The Issue The issue is whether Proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-2.026(4) and (6) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, pursuant to sections 120.52(8) and 120.56(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes, Petitioner Second Chance operates jai alai games at its facility in Marion County, and Petitioner WFA owns and operates a greyhound permit and summer jai alai permit at its facility in Miami-Dade County. Petitioner WFA also indirectly owns a summer jai alai permit at the Miami Jai Alai in Miami-Dade County and owns partial interests in two jai alai permits operated at the Dania Jai Alai facility in Broward County. Pursuant to chapter 550, Intervenor owns and operates a jai alai permit at its facility in Seminole County, where it conducts live jai alai permits. Petitioners and Intervenor are regulated by the proposed rules that they challenge in these cases. Proposed rule 61D-2.026(4) (the Court Rule) provides: Jai alai games must be conducted on a three-walled court meeting the following requirements: The side wall must be at least 175 feet long and at least 35 feet in height; The front wall and back wall must be at least 35 feet in width and height; The front wall must be made of granite. All courts must have sufficient overhead coverage to ensure for the operation of scheduled performances. All courts must have a live viewing area for games. Proposed rule 61D-2.026(6) (the Roster Rule) provides: "Jai Alai permit holders must utilize a rotational system of at least eight different players or teams." The rulemaking authority cited for the Court Rule and the Roster Rule is sections 550.0251 and 550.105(3) and (10)(a). The law implemented cited for the Court Rule and the Roster Rule is sections 550.0251, 550.105, and 550.70.
Findings Of Fact Background On March 12, 1991, the Department of Lottery (Department) issued Request for Proposal No. 91-007-LOT/TEN/P entitled "Request for Proposal for the Provision of Advertising and Related Services to the Florida Lottery" (hereafter "the RFP"). The deadline for submitting sealed proposals in response to the RFP was established as April 22, 1991, but extended to April 29, 1991, by Amendment 3 to the RFP. At the time of the deadline, ten proposals had been filed, including those of petitioner, Bozell, Inc. (Bozell), and intervenors, Earle Palmer Brown (EPB) and BBDO South (BBDO). By "Notice of Selection of Finalists," dated May 1, 1991, and posted at the Department's headquarters, the Department advised all bidders that: After review of written proposals submitted in response to the subject RFP, the Florida Department of the Lottery's Evaluation Committee has ranked the responsive proposals in the following order of preference: Ogilvy & Mather Earle Palmer Brown BBDO South Bozell W.B. Doner Fahlgren Martin Benito West & Company Beber Silverstein LMPM The Ad Team In accordance with Section 5.3 of the RFP, the Department intends to conduct oral presentations with the following firms for the purpose of determining final rankings: Ogilvy & Mather Earle Palmer Brown BBDO South Bozell W.B. Doner Pursuant to Florida Statute and Rule 53ER87-16, failure to file a formal written protest and the bond required by Section 287.042(2)(c), Fla. Stat., with the Secretary within 72 hours shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Here, there was no showing that any protest was timely filed to contest the Department's selection of the five finalists. The five finalists made oral presentations to the evaluation committee on May 7 and 8, 1991, and their cost proposals were opened and scored on May 8, 1991. At the conclusion of its work, the committee awarded EPB an average total score of 174.550 and Bozell an average total score of 171.150; 200 points was the maximum total possible. By notice dated Wednesday, May 8, 1991, at 8:07 p.m., the Department issued its "Notice of Intent to Negotiate a Contract" ranking the top five firms in the following order of preference: (1) EPB, (2) Bozell, (3) Ogilvy & Mather; BBDO; and (5) W.B. Doner. Bozell filed its formal written protest and petition for formal administrative hearing with the Department of Monday, May 13, 1991, at 4:29 p.m. The Request for Proposals The RFP consists of the original RFP issued by the Department, three amendments, and the Department's response to various written questions submitted by potential bidders. Pertinent to this case, the RFP provided: SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION Introduction. This Request for Proposal ("RFP") has been issued by the Florida Department of Lottery ("Lottery") to obtain sealed proposals from qualified firms for the provision of advertising and related services to the Florida Lottery. This RFP, and all other activities leading toward the execution of a contract per this RFP, are conducted under the Lottery policies set forth in Rules 53ER87-10 through 53ER87-19, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 24, Fla. Stat. The Lottery considers it in the best interest of the State of Florida to procure the commodities/services described herein through a competitive process. All responding firms should read and be familiar with the Florida Public Education Lottery Act [Chapter 24, Fla. Stat.] to ascertain an understanding of the purposes and requirements placed on the Lottery. A copy of Chapter 24, Fla. Stat., is attached to this RFP. This proposed purchase is a Major Procurement as defined in Section 24.103, Fla. Stat. (1989). Glossary of Terms. * * * Responsive Proposal - Refers to a proposal which contains, in the manner required by this RFP, all documentation, drawings, information, plans, materials, certifications and affirmations, regardless of which section of the RFP sets forth the particular requirements. * * * Questions About This RFP. * * * If revisions to this RFP are necessary after the closing date for submitting proposals, the revisions will be provided to only those Respondents who have submitted Responsive Proposals and have met the basic requirements of this RFP. Such Respondents will then have the opportunity to modify their proposals in conformance with the revisions. Timetable The following timetable will be strictly adhered to in all actions relative to this procurement. * * * All proposals will be opened by Lottery employees at 2:00 p.m. on April 22, 1991 [extended to April 29, 1991, by Amendment 3] in the Purchasing Office at the aforesaid Lottery Headquarters. The public may attend the opening but may not review any proposals submitted. The evaluation process will begin immediately following the proposal opening. The Evaluation Committee will rank the proposals in order of preference based on the evaluation of the technical proposals in accordance with the criteria specified herein. Notice of selection of finalists shall be posted at the Lottery's headquarters. If more than five Responsive Proposals are submitted, at least the five top firms which have submitted Responsive Proposals will be selected for oral presentations to be made in Tallahassee, Florida, at the Lottery's Headquarters. Oral presentations are tentatively scheduled for the week of April 29, 1991 [extended to the week of May 6, 1991, by Amendment 3] . . . . The Evaluation Committee will score the oral presentations and then open and score the cost proposal. The final rankings will be determined based on the evaluation of the technical proposals, oral presentations and cost proposals. Notice of Intent to negotiate with the highest ranked firm will be posted at the Lottery's headquarters. If negotiations with the highest ranked firm are not successful, the Lottery may negotiate with the other listed firms in descending order of rank. Upon successful conclusion of negotiations with a Respondent, a Notice of Award of Contract will be posted at the Lottery's headquarters. * * * 1.12. Proposal Submission. It is the Respondent's responsibility to ensure that its proposal is delivered by the proper time at the place of the proposal opening.... * * * 1.14 Correction or Withdrawal of Proposal. A correction to, or withdrawal of, a proposal may be requested within 72 hours after the proposal opening time and date. Requests received in accordance with this provision may be granted by the Lottery upon proof of the impossibility to perform based upon an obvious error. The Lottery, in its sole discretion, will determine whether a bid may be corrected or withdrawn. Interpretations/Disputes. Any questions concerning conditions and specifications of this RFP shall be directed in writing to the Issuing Officer in the manner provided in Sections 1.8 and 1.9 of this RFP. Inquiries must reference the bid number and the date of proposal opening. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the Lottery. Any prospective Respondent who disputes the reasonableness or appropriateness of the terms, conditions, and specifications of this RFP shall file a formal written protest in appropriate form within 72 hours of the availability of answers to questions as provided in Section 1.9 of this RFP. Any Respondent who disputes the Lottery's Notice of Selection of Finalists, Notice of Intent to Negotiate, or Notice of Award of Contract, shall file a formal written protest in appropriate form within 72 hours of the notices. Any person who files a formal written protest shall, at the time of filing the formal written protest, post a bond as set forth in Section 287.042(2)(c), Fla. Stat. Failure to file both a protest and bond within the time prescribed in Rule No. 53ER87-16, Florida Administrative Code, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Fla. Stat. Legal Requirements. Applicable provisions of all federal, state, county, and local laws and administrative procedures, regulations, or rules shall govern the development, submittal and evaluation of all proposals received in response hereto and shall govern any and all claims and disputes which may arise between persons submitting a proposal hereto and the Lottery. Lack of knowledge of the law or applicable administrative procedures, regulations or rules by any Respondent shall not constitute a cognizable defense against their effect. * * * Purpose and Overview. A. In accordance with Chapter 24, Fla. Stat., the Florida Department of the Lottery has been charged with the responsibility "to operate the state lottery . . . so as to maximize revenues in a