resulted in an earlier version being submitted to the Department instead of ArnAmy’s final intended version. The attachment history log also shows that ArnAmy logged into MarketPlace only one time on March 18, 2019, to upload, save, and submit documents. Ms. Stiver testified that, like the event log, the attachment history log does not support Mr. Kadam’s assertion that he saved at least three versions of ArnAmy’s Management Plan in MarketPlace. If Mr. Kadam had uploaded and saved, but not submitted, multiple versions of a Management Plan, Ms. Stiver asserted that the attachment history log would document the entries as “not submitted.” The attachment history log for ArnAmy, however, records no entries or messages with a status of “not submitted.” Finally, Ms. Stiver reviewed ArnAmy’s system log for the period of March 12 through 19, 2019, the time period during which MarketPlace was open to receive vendors’ proposals. The system log shows no system errors occurred at any time while ArnAmy was logged into MarketPlace from March 12 through 19, 2019. Based on her comprehensive explanation, Ms. Stiver persuasively testified that no errors or inconsistencies occurred in the MarketPlace online system that caused an earlier (incomplete) version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to be submitted to the Department or prevented ArnAmy from effectively and timely uploading its Management Plan in response to the RFP. The logical conclusion is that the discrepancy between the version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan that the Evaluators eventually scored and the final version that Mr. Kadam claims he submitted in MarketPlace was the result of ArnAmy’s unfortunate oversight. The Possibility of “Unbalanced” Bids: Regarding Seva’s (and ArnAmy’s) complaint that the Department failed to identify and reject “unbalanced bids,” Mr. Nilson expressed that the RFP did not prevent vendors from presenting “unbalanced” proposals. Moreover, no statute, rule, or solicitation specification required the Department to reject a vendor’s proposal simply because the hourly rate quoted might be lower than market value for a certain Job Title or Scope Variant. Further, nothing in the RFP directed the Department to conduct a statistical analysis of vendor prices prior to awarding the state term contract.16/ The RFP clearly informed all vendors of the scoring criteria the Department would apply for price. Every vendor was free to submit a hourly rate for each Job Title for which it would agree to abide. The Department uniformly applied the RFP’s price formula to every Job Title from every proposal. Finally, while Seva asserts that the price formula could have led to unfair and/or misleading scoring results, the RFP allowed all vendors (including ArnAmy and Seva) to present “low-ball” prices in their proposals. Further, even if certain vendors did include unrealistic prices for their IT staffing services, the RFP protects Customers by binding a Contractor to the maximum price per Job Title or Scope Variant listed in its proposal. (In fact, a Contractor could offer even lower prices for its IT staff services in response to a Request for Quote.) Finally, regarding Seva’s complaint that its proposal was substantially similar to its previous proposal (which received a higher score), Mr. Nilson commented that Seva’s 2019 proposal was materially different from its 2016 proposal. Seva presented fewer Principal Personnel in 2019 (two versus four individuals). Mr. Nilson surmised this factor may have reduced the amount of IT experience Seva represented. In addition, Mr. Nilson believed that Seva’s prior proposal presented a clearer description of how it intended to recruit, and then place, prospective IT personnel for Customers. In that regard, Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that Seva’s 2019 proposal contained several substantive differences from its 2016 proposal. To summarize the findings in this matter, neither ArnAmy nor Seva established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department’s decision to award only 21 of 130 Job Titles to ArnAmy and 0 of 130 Job Titles to Seva was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evidence does not demonstrate that either ArnAmy or Seva were placed at a competitive disadvantage in this solicitation. Neither is there evidence that the Department conducted this procurement in a manner that was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of the RFP. Regarding ArnAmy and Seva’s complaint that the Department did not assemble a qualified Scoring Team, the evidence establishes the contrary. Testimony at the final hearing demonstrated that the individuals the Department assigned to score the vendors’ proposals possessed the “experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which [the] contractual services [were] sought” as required by section 287.057(16)(a)1. The Evaluators’ scores for ArnAmy and Seva’s proposals were logical, reasonable, and based on a sound understanding of the criteria requested in the RFP.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order dismissing the protests of ArnAmy and Seva, except that the Department should rescore ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience. Otherwise, the Department should award state term contracts under Request for Proposals for Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services – 3rd Bid, RFP 15-8010H07- SA-D as set forth in the Revised Notice of Intent to Award the RFP issued on June 24, 2019. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2020.
