The Issue Whether the Respondent should receive a passing grade on the Alarm Systems Contractor II Examination administered July 24, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating electrical contractors, including alarm systems contractors, in the State of Florida. Sections 489.511, .515, and .533, Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Senfar sat for the Alarm Systems Contractor II Examination on July 24, 1998. At the hearing, he disputed the Department's determination that the answers he gave to questions 11, 27, 36, 43, 55, 80, 83, and 94 are incorrect. These questions are objective, multiple-choice questions, and the examination candidate must choose the correct answer from among four possible answers. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 11 is "A"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "C." Question 11 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The examination candidates were directed to answer question 11 using the diagram that is printed above the question in the examination booklet. The correct answer to the question was not found in any of the reference materials Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination, but it could be derived from the information provided in the diagram and in the question itself. Question 11 was intended to test the examination candidate's field knowledge acquired during the four years of field work required for a candidate to qualify to take the Alarm Systems Contractor II Examination. It was not unfair for the Department to expect the examination candidates to use the information learned in the field to derive the correct answer from the diagram provided. The reference Mr. Senfar provided to support his answer is not related to the question posed in question 11. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 11 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 27 is "B"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "A." Question 27 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from the information found in a table included in the reference materials Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Although the correct answer itself was not included in the reference material, it was not unfair for the Department to expect the examination candidates to use the information provided to calculate the correct answer to the question. The reference Mr. Senfar provided to support his answer directs the reader to the place where the information necessary to answer question 27 can be found, but the reference he provided does not itself provide this information. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 27 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 36 is "B"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "A." Question 36 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer was included in the reference material Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 36 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 43 is "B"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "A." Question 43 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer was included in the reference material Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 43 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 55 is "A"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "B." Question 55 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer was included in the reference material Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 55 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 80 is "C"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "B." Question 80 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer was included in the reference material Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. The reference provided by Mr. Senfar to support his answer is out-of-date and, in addition, does not relate to the question posed in question 80. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 80 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 83 is "A"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "D." Question 83 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer was included in the reference material Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 83 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 94 is "B"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "D." Question 94 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer was included in the reference material Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. The reference Mr. Senfar provided to support his answer is not related to the question posed in question 94. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 94 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Joe Senfar's petition for a formal hearing to challenge to the subject examination questions. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 24th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock, Esquire Contract Administrator Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Joe Senfar 311 Southwest 135th Avenue Miami, Florida 33184 Ila Jones, Executive Director Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact At all times, material to this case, Petitioner has been licensed by the Department to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which is located at 6200 West Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Florida, and is known as the Warrington House. Francis Cooper is the sole shareholder and operator of the Warrington House. Prior to 1984, the Warrington House was known as the Heritage House and was owned by a Mr. Mitchell. Sometime in 1984, Mr. Mitchell was criminally charged with elderly abuse on his residents and the Heritage House went into receivership. Another branch of HRS who was represented by Esther Ward, asked Ms. Francis Cooper to take over the facility. HRS was apparently well satisfied with Ms. Cooper's qualifications in running an ACLF since she had another such facility. When Ms. Cooper took over the Heritage House the electrical power to the facility was about to be turned off. Only by Ms. Cooper's pleading with Gulf Power was that circumstance forestalled. There were only thirteen (13) patients at the facility out of the sixteen (16) that were supposed to have been there. Three (3) of the patients had been mysteriously removed during the night. The residents that were at the house could not identify themselves and very few resident records were at the facility. The building was infested with roaches, there was raw sewage in the yard and the sewage system was completely blocked to the extent that sewage came up through the showers when a toilet was flushed. There was urine in every carpet. None of the appliances in the house worked. There were no air conditioners, fans or plastic dishes. The floors were in bad shape. In fact, Ms. Cooper fell through two of the bathroom floors. When Ms. Cooper questioned HRS representatives about the appalling conditions of the facility, she received no responsive answer. After Ms. Cooper had taken over the facility, she discovered that Mr. Mitchell had absconded with three months advance rent from the residents. Ms. Cooper, therefore, had to operate the premises for three months without income from the residents that were there. She used her own money. Ms. Cooper started with the air conditioning, flooring and carpeting. All these items were replaced. The bathrooms were tiled and additional bathrooms were added. She put in a $6,000.00 sewage system, a lift station and paid $1,000.00 to hook the building onto city sewage. She also brought in an exterminator to get rid of the bugs. All of this took place over a period of two years wherein Ms. Cooper worked diligently to bring the building up to "snuff." In fact, in the time since she has had the facility she has accomplished wonders in improving conditions at the house. These conditions clearly did not appear overnight, but over several years and were apparently overlooked by Respondent until the crisis with Mr. Mitchell had occurred. Ms. Cooper went into the house with the understanding that the corporation would eventually build another facility and close what had become the Warrington House. The reason for the new construction was that the current building, regardless of the amount of repair, was still an old building not worth maintaining and which was allowed to deteriorate badly prior to her stewardship. However, due to a falling out with her brother, who was then a co- shareholder of the corporation, Ms. Cooper was unable to complete her plans for moving the residents of the Warrington House to a new facility. She continues to attempt to obtain financing to build a new facility. At least once a year, HRS does a full survey on a ACLF like the Warrington House. A full survey is simply an inspection of the property in order to determine the degree of compliance with HRS rules and regulations. Upon completing the inspection, the inspector goes through an exit briefing with the ACLF's management. During the exit briefing, the inspector will go over any deficiencies he or she has discovered and attempt to establish mutually agreeable correction dates. The inspector also explains that these time periods are the best estimates that they can come up with at that point to allow a reasonable amount of time for the required corrections to be made. If any problems should arise, the inspector requests that the manager communicate with his or her office and ask for an extension. Extensions are not always forthcoming. After