manner consonant with the dignity of the state and the welfare of its citizens." The Contractor will support the Lottery in its mission by providing the advertising services set forth in Section 2.2. The goal of these services is to maximize the sale of tickets, enhance the public image and visibility of the Lottery, and assist in communicating the intent that Lottery proceeds enhance education . . . . Scope of Services. The Contractor shall be the principal advisor and provider to the Lottery for the following advertising and services: Development of strategic advertising plan; Creative strategy, creation and production of all advertising (including television, radio, print, transit and outdoor); Placement of all print, radio, television, transit and outdoor advertising at the lowest competitive rate; Coordination of and contracting for televised broadcasts of lottery drawings; Ticket design; Creation and production of point-of- sales material; Media plans; Educational, promotional and other related activities as directed. The Technical Proposal. The objective of the technical proposal is to demonstrate the Respondent's understanding and proposed method of rendering the requested services. Each Respondent shall provide a written statement of the firm's understanding of the services requested herein as well as a detailed written plan outlining how the firm proposes to go about providing the services set forth in Section 2.2. At a minimum, the technical proposal shall consist of the following information and materials: * * * E. Firm Qualifications. At a minimum, each Respondent must provide the following information which demonstrates the Respondent's ability to provide the services requested: * * * 4. Resumes not to exceed one page each in length of all personnel who would be assigned major roles in the fulfillment of the work obligation outlined in Section 2.2, with a statement identifying the percentage of time, calculated annually, of each person who will work on the Lottery account. * * * 12. Certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years including an auditor's report. Certified financial statements must be the result of an audit of the Respondent's records in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by a certified public accountant . . . . * * * 18. List of type and number of additional employees that may be needed if awarded contract. * * * 33. Disclosure information required by and listed in Section 24.111, Fla. Stat. * * * Section 3: INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM RESPONDENT 3.1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. * * * D. Technical proposals must include the following information, be limited to not more than 100 pages (not including cover sheet, table of contents, divider pages, creative materials or resumes) and be presented in the following sequence: * * * Vendor Information Form (Attachment B). * * * Performance bond commitment letter required by Section 6.6. All material or information required to be submitted as part of the technical proposal required by Section 2.3. * * * 13. Any other material or information required by this RFP. * * * 3.4 Use of Subcontractors. If a Respondent proposes to use one or more subcontractors, the proposal must identify the contemplated subcontractor(s) and the scope of the subcontractor's services, and must include evidence of each subcontractor's ability to fulfill its respective duties on behalf of the Respondent. Respondent must also provide the information required by Section 24.111(2), Fla. Stat., for each subcontractor as if the subcontractor were itself a vendor. * * * 3.6 Additional Information and Comments. Respondent shall not submit with their written proposals material beyond that which is covered in the 100-page technical proposal (not including cover sheet, table of contents, divider pages, creative materials or resumes), plus creative comps and samples, resumes of key personnel and the separate cost proposals. The Lottery reserves the right to request additional information from a Respondent in order to make a thorough review and fair comparison of all proposals submitted.... Section 4: MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS Terms. The Lottery has established certain mandatory requirements which must be included as part of any proposal. The use of the terms "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicate a mandatory requirement or condition. The words "should" or "may" in this RFP indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature will not by itself cause rejection of a proposal. 4.2 Non-responsive Proposals. Proposals which do not meet all material requirements of the RFP or which fail to provide all required information, documents, or materials will be rejected as non- responsive. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth in Section 3.1 and without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is impossible. The Lottery reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP and to accept proposals which deviate from the requirements of the RFP in a minor or technical fashion as determined by the Lottery. SECTION 5: PROPOSAL REVIEW AND CRITERIA FOR SELECTION 5.1. Proposal Submission. Only proposals submitted in the time frame stated herein and with the content required above will be reviewed and considered by the Lottery. A copy of Chapter 24, Florida Statutes, was attached to the RFP, and Section 24.111, Florida Statutes, was specifically referenced in Sections 2.3.E.33 and 3.4 of the RFP. The vendor information form itself referenced the requirements of Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes. In accordance with RFP Section 1.8, EPB submitted the following question, among others, to the Department: "Does Attachment B [Vendor Information Form] need to be completed by all company officers?" The Department answered "Yes, see question #8, BBDO Atlanta, letter dated March 26, 1991." The referenced answer to BBDO Atlanta emphasized that "a vendor information form must be completed by each person listed in the instructions on the form [all officers, all directors, all owners, all partners, all trustees, all stockholders holding five percent or more, executive director and chairman of the board]." Even section 1.27 of the RFP required that vendor information forms be submitted to the Department prior to or at the time of submitting the proposal. Responsiveness of proposals Under the terms of the RFP, Sections 5.1 and 5.2, the Department was not to consider and evaluate non-responsive proposals. Non-responsive proposals are defined by Section 4.2 of the RFP as follows: Proposals which do not meet all material requirements of this RFP or which fail to provide all required information, documents, or materials will be rejected as non- responsive. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth in Section 3.1 and without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is impossible. The Lottery reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP and to accept proposals which deviate from the requirements of the RFP in a minor or technical fashion as determined by the Lottery. At the time it submitted its proposal, EPB did not submit the vendor information forms required by subsections 2.3E33, 3.1 and 3.4 of the RFP and by Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes, for at least three of its corporate officers or directors (Sally Brown, Louise Smoak, and Robert Morse), and did not submit any vendor information forms for its designated subcontractor, Premier Maldonado & Associates. The Department, through its counsel, first requested submission of these forms from EPB on May 8, 1991, the date on which the Notice of Intent to Negotiate was posted. EPB did not supply the missing forms for Premier Maldonado & Associates until May 14, 1991, and for the three corporate officers or directors until on or about May 29, 1991. The RFP required that the vendor information forms be submitted with the proposal, and Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes, provided in mandatory language that: The Department shall investigate the financial responsibility, security, and integrity of any person who submits a bid proposal or offer as part of a major procurement. Any person who submits a bid proposal or offer as part of a major procurement must, at the time of submitting such bid proposal or offer, provide the following: A disclosure of the vendor's name and address and, as applicable, the name and address of the following: If the vendor is a corporation, the officers, directors, and each stockholder in such corporation, except that in the case of owners of equity securities of a publicly traded corporation, only the names and addresses of those known to the corporation to own beneficially 5 percent or more of such securities need be disclosed. If the vendor is a trust, the trustee and all persons entitled to receive income or benefit from the trust. If the vendor is an association, the members, officers, and directors. If the vendor is a partnership or joint venture, all of the general partners, limited partners, or joint ventures. If the vendor subcontracts any substantial portion of the work to be preformed to a subcontractor, the vendor shall disclose all of the information required by this paragraph to the subcontractor as if the subcontractor were itself a vendor. (Emphasis added) The Department, at hearing offered proof that it did not consider the language of the RFP or Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes, to require that all such forms be submitted at the time the proposal is submitted, and that it had been the Department's policy to allow bidders to submit additional forms after bid submission. The articulated rationale for such policy is that based solely on the proposals or, stated differently, absent investigation, the Department is unable to assure itself that forms for all required individuals are submitted with any proposal. Accordingly, the Department considers the omission of such forms a technical deficiency that can be cured up to the point of contracting, and limits its investigation to the successful bidder. While the Department may find it difficult, absent investigation, to assure itself that the vendor information mandated by section 24.111(2) is submitted with the proposal, the mandate of section 24.111(2) and the RFP is