Findings Of Fact Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. is a subcontractor in the construction of a regional juvenile detection center located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The contracting authority for this facility was the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The contract for the construction let by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was in excess of $5,000.00 and pursuant to the provisions of Section 215.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the Division of Labor established a prevailing wage to be paid different crafts and occupations in construction of this project. The prevailing wage established for plumbers on this project was $10.07 per hour. During the course of this project, Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. acknowledged by affidavit that all persons in its employ were being paid the prevailing wage as required by law. Between April 10, 1977 and October 16, 1977, Charles G. Mathis was employed by Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. as a plumber on this project and paid at the rate of $7.50 per regular time hour and $11.25 per overtime hour. Between October 16, 1977 and June 25, 1978, Mathis was employed on this project as a plumber and paid at the rate of $8.25 per regular time hour and $12.37 per overtime hour. The difference between the amount paid Petitioner for regular time hours worked and the prevailing wage is $2.50 per regular time hour during the period he was paid $7.50 an hour and $3.85 per hour for the period he was paid $11.25 for each overtime hour. The difference between the amount paid Petitioner for regular time hours and the prevailing wage was $1.75 for the period of time he was paid $8.25 for regular time hour and $2.73 for the period he was paid $12.37 for each overtime hour. The evidence conflicts concerning the number of hours the claimant worked. The Hearing Officer finds that the records of the Respondent Company, Exhibit 6, accurately reflects the number of regular and overtime hours the claimant worked on this project. Exhibit 6 reflects that the claimant worked 891.5 hours at a rate $7.50 an hour and 23 hours at the rate of $11.25 an hour, overtime. Exhibit 6 further reflects that the claimant worked 1,172 hours at a rate of $8.25 an hour and 76.5 hours at the rate of $12.37 per hour, overtime. The Petitioner was underpaid the amount of $2028.75 for regular time hours worked at the rate of $7.50 per hour; $2,051.00 for the hours worked at the rate of $8.25 an hour; $208.85 at the rate of $12.37 an hour; and underpaid $88.50 at the rate of $11.25 an hour, for a total of $4,577.10. Petitioner complied with the provisions of Section 215.19(3)(a)1 and 2 by filing an affidavit with the contracting authority stating the number of hours worked and the amount paid for said hours. Said affidavit was filed within the time prescribed by statutes. Pursuant to Section 215.19(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is presently withholding $5,844.56 from Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. while awaiting the decision in this administrative proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact anus Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Division of Labor enter its order directing the contracting authority to pay to the employee the sum of $4,577.10 and the remaining amount held by the contracting authority pursuant to this claim be paid to Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of November 1978, Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Byrd Booth, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 11089 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 Charles G. Mathis 942 Montego Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner abandoned her position of employment in the career service system of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Helen L. Chappell, a career service employee of Respondent with the Polk County Public Health Unit at all times pertinent to these proceedings. Petitioner worked sporadically in Respondent's employment during the month of March, 1989. She was credited with a total of 28 hours of work during that month. Respondent's records reflect that Petitioner did not actually work any hours in the months of April or May, 1989. On May 5, 1989, Respondent received notification from personnel of the Division of Risk Management of the Department of Insurance that Petitioner, a recipient of workers compensation benefits, had reached maximum medical recovery from a previous injury. Shortly thereafter, the Division provided Respondent with a copy of a medical report documenting the extent of Petitioner's recovery. The medical report, while noting Petitioner's recovery, also restricted her employment activities to preclude activities involving "a lot of head and shoulder movement." By certified letter dated May 11, 1989, the acting administrative director of the Polk County Health Unit informed Petitioner of the receipt of the medical report and the medical restrictions contained in the report. Further, the letter set forth Respondent's position that such restrictions would not interfere with Petitioner's performance of her duties as a clerk specialist. The letter concluded by directing Petitioner to return to work immediately to avoid the presumption that she had abandoned her position of employment with Respondent. The letter's certified mail return receipt reflects that Petitioner received the letter on May 15, 1989. In the course of a telephone conversation with the acting administrative director on May 25, 1989, Petitioner was informed that she must return to work no