the full survey inspection is done, a follow-up visit is normally scheduled to determine whether the earlier cited deficiencies have been corrected. If, after the follow-up survey there are items that are still not corrected, the inspector will explain to the person in charge that they are subject to administrative action and that he or she will report he facility's noncompliance to his or her office. Whether or not administrative action is taken is determined at a level above the inspector. However, it appears that the customary practice of the office is to pursue an administrative fine for any noncompliance after the correction date has been passed. After the first follow-up survey has been made it depends on the particular factual situation whether or not further follow-up surveys are made until compliance is achieved. If there are efforts being made to correct the problems further follow-up surveys will be made. If not, further follow-up surveys may not be made. In this case, James Temkin, an HRS Fire Protection Specialist, performed a full survey fire safety inspection on the Warrington House on September 24, 1986. During that survey, he cited 11 deficiencies. Various compliance dates were established for the deficiencies. A follow-up survey was conducted by Mr. Temkin on January 14, 1987. During that survey, he noted that 6 of the previously cited deficiencies had not been corrected. He recommended administrative action on all the uncorrected deficiencies. The six remaining uncorrected deficiencies were as follows: No up to date fire plan and the July 7th fire drills were not documented; No fire alarm test since July 1986 and fire alarm zones were not shown on the actuator panel; Smoke detectors not working in four (4) rooms; Exit sign lights burned out at the front and center exits, emergency lights not working at the front, rear and upstairs exit halls; Sleeping rooms had hollow core doors; and There was no documentation of fire safety on the wood paneling and tile ceilings on the first and second floors. All other deficiencies cited during the September 24, 1986 full survey were corrected. As to the alleged deficiencies contained in the latter half of (b) and (c)-(f) above, none appear at any point in HRS' rules governing ACLF's. Supposedly, these deficiencies are cited in the NFPA life safety code, which is incorporated by reference in the Fire Marshal's rule on ACLF's, Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code. The 1984 version of Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code is incorporated by reference in HRS' rule, Rule 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. Both HRS' rule and the Fire Marshal's rule are contained in the Florida Administrative Code. However, the 1984 version of NFPA is nowhere to be found in the Administrative Code. The current Fire Marshal's rule adopts portions of the 1985 NFPA life safety code. However, the HRS' rule adopts the 1984 version of the Fire Marshal's rule. No showing was made by Respondent as to what the 1984 version of the NFPA code contained. The HRS inspector's testimony regarding a particular deficiency's inclusion in the NFPA cannot be relied on since both inspectors apparently used the 1985 version of the NFPA which is not the 1984 version included in HRS's rule. Without proof of the contents of the NFPA, HRS has failed to prove any deficiencies for which it may take administrative actions. As to the other deficiencies, attempts to comply were in fact made by the Warrington House. The facility's personnel in fact thought they had complied with HRS' desires based upon previous inspections. However, for one reason or another, these attempts were rejected by the HRS inspector and the deficiency was cited again, but because of another reason. The lack of an up- to-date fire plan (cited in (a) above) was met by the Warrington House when they obtained a fire plan prior to the established correction date from another arm of HRS responsible for devising such plans. However, upon the January 14th follow-up inspection, the plan obtained from HRS by Petitioner was considered insufficient in that it did not outline staff responsibilities during a fire. The same thing occurred with the lack of fire alarm tests, cited in the latter part of (a) and the first part of (b) above. The Warrington House obtained the testing document and test from another branch of HRS responsible for such testing. However, the inspector at the follow up survey did not deem his own agency's testing documents sufficient since it did not show a different type sending unit was being tested at least once a year. 1/ These are simply not repeat deficiencies since in each instance the earlier grievance had been met and it was another grievance which cropped up. On July 9, 1987, a second follow-up survey to the Temkin September 24, 1986, full survey was performed by O.B. Walton, an HRS fire safety inspector. The evidence was not clear as to any remaining uncorrected deficiencies, if any, he found. Therefore, Respondent failed to establish any repetitive deficiencies as a result of the July 9 follow-up survey. Apparently, however, Mr. Walton, did perform another full survey on July 9, 1987. Several additional deficiencies were cited by him. A follow-up visit was conducted by Mr. Walton on October 23, 1987. Four alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected as follows: Ceiling not repaired in hot water heater closet, i.e. not taped; Kitchen fire door latch was jammed open so it would not latch, but it would stay closed; Plug by hot water heater had no cover; No documentation that drapes were fire retardant. Again, none of the above alleged deficiencies appear in HRS' rules or in the fire marshal's rule and a reasonable person could not glean from any of the other provisions contained in HRS' rules that the above conditions might be included in these provisions. The lack of clarity or uniformity in interpretation of HRS' rules is especially born out in this case since two different inspectors while inspecting the same building cited different deficiencies under their respective interpretation of the rules. When the experts differ it is difficult to see how a reasonable lay person could even begin to know or understand the contents of HRS or the Fire Marshal's rules. This lack is especially true since the relevant contents of the 1984 NFPA life safety code are not contained in the Florida Administrative Code and were not demonstrated by HRS. HRS, therefore, failed to prove any repeat deficiencies from the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. A third fire safety follow-up visit was conducted by Pat Reid, a human services program analyst, on January 21, 1988. She has no expertise or license to perform fire safety inspections. She found all of the earlier cited uncorrected deficiencies corrected except for the documentation on the drapes. That alleged deficiency was partially corrected since Petitioner was replacing the drapery with metal blinds. However, as indicated earlier the lack of documentation for fire retardant drapes was not proven to be a violation by Respondent. Ms. Reid had previously conducted a full survey of Petitioner on August 17 and 18, 1987 in her area of expertise operation and general maintenance of an ACLF. Several deficiencies were cited and correction dates were established. Ms. Reid conducted a follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey on October 23, 1987. The following alleged deficiencies had not been corrected: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases; The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease; Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom; Faucet of first floor bathroom is loose; Carpeting in first floor resident room (#7) is badly stained; Three vinyl chairs in dining room have tears, exposing foam padding; Second floor bathroom faucet nearest exit does not clearly distinguish between hot and cold water taps. As to the alleged deficiency contained in (a) above, the regulations do not contain a requirement that any documentation be kept regarding staff members being free of communicable disease. The regulations only require that the facility administrator assure that staff is free of communicable disease. The evidence showed that Petitioner had in fact assured that the staff was free of communicable disease. Therefore, no violation occurred. The alleged deficiency cited in (b) above does constitute a violation of Rules 10-5.081(1)(b), (2)(a)4.d., and (2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. However, in this instance, there are several mitigating circumstances. Foremost is the fact that Petitioner attempted on several occasions to obtain this information from another arm of HRS who had M. B. under its care prior to his admission to Petitioner's facility and had actually failed to complete M. B.'s Health Assessment form properly. Petitioner received many assurances from HRS that it would obtain and forward the information. HRS failed to do so. Moreover, after several years of M. B. living at the Warrington House and after several years of HRS care prior to his admission, common sense would dictate that M. B. is free of communicable diseases. Petitioner has in fact received confirmation of that fact from an examining physician who certified M. B. free of communicable diseases. 