clear and unequivocal: such information "must" be submitted with the proposal. Notably, under the provisions of the statute and RFP, the onus is on the bidder, the party privy to such information, to assure that its disclosure is complete and where, as here, its disclosure is not complete its bid is non-responsive, since it is at variance with the mandate of section 24.111(2) and the RFP. Importantly, under the requirements of section 24.111(2), the Department is precluded from contracting with any bidder who fails to submit the required vendor information. Accordingly, a successful bidder who, wittingly or unwittingly, failed to make the required disclosure (such as EPB in the instant case) could subsequently decline to provide the Department with the information and thereby effectively withdraw its bid, contrary to the provisions of section 1.14 of the RFP. Such renders the failure to submit the required information at the time of bid submittal a material defect, since it accords such bidder an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders that submitted the required information. In accordance with subsection 3.1D9 of the RFP, each bidder was required to submit with its technical proposal the performance bond commitment letter required by section 6.6 of the RFP. Section 6.6, as amended by Amendments 1 and 3, provided, in pertinent part: The successful Respondent shall be required, at the time of executing the Contract with the Lottery, to post an appropriate performance bond or other security acceptable to the Lottery in the amount of $2.5 million . . . The other acceptable forms of security are: irrevocable letter of credit; Certificate of Deposit assigned to the Lottery (which must be obtained from a financial institution having its principal place of business in the State of Florida) . . . . Respondents must submit with their proposal evidence that they will be able to provide the performance bond or other security. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, a letter from an authorized agent of a bonding company committing to provide the performance bond or indicating that the bond underwriter is processing a request to provide the bond and stating unequivocally that the bond will be available upon execution of the Contract. At the time it submitted its proposal, EPB submitted an April 25, 1991, letter addressed to it from Sovran Bank as evidence of its ability to provide the required security. That letter provided: As follow up to our conversation yesterday, the company can restrict its revolving line of credit by $2,500,000 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars) for a Letter of Credit of the same amount. The alternative is to apply for the Letter of Credit as a separate facility. The particular terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit would be worked out at the time of application . . . . While of the opinion that the Sovran letter evidenced EPB's ability to provide the required security, the Department likewise felt that the letter failed to evidence any commitment on EPB's part to restrict its line of credit to secure the subject letter of credit. Accordingly, it requested additional information from EPB, and by letter of May 1, 1991, EPB responded: This is to clarify the language in the Sovran Bank letter of April 25, 1991, included as Page 9 in Earle Palmer Brown's Proposal . . . Should Earle Palmer Brown be a successful respondent we will, at the time of executing the contract with the Lottery, either restrict our revolving line of credit with Sovran Bank by $2,500,000.00 for an irrevocable letter of credit, or will provide the Lottery with a surety bond for a like amount. The letter of May 1, 1991, adds more confusion than enlightenment regarding EPB's commitment to provide a letter of credit. Clearly, under the provisions of subsection 6.6 of the RFP, EPB's bare assurance that it would, alternatively, provide the Department with a surety bond was not acceptable evidence of its ability to provide such bond. As importantly, by phrasing its proposal as an alternative, to be exercised at its discretion, EPB lent confusion to the issue of what form of security it would provide. Notwithstanding, the requirement of the RFP was that the bidders "submit with their proposals evidence that they will be able to provide the . . . security," and the letter of April 25, 1991, while perhaps sparse, is facially adequate in that regard. Notably, the proof in this case confirms that EPB does have an adequate credit line with Sovran Bank which could be so restricted for a $2.5 million irrevocable letter of credit. In accordance with section 2.3E12 of the RFP, each bidder was required to submit with its technical proposal "certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years including an auditor's report." In response to a question submitted pursuant to section 1.8 of the RFP, which asked: "If a company does not have certified financial statements for the last three years as required by Section 2.3.E.12 of the RFP, will it be disqualified from submitting a proposal?", the Department answered: "No. Although the absence of certified financial statements would render the proposal nonresponsive." At the time EPB submitted its proposal, it submitted certified financial statements for fiscal years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. As EPB's fiscal year is the calendar year, its auditors had not yet completed their audit for fiscal 1990 by the response deadline. When EPB's certified financial statement for its fiscal 1990 became available on May 14, 1991, it promptly delivered a copy to the Department. While the RFP required financial statements for the last three fiscal years, the Department understood that a bidder's ability to provide such statements would depend on when its fiscal year closed. In this regard, it is common for an independent audit to require up to six months following the close of a fiscal year. Here, EPB was faced with exactly such a dilemma, specifically disclosed such dilemma in its proposal, and provided the financial statements for the last four fiscal years that were available to it. Under such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the Department departed from the essential requirements of law when it declined to declare EPB's proposal non- responsive for its failure to include a certified financial statement for fiscal 1990, and accepted, as satisfying the requirements of the RFP, financial statements for the last three fiscal years that were reasonably available to EPB. In accordance with the RFP, each bidder was to identify all personnel who would be assigned major roles in the fulfillment of work under the contract. Pertinent to this case, subsection 2.3E provided: At a minimum, each Respondent must provide the following information which demonstrates the Respondent's ability to provide the services requested: * * * 4. Resumes not to exceed one page each in length of all personnel who would be assigned major roles in the fulfillment of the work obligation outlined in Section 2.2, with a statement identifying the percentage of time, calculated annually, of each person who will work on the Lottery account. * * * 18. List of type and number of additional employees that may be needed if awarded contract. At the time EPB submitted its proposal, it identified twenty-four key positions in account service, creative, media and several other categories. As to the management supervisor, the employee is identified as "selected," and as to an account executive and public relations supervisor, the employee is identified as "TBD" (To Be Determined). All other positions were identified with specific individuals and resumes were included for each. Here, Bozell contends that EPB's proposal is non-responsive because EPB did not name and include resumes for the foregoing three positions. Such contention is, however, unpersuasive. Section 2.3E18 clearly contemplated that some bidders would have to hire additional personnel if awarded the contract, and EPB complied with that section of the EPB by identifying such positions. Accordingly, EPB's proposal was not at material variance from the RFP in this regard. Although the Department's "Notice of Selection of Finalists," dated May 1, 1991, discussed supra, purported to rank the "responsive proposals" in order of preference, the proof demonstrates that the evaluation committee, who was charged with such responsibility, did not, by consensus or otherwise, ever determine the responsiveness of any proposal. Here, for the reasons heretofore set forth, EPB's proposal was non-responsive to the RFP, and the committee's failure to address the issue of responsiveness prior to scoring the proposals, for reasons discussed infra, materially affected the fairness of the evaluation process. Bozell's proposal was, however, responsive to the RFP. 2/ The evaluation committee Pursuant to Rule 53ER87-13(5)(i)(2), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 5.3 of the RFP, the Secretary of the Department appointed an evaluation committee, consisting of six members, to evaluate the proposals which were received from interested firms. Regarding the composition of such committee, the Department advised all prospective bidders, in response to a question posed pursuant to Section 1.8 of the RFP, that: The Evaluation Committee will be comprised of Lottery staff and volunteers from a cross- section of Florida business and academic communities. Subsequently, by notice of April 16, 1991, the Department advised all prospective bidders that the members of the evaluation committee would be as follows: Bernard Edwards Deputy Secretary Marketing Department of the Lottery Tallahassee, Florida Ben Johnson Newspaper Columnist Homles Beach, Florida Robert W. McKnight Assistant Secretary Department of Lottery Tallahassee, Florida Richard Mizerski Professor Tallahassee, Florida John Ruchalski Retired Businessman Jupiter, Florida Alan Sawyer Professor Gainesville, Florida Of the six committee members, only two, Bernard Edwards and Robert W. McKnight, were employees of the Department. No objection to the composition of the committee was lodged until the filing of the subject protest; however, there was likewise no point of entry provided by the Department to challenge the composition of the committee. Robert W. McKnight, who chaired the committee, has been employed by