later than June 2, 1989. Petitioner did not return to work on June 2, 1989, or at any time thereafter. On June 15, 1989, the acting administrative director notified Petitioner by certified mail that Petitioner was presumed to have abandoned her career service employment position with Respondent as a result of the failure to report to work within three days of the June 2, 1989 deadline. The certified mail return receipt documents delivery of the letter on June 20, 1989. On August 1, 1986, Petitioner acknowledged receipt of a copy of Respondent's employee handbook. Employees are placed on notice by contents of the handbook that any employee who is absent without authorization for three consecutive workdays may be considered to have abandoned his or her employment position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Administration concluding that Petitioner abandoned her position in the career service due to her failure to report to work, or request leave for the period June 2-June 15, 1989. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 6th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4183 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. None submitted. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-5. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack E. Farley, Esquire HRS District 6 Legal Office 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Fifth Floor, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33514 Helen L. Chappell Post Office Box 109 Lake Wales, Florida 33859 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 438 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Aletta L. Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 438 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was first employed by the Liberty County School Board as a classroom teacher for the school terms 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 as an English classroom teacher. For the school year 1974-75, the Petitioner was employed for a fourth year as a teacher by Respondent. In November of 1974, the Petitioner requested and was granted maternity leave through the end of the school year, i.e., June 6, 1975. It is undisputed that during the first three school years of the Petitioner's employment with Respondent, her employment was pursuant to an annual contract. However, what is in dispute, is Petitioner's claim that during her fourth year of employment with Respondent, such employment was pursuant to a continuing contract. According to Petitioner, the then principal at the school in which she was employed recommended that she be reappointed for her forth year of employment pursuant to a continuing contract as did the then superintendent of schools, Tom Fairchild. Thereafter, on May 4, 1974, the School Board met and voted favorably on the Superintendent' s recommendation. In this regard, the minutes of the May 4, 1974, meeting of the school Board do not disclose the contractual status approved by the Board, i.e., annual or continuing. 1/ During the summer of 1975, Petitioner advised her principal that she would not be returning for the 1975-76 school year. Accordingly, the principal employed another teacher to replace her. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner informed the principal that she had changed her mind and wanted to teach the 1975-76 school year. She was not, however, rehired, as the position had been filled. During the summer months of 1975, Petitioner had several conversations with her then principal, Jerry Johnson. Initially, during her conversations with Principal Johnson, Petitioner related to him that she thought that she would be returning to her position for the 1975-76 school year. During the latter part of July, Principal Johnson explained to Petitioner the necessity for her to make a final decision with respect to her returning to her position, since he needed to hire a replacement if she was not returning. At that point, Petitioner remarked that, "I think I need to take another year's leave." Mr. Johnson remarked, "Well, we hate that you are not coming back, but if you feel that's best for the baby, I'm supportive of you." Within a few days, Petitioner called Mr. Johnson back and advised, "just pretend I didn't talk to you the other day. I want my job back." At that point, Mr. Johnson remarked, "Vicki, I wish you had told me. I have just hired somebody else." To this, Petitioner remarked, "Well, what do you mean you just hired so00body else. I am on a continuing contract, you know." Mr. Johnson remarked, "Well, I know, but you've got me in an awkward position. This boy has got Board connections." Petitioner remarked, "Well, it couldn't have been more than a verbal agreement. He couldn't have signed anything yet because you don't sign a contract this early in the year." 2/ Mr. Johnson remarked, "Well, that's true but everybody is going to be awfully upset. I can't tell him he doesn't have a job now, and I've told him he has one." Later, Mr. Johnson asked Petitioner to submit a letter of resignation to which Petitioner never responded. Prior to the beginning of the school year in either late August or early September of the 1975-76 school year, Petitioner visited the principal's office in Bristol and explained to him that while she did not want to force the issue, via a lawsuit in a small community, she would appreciate it if she was given the first teaching position that cane open in the school system. (TR 23, 24 and 25.) The Petitioner testified that she was ready, willing and able to work during the 1975-76 school year. Petitioner received a call from Mr. Johnson during October of 