2/ As to (c) above, the evidence showed that the windows were only cracked and not broken. No evidence was presented as to the severity of the cracks. Cracked windows are not included in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code, which only addresses broken window panes. Moreover, cracked windows without proof of the severity of the cracks is not sufficient evidence of the lack of good repair or other hazardous conditions similar to those listed in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Rule requires proof of the hazardous nature of such a condition. Cracked windows are not hazardous in and of themselves and no showing was made that these cracked panes constituted a hazard. Nor do cracked window panes standing alone constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(d). The rule requires evidence that such cracked panes are unreasonably unattractive and no showing was made that the cracks were unreasonably unattractive. Likewise, the missing shower tile in (d) above fails to constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(a) since the deficiency is not listed, and no showing was made that the missing tile constituted a hazardous condition. Similarly, the missing tile, by itself, does not constitute a violation under Rule 10A-5.022(d) since no showing was made that the missing tile was unreasonably unattractive. The same failure of proof occurs with the alleged deficiencies listed in (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). See Rules 10A-5.022(c), (e) and (i). The alleged deficiency cited in (j) above does constitute a violation of 10A-5.023(9)(e). However, the violation was not repeated after October 1, 1987, the effective date of Section 400.414(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Ms. Reid conducted a second follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey when she performed the fire safety follow-up on January 21, 1988. All previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases. The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable diseases. The following maintenance problems exist: broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms and resident room identified as W. S. A third follow-up was conducted by Ms. Reid on April 15, 1988. All the previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease. Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom. All of the alleged deficiencies cited in the January 21, 1988 follow- up and the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey were carried forward from the alleged deficiencies discussed above, cited in the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. The same findings are made as to the alleged deficiencies which were carried forward. Only the physical health assessment of M. B. was cited by Respondent and shown to be a repeated deficiency since the information was not obtained by the established correction dates occurring after October 1, 1987. By the date of the hearing all the above alleged deficiencies had been corrected. Respondent notified Petitioner that it proposed to deny renewal of Petitioner's license to operate the Warrington House on December 23, 1987. The basis for the denial was Section 400.414(1) and (2)(d) which states: 400.414 Denial, revocation, or suspension of license; imposition of administrative fine; grounds. The department may deny, revoke or suspend a license or impose an administrative fine in the manner provided in chapter 120. Any of the following actions by a facility or its employee shall be grounds for action by the department against a licensee: * * * (d) Multiple and repeated violations of this part or of minimum standards or rules adopted pursuant to this part. The language of Subsection (d) was added to Section 400.414 F.S. on October 1, 1987. Prior to that date Respondent had no authority to take punitive action against the license of an ACLF licensee for multiple and repeated violations of Respondent's statutes and rules. The only action Respondent could take against a facility for such violations was in the form of a civil fine the amount of which could be raised if the violation was repetitive. Section 400.426, Florida Statutes. No multiple violations were shown by the evidence through the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey. More importantly, however, no multiple violations were shown by Respondent after October 1, 1987, the effective date of the statutory language at issue in this case. No showing was made by Respondent as to any legislative intent that the statute operate retrospectively. The statute operates only prospectively. Therefore, any alleged deficiencies cited prior to October 1, 1987 are irrelevant for purposes of imposing the punishment contemplated under Section 400.414, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services renew Petitioner's license. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1988.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was legally justified in issuing a conditional license rating to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida. Respondent Berkshire is a licensed nursing home located in North Miami, Florida. On April 2, 2002, AHCA conducted a survey of Berkshire and identified the violations which give rise to this proceeding. Specifically, at the time of the survey, several magnetic door locks--the record does not reveal precisely how many, although the parties agree that the number was no less than three and no more than seven out of a total of fifteen fire exit doors--did not immediately unlock upon activation of the fire alarm system. The purpose of the door locks is to prevent cognitively impaired residents from wandering away from the facility. When the magnetic lock system is working properly, the doors unlock immediately upon activation of the fire alarm. In response to the AHCA survey finding, Berkshire immediately summoned an alarm system repair person. On April 2, this individual was located somewhere in Florida's Panhandle. He left north Florida and proceeded immediately to Berkshire. The repairman determined that two wires and a circuit were reversed, most likely due to an error by Berkshire's on- site maintenance director. By the next day, April 3, the problem had been corrected and all door locks were deactivating simultaneously with the activation of the fire alarm system. Based upon the April 2 survey, AHCA issued a conditional license to Berkshire effective April 5, 2002, and imposed an administrative fine of $12,500. AHCA also placed the facility on a six-month survey cycle and assessed a survey fee of $6,000. These penalties, particularly the conditional license status, have a substantial adverse impact upon the reputation and the business interests of a nursing home. AHCA's decision to impose a conditional license status was predicated upon the opinion of its inspectors that the mechanical failure identified in the survey was, in fact, likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment or death to a resident receiving care in the facility, and must therefore be deemed a Class I deficiency which warrants, as a matter of law, the penalties imposed. At the time of the survey, Berkshire had no history of fires, had passed its most recent annual inspection by the local fire marshal, and had a sprinkler system and fire extinguishers throughout the facility. The survey itself revealed no fire hazards. AHCA cites no statute, rule, or case which supports its view that the mechanical problem identified constitutes a Class I deficiency. Instead, it offers opinion testimony that as a result of this problem, residents were in danger on the date of the survey. That opinion testimony is based solely upon speculation. For example, AHCA's life safety inspector who participated in the survey said, ". . . we always look at, inspect the facilities under a worst case scenario type situation. In the event of a fire, we could have a situation we would have residents where the fire alarm system would activate and we would have residents attempting to exit the building. They would find that those doors, affected doors, would not be openable. They would not be able to exit the building. " In fact, the evidence established that the ability of residents to vacate the building in a safe and timely manner in the event of a fire, or fire drill, was not significantly impacted on April 2 by the mechanical problem identified. The automatic unlock feature which was not operating on less than half of Berkshire's fire exit doors is just one part of Berkshire's fire safety plan. State and federal law and Berkshire's own operating procedures provide that staff be given detailed training regarding what to do in the event of a fire; fire safety plans must be approved by the local fire marshal, and most include back up plans for system failures which can reasonably be anticipated. With reference to each of the door locks identified in the April 2 survey, the evidence established that each of these doors could be opened manually, and that there was an adequate number of able bodied staff members who could open each of the doors as may be necessary had a real fire or a fire drill occurred on April 2. Berkshire's fire safety procedures provide that when the fire alarm activates, an announcement is made over the public address system to inform all present of the fire's location. Depending upon the fire's location, staff members will respond in various appropriate ways. Within each department, various individuals are assigned to perform various functions, including, most importantly, assuring that each resident is safely escorted from the building and protected while outside. State law requires monthly tests of the fire alarm system, but Berkshire exceeds this standard with weekly tests. Fire