the Department as Assistant Secretary since March 4, 1991, and in such capacity has been responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Department. Mr. McKnight holds a B.S. and M.B.A. degree in business administration, with concentrations in advertising, and has in excess of fifteen years experience in marketing. Throughout the course of such employments, as well as his tenure as a Florida legislator, he has had the opportunity to monitor or supervise the work of advertising agencies employed to advance his products or person. Bernard Edwards, currently Deputy Secretary for Marketing of the Department, has been with the Department since 1988. During that tenure, he has filled, at various times, all three deputy secretary positions (operations, administration and marketing), and has participated in the advertising operations of the Florida lottery. Prior to his employment with the Department, Mr. Edwards was Executive Director of the Washington, D.C., lottery, and from 1983 to 1987 Deputy Executive Director of the Pennsylvania State lottery. During the course of such employments, Mr. Edwards has acquired significant experience in the marketing of lottery products, and the advertising incident thereto. Alan Sawyer is a Professor of Marketing and Chairman of the Department of Marketing of the University of Florida in Gainesville, and holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University in marketing. In addition to his teaching and research, Dr. Sawyer has worked with the Federal Trade Commission, as well as numerous other clients, on advertising matters, including matters of advertising deception, and is a recognized expert in advertising and marketing. Ben Johnson is a Doctoral Teaching Associate and Adjunct Professor at the University of South Florida where he teaches upper division and graduate College of Education courses in methods of teaching English, reading, and learning skills. In addition to teaching, Mr. Johnson has, for some years, been researching the lottery operations of various states. As a consequence of the knowledge he has gained concerning those operations he has written a book, The Lottery Book, scheduled for publication in September 1991, which provides general information for players of various state lotteries, and has a nationally syndicated newspaper column called "The Lottery Column" wherein he answers readers' questions regarding lottery operations. From such experience, Mr. Johnson has developed a knowledge of lottery operations, as well as an appreciation for effective lottery marketing and advertising. John Ruchalski, currently retired, holds a degree in business and marketing, and has 35 years of retail management experience. Of those years, 17 were spent as Senior Vice President of Burdines, three as Chief Executive Officer of Bullock's, and two as president of Bloomingdale's. Mr. Ruchalski's past activities have also included service as president of the Florida Chamber of Commerce and chairman of the board of the Florida Retail Federation. In all, the proof shows that Mr. Ruchalski has a strong marketing background, and a familiarity with the advertising needs incident to such operations. The final member of the committee, Richard Mizerski, is a Professor of Marketing at Florida State University, and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Florida in Economics and Business Administration, with a major concentration in marketing and a minor concentration in advertising. Dr. Mizerski, like Dr. Sawyer, has, in addition to his teaching and research, extensive consulting experience in marketing and advertising, and is a recognized expert in the field. Overall, the proof demonstrates that the composition of the evaluation committee was appropriate for the work it was tasked to do, and that it had adequate time to perform an appropriate evaluation. Each committee member had experience and knowledge in marketing, and advertizing incident thereto, and lent to the evaluation process common and diverse experiences in such areas which helped provide a balanced consideration of the proposals. As importantly, each was shown to be committed to the integrity of the process, and complied with the provisions of Section 286.011, Florida Statutes, by assuring that all committee meetings at which official acts were to be taken were conducted publicly, and by not discussing any matter pertaining to their evaluations with any other member except during meetings that had been properly noticed. Market research data Prior to reviewing the proposals, one or more of the committee members requested information from the Department that would accord them insight into the program area. In response to such request, the Department provided each committee member with the market research data it had available. Such data provided demographic insight into Florida lottery marketing operations. At hearing, Bozell complained that it was never informed that the market research data had been provided to the committee, and offered proof, if credited, that had it known such fact it would have drafted its proposal differently. Such proof was not, however, persuasive, nor was the provision of such information to the committee inappropriate. Here, the proof demonstrates that the data provided by the Department was a matter of public record, and many of the committee members, through their research and training, were already familiar with it prior to their appointment. Bozell, as the current provider of advertising services to the lottery, was very familiar with the data, its subcontractor had complied it, and Bozell used it extensively in its proposal. In sum, Bozell was not disadvantaged by the provision of such data to the committee, and it was not treated any differently than any other bidder in this regard. As importantly, the provision of such information to the committee to lend insight into the program area for which services were being sought was quite appropriate to the evaluation process. Technical proposed evaluation Section 2.3 of the RFP describes the items required to be submitted with a firm's technical proposal, and was designed to assess a firm's understanding and proposed method of rendering the services requested by section 2.2 of the RFP. It provides that, "at a minimum," the proposal shall contain the information and materials requested by subsections 2.3A through 2.3E. Subsection 2.3A required submittal of a proposed advertising approach for the Florida lottery which addresses a three-year summary outline advertising plan, to include recommendations for advertising and promotion, and a proposed one-year timetable for advertising, showing development of creative, production, approval, placement and run-time. Subsection 2.3B required comprehensive artistic representations consisting of a detailed media plan for an eight-week Florida lottery instant game within a $1,250,000 budget; a name, ticket design and prize structure for the instant game; a 30-second radio spot for the instant game; a print ad for newspaper or magazine placement for the game; and a point- of-sale example for the game. Subsection 2.3C required one complete advertising campaign representative of the firm's work, including budget, creative strategy, positioning, media strategy and execution, and post-buy analysis. Subsection 2.3D required creative samples previously produced by key members of the proposed creative team consisting of TV ads, radio ads, print ads, outdoor campaigns, and point-of-sale samples. Finally, subsection 2.3E, entitled "firm qualifications," required, "at a minimum," information concerning 33 specific items, "which demonstrates the [firm's] ability to provide the services requested." Among the items for which information was required were the following: 3. Brief and concise statement of Respondent's advertising philosophy, taking into consideration the following points and others that you may feel are appropriate: Method the Respondent uses for developing advertising. How the Respondent currently measures the effectiveness of its advertising. * * * Evidence of any work done for a state, multi-state, national or provincial lottery. Information regarding any advertising or other experience with state agencies and other governmental entities. * * * 12. Certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years including an auditor's report . . . . * * * 29. Discussion of contributions that your firm could make toward the growth of the Lottery. Section 5.4 of the RFP set forth the general criteria by which a firm's response to subsections 2.3A-E would be evaluated. Such general criteria were the overall qualifications, experience and abilities of the firm, its staff, and contractors to provide timely and professional advertising and related services, determined by evaluating the information contained in subsection 2.3E; and, the relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the firm's proposed plans directed toward subsections 2.3A-D of the RFP. Such section concluded: "The evaluation worksheet for the technical proposal is attached as Attachment F." Attachment F to the RFP set forth the specific criteria by which a firm's response would be evaluated. That attachment provided as follows: This evaluation considers information submitted in the technical proposal. Emphasis is placed on the firm's qualifications and ability to do the work, which is addressed in the Technical Proposal. A total of 80 points is obtainable. The Technical Proposal shall be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria: Overall Ability - 40 points maximum Do the resumes of the account team support the Respondent's competency to provide the services required by Section 2.2? Proposed Account Team: Is the team make-up appropriate for the work? Do the team members have experience with comparable work? Are there any sub-contracted firms involved? Are minority sub-contractors utilized? Are the hours assigned to the various team members for each task appropriate? Has the Respondent provided advertising services of the scope required in the past? Experience of the Respondent and staff providing advertising service within the State of Florida. Experience of the Respondent and staff in providing Lottery, pari- mutuel, or other gaming related advertising. Financial stability of the firm and financial capability to provide the entire scope of services. Experience of