The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should certify Petitioner as a minority business enterprise ("MBE").
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for granting or denying applications for MBE certification in accordance with Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes,1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 60A-2.001 and 60A-2.005.2 Petitioner is an applicant for MBE certification. Petitioner is engaged in the business of installing traffic signal devices. Petitioner is a closely held Florida corporation that was organized in 1990. Minority Ownership All of Petitioner's stock is owned by Ms. Burita Allen. Ms. Allen is a minority person within the meaning of Section 288.703(3) (the "minority owner" or "minority shareholder"). The minority shareholder is majority shareholder. She owns at least 51 percent of Petitioner's stock within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(2)1. Financial Risk And Control The minority ownership of Petitioner is real, substantial, and continuing within the meaning of Rule 60A- 2.005(3)(d)3. The minority owner provided all of the $100,000 used for Petitioner's initial capitalization on April 4, 1995.3 Petitioner was inactive from 1990 until it began its first job on May 11, 1995. Petitioner now has completed or started a total of eight jobs. The minority owner has knowledge and control of Petitioner's financial affairs. She has sole control of the day to day operations of the company and its profit and loss. She contributed all of its initial capital, writes the checks, and contracts with employees, subcontractors, and customers. Operating And Management Control The minority owner has operating control of Petitioner and is technically qualified to manage and operate Petitioner's business. She has generated significant growth for Petitioner. Operating revenues have increased from zero to $170,736.28 in less than two years. Petitioner has another $90,268.08 in work performed but not billed. Petitioner's clients include the Florida Department of Transportation, the United States Navy, and Nassau County, Florida. Petitioner has also performed jobs for private companies such as Georgia Pacific, Target, and Haynes & Sons Inc. Affiliation Petitioner's minority owner gained the knowledge and experience needed to operate Petitioner successfully as an employee of J.W. Buckholz Traffic Engineering, Inc. ("Buckholz Engineering"). Buckholz Engineering is a closely held Florida corporation owned by five individuals. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. She owns 52 percent of the stock of Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner shares office space, equipment, and staff with Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner's minority owner allocates approximately 40 percent of the 70 to 102 hours she works each week to Petitioner. The remainder of her work week is allocated to Buckholz Engineering. The affiliation between Petitioner, its minority owner, and Buckholz Engineering does not impair the minority owner's ownership and control of Petitioner. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner's minority owner has an unimpeded legal right to share Petitioner's income, earnings, and other benefits in proportion to her stock ownership within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(2)(b). Neither the exercise of discretion by Petitioner's minority owner, her financial risk, nor her equity position in Petitioner is subject to any formal or informal restrictions within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(3)(a). There are no provisions in any purchase agreement, employment agreement, voting rights agreement, or the corporate by-laws that vary or usurp the minority owner's discretion. Buckholz Engineering assisted Petitioner in obtaining greater bonding limits than Petitioner could obtain on its own. Petitioner was capable of obtaining bonding on its own but increased the amount of bonding by adding Buckholz Engineering as co-applicant. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. Buckholz Engineering is a professional service corporation that provides design services by licensed professional engineers. Buckholz Engineering utilizes professional liability insurance. It is not a construction company and has no need to be bonded. Petitioner derived its name in part to benefit from the goodwill of Buckholz Engineering. However, the two companies are not engaged in the same business. Buckholz Engineering is a professional engineering firm that performs professional services including the design of traffic control systems. Petitioner installs traffic signal devices. Unlike Buckholz Engineering, Petitioner does not need a professional engineering license to conduct its business. Electrical License Petitioner does not offer a trade or profession to the state which requires a trade or professional license within the meaning Section 287.0943(1)(3)1.4 Unlike the professional engineers in Buckholz Engineering, no state statute requires the minority owner to be licensed in a particular trade or profession in order for Petitioner to install traffic signals. Petitioner's minority owner satisfies all certification requirements that are generally required for Petitioner to conduct its business. The minority owner is certified by the International Municipal Signal Association ("IMSA") and by the American Traffic and Safety Association ("ATSA"). In a particular job, Petitioner's customer may require that a licensed electrician pull the necessary permits for the job or that a licensed electrician approve the job. This customer requirement comprises only a de minimis portion of Petitioner's business. Of the eight jobs contracted by Petitioner, only one customer has required the permit to be pulled by a licensed electrician. Petitioner can satisfy these occasional customer requirements by subcontracting with a licensed electrician at a cost that is a small portion of the job cost.