drills are conducted for staff members who work on all three shifts, and staff are trained in evacuating residents in a manner appropriate to their individual circumstance. No matter where one is located in the building, there are multiple means of egress, and each exit door has multiple means by which it can be opened in a timely manner in the event of fire or other emergency. Monthly unannounced fire drills are conducted at Berkshire on all three shifts in an effort to ensure that staff can safely and quickly evacuate residents should the need arise. There is no evidence that staff could not have done so had a fire or fire drill occurred on April 2. Thus, AHCA's finding that the mechanical problem which existed on April 2 and which was remedied by April 3 posed a likelihood of serious injury, impairment, or death to residents in Berkshire's care is not supported by any competent evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that AHCA issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaints in these cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 26th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Nelson Rodney, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 8355 Northwest 53rd Street Miami, Florida 33166 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Qualified Representative Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Petitioner Agency for Health Care Administration properly assigned conditional license status to Respondent, Westminster Woods on Julington Creek, based upon its determination that Respondent had violated Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.130, and 42 CFR Section 483.70 via Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, due to the presence of two wide-spread Class I deficiencies cited at the most recent annual licensure survey of January 27-29, 2003. Whether Petitioner Agency for Health Care Administration properly assessed a $30,000.00 fine against Respondent for violating 42 CFR Section 483.70 via Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, as well as Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.130, due to the presence of two wide-spread Class I deficiencies at the most recent annual survey on January 27-29, 2003. Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration is entitled to $6,000.00 in costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case(s), pursuant to Section 400.121(10), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code (2002), AHCA is the regulatory authority responsible for licensure of skilled nursing facilities and for enforcement of all applicable statutes and rules governing skilled nursing facilities, of which Respondent Westminster Woods at Julington Creek is one. On January 27-29, 2003, AHCA conducted an annual licensure and re-certification survey of Respondent's facility. As a result of that survey, the facility was cited for two Class I deficiencies related to failure of the facility's fire alarm system. Each of these deficiencies was cited upon the same underlying facts. AHCA represented that one was cited as a Federal "tag" and the other was cited as a State "tag." In the Administrative Complaints, AHCA alleged, in a single Count, two separate Class I deficiencies. Respondent is a 60-bed skilled nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent houses more of the "older- old" or "elderly-elderly" residents than the average skilled nursing facility. Respondent is a second floor facility with two stairwells that provide direct outside egress from the facility and that can be used as fire exits. During the January 27-29, 2003, survey, the facility housed 58 residents. Respondent's 58 residents on those dates were fairly dependent in terms of their physical capabilities. More than one-half of them were over the age of 85, and a couple of the residents were over 100 years old. Only one of the residents on January 27-29, 2003, was independently ambulatory. The remainder of the residents were incapable of independent ambulation. One of the residents was bed-ridden. Thirty-eight residents required extensive assistance in transferring or ambulating. The remainder of the resident population required assistive devices such as canes or walkers to transfer or ambulate. Due to their age, physical condition, and inability to engage in self preservation, these residents were extremely vulnerable in the event of a fire. The survey team arrived at the facility at 6:00 a.m. on January 27, 2003. At around 8:00 a.m., the facility's maintenance supervisor, John Doran, conducted his usual rounds of the facility. Mr. Doran personally checks the fire alarm panel twice daily, and did so that morning. The panel has three lights: A green light which means that the panel is working; a yellow light which means a mechanical failure has occurred; and a red light which signifies an alarm. Mr. Doran noted that no light was on. The fire doors, which close automatically if the alarm is activated, were still open. Except for the absence of any alarm panel light, everything seemed to be normal. Therefore, on the morning of January 27, 2003, Mr. Doran believed that there was a problem with the fire alarm panel, not the fire alarm system. In addition to Mr. Doran's twice-daily checks, Respondent's alarm system is monitored by an outside monitoring company which is supposed to call the facility if any problem is detected with its fire alarm system. The monitoring company did not call, which also suggested that the system itself was not malfunctioning, but merely that a light was out on the alarm panel. Nonetheless, Mr. Doran called his secretary, who contacted "W. W. Gay," the contract repair company for the system, and asked that a technician come to the facility. Thinking there was no immediate danger, but only that there was a problem with the alarm panel lights, and believing that everything that could be done up to that point had been done, Mr. Doran did not mention the alarm panel/system to surveyor Patricia McIntire, R.N., when she interviewed him about hot water temperatures around 10:00 a.m. on January 27, 2003. W. W. Gay's technician arrived at the facility about 10:30 a.m. and began trouble shooting the fire alarm system. The first technician could not find the problem, so he called for a second technician. During the course of January 27, 2003, three technicians arrived at Respondent's facility and worked on the panel, in full view of staff and surveyors who were in and around the nurses' station. During the entire period that the fire alarm panel was not working, which ultimately amounted to at least three days, a large number of staff and other responsible people were around the resident areas. The January 27, 2003, morning shift had a minimum of 17 staff members directly assigned, with others coming and going from the unit. In all, there were around 25 people circulating in the nursing home during the day shift. After the surveyors had left, the evening shift had nine staff members assigned to the unit, with additional staff overlapping from the day shift. The night shift had six assigned staff members, plus "Ron," Respondent's security man, who was assigned to a fire watch, beginning late on the afternoon of January 27, 2003. (See Finding of Fact 32.) On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, there were 20 staff people directly assigned to the unit on the day shift. Counting the AHCA surveyors and ancillary staff, there were approximately 27 people on the floor. The evening shift had nine specifically assigned staff members, with others overlapping. The night shift had at least six staff members. On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, the numbers were similar. During the course of January 27, 2003, Mr. Doran did not tell Respondent's administrators, Don Wilson or Mike Sweeney, about the problem with the fire alarm panel because he thought the fire alarm panel problem was being resolved by the W. W. Gay technicians and because both administrators were very busy with the AHCA survey. Around 4:00 p.m., January 27, 2003, Mr. Doran found out that the problem with the fire panel was more serious than he had earlier thought. The AHCA surveyors had already left the facility. Mr. Doran went to Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Wilson. He told them at that time that W. W. Gay's third technician had told him that it would be the next morning before the fire alarm/system panel could be repaired. Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Wilson advised Mr. Doran that the situation was unacceptable. They instructed Mr. Doran to call W. W. Gay and tell that company to return and fix the panel immediately. Mr. Doran made the phone call, but as it ultimately turned out, the fire panel could not be fixed that night because a part had to be ordered. The facility had in-place a three-tiered system of evacuation in case of fire. First, residents in the room where the fire is located and those in the two adjoining rooms would be moved to safety. Second, if the fire continued to spread, all residents on the side of the fire doors where the fire was located would be moved to the other side of the doors and the fire doors closed. Third, and only if the fire were still not contained, would the residents be moved out of the building through the stairwells. The control panel of the fire alarm system is the "brains" of the facility's fire safety system. It has a direct connection to the local fire department and provides the fire department with direct, immediate notification if there is a fire in the facility. It provides immediate notification to the residents and staff of the facility through the sounding of bells, chimes, strobes, etc., of the existence of an emergency. It operates the smoke detectors. It automatically shuts down the air conditioning unit to prevent the spread of carbon monoxide, smoke, and fumes throughout the facility, and it automatically locks and unlocks the fire doors. It is the transfer of smoke and toxic gases generated during a fire which is the most common cause of casualty. The continued operation of the air conditioning system during a fire could make the lateral transfer of residents to another compartment on the same floor (tiers one and two of the facility's fire safety plan) ineffective because the continued operation of the air conditioning system could still transfer gases and smoke throughout the facility. However, in this case, although the facility's air conditioning system does move air, smoke being carried throughout the building was unlikely, since the intakes were located in common areas where smoke would be detected by staff. Fire drills are held by Respondent at least monthly. Staff is trained to respond to fires by Scott Fogg, a facility employee who has 23 years' United States Navy experience in training to fight fires, watching for fires, and fighting fires. Mr. Fogg has personally fought over 30 fires. He orients each new employee for at least one and one-half to two hours. He also does annual training of staff. Part of the training provided by Mr. Fogg consists of going step by step through the facility's fire plan. The plan includes contacting the fire department. Once the charge nurse knows of a fire, it is her responsibility to call "911." The facility's plan requires that the charge nurse notify the fire department, regardless of whether or not the alarm system is functioning.1/ The facility's fire plan is kept at several locations, including in the possession of the charge nurse and at the nurses' station. Every individual who goes through orientation also receives a copy. There is a sprinkling system for the entire facility. The sprinkling system is not dependent on the alarm system functioning. Each resident's room has at least two sprinklers, and some rooms have three sprinklers. The bathrooms inside the residents' rooms have an additional sprinkler. The dining room, halls, common area, and stairwells have sprinklers. There are fire extinguishers located at each corner of the building and fire hoses on the walls. Mr. Fogg evaluates the monthly fire drills. If he notes a problem, he writes it up and does follow-up training. The building is made of concrete, and nonflammable paint is used. Smoking is not permitted in the facility building. Staff are required to smoke in a designated smoking area behind another building. Residents are not allowed to keep combustible materials in their rooms. The kitchen and laundry are located in another building. Evacuation routes are posted throughout the building. Upon learning at approximately 4:00 p.m. January 27, 2003, that the fire alarm/system could not be fixed that night, Messrs. Wilson and Sweeney instructed Mr. Doran to institute a one-hour fire watch. A fire watch involves dedicating an individual to go around the building at stated intervals (in this case, hourly) looking for potential fire, smoke, or fire risk. Mr. Sweeney is the facility's Executive Director. He is also a licensed nursing home administrator. Based on his 25 years of experience in health care and his knowledge of the properties of the facility's physical plant, he thought a one- hour fire watch was reasonable and appropriate. Mr. Wilson, the facility's Health Services Administrator, concurred. Respondent's security man, Ron, was instructed to perform the hourly fire watch. Mr. Doran walked Ron around the area and told him to use his eyes, ears, touch, and sense of smell to look for any signs of fire. Ron carried a cell phone so that he could quickly communicate with Messrs. Doran, Wilson, Sweeney, or the fire department, if necessary. There is no evidence that Ron failed in his instructed duties for an hourly fire watch. Most of the survey team returned about 7:00 a. m., on January 28, 2003. At approximately 8:30 a.m., another team member, Nicholas Linardi, AHCA's Life Safety Inspector, arrived at the facility for the first time. Mr. Doran met with Mr. Linardi in the administrative conference room at around 9:00 a.m. There is no dispute that the first order of business was Mr. Linardi's review of all of the facility's service and safety logs. Mr. Fogg was also present at that time. After this point, there are significant differences among the witnesses' respective testimonies as to the chronology of events and the time span involved. However, having weighed the credibility of the respective witnesses, it is found that no later than their arrival on the second floor skilled nursing unit at approximately 9:30 a.m., January 28, 2003, Mr. Doran told Mr. Linardi that there was a problem with the fire alarm panel/system. How clear Mr. Doran was in this first explanation of the extent of the problem or how much or how little of Mr. Doran's explanation Mr. Linardi appreciated at that time is not clear from the record, but Mr. Linardi inquired concerning what the facility was doing about solving the problem, and Mr. Doran told him. Mr. Linardi requested that Mr. Doran call W. W. Gay again. Mr. Linardi did not require that the facility shut off the air-conditioning, pending repair of the fire alarm system. He did not offer any immediate suggestions as to additional actions the facility staff should take to protect its residents. He did not state that the facility should increase the frequency of the fire watch. There also is no clear evidence that he told anyone at that time that the facility must notify the local fire department that the panel/system was inoperative. Mr. Linardi's testimony was clear that when he is on a facility's premises, he is one of the appropriate persons or entities to whom AHCA expects the facility will report a fire alarm/system malfunction, but he was also adamant that rigid enforcement of "tags and fire standards," means that the facility is required to report any malfunction to the local fire authority, in this case, to the St. Johns County Fire Department. It is Mr. Linardi's practice to issue a survey citation, regardless of the reason a fire alarm is out of commission. The rest of AHCA's survey team first became aware of the extent of the problem with the fire alarm system at approximately 2:45 p.m., on January 28, 2003, when Mr. Linardi conducted a fire drill in the facility for purposes of AHCA’s survey. During the fire drill, it became evident to the AHCA survey team that the alarm did not sound and the fire doors did not automatically close. During the fire drill, staff members had to yell out information to alert other staff members that there was a fire drill and to identify the location of the "pretend" fire. If the fire alarm system is working, it automatically closes the correct doors. If it is not working, staff members do not know which doors to close until told where the fire or pretend fire is, but during the fire drill, it took facility staff only four and one-half minutes to realize that the correct fire doors had not closed and to go to the north corridor to manually shut them. In general terms, Mr. Linardi felt that an incipient fire can start and be transferred throughout a facility within four minutes. He did not specifically discuss Respondent's facility. No one testified to what the response time should have been if an alarm had sounded. Beyond what could at most have been a half-minute response delay due to the absence of a functioning alarm, AHCA apparently found no fault with the staff's response to, and conduct of, the fire drill. Mr. Linardi was, in fact, complimentary of the results. After the fire drill on January 28, 2003, Mr. Linardi personally called W. W. Gay and verified that the part necessary to fix the panel/system was on order. Still later in the afternoon, Mr. Linardi notified the St. Johns Fire Marshal that Respondent's fire alarm system was not in service. The St. Johns Fire Marshal directed that the facility institute a 15-minute fire watch. Respondent immediately instituted the 15-minute fire watch on January 28, 2003. Mr. Linardi testified that he was concerned that the Fire Marshal's assigned fire watch frequency of 15 minutes was too liberal and that a fire watch perhaps should have been instituted at even shorter intervals, but since the regulations presume that the local authority shall set the protocol for fire watches, he said nothing. There was some surveyor commentary to the effect that laundry carts "stored" in Respondent's hallway near one of the exits to the stairs violated survey criteria and aggravated danger to residents, but Mr. Linardi conceded that laundry carts could legitimately be rolled through hallways as linen goods were transported in them from the linen closet to each resident's room. It was his opinion such carts should have been parked in residents' rooms for any extended period of time. No accurate measurements of acceptable time or unacceptable time that these carts remained in the hallways was advanced by any witness, so this survey criticism is not indicative of a citable flaw. A chair was found on the landing at the top of one of the two exit stairwells. The landing and stairwell are large. The chair was not blocking the door leading onto the second floor landing from the skilled nursing unit. The chair's location