the firm in providing advertising services to accounts in excess of $10 million. Experience of the firm in placing large volumes of electronic media in all media markets in Florida. Based on 1-3, award points, as follows: 20-30 points for exceptional experience 10-20 points for average experience 0-10 points for minimal experience Has the Respondent provided advertising services to other state or governmental entities? If the work was acceptable, award up to 3 points. If the firm has not done such work, award zero points. Does the Respondent possess unique abilities which would make a noticeable (positive) impact on the project? If the answer is yes, award up to points and note reasons. If the answer is no, award zero points. Does the team composition and each member's percentage of involvement, the use of subcontractors (if any), office location, and/or information contained in the proposal indicate that the Respondent will meet time and budget requirements? If the answer is yes, award up to points and note reasons. If the answer is no, award zero points. Does the Respondent's current workload make it likely the Respondent can provide timely and complete service? If the answer is yes, award up to 2 points and note reasons. If the answer is no, award zero points. Advertising approach and creative samples required by Sections 2.3A-D = 40 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the firm's proposed plan for providing the requested services required by Section 2.3(A). Value: 10 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the comprehensive artistic representations required by Section 2.3(B). Value: 10 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the advertising campaign required by Section 2.3(C). Value: 5 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of samples required by Section 2.3(D). Value: 15 points The criteria for evaluating the creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of above items B-1 through B-4 are as follows: Creativity Were the ideas and approach exciting and interesting? Did the samples evoke positive and appropriate emotions? Did the samples capture and hold attention? Did the samples demonstrate fresh and original thought or were they banal and mundane? Approach Was the approach germane and appropriate? Was the approach unified and integrated? Was the approach clear, direct and unambiguous? Quality Were images crisp, sharp, and distinct except where the intention is clearly otherwise? Was the production professional? Was sound free of distortion and visual free of unnecessary clutter? Thoroughness Did the advertising show an appropriate consideration for all facets of the market? Was the advertising comprehensive and balanced? Did the advertising use a full range of tools and techniques to ensure maximum penetration and retention? By memo to all committee members, entitled "Instructions and Timetable for Evaluation Committee Members," and again at the commencement of their deliberations, all committee members were advised that they must evaluate the proposals based on the criteria set forth in the RFP, and to utilize their own individual expertise in applying the criteria. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the members of the committee abided such directive, and scored the proposals based on the established criteria, except as hereinafter discussed, as applied through their own background and experience. 3/ At the commencement of their deliberations, the committee members agreed that the format they would follow in evaluating the technical proposals would be to first review all the proposals, and then score the proposals individually. This procedure was followed although, not unexpectedly, some members made preliminary assessments as they progressed through the various proposals. Upon completion of their review, the members then scored each proposal and, as appropriate, made adjustments to preliminary assessments they had made based on the perspective they had acquired after their review of all the proposals. Here, Bozell complains that the RFP did not permit the scoring of proposals relative to each other but, rather, required that the proposals be evaluated and scored solely by applying the criteria independently to each proposal, and that the failure of all committee members to so evaluate the proposals is a fundamental flaw in the evaluation process. Bozell's complaint is not, however, persuasive. Here, the RFP required, among other things, a determination of the relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of a firm's plans for providing the services requested by subsections 2.3A-D of the RFP. Under such circumstances, considering the subjective nature of the evaluation, it would not be unreasonable to assign points based on relative merit. And, considering the fact that the proposals were not scored until all proposals had been reviewed that, more likely than not, is what was done by each committee member, consciously or subconsciously. As importantly, each member of the committee scored the proposals independent of any other member of the committee, and was consistent with the approach he took as to each firm's proposal. 4/ Accordingly, it cannot be concluded, based on the proof in this case, that the evaluation process was fundamentally flawed because of the manner in which points were awarded. However, because points were awarded on a relative basis, the inclusions of non-responsive proposals in the evaluation process could have materially affected the scoring of proposals and the Department's failure to exclude non-responsive proposals from the scoring process, as required by section 5.1 of the RFP, was a material departure from the requirements of the RFP. Bozell also complains that Mr. Johnson evaluated the technical proposals in light of his knowledge about the success of other states' lottery advertising. The application of such expertise to the criteria contained in the RFP was, however, appropriate, as discussed supra. As noted by Mr. Johnson: . . . That's my frame of reference against which I measured all of the companies. I could tell that some of the companies really didn't know what they were talking about, because they were suggesting things that were failing in other states. And I was aware of that from my general information background. [Tr. 471] As heretofore noted, selection of committee members with knowledge of the program area, and the exercise of that expertise in applying the criteria, is most appropriate to a reasoned evaluation of a proposal. Finally, with regard to the evaluation of the technical proposals, Bozell offered proof that some committee members failed to apply specific criteria mandated by the RFP, or otherwise scored the proposals in a manner at variance with that called for by the RFP. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that while proposals were to be evaluated, at least in part, based on the different games and formats that were presented in the technical proposals (see subsection 2.3B of the RFP), Mr. Ruchalski did not do so because he had no knowledge upon which to base a decision. Regarding subsections A5-8 of Attachment F (the scoring criteria), Mr. Johnson did not award points in the manner mandated by each subsection. Finally, notwithstanding that an evaluation of the overall ability of the applicant, as set forth in section A of Attachment F to the RFP, required an examination of the "financial stability of the firm and financial capability to provide the entire scope of services," no evaluation of the financial integrity and responsibility of any of the firms was made, and such criteria were not applied in the evaluation process. 5/ In its proposed recommended order, the Department suggests that it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require a detailed financial review by the agency at the initial bid analysis stage since, ultimately, only one firm will be awarded the contract, and because security and financial investigations will be done before a contract is awarded. While such may be the case, it was the Department's election to provide for an analysis of financial stability and capability as part of the review criteria. Oral presentation evaluation The second phase of the evaluation process was the scoring of the oral presentations. Pertinent to this case, section 5.3 of the RFP provided: . . . The oral presentations must be made by the account service, creative and media personnel who would work on the account. There will be no limitation on the information and materials pertinent to this RFP which may be utilized . . . . Section 5.5 of the RFP provided that presentations would be scored based on the following general criteria: Understanding of services requested -- up to 20 points, account team -- up to 25 points, responsiveness to questions -- up to 15 points, and overall impression -- up to 20 points. Finally, Attachment G to the RFP provided that the evaluation relative to the account team would be scored as follows: Account Team = 25 points maximum Did the proposed account team participate? Creativity, quality, uniqueness demonstrated by account team? Respondent's advertising philosophy demonstrated, long term image building? Did account team members prepare samples submitted? EPB's oral presentation was made by Jeb Brown, the chief executive officer of EPB; Craig Davis, the president of EPB's Florida operations; Mike Knaisch, account group head; Kandi Kirkland, account supervisor; Bruce Ayers, media director; Scott Mackey, associate creative director; Pat Hanlon, creative director; Tom Hall, chairman of EPB; and Jeff Tucker, president of public relations. Each of the presenters were identified by EPB as key personnel to be assigned to the Florida lottery account, except Jeb Brown and Tom Hall. As part of its oral presentation, EPB utilized a video tape, which presented favorable comments by the head of the Virginia lottery concerning EPB's performance for it. Addition-ally, EPB included in such video a character it utilizes for the Virginia lottery, "Lady Luck," who also said "nice things" about EPB. Here, Bozell complains that the participation of Jeb Brown and Tom Hall, in the oral presentation, as well as the use of the video which included comments by the head of the Virginia lottery and "Lady Luck," was improper under the provisions of the RFP because they were not members of the account team. Such compliant is, however, unpersuasive. While section 5.3 of the RFP did require that the oral presentation be made by the account, creative, and media personnel who would work on the account, it did not expressly preclude others from participating, and the RFP placed no restrictions on the information and materials pertinent to the RFP that could be utilized. Accordingly, EPB's oral presentation was not at variance from the RFP and, if it were, it was not shown to be a significant deviation. As heretofore noted, the evaluation relative to the account team allowed an award of up to 25 points, and required, among other things, a determination of whether the account team participated; the creativity, quality and uniqueness demonstrated by the account team; and whether the account team members prepared the samples that were submitted. The committee members did not, however, make any specific inquiry regarding whether the account team participated or prepared the samples, although the bidders generally made it a practice to introduce the account team members, but assumed such to be the case for purposes of scoring the presentations. Here, Bozell contends that the committee's failure to expressly inform itself as to whether the account team participated and prepared the samples, as opposed to indulging the assumption that they did, constitutes a significant failing in the evaluation process. However, Bozell failed to demonstrate, at hearing, that the committee's assumption was misplaced. Finally, Bozell offered proof that Dr. Sawyer awarded Bozell 21 points and EPB 22 points for "overall impression," when 20 points were the maximum contemplated by the RFP. Such error was, however, inadvertent, it simply being the intention of Dr. Sawyer to award EPB one more point than Bozell, and was harmless since it did not affect the overall outcome. Cost proposal evaluation Section 5.6 of the RFP provided the criteria for evaluation of the cost proposals and provided that: Finalists' cost proposals will be given points based on an evaluation of the proposed compensation and the experience and qualifications of the proposed staff. A maximum value of 40 points was established for this part of the evaluation. The cost proposals, which the committee members were to evaluate, were contained in a "sealed cost proposal envelope" and were, pursuant to subsection 2.4B of the RFP, to contain: The cost proposal shall include a calculation of the Respondent's proposed compensation for undertaking and completing all phases of the services requested and outlined in this RFP. The cost proposal shall be prepared in the same format as illustrated on Attachment "E" and shall be completed as follows: The Respondent shall provide an aggregate gross salary by work category and position classification for all personnel who will work on the Lottery's account. The aggregate gross salary shall include only that portion of each individual staff member's time that will be attributable to the Lottery account. The portion of time proposed in the cost proposal shall match the labor hour percentages proposed for each individual as required in Section 2.3(E)(4). The Respondent shall also include a proposed multiplier of the type described in paragraph A above. The Respondent shall multiply the aggregate gross salary by the multiplier and the product shall be included in the cost proposal. The Respondent shall also include, in the sealed cost proposal envelope, resumes for all personnel whose salary, or portion thereof, was included in the calculation of the proposed aggregate gross salary resumes shall be included regardless of whether the resumes have also been included in the technical proposal envelope. While the RFP contemplated that all three sections of the proposal (technical, oral presentation, and cost) would be evaluated and scored independent of each other, and that the evaluation of the cost proposal would be limited to an evaluation of the information contained in the "sealed cost proposal envelope," not all committee members so limited their evaluation. Rather, some committee members utilized the knowledge they had gleaned from evaluating the technical proposals and oral presentations, as well as the scores they had assigned during the course of those evaluations, to assist them in assessing the qualifications and experience of the proposed personnel and weighing the firms' proposed compensation. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how any committee member could ignore the knowledge he had acquired during the course of his evaluations that was reflective of the quality and experience of the proposed staff, any more than he could ignore the expertise he had acquired through his life experiences, in evaluating the cost proposal. Notably, the RFP, as it related to the cost proposals, provided that "the portion of time proposed in the cost proposal shall match the labor hour percentages proposed for each individual as required by section 2.3(E)(4)" of the RFP [the key personnel], and the committee had, as part of their evaluation of the technical proposal, previously evaluated the proposed account team, as well as the relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of their proposals relative to subsections 2.3A-D of the RFP. At the oral presentation, the committee had an opportunity to put faces with names, and broaden their knowledge of the individuals involved. Accordingly, when it came time to evaluate the cost proposals, which involved a consideration of staffing and salary, the members of the committee had certainly formulated opinions regarding the quality of the staff proposed by the respective firms, and balanced that opinion against the proposed compensation to derive the most cost effective proposal. While it may seem unreasonable to restrict the committee to the bare resumes and costs set forth in the cost proposal, as the basis for their evaluation, the reasonableness of the provisions the Department formulated are not at issue in this proceeding. Accordingly, it is concluded that by going beyond the information contained within the cost proposal, the members of the committee materially deviated from the requirements of the RFP. This conclusion prevails, since those bidders who were favored in the evaluation of the technical proposals or oral presentation were, by the consideration of the opinions derived from such evaluations, accorded an unfair advantage over other bidders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which rejects all bids, and that a new invitation to bid be extended. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of July 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent's License as a residential pool contractor should be suspended for alleged violation of Section 468.112(7), Florida Statutes. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing although proper notice thereof had been furnished under date of February 11, 1976 to him by the hearing officer. Accordingly, the hearing was conducted as an uncontested proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been licensed as a registered pool contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board since June 20, 1974. The license was not renewed for 1975/76 (Exhibit 4). Respondent filed a Voluntary Petition in Bankruptcy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Bankruptcy No. TBK 75-25, on March 13, 1975 (Exhibit 5).
Recommendation That the registration of William R. MacKinnon as a residential pool contractor be suspended until such time as he meets the qualifications and other requirements for renewal of registration and applies therefor. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: David Linn, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. William R. Mackinnon Route 3, Box 584C Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Respondent was ejected and permanently excluded from a facility as stated in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what sanction should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering, slot machines, and cardroom operations pursuant to chapters 550, 551, and section 849.086, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a patron of Isle Casino. At all times material to this case, Isle Casino was a facility operated by a permit holder authorized to conduct pari- mutuel wagering and to operate slot machines and a cardroom in the State of Florida. Respondent offered no tangible evidence suggesting that he was not excluded from Isle Casino. Respondent's date of birth is February 3, 1983. John Joseph Keenan is the director of compliance and safety for Isle Casino. He has been with Isle Casino for more than ten years. He began as a compliance officer, became compliance manager in 2012, and then director of compliance and safety in 2014. On March 9, 2019, several people at a poker table noticed "something was going on" with Mr. Rios and reported it to the poker supervisor. At this time, poker management and security reviewed surveillance video to determine if the allegations were true. The allegations against Mr. Rios were that he was doing something suspicious with the cards used at the table. During inspection of the deck that was used, Isle Casino noticed markings on the cards. Review of the surveillance video showed Mr. Rios shielding the cards with his hands and performing an action with his thumb. A close inspection of the cards in play at the single deck poker game shows that slits were made for the high cards in the deck, i.e., aces, kings, queens, jacks and tens. The marks were made with Mr. Rios's thumbnail. He etched a line in high cards in the poker deck and spaced the lines so the progression from ace to ten was visible by the placing of the slits downward along the edge of the cards so marked. This was done so he was able to determine who had the high cards at the poker table to get an advantage in the game. The markings, which were made on the cards, gave Mr. Rios a competitive advantage because he would know who had the high cards at the table. He could essentially see in the hands of the other card players whether his likelihood of winning the hand was increased. Mr. Rios sat directly to the left of the poker dealer, in what is known as "Seat 1." He would be able to see all the cards going out to the players, and was the first player to receive his cards. Mr. Keenan testified that Jason Cluck was the director of surveillance at the time of the complaint against Mr. Rios. In an email on March 11, 2019, Mr. Cluck sent Isle Casino's investigative report to Petitioner's investigator, William Smith. Mr. Keenan testified that he was copied on the email. Mr. Keenan also testified that photographs were attached to the email from Mr. Cluck to Mr. Smith on March 11, 2019. The ten photographs, admitted into evidence in this matter as Exhibit 3, show as follows: Photograph 1 shows a full deck of cards; Photograph 2 shows where the cards were marked, with arrows pointed down at the cards; Photograph 3 shows a marking on the ace of diamonds; Photograph 4 shows cards in the upright position where markings were made at the top right corner; Photograph 5 shows another single card with markings on the side; Photograph 6 shows high cards, a king and a queen, with markings; Photograph 7 shows a marking on the bottom left corner of a card; Photograph 8 shows marking on two cards, on the top left corner; and Photographs 9 and 10 are surveillance stills showing Mr. Rios at the poker table. Mr. Keenan testified that the photographs and video stills are true and correct representations of what occurred on March 9, 2019. Based on the incident reports, video, and photographs with the marks, Isle Casino concluded that Mr. Rios was attempting to manipulate the game. Accordingly, Isle Casino gave Mr. Rios an ejection from the casino. Mr. Keenan testified that Mr. Rios had a "Players Club" card with Isle Casino, which is how he was identified as the individual making markings on the cards. The "Players Club" card is swiped whenever an individual plays at a table and, in this instance, has information that identified Mr. Rios by name. On March 12, 2019, Mr. Rios was permanently excluded from Isle Casino. Mr. Keenan testified that he is familiar with the Notice of Exclusion issued to Mr. Rios in this matter. An individual who has been issued a permanent exclusion from Isle Casino is not permitted future entry into the facility. If caught in the facility, he could be deemed a trespasser. Once a player has been excluded, the individual's "Players Club" account would be inactivated and would provide Isle Casino with an alert if the individual attempted to use the account. Mr. Rios left the casino before the exclusion form could be presented to him. The subject of the exclusion does not have to be present when the exclusion is handed down. On cross-examination by Respondent, Mr. Keenan testified that the cards had been inspected and contained no impermissible markings prior to Mr. Rios playing. Mr. Rios sat down, made gestures with his hands, and made indents on the cards. Players at the table notified Isle Casino personnel to investigate, and they determined that Mr. Rios made the indentations on the card, which resulted in the conclusion to eject him and permanently exclude him from the casino. Mr. Smith testified that he has worked at the Division for seven years as an investigator. He was the author of the document that was entered into evidence as the "Office of Investigation, Investigative Report," dated March 12, 2019. The report concluded that Mr. Rios has been excluded from Isle Casino, which made him a candidate for exclusion from all pari-mutuel facilities in the State of Florida. When Mr. Smith was made aware of Mr. Rios's actions, he immediately went to the Isle Casino to investigate. He personally inspected the indented cards and viewed the video surveillance of the incident. When viewing the DVD of Mr. Rios's actions, Mr. Smith observed Mr. Rios marking the upper left part of the cards, turning the cards around in order to also mark the bottom right part of the cards. Mr. Smith testified that the marks he personally saw on the card matched the actions that he saw Mr. Rios commit on the video. Based upon his personal observation of the video surveillance, his review of the still photographs from the video surveillance, the observations described to him by additional personnel at Isle Casino, and his personal inspection of the marked playing cards, Mr. Smith agreed that Respondent engaged in cheating, which led to his being banned from Isle Casino. He expressed the Division's interest in ensuring that individuals banned from one pari-mutuel facility for cheating not be permitted to take his or her craft to other pari-mutuel facilities in Florida. His conclusion that Mr. Rios should be banned from all Florida pari-mutuel facilities was based on his validation of the action taken by Isle Casino following their investigation of the allegations brought to their attention by Respondent's fellow players. Mr. Rios first testified that he thought he was playing cards at the Hard Rock Casino on the date of the incident at Isle Casino. When confronted with the photographs of him standing before the Isle Casino cashier, however, he admitted to playing cards there on the date in question. He said the photos of the cards in a player's hand showing the indentations along the upper left and lower right corners were not of his making, although the surveillance video proves otherwise. Mr. Rios denied cheating in any way and testified he did not see any cards that had been marked as described by Mr. Keenan and Mr. Smith. He stated that he believed the cards had not been inspected prior to the game and that any marks on the cards were probably there when the cards were put into play at his game. He brought no witnesses or evidence to support his contention. Mr. Rios testified that he was not familiar with the procedure involved in excluding patrons from a pari-mutuel facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering issue a final order permanently excluding Dachiell Rios from all pari-mutuel facilities in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 18th day of September, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Jason Walter Holman, Esquire Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Dachiell Rios 250 Northwest 55th Court Miami, Florida 33126 Halsey Beshears, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Ray Treadwell, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Louis Trombetta, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (1)(d)1, and (1)(e), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a licensed Florida real estate salesperson, issued license number 0530788 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was an involuntary inactive salesperson at 2156 Turnberry Drive, Oviedo, Florida 32764. On or about April 13, 2000, an Administrative Law Judge entered a Recommended Order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Subsections 721.11(4)(a), (h), (j), and (k), Florida Statutes (1995), by making oral misrepresentations in his sales pitch to timeshare purchasers. On or about June 15, 2000, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, issued a Final Order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge and rejecting all of Respondent's exceptions. In the Final Order, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, ordered Respondent to cease and desist from any further violations of Chapter 721, Florida Statutes, and ordered Respondent to pay a penalty of $28,000. As of September 24, 2002, Respondent had failed to pay the penalty pursuant to the terms of the Final Order of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes. On or about July 22, 2000, a uniform disciplinary citation was issued to Respondent for failing to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of his current mailing address or any change of the current mailing address in violation of Rule 61J2-10.038, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to proper authority, the Florida Real Estate Commission penalized Respondent $100 for the violation. At the time he received the uniform disciplinary citation, Respondent was advised as follows: "You have a total of 60 days from the date this citation was served upon you to pay the fine and costs specified. This citation automatically becomes a Final Order of the board if you do not dispute this citation within 30 days of the date this citation was served upon you. As a Final Order, the fine and costs shall be due to the board within 30 days of the date of the Final Order. After this citation has become a Final Order, failure to pay the fines and costs specified constitutes a violation of a Final Order of the board and may subject you to further disciplinary action." On or about August 22, 2002, the citation became a Final Order. As of September 24, 2002, Respondent had failed to pay the penalty pursuant to the terms of the Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission. Respondent had more than 20 years' experience selling timeshare units as a salesman, sales manager or sales director; he had worked in sales at various Central Florida timeshare resorts since 1979. Between July 1995 and March 1997, Respondent was employed as a salesman and sales director by Vocational Corporation, the owner/developer of Club Sevilla, a timeshare resort property. On October 24, 1995, Respondent participated in a sales presentation to Raymond and Charlene Sindel at Club Sevilla, which resulted in their purchase of a timeshare. During the sales presentation, Respondent made the following false, deceptive and misleading statements which induced the Sindels to purchase the timeshare: (1) the Sindels would become members of Interval International, a timeshare exchange program, in which they could exchange their timeshare and/or utilize another timeshare for $79 or $99 a week 52 weeks per year; and (2) representatives of Tri Realty would sell their existing timeshare before the end of the year. On October 24, 1995, Respondent participated in a sales presentation to Clarence and Maxine Shelt at Club Sevilla, which resulted in their purchase of a timeshare. During the sales presentation, Respondent made the following false, deceptive and misleading statement which induced the Shelts to purchase the timeshare: the Shelts would become members of Interval International, a timeshare exchange program, in which they could exchange their timeshare and or utilize another timeshare for $79 a week 52 weeks per year. On June 26, 1996, Respondent participated in a sales presentation to Eugene and Mildred Plotkin and their son, Daniel, at Club Sevilla, which resulted in the purchase by Eugene and Mildred Plotkin of a timeshare. During the sales presentation, Respondent made the following false, deceptive and misleading statements which induced the Plotkins to purchase the timeshare: (1) a timeshare owned by the Plotkins in Las Vegas, Nevada, would be sold within two months; (2) the Plotkins would receive a low-interest credit card with which they would finance the purchase of the Club Sevilla timeshare and that their Las Vegas timeshare would be sold quickly enough that they would not have to pay any interest on the credit card; and (3) the Plotkins would become members of Interval International, a timeshare exchange program, in which they could utilize another timeshare anywhere for $149 a week. On July 26, 1996, Respondent participated in a sales presentation to Robert and Susan Bailey at Club Sevilla, which resulted in their purchase of a timeshare. During the sales presentation, Respondent made the following false, deceptive and misleading statements which induced the Baileys to purchase the timeshare: (1) they would receive a low-interest credit card within ten days with a $20,000 credit limit with which they could finance the timeshare purchase; and (2) the Baileys would receive a prepaid 52-week membership in Interval International, a timeshare exchange program. In September 1996, Respondent participated in a sales presentation to Thomas and Betty Prussak at Club Sevilla, which resulted in the purchase of a timeshare. During the sales presentation, Respondent made the following false, deceptive and misleading statements which induced the Prussaks to purchase the timeshare: (1) timeshares owned by the Prussaks in Westgate and Club Sevilla were valued at $12,000 each and that these timeshare units would be sold if the Prussaks purchased a new timeshare unit at Club Sevilla; (2) that the new Club Sevilla timeshare unit would be a "floating" unit (could be used anytime); and (3) that the new Club Sevilla timeshare would be rented and that the Prussaks or their daughter would be able to take "getaway" weeks and stay at any RCI timeshare for $149 per week. On December 11, 1996, Respondent participated in a sales presentation to Larry and Carla Eshleman at Club Sevilla, which resulted in their purchase of a timeshare. During the sales presentation, Respondent made the following false, deceptive and misleading statements which induced the Eshlemans to purchase the timeshare: (1) the Eshlemans would receive a low-interest credit card with which they could finance the timeshare purchase; (2) the Eshlemans would become members of Interval International, a timeshare exchange program, in which they could exchange their timeshare and utilize another timeshare for $149 a week; and (3) the timeshare the Eshlemans owned prior to their purchase of the Club Sevilla timeshare would be sold in three months or would be rented for $1,650 per week.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b) and (e), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson be revoked, that he be fined $2,000 and be required to pay the costs of the investigation and prosecution of the case. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 3rd day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. Decosta, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Hurston Building, North Tower Orlando, Florida 32801 William S. Walsh 13079 South Taylor Creek Road Christmas, Florida 32709 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Buddy Johnson, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Nancy P. Campiglia, Chief Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue Whether the Proposed Amendment of Rule 7E-6.007, Florida Administrative Code, is arbitrary and capricious and thus constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Hialeah, Inc., operates a race track (hereinafter referred to as the "Track") located in Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner is licensed by the Respondent. In December, 1981, the Petitioner was granted permission by letter from Bob Smith, then Director of the Respondent, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, to operate Tel-A-Betting. Robert Rosenburg, Director of the Respondent after Mr. Smith, also approved Tel-A- Betting in a letter to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has continuously operated Tel-A-Betting for more than six years. The Petitioner instituted Tel-A-Betting in reliance on the Respondent's approval of Tel-A-Betting. If approval had not been granted to the Petitioner from the Respondent, the Petitioner would not have established Tel-A-Betting. Tel-A-Betting is a procedure for placing wagers on races at the Petitioner's Track. Persons utilizing this system (hereinafter referred to as "Account Holders"), open an account with the Petitioner by making a deposit of $100.00 or more with the Petitioner and paying a $25.00 fee. The funds deposited with the Petitioner are received and accounted for in accounts maintained at the Track. Once an account is opened, a plastic card which contains, among other information, an account number and an "800," toll-free, telephone number is issued to the Account Holder. Wagers may then be placed with the Petitioner by the Account Holder calling the "800" number and placing a wager with a telephone operator/pari-mutuel clerk located at the Track. The Account Holder identifies himself or herself by giving the operator the account number and a code name designated by the Account Holder when the account is opened. The account number is programmed into a computer to determine whether the Account Holder has sufficient funds in the account to make the wager. If the funds in the account are sufficient to cover the wager, the wager is entered into the computer. If the Account Holder wins the wager, the payoff is entered into his or her account. Calls to place wagers through the Tel-A-Betting program can be made from anywhere in Florida and the person making the call and wager need not be physically present at the Track to make the wager. Wagers taken through Tel-A-Betting are only made on races at the Track. Tel-A-Betting allows the Petitioner to receive wagered funds as part of its pari-mutuel pool from persons located anywhere in the State of Florida. When a wager is made through Tel-A-Betting, the operator/pari-mutuel clerk cannot establish the age or identity of the person placing the wager. The Petitioner is the only race track permit holder in the State of Florida which employs Tel-A-Betting. The Proposed Amendment of Rule 7E-6.007, Florida Administrative Code, if valid, will prohibit the Petitioner from continuing the use of Tel-A-Betting. The Respondent has not received any complaints about the use of Tel-A- Betting by minors or any other abuses. No evidence was presented that minors have made, or attempted to make, wagers through the use of Tel-A-Betting. The Respondent has not received any objections to Tel-A-Betting or complaints about unfair competition from other racetrack permit holders.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegations that Respondent was guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent David William Tricker is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0270690 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to the Respondent was as a broker in care of Florida Country Clubs International, Inc., 555 Estates Place, Longwood, Florida, 32779, a Florida corporation. Respondent became the broker for Henro, Inc. (hereinafter Henro) and Henro Realty, Inc. early in 1993 and served until approximately October 21, 1993, when Respondent submitted his letter of resignation to the Florida Real Estate Commission ("FREC"). The Henro companies were owned by a British couple, David and Marion Moth, who also did business in the United Kingdom as Henro Land Leisure Limited. On or about July 8, 1993, Henro negotiated a verbal contract with Gilman Pool Services to maintain and provide pool cleaning services at homes managed by Henro on behalf of its owners. The contract was followed up with a letter dated the same date from Henro and signed by Marion Moth, as vice president. The fee for the service was $65.00 per month for each pool cleaned. Payment terms were to be on 30-day invoice. Heather and Peter Shimmin operated the pool service, and relied upon Henro to pay them for their services. There was no clear and convincing evidence that the Shimmins relied upon Respondent to pay them for their services, or that Respondent was aware of this contract between Gilman Pool Services and Henro. The July 1993 bill to Henro was $5,227.40. On September 1, 1993, Henro issued check #2123 in the amount of $5,227.40 to Gilman Pool Services. This check did not clear and was later made good by Henro by payment in cash to Gilman Pool Service. The August 1993 bill was in the amount of $6,352.36 was not paid. The September, 1993 bill, which amounted to $5,887.00 and the October, 1993 partial bill in the amount of $1,595.00 remains due, owing and unpaid. On October 31, 1993, Henro went out of business. At the time Henro closed, Henro owed Gilman Pool Services $13,061.76, in unpaid maintenance and pool cleaning services. Gilman Pool Services made no demand upon Respondent for past due invoices. The testimony of the witness, Hal Klein, was not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue and file a Final Order finding the Respondent not guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and DISMISSING the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 1st day of December, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3(in part), 4(in part), 5(in part), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of credible evidence: paragraphs 3(in part), 4(in part), 5(in part),10(in part), 11, 12. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3(in part), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 3(in part). Rejected as argument: paragraph 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Senior Attorney Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section - Suite N 308 Hurston Building North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 David W. Tricker (pro se) 555 Estates Place Longwood, Florida Stephen T. Ball, Esquire Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A. Two South Orange Plaza Post Office Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802-0633