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and therein GRANT Petitioner's application for MBE certification. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Wanda Forbess is an American woman. She is the president of the Petitioner corporation, Center Office Products, Inc. She owns 5l percent of that corporation's outstanding stock. The stock is full voting stock and there are no agreements in existence or anticipated which would cause any change in the percentage of ownership of Wanda Forbess, nor any change in the voting power of her stock. The Petitioner corporation and Wanda Forbess has no affiliation or relationship with any other business and Wanda Forbess is not an employee of any other business. The net worth of the Petitioner as of the date of hearing is less than one million dollars. It has also been stipulated that the Petitioner, that is, Wanda Forbess, has been performing a useful business function and operating the Petitioner's business since 1981. Wanda Forbess is the mother of Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess and the wife of Thomas D. Forbess. In 1981 her children were almost out of school, with her youngest child being about to enter college. She decided she wanted to start her own business. She had been active as a homemaker, a volunteer and active member of civic organizations. She decided to enter the office supply retail business in 1981 because of the low initial investment required due to the presence of two wholesale suppliers in Jacksonville who could supply goods for inventory on a rapid basis. She also chose to enter this business because there were no particular special skills, training or licenses required and because she knew something about it, since her husband worked for twenty-five years in one phase of the business, that of sales of paper products. This decision being made, Ms. Forbess approached her sons, Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess, to persuade them to enter into the business with her. They agreed to join her in the venture and she set about to form the Petitioner corporation. She desired to incorporate in order to limit the liability which she and her sons would be exposed to in operating the business. She retained an attorney to incorporate the business, but paid no particular attention herself concerning how the shares were to be issued and held or as to the manner of appointment of the members of the board of the directors. She simply followed her attorney's instructions who advised her to do the "standard type" of incorporation. The corporation estab- lished by her attorney provided, in its by-laws, that there would be three directors. Wanda, Ray and Thomas Forbess were each named as directors since they were the only three individuals involved with the Petitioner at its formation. The attorney also issued stock certificates for 200 shares each to the three directors. Wanda Forbess was appointed as president and chief executive officer of the Petitioner corporation. This was because the formation of the business and the company was Mrs. Forbess' idea and she had provided more than five times the amount of capital of each of the other two owners, her sons. In fact, she had provided $11,000 of her own money as initial capital and her two sons provided $2,000 each. Notwithstanding their equal ownership status and the equal vote each of the three has on the Board of Directors, as well as the requirement in the bylaws that a majority vote of the Board is controlling, Mrs. Forbess has been in control of the Petitioner corporation's operations from the day of its inception. Her sons do not question that control and established the fact of it in their own testimony at the hearing. The vice- president is Raymond D. Forbess and the secretary treasurer is Thomas J. Forbess. The bylaws provide that the property and business of the corporation is managed by its Board of Directors and that a majority of those directors shall be necessary and sufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The act of the majority of the directors present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be deemed to be the act of the board. It is also provided in the bylaws that the holders of the majority of shares of stock may remove a director at any time, with or without cause, at a duly called meeting. The president of the Petitioner is empowered to call such a meeting at any time. Any vacancy occurring as a result of removal of any director by the majority shareholders may be filled by the affirmative vote of the majority of remaining directors, even if less than a quorum shall be present. Directors are not required to be shareholders. Therefore, as a holder of 51 percent of the shares of the Petitioner, Wanda Forbess has control over the board of directors by the power to elect or remove any director by voting shares accordingly at a meeting