1975 wherein he inquired if she was ready to return to work. Petitioner responded that she was ready and had been since the summer. Mr. Johnson indicated that he had a teaching position opening up; however, that position never materialized inasmuch as the teacher who was supposed to have resigned, Carolyn Larkins, needed an additional year of employment for retirement purposes. Petitioner was not assigned to a position at any time during the 1975-76 school year. Toward the end of the 1975-76 school year, Petitioner again informed her principal of her continuing request to be assigned. When no assignment was given her at the beginning of the 1975-76 school year, the Petitioner, out of economic necessity, accompanied her husband to Maine where he had obtained employment. Petitioner made it plain to her principal that she still sought employment with the Board and would return to Florida if and when an assignment was offered her. Finally, in November, 1976, approximately two months after the Petitioner left Florida, her principal assigned her to a teaching position and she returned and resumed teaching in the school system. Petitioner was given an annual contract for the 1976-77 school year and inquired why she was being asked to sign an annual contract. Her principal advised her that it was "customary" to do so. The Petitioner remained on the assignment the remainder of the 1976-77 school year. At the end of the 1976-77 school year, the present Superintendent of Schools, Laquita Shuler, recommended and the Respondent School Board approved, the Petitioner's continued employment. The Petitioner taught the entire 1977-78 school year. During the 1977-78 school year, Petitioner was again tendered an annual contract for execution which she refused to sign. Petitioner, before the School Board meeting in December, 1977, contended that she had a continuing contract and the Board took no action on her contention. At the end of the 1977-78 school year, Petitioner was not recommended for continued employment by the Superintendent. This was so, despite the favorable recommendation of her principal. Petitioner, at all times subsequent to the end of the 1977-78 school year, has been refused further employment by the Respondent. The Petitioner has made efforts to obtain employment during the interim; however, her interim earnings have been minimal. Since her separation from the Liberty County School Board, the Petitioner has been ready, willing and able to work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, School Board of Liberty County, make the Petitioner whole for wages including her loss of pay during the 1975-76 school year, her pay from the start of the 1976-77 school year through November 16, 1976, when she was reassigned to her teaching position, her pay from the start of the 1978- 79 school year through the date of her reinstatement, as well as the expenses incurred by the Petitioner as a direct and approximate result of the Respondent's actions. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to reemployment services from Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on March 2, 1953. After graduating from high school, he served four years in the United States Air Force as a munitions maintenance specialist. He served in Vietnam. After completing his military service, Petitioner began woodworking, mostly remodeling and home construction. For the past 15 years, his woodworking has involved higher-end work, in which the materials and labor are more expensive. During this time, Petitioner has worked on staircases, yachts, elevator interiors, and more specialized millwork. As contrasted from general carpentry, Petitioner’s woodworking requires more tools and greater manual dexterity to shape the wood, which is characterized by numerous intricate curved cuts. Petitioner’s woodworking requires lots of templates, routing, and changing cutters. This higher-end woodworking requires heavy reliance on power tools, whose cutting edges may turn at 25,000 revolutions per minute. On August 23, 1999, Petitioner was employed as a high- end woodworker at Exodus Fine Wood Products, which made yacht interiors. During the preceding 20 months, Petitioner had worked on elevator interiors, and, before that, he had worked on yacht interiors. Petitioner had been employed at Exodus for only ten weeks when, while using an inverted router without a guard, his right thumb was pulled into the blade. The blade nearly severed the top joint of the right thumb at the distal joint. A physician at the hospital was unable to save the joint, so he completed the amputation. After missing two or three weeks of work, Petitioner had to return to work to earn a living. When he returned to work, his right thumb was still bandaged, and Petitioner tried to work slowly and carefully. Although his employer had changed the procedure that Petitioner had been performing when he had been injured, Petitioner found the new way still unsafe, especially due to the loss of the end of his right thumb, so Petitioner did the procedure differently--and three times more slowly. For sometime, Petitioner tried to work at Exodus, but he found that he could not adequately hold the wood to make the necessary cuts, as, among other things, his right-hand grip was weaker than it had been before the injury and he had lost his previous dexterity. He repeatedly came close to reinjuring himself on a daily basis. Wood sometimes flew from the machine he was using. Although he maintained adequate work quality, the work rate after the injury had slowed considerably. However, Petitioner refused to work on extremely small pieces requiring the use of a router without a guard; he thus did not work on 20 percent of the work that Exodus did. An occupational therapist completed a report on Petitioner on October 28, 1999. Assessing the relative strength of the right hand, as compared to the uninjured left hand, the occupational therapist noted that Petitioner had lost from 31 to 86 percent of his strength, depending on the specific task. Noting that Petitioner felt that his right hand had returned 75 percent back to normal, the therapist mentioned that Petitioner felt that, functionally, his right hand was only 40 to 50 percent back to normal. In particular, Petitioner complained of his inability to hold things because he had lost his leverage. On November 2, 1999, a rehabilitation therapist evaluated Petitioner to assess his physical and functional capabilities. The summary of results notes “significant wrist, elbow, and shoulder compensations . . . during manual dexterity testing.” This testing confirmed “significantly decreased coordination, strength, and some sensory deprivation in the right thumb.” The evaluation states: While [Petitioner] was able to perform the tasks on an occasional basis, his performance during the evaluation demonstrates a significant safety risk when using heavy machinery and power tools as he does in his occupation. . . . The possibility of vocational counseling may also be considered to determine other gainful employment [Petitioner] may be suitable for. Petitioner attempted to obtain the consent of his employer to workplace changes that would have made the work safer, such as by requiring the use of a router guard at all times. Failing at obtaining such changes, Petitioner finally resigned, on November 19, 1999, motivated by the fear that he could no longer do the job safely. By Notice of Employee Separation dated November 19, 1999, Petitioner stated that he was resigning due to the advice of his doctor that “risk is greater for reinjury[--]should be retrained.” For rehire status, the form states that Petitioner is “subject to rehire with reservation.” At the bottom of the Notice of Employee Separation, just above the employer’s signature, is the statement, evidently written by the employer: “Employer agrees with . . . doctor’s recommendation as well.” Elaborating, the employer wrote on a separate page: Mr. Gresko’s employment at Exodus is a more dangerous undertaking than if he had not had his accident. [Psychologically] + physically to some extent he is a [sic] greater risk of re-injuring himself. We would re-hire or continue his employment from this point, but if re-training is available we think Mr. Gresko should take advantage of it. On November 15, 1999, a hand surgeon reported that testing of manual dexterity revealed that Petitioner “has significantly decreased coordination, strength, and some sensory deprivation of the right thumb.” Concerned that a valid psychological component could interfere with Petitioner’s return to his present duties, the surgeon opined that Petitioner still has a functional capacity, but “not in this specific line of work.” The surgeon concluded that Petitioner should receive some rehabilitation training. On November 29, 1999, a case manager of a managed care provider determined that, on November 9, Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement and could return to gainful employment with no “permanent physical restrictions,” although he was 11 percent permanently physically restricted. At this time, Petitioner requested retraining services from Respondent. By letter dated December 23, 1999, Respondent determined that Petitioner was ineligible for services because he had terminated suitable gainful employment. Therefore, Respondent declined to refer Petitioner for a vocational evaluation. When Respondent determined that Petitioner was ineligible for retraining services, Respondent became depressed, did not do anything for one and one-half months, and then obtained his certificate as a correctional officer in June or July 2000. In July 2000, after completing his training, Petitioner began work as a correctional officer at the Jasper Correctional Institute. However, during training, he had torn his rotator cuff while bench-pressing weights. After ignoring the injury for several months, Petitioner asked a physician to examine his shoulder after he had been on the job a short time. The Department of Corrections then placed Petitioner on medical leave. High-end woodworking, of the kind that Petitioner was performing at the time of the injury, is not suitable gainful employment for him due to the physical limitations arising from the loss of the distal joint of Petitioner’s right thumb. Petitioner tried to return to his former work, but could not do the work safely and efficiently. There is no credible evidence to suggest that Petitioner voluntarily terminated this employment. To the contrary, all of the credible evidence establishes that Petitioner terminated this employment out of a well-informed, reasonable concern for his ongoing safety and the preservation of his remaining upper extremities.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers’ Compensation, Bureau of Rehabilitation and Medical Services, enter a final order granting Petitioner’s request for reemployment services, commencing with a vocational evaluation. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary B. Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 303 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 John Gresko Post Office Box 278 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Elana J. Jones Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