would not have prevented an ambulatory person or a person on a cane, assisted by another, from descending via the stairs. The only obstruction the chair might have represented would have been if a patient had to be carried on a stretcher or litter and the stretcher or litter had to be turned by two people on the landing. Mr. Linardi commented that actual egress was not at issue, but because survey criteria specifically prohibit furniture or any other object from being there, the chair's presence on the landing was still a citable offense. Renovations were ongoing in the facility during this period, and construction workers had temporarily stored some of the construction materials that they were using in the bottom recess of an exit stairwell. These supplies were stored without permission or knowledge of facility staff. The bottom of the stairwell is a large open area, 22 feet long by 10 feet wide. Most of the construction materials were stored beneath the stairs and were not blocking either a step down from the stairs or access to the outside exit door. However, one piece of flat molding protruded in front of the exit door, and had the potential of impeding egress. Although there was testimony that this molding could have been easily stepped over, the photographs make clear that this item could have impeded the speed of an evacuation of the above-described frail, elderly and non-ambulatory population if an evacuation had been necessary. There is no persuasive evidence that a hinge on any exit door prevented its being opened or that any exit door was otherwise unreachable or otherwise out of commission. During the 15-minute fire watch on the third day of the survey, January 29, 2003, Ron (See Findings of Fact 13, 32, and 42) found a tray on top of the juice machine in the beverage area of the facility’s dining room and removed it. This area is within three feet of a sprinkler head and within six feet of a fire extinguisher. The juice machine has thermal overload protection to prevent electricity going to the motor if the motor gets hot. In short, if the motor gets hot, the machine cuts off. When the surveyors arrived on that date, a number of residents and staff members were in the dining room. The surveyors noted an odor similar to that of a burning motor in the vicinity of the juice machine. At that time, the tray had already been found and removed as part of the 15-minute fire watch. When a motor overheats, the smell lingers for a long time. There is no evidence that the incident did more than produce an unpleasant odor. AHCA gave Respondent a written mandated correction date of February 6, 2003, but before the survey team finally exited on January 29, 2003, the facility had changed the fire watch to every 15 minutes and had advised that the fire alarm system would be operational on January 30, 2003. Therefore, AHCA removed the "immediate jeopardy" classification on January 29, 2003, prior to the end of the survey, when it determined that fire watches were being conducted every 15 minutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order Finding Respondent guilty of a single, isolated Class III deficiency, fining Respondent $1,000.00 therefore, and removing Respondent's conditional licensure status; and Remanding to the Division of Administrative Hearings the issue of the amount of any costs related to the investigation and prosecution of these cases, pursuant to Section 400.121(10), in the event the parties cannot stipulate to those costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 13th day of November 2003.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Department of Management Services (“DMS"), acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. MSFM-13002020 (the "ITB") to Intervenor Future Computer Systems, LLC ("FCS").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Jere Lahey, the procurement officer and contract manager for the Jacksonville office of DMS? Division of Real Estate Development and Management, coordinated with Stuart Piccolo, an engineering specialist in the same office, to develop the ITB specifications for the replacement of four existing Edwards fire alarm panels in four buildings at the Mary L. Singleton Regional Service Center in Jacksonville. The panels, which have been installed in the buildings since their construction approximately 20 years ago, have become obsolete for maintenance purposes. Lacking funding to replace the entire fire alarm system, DMS decided to replace the main control panel in each of the four buildings, retrofitting the systems to work with the updated controls. Mr. Lahey testified that he and Mr. Piccolo decided that the specifications should be for a design-build project. The General Scope of work identified in the ITB was as follows: Replace existing Edwards Systems Technology IRC-3 fire alarm panels in four different campus buildings with Edwards Systems Technology EST-3 panels including minor upgrades defined in Design Criteria Documentation. It is understood in the industry that the EST-3 product can only be installed, programmed and operated by a company that is certified by the manufacturer, Edwards. Mr. Lahey identified three EST-certified companies in the Jacksonville area. He testified that DMS relied on Edwards? certification process in the belief that Edwards would not certify a company that lacked the ability to install its products. On September 4, 2013, DMS released the ITB to the three EST certified companies in the Jacksonville area: Jacksonville Sound, FCS, and Milton J. Wood Fire Protection, Inc. (“Wood”).2/ The ITB listed a construction estimate of $100,000.00. Jacksonville Sound and FCS submitted bids on the project. Wood withdrew from the solicitation prior to the bid opening, citing a conflict. DMS opened the bids on October 23, 2013, and found both bids responsive to the criteria set forth in the ITB. The ITB specified that DMS would make a single award to the low bidder. FCS was the low bidder, with a bid of $29,980.00. Jacksonville Sound?s bid was $36,855.00. The ITB provided that “Bids must be submitted in full in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents consisting of Technical and Non Technical Design Criteria Specifications.” The referenced Design Criteria Specifications were titled, “Design/Build Bid Scope for Replacement of „Like Kind Equipment?-- Replace Fire Alarm Main Panels in Four Campus Buildings.” The specifications consisted of seven pages of written technical and non-technical specifications, four pages of schematic drawings of the buildings, and one page explaining the criminal background checks required of contractors and their employees. The technical specifications contained 27 paragraphs, of which only one, paragraph 7, is directly at issue in this proceeding. Paragraph 7 provided: Contractors provided with Invitations to Bid have been chosen due to their years in the industry and having a partnered relationship with Edwards Systems Technology. Contractor, upon request, shall provide evidence to support 5 years [sic] experience with performing retrofits with the specific product line as mentioned in the “Summary.” There was no section titled “Summary” in the specifications. However, there was no dispute that the “specific product line” in question was the Edwards EST-3 fire alarm panels that were discussed in the General Scope of work. See Finding of Fact 2, supra. DMS did not request that the bidders provide evidence regarding their experience with performing retrofits with the EST-3 product line. Neither bidder submitted information regarding its experience with performing retrofits with the EST- 3 product line. The issue raised by Jacksonville Sound in its formal written protest is whether the second sentence of paragraph 7 required the contracting entity to have been an EST-certified company for five years at the time of bid submission, or whether it was sufficient for the company to have been EST-certified for fewer than five years provided that the company employees actually performing the work on the project have five years? experience with performing retrofits with the EST-3 product line. EST is a controlled line, meaning that Edwards contracts with specific companies to represent the product as “strategic partners” with Edwards. Strategic partners are fully authorized by the manufacturer to sell, install, program and maintain Edwards? products, including the EST-3 product line. An Edwards strategic partner must have its technicians trained and certified in the different systems manufactured by Edwards. To install an EST system, a technician must be certified in that specific product line. Only certified technicians have the ability, via Edwards? proprietary software, to program the installed EST-3 control panel. It is undisputed that Jacksonville Sound has been an Edwards strategic partner for more than five years. It is also undisputed that FCS was a strategic partner at the time it submitted its bid, but that it had been certified for only three and one-half years. It is further undisputed that FCS currently employs individuals who have the requisite five years? experience performing retrofits with the Edwards EST-3 product line. In fact, one of those employees, Randy Kight, gained the bulk of his EST-3 experience as an employee of Jacksonville Sound before moving to FCS. Jacksonville Sound contends that the second sentence of paragraph 7 requires the company bidding on the project to have five years? experience in retrofitting the EST-3 product line. In order to have such experience, the company would necessarily have to have been an Edwards “strategic partner” for those five years. Under this reading of the ITB, FCS would be considered nonresponsive because it lacks the requisite five years as an Edwards strategic partner. DMS and FCS contend that the second sentence of paragraph 7 is directed at the employees who will actually be working on the EST-3 panels at the job site, and that the length of time a bidder has been a strategic partner is immaterial provided the bidder will be a strategic partner during the life of the contract. To support its contention, Jacksonville Sound observes that paragraph 7 references only the “contractor.” Jacksonville Sound points out that various other provisions of the ITB distinguish between the contractor and “employees,” “subcontractor employees,” “workers,” and “individuals who will be performing the work.” Jacksonville Sound argues that had DMS intended for the second sentence of paragraph 7 to apply to employees rather than the company, it would have made the distinction found in other provisions of the ITB. Mr. Piccolo, the author of the non-technical specifications, testified at the hearing. While conceding that the second sentence of paragraph 7 might have been drafted more clearly, he testified: By that statement, I kind of wanted to ensure that any individual that was working on the job site had the confidence and the knowledge to be able to perform these retrofits just because of — of the Duval County Courthouse, you know. And I hate to use that as an example because it?s a sore thumb for a lot of people. But I wanted to make sure that the job went smooth. And if there were any difficulties or trials or tribulations that we could, you know, step back a second and see that the individual that you placed on the property, how much experience does he actually have dealing with this type of work? He could have come from the security systems side, he could have come from the fire alarm side . . . . * * * Like I say, if there?s an observation that an individual doesn?t portray himself as being competent to perform the duties or the expectations of delivery, then obviously you would step back a second and say: What are the qualifications of this individual? Was he cutting the grass before he came over here? Supporting Mr. Piccolo?s interpretation is the fact that the disputed sentence contains the term, “upon request.” Before sending out the ITB, DMS was already aware of the status of the three selected companies as “strategic partners” of Edwards. This was the key piece of information that permitted a company to submit a bid on the project at all. It was immaterial to DMS whether a company had been a strategic partner for one year, three years, or ten years, because DMS was relying on the certification provided by Edwards that its strategic partners were qualified to install, program and maintain the EST-3 panels regardless of their seniority. “Upon request” indicates that DMS was reserving the right to inquire into the experience of the individuals performing the work on-site, should the need arise. This provision informed the bidders that any employee performing the work is required to have a minimum of five years of experience in retrofitting the EST-3 product line. Jacksonville Sound is unable to point to any material benefit that would accrue to DMS by virtue of its selected vendor having been an Edwards strategic partner for five years or more, as opposed to three and one-half years. The record evidence indicates that all strategic partners have the same rights and duties under their agreements with Edwards, without reference to how long they have been strategic partners. The basis for award of this bid was the lowest price. DMS did not investigate the number of years a company had been a strategic partner of Edwards or the qualifications of the personnel who would perform the on-site work. The ITB?s “upon request” provision anticipates that DMS will deal with any personnel problems as they arise during the winning bidder?s performance of the contract. By submitting their bids in response to the ITB, Jacksonville Sound and FCS made firm commitments to staffing the project in accordance with DMS? requirements. Both bidders represented that they currently employ technicians who meet the standards set forth in the ITB. If that situation changes during contract performance, the winning bidder will be responsible for securing replacement personnel who satisfy the terms of the contract. In any procurement, there is always a remote potential that the winning vendor will breach or default. DMS' contract provides remedies for such defaults. In summary, it is found that the bids of both Jacksonville Sound and FCS met the requirements of the ITB generally, and of paragraph 7 of the ITB?s technical specifications in particular. The reading of paragraph 7 urged by Jacksonville Sound was not unreasonable, but could not be said to add any performance assurances to the contract beyond the given fact that all of the bidders were required to be Edwards-certified strategic partners. DMS? reading of paragraph 7 made practical sense and gave the agency additional assurance that the personnel who work on the project will have at least five years? experience in retrofitting the specified product line.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order dismissing Jacksonville Sound and Communications, Inc.?s formal written protest and awarding the contract for Invitation to Bid No. MSFM-13002020 to Future Computer Systems, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 24th day of February, 2014.
Findings Of Fact By addition to Section 633.081(2), Florida Statutes, in 1981, the Florida Legislature required the State Fire Marshal to renew, on a triennial basis, the certification of fire inspectors in the State of Florida and to, by January 1, 1982, establish procedures to do so by rule. This statute and the 1979 edition thereof stipulated that all required fire inspections be conducted by a person certified as having met the inspection training requirements set by the State Fire Marshal and charged that individual with maintaining current files on all certified inspectors. Consistent with that mandate, on October 16, 1981, a representative of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training of the State Fire Marshal, by memorandum to all "Incumbent Fire Safety Inspectors," forwarded the procedures established by the Bureau to initiate the required certification process. The memorandum clearly indicated the test to be given during December, 1981, at various locations throughout the state would be to any "qualified' inspector. The term "qualified" was defined in the attachment to the memo as being: ndividuals who are currently functioning as fire inspectors provided they meet the requirements specified below. Have a minimum of one year of experience as a full-time fire safety inspector as of January 1, 1982, and have successfully completed a 40 hour course of instruction in Codes and Standards; or Have a minimum of five years experience as a full-time fire safety inspector as of January 1, 1982. This incumbent test was an open-book examination in all sections, and was not to be used to test new inspectors who had not been serving in that job. The test for new inspectors is open book in only one of five sections. On November 9, 1981, Respondent, John M. McCarthy, then serving as Fire Chief for the Fort Myers Beach (Florida) Fire Control District (FMBFCD), submitted his request to take the Incumbent Fire Safety Inspector examination. The application form Respondent submitted, verifying he had served as a full- time fire inspector for four years beginning September 11, 1977, to the date the application was signed by Respondent, as fire chief, as the certifying agent. Respondent contends he was advised to do just that by a representative of Petitioner in a phone call to Petitioner's Ocala office prior to the application. Mr. Stark, currently the bureau chief, was not serving in that capacity at that time. The then-incumbent is no longer at that office and did not testify. On the basis of Respondent's application and the verification of status appearing thereon, he was permitted to take the incumbent exam, which he passed, and was subsequently certified as a fire safety inspector. In early April, 1983, John Dahlgren, Jr., Vice Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners, FMBFCD, in the company of Mr. Robert J. Weatherbee, then lieutenant in the Fort Myers Beach Fire Department, came to Mr. Frederick C. Stark, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, Office of the State Fire Marshal, and presented a letter to him to the effect that it was the majority opinion of the members of the Board, FMBFCD, that Respondent was not qualified to take the incumbents' fire inspector examination when he did because he had not had the required one year experience as a full-time fire inspector and, therefore, his certification as such was in error. A letter to that effect, dated April 7, 1983, was also delivered. The following day, April 8, 1983, Mr. Stark wrote to Respondent, informing him of this allegation and offering him the opportunity to refute the allegation. Apparently, that same date, Mr. Stark sent a similar letter to Mr. Keith Hiatt, Chairman of the FMBFCD; and on April 12, 1983, Mr. Hiatt responded by letter, indicating that Respondent was, at the time of taking the exam, the full-time paid inspector, as well as full-time paid fire chief, citing the training that Respondent and another fire official gave to Mr. Weatherbee to qualify him for the position of fire marshal. Similar sentiments were contained in a letter, same date, from Mr. Frederick Bruchner, member of the Board, to Mr. Stark. Also on April 12, 1983, Respondent responded by letter to Mr. Stark, outlining his experience in fire prevention and detailing that his position as fire chief gives him final review and decision-making authority on the operation of the department's fire inspector, Mr. Weatherbee. Shortly thereafter, on April 29, 1983, Mr. Weatherbee and Charles Mulac, former Fire Marshal and acting Fire Chief, signed affidavits which subsequently got to Mr. Stark on May 2, 1983, which indicated that during their tenure in their respective offices, going back to June, 1979, Respondent had not served that department as a full-time inspector. Prior to signing his affidavit, Mr. Weatherbee personally went through all the inspection files, including approximately 180 residentials, 100 Businesses, 100 mercantiles, 5 schools, and some industrials. He recalls that Respondent was with him on some of his inspections, but does not recall any cases where Respondent did the inspection alone. During this period, Respondent called Mr. Stark and told him there were documents in the department files which showed he had done fire inspections, so on May 2, 1983, Mr. Stark wrote to Mr. Mulac, as acting Chief, and requested he search the department's fire inspection records for the period 1977-1980 for any documentation, such as inspection records, surveys, or the like, to indicate inspections done by Respondent. On May 5, Mulac responded in writing, indicating that a thorough search of the records in question disclosed no documentation on inspections by Respondent, nor did the records show Respondent was ever a part-time or full-time, paid or nonpaid, inspector during the period 1977-1980. In addition to the lack of full-time inspector employment, the Bureau also concluded that Respondent's training records did not reflect the required training in that it is felt he did not have training in: Blueprint reading and plan examination; Inspection procedures; (a) Private protection systems (sprinklers, alarms); and (d) Causes and origins of fires. Without this background, the Bureau concluded Respondent could not function as an inspector, as all are pertinent to that operation, especially in light of current building methods. Further, concerning the experience requirement, this was considered to be imperative because there are many aspects of fire safety which are learned only through experience. Without the experience, even the training would not, in Stark's opinion, make an individual a qualified inspector. Respondent's duties as fire chief, which required him to oversee inspections done by others, was not, in Stark's opinion, sufficiently connected to the inspection process to allow him to sit for the incumbents' examination. Therefore, on May 11, 1983, Mr. Stark, as Bureau Chief, voided Respondent's Municipal Fire Inspector certificate and advised him of that fact by letter. Respondent contends that Mr. Stark's action was taken without adequate investigation and was based on irrelevant matters. As to the latter issue, Mr. Stark admits that the discussion he had in his office with Dahlgren and Weatherbee related to the rules and procedures as they applied to Respondent. Mr. Stark assured these two gentlemen only that he would look into their allegations. Prior to this visit, he had no indication there was anything wrong with Respondent's certification or that of Mr. Taylor, also from the Fort Myers Beach Fire Department. About a week after this visit, Mr. Stark received a package in the mail that consisted mostly of newspaper clippings concerning Respondent and alleged improprieties in the District, but, he contends, he read only one, and none of this had any bearing on the decision to decertify Respondent as a fire inspector. He also received numerous phone calls from individuals in Fort Myers regarding Respondent's status, and he referred them all to the Fire Marshal's Office in Tallahassee. Without concluding at this point whether that decision was appropriate or not, it is clear there is no reason to disbelieve Mr. Stark in this regard or to conclude the decision was based on any improperly considered evidence. As to the adequacy of the investigation into the allegations, it is also clear that Mr. Stark could have improved little on what he did. He could have, himself, examined the department's records and, in light of the fact that at the time in question Respondent had been suspended as chief and was barred from the department offices (he could not, therefore, get to the files to secure copies of his inspection reports, if any existed), perhaps should have done so. However, at no time did Respondent contend he had done inspections himself, but instead, in his response to Mr. Stark's initial letter, relied solely on his supervisory position, the responsibility that went with it, and his efforts on behalf of the Interlocal Agreement. In light of the evidence presented to him, Mr. Stark had no requirement to go further, and it is clear his inquiry into the matter was adequate. At the time of the test, no rule had been promulgated for the certification process. The Fire Marshal's Office took the statutory language calling for "certification" of inspectors as the authority to give the test to incumbents to certify them. It is the opinion of Mr. Stark that some of the 400 to 500 individuals who took the incumbent test, out of the 23,000 inspectors working in this state, had very little fire inspection training or experience at all. However, since the Training Bureau has only two individuals to do the checking for the entire state, he had to rely on the integrity of the individual who verified the experience claimed on the application form. If, however, the Bureau received information that someone was not qualified, it decertified that individual, utilizing the same procedure as done in the instant case; that is, to decertify after investigation, but without hearing prior to the decertification action. In fact, to the best of Mr. Stark's knowledge, there were five other cases where certificates were looked into because of alleged irregularities such as here. Respondent applied for employment with the FMBFCD on May 15, 1976. Prior to coming to Florida, he worked as a fire fighter in New York since 1965 and while there took numerous fire fighting courses and officers' training. After coming to Florida, he enrolled in St. Petersburg Junior College and Edison Community College by which latter institution he was awarded the Associate of Science Degree in Fire Administration. During the course of study, he took courses in: Introduction to Fire Protection; Fire Protection Systems; (a) Fire Company Leadership; Fire Fighting I; Fire Company Management; Fire Codes; Protection Organizations; Fire Prevention Investigation; Hazard Material; Fire Fighting II; and graduated in the winter of 1983 from Edison Community College with an overall grade point average of 3.22 out of a possible 4. Respondent submitted extensive documentation in the form of memoranda, notations, calendar memos, and newspaper articles to show that he was actively engaged in fire inspection. However, careful review of these documents reveals that while he was frequently embroiled in controversy over the inspections of various commercial and residential establishments in Fort Myers Beach, and while he may, from time to time, have actually been personally involved in inspections, for the most part he was the upper echelon supervisor who was called upon to resolve disputes over inspections conducted by others, on the basis of policy or whatever other concern was pertinent to the issue. Whatever else he did, it is clear Respondent was not a full-time fire inspector. In fact, Respondent admits that though he has personally participated in many inspections in the field, assisting Mr. Weatherbee, who was, at the time, the Fire Inspector (Marshal) for the FMBFCD, and bringing to his attention various aspects of the fire codes, he did not do the actual inspection and has never done one by himself. However, because of the periodic friction between Weatherbee and Mulac, then the Assistant Fire Chief, he found himself going out into the field with both, frequently to do inspections. Respondent contends that the area of fire prevention and code enforcement, into which fire safety inspection falls, is the biggest part of his job, which also entails fire suppression and rescue. During the period in question, Fort Myers Beach did more building in general than the rest of the county. As a result, he was always out at the site looking at plans and consulting with the builder. In that regard, however, he has, by his own admission, taken no course work in blueprint reading or plans review that was certified by the State Fire Marshal. Finally, concerning this particular subject, when Respondent was temporarily suspended from his job as fire chief in April, 1983, he was contacted by a reporter from the local paper who read to him, over the phone, from the long list of charges laid against him, of which, prior to that moment, he had no knowledge and had not seen. In response to the reporter's question about inspections, 1/ Respondent is quoted as having denied participating in fire inspections and indicating he had nothing to do with fire codes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: Respondent's certification as a fire safety inspector be rescinded. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1984.