which she may call at any time, with or without notice, as the president of the Petitioner corporation. Replacement directors could then be appointed by her vote alone and could be any person she elects, including, for example, an employee over who she has authority and who she may direct to vote a certain way. In any event, from 1981 through 1987, the Petitioner grew from a company with three employees to a company of 18 employees and more than $280,000 gross monthly sales. During this time, the Petitioner enjoyed some State of Florida contract business. Some time in 1987, Mrs. Forbess became aware that she would soon be unable to continue doing business with the state because her business was not a certified minority business enterprise. In fact, however, the Petitioner had been, from its inception, an American woman-controlled corporation in actual practice. On June 1, 1987, Mrs. Forbess directed her sons to convey sufficient stock to her so that she could become a 51 percent shareholder of the Petitioner corporation. This transfer was done to comply with section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, concerning the definition of "minority business enterprise." It was also done to formally reflect what had been the case, as a practical matter, since the inception of the corporation: that Wanda Forbess controlled the Petitioner corporation. The company by that time had significant value reflected in the value of its stock, but neither son required payment for his stock which he conveyed to Mrs. Forbess. They considered that she was the controlling owner of the corporation from its inception anyway due to the fact that the business was her idea and that she had contributed by far the most significant amount of initial capital. Mrs. Forbess spends a majority of her time conducting the financial affairs of the Petitioner. She is more familiar and more involved with the financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation then any other owner, officer, director or employee. In that capacity, she sets all the salaries, including the salaries of her sons and her husband. All salaries are set completely at the discretion of Mrs. Forbess and always have been. She pays her two sons and her husband a higher salary than she pays herself because their financial requirements are greater, but the salient point here is that she is the manager with the discretion to set their salaries. In 1985, after the Petitioner had been operating successfully for four years, Thomas J. Forbess, the husband of Mrs. Forbess, retired from his position with Jim Walter Paper Company after 25 years of employment with that firm. Prior to that time he had no involvement with the formation, operation or management of the Petitioner corporation. He has never had an ownership interest in the Petitioner. He is an employee of the corporation and assists in some of the operations, including preparation and submittal of bids for some of the work the corporation undertakes. Mrs. Forbess controls the purchase of goods, equipment and business inventory and services used and needed in the day- to-day operation of the business. She frequently purchases significant items used in the business, such as computers, trucks, and postage machines, as well as inventory. In addition to this, the major purchases made by the business by any co-owner or employee must be made only with her approval. Evidence was offered showing the lease agreements and notes evidencing that corporate debts related to large purchases were signed by all corporate officers as a basis for an attempt to show that decisions are made by "consensus" or are joint decisions. However, the fact that lenders and lessors require all corporate officers to sign documents evidencing leases or debts does not mean each corporate officer had an equal part to play in making the decision involved. The record is replete with evidence and testimony from employees and the other owners that Wanda Forbess has a veto power on all decisions concerning purchases, loans, leases of real property and every other major business decision the Petitioner confronts. Further, the fact that discussions are had amongst the owners and officers of the business prior to making major decisions is really a sound business practice and does not mean that one of the owners, directors or officers does not have final authority to make a binding decision. The person who has final authority for such major decisions is Wanda Forbess. Mrs. Forbess also has the authority to hire and dismiss employees, a requirement of subsection 3(b) of Rule 13-8.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. She herself has interviewed employees from time to time and also has final authority to approve all hiring and discharge decisions or to veto them in those instances where she has delegated that authority. She controls which professional services are obtained by the Petitioner corporation, as shown by her decision to discontinue the services of the former company accountant. Indeed, she has delegated some of the hiring processes, given the fact that the Petitioner corporation has grown to be a business with 18 employees. That however, is a normal, acceptable business decision. The delegation of the advertising of a position, the interviewing of prospective employees and the conveying of offers of employment to prospective employees in no way indicates that the delegator does not have the final authority to hire or dismiss the employees. Wanda Forbess also controls all financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation. She thus has unsurpassed knowledge in relation to the other owners, officers and directors, of the financial structure and operations of the business. In fact, the bulk of her time spent working for the Petitioner, corporation since its inception, has been in the field of financial matters. She makes the decisions concerning debt to be incurred by the Petitioner, and approves any major expenditure, without which approval expenditures may not be made. It is significant that Mrs. Forbess has veto authority over the extension of credit to customers and establishment of credit accounts by customers. One instance was described by Jeannine Silcox and Raymond Forbess concerning Raymond Forbess' attempt to open an account to service a particular customer on a credit basis. Mrs. Forbess opposed that procedure and ordered that the account not be opened. The account was not opened. This demonstrates effectively that not only does Mrs. Forbess control the financial affairs of the company, but also wields ultimate authority amongst the co-owners of the Petitioner. Additionally, it is undisputed that Mrs. Forbess writes the vast majority of checks on the Petitioner's two checking accounts, in terms of the requirement, at subsection 3(D) of the above-cited rule, that she control the accounts of the business. She estimates that she writes 97 percent of the checks and there is no evidence to refute that estimate. Thomas J. and Raymond B. Forbess are each authorized signatories on the accounts, but their names are simply there as a matter of convenience and the only instances in which they sign checks are when there is an immediate need for the check to be paid and Mrs. Forbess is unavailable to sign herself. There is no question that Mrs. Forbess is the ultimate authority controlling the Petitioner's bank accounts. In order to comply with subsection 3(e) of the above cited rule, the minority owner must demonstrate capability, knowledge and experience in making decisions concerning the business involved. At the time of the business's inception, neither Mrs. Forbess nor her co-owner sons had the capability, knowledge or experience required to make many of the decisions concerning the retail office supply retail business. Over seven years of operation however, Mrs. Forbess has actively supervised and managed the business of the Petitioner and has developed to a high degree those attributes, in making decisions involved in operating that business successfully. She has delegated certain aspects of the company's business to the supervision of her sons. Thomas J. Forbess, for example, is involved in developing additional retail operations. Raymond B. Forbess is more actively involved in the delivery of merchandise to customers and the monitoring of customer accounts, as well as maintaining and accounting for inventory. Nonetheless, neither of the other owners effects any significant decisions without consulting Mrs. Forbess first and gaining her approval or veto. Through this supervision and control over the past seven years, as well as her current direct involvement in managing the Petitioner's affairs, Mrs. Forbess has developed the capability, knowledge and experience required to make decisions regarding the office supply business involved herein. Her operational and managerial capabilities are demonstrated by the fact that under her leadership the business started with three employees and has grown to an 18 employee business with gross sales in the neighborhood of $280,000 per month in just over seven years. Finally, Mrs. Forbess has displayed independence and initiative in conducting all major operations and details of the Petitioner since its inception, (as required by subsection (f) of the above rule). Although she has done little bid negotiating directly, she has the ability to do so and has some experience in that activity. Further, bid proposals are submitted to her for approval and are not made without her knowledge and assent. Further, she herself negotiates leases and other contracts on behalf of the Petitioner.
The Issue Whether the Respondent properly rejected the Petitioner's bid for Board of Regents (BOR) project 658 because it did not comply with the good faith effort requirements of the General and Special Conditions of the project's specifications?
Findings Of Fact Call for Bids was issued by the Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, for Board of Regents ("BOR") project numbered 658, Southeast Campus Building - Davie at Broward Community College Central Campus, in Florida Administrative Weekly. (Stipulated). The Project Manual is the volume assembled which includes the bidding requirements, sample forms, and Conditions of the Contract and Specifications (Jt. Ex. 1 at pp. 8 of 106 pages). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that at least fifteen (15) percent of the project contracted amount will be expended with minority business enterprises (MBE) certified by the Department of General Services as set forth under the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. If fifteen percent were not obtainable, the State University System would recognize good faith efforts by the bidder (Jt. Ex. 2). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that the bidder be advised to review the Good Faith Efforts requirements in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual immediately, in order to schedule the necessary tasks to accomplish Good Faith Efforts. The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that all bidders must be qualified at the time of their bid proposal in accordance with the Instruction to Bidders, Article B-2. The Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2 at page 9 of the Project Manual, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides in pertinent part, that in order to be eligible to submit a Bid Proposal, a bidder must meet any special requirements set forth in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-23 at page 16 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the contract will be awarded by the Respondent for projects of $500,000 or more, to the lowest qualified and responsible bidder, provided the bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Respondent to accept it. The award of the contract is subject to the demonstration of "good faith effort" by any bidder whose Bid Proposal proposes less than fifteen (15) percent participation in the contract by MBEs (Minority Business Enterprise). Demonstrated "good faith effort" is set forth in the Special Conditions. The contract award will be made to that responsible bidder submitting the low responsive aggregate bid within the preestablished construction budget. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-25 at page 17, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes requires the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The Respondent/Owner has adopted a program for the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The application of that program is set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26 at page 17 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26, at page 15 provides that falsification of any entry made on a bidder's proposal will be deemed a material irregularity and will be grounds for rejection. The Project Manual, Special Conditions, Article 1, subparagraph 1.1.1, at page I-1 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that the SUS has established a Construction Minority Business Enterprise Program in compliance with the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. The expenditure of at least fifteen (15) percent of the Base Bid with certified MBEs is a requirement of this contract, unless Good Faith Effort, as identified in paragraph 1.7 can be demonstrated by the Bidder. MBEs not certified by Department of General Services will be deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, and evidence of Good Faith Effort in lieu thereof will be required as identified in subparagraph 1.1.2 and paragraph 1-7 of these Special Conditions. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article I, subparagraph 1.1.2 at page I-2 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that evidence of good faith efforts will be required as specified by the Respondent/Owner within two working days after the opening of bids. Incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of paragraph 1.7 of the Special Conditions shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the Bidder. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article 1, paragraph 1.6 at page I-3 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1) states that MBE's participating in the State University System Minority Construction Program must be certified as a MBE by the Florida Department of General Services (hereinafter referred to as DGS) at the time of bid submittal. Certification identifies and limits the Specialty Area of business the MBE can perform and still qualify as a certified MBE. Therefore, the trade service listed on the Proposal for each of the MBEs must be within the scope of the Specialty Area. The bidder is required to ascertain that a listed MBE is certified by the DGS in the appropriate specialty area to perform the services for which it is listed. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-15, at p. 13). On January 17, 1992, Petitioner, Centex-Rooney Consturction Company, Intervenor, State Paving Corporation, and ten other bidders submitted bids on BOR Construction Project No. BR-658. After review of the bids and preparation of the bid tabulatio it was announced by FAU that Centex-Rooney was the apparent low bidder, but that Centex-Rooney had failed to meet the fifteen percent (15%) MBE participation requirement, and therefore, would be required to submit evidence of Good Faith Efforts within two days. The bid submitted by Centex-Rooney listed four (4) subcontractors which Centex-Rooney represented as DGS certified MBE firms, for a total of $867,000 which was 9.56% of the base bid of $9,067,000. (Stipulated). Since the bid submitted by Centex-Rooney was less than fifteen (15) percent required participation in the contract by MBEs, the University Planning Office requested that Centex-Rooney submit documentation to demonstrate "good faith effort" as set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney timely submitted its good faith documentation on January 22, 1992. (Stipulated). The Board of Regents with representatives of Centex-Rooney on February 25, 1992 to give Petitioner an opportunity to clarity and submit any additional good faith evidence in support of its bid. After reviewing the additional evidence, the Respondent contended that Centex-Rooney was in non-compliance with paragraphs 1.1.1 and 1.6.1 of the Special Conditions of the Project Manual, requiring at least 15% participation by MBEs at the time of bid opening, and at least one good faith effort criteria, paragraph 1.7.4, Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney was informed of the Board of Regents decision to reject its bid for non-compliance with Respondent's MBE requirements, and on March 6, 1992, the Chancellor of the Florida Board of Regents awarded the contract to State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). ^ The Board notified by letter dated March 6, 1992, all bidders of its award of contract for BR-658 project to the next lowest responsive bidder, State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest on March 10, 1992. (Stipulated). On March 19, 1992, Petitioner timely filed its Petition for Formal Written Protest for BR-658. (Stipulated). A representative from Centex-Rooney attended the pre-bid/pre- solicitation meeting. (Jt. Ex. 10, R-115, 116). The minority business enterprise program was discussed and the Board of Regents' requirements for good faith efforts were reviewed. (R-116, 117, 131). Centex-Rooney submitted its bid proposal on January 17, 1992. (Jt. Ex. 13). On page 2, paragraph c., of the bid proposed form submitted by Centex- Rooney, it provides that expenditure with minority business enterprises shall be consistent with the requirements of Article 1. of the Special Conditions, Minority Business Enterprise Requirements. Centex-Rooney listed four subcontractors on its List of Subcontractors and MBE participation form as DGS certified MBEs for a total of 9.56% participation (Jt. Ex. 13, Jt. Ex. 31). The List of Subcontractors form is an integral part of the proposal (Jt. Ex. 13, List of Subcontractors Form page 1) and it is required of all bidders that MBEs must be certified at the time of bid opening for bona fide participation. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-3 of I-26 pages, R-163, 174). Two of the four subcontractors listed by Centex-Rooney, Quality Concrete and S&S Roofing, were not DGS certified MBEs at the time of bid submittal. (R-19, 150, 163, 164, 174). Therefore, the two non-DGS certified subcontractors were deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, so that the total DGS certified MBE participation of Centex-Rooney at the time of bid submittal was 5%. (Jt. Ex. 1, Spec. Conditions 1.1.1, page I-1, Jt. Ex. 13, R-19, 150, 163-4, 174). Therefore, Centex-Rooney was required to show a good faith effort to engage MBE's. See Paragraph 16 above. Ms. Patricia Jackson, MBE Coordinator for Respondent, testified that requiring the DGS certified MBEs to be named at the time of bid opening makes the contract bidding procedures consistent, and eliminates any unfair price differentials between contractors. (R-151). Centex-Rooney was pressed for time in responding to the bid. It called a large number of the MBEs listed the documentation provided, and wrote letters to those subcontractors who expressed an interest and to other subcontractors. Mr. Charles Federico was chairman of the MBE advisory committee at Florida Atlantic University (Jt. Ex. 6, R-115). The committee reviewed the good faith efforts submitted by Petitioner (Jt. Ex. 6, 25, R-115, 140). The good faith effort submittal to FAU from Centex-Rooney contained nine sections (Jt. Ex. 25) with the following consecutive headings: Pre-Bid Meeting Attendance, Advertisements for MBE Participation, Solicitation Letter to Minority Businesses, Follow-Up Contacts to Minority Businesses, Selected Items (or portions) of Work for Minority Businesses, Specific Project Bidding Information made available to Minority Businesses, Utilization of Minority Businesses in Bid, Solicitation of Available Minority Organizations to Recruit Minority Businesses, and a Table of Contents. Under the third heading in Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, Solicitation Letters to Minority Businesses, Petitioner provided 55 form letters in his submittal to FAU and a bulletin. The text of each form letter provided the following: Centex-Rooney is bidding as general contractor on the Southeast Campus Building for FAU and BCC, Central Campus, Davie, FL and invites your firm to submit a quotation for the materials and/or labor on any portion of said project which falls within your scope of work. Please review the attached notices with respect to pertinent information pertaining to the bid. If your firm will be unable to submit a bid on the project, please state your reasons on the enclosed unavailability certificate form, sign and return to the Office of C-R. By doing this, it will help maintain an active MBE directory at Centex-Rooney and continue to indulge you on our bid list. Centex-Rooney encourages that participation of MBE contractors will be more than happy to answer your questions regarding this project. Under the section heading, Follow-up Contracts to Minority Businesses, for Petitioner's good faith submittal to FAU Petitioner included a 14 page log gridded with subcontractor/ vendor names, telephone numbers, MBE designation, will bid, bid submitted, low bid, date contacted and remark sections. The FAU MBE advisory committee found Petitioner in non-compliance with 1.7.3, 1.7.4, 1.7.7 and 1.7.8 of the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual that contains the good faith efforts requirements of Respondent. (Jt. Ex. 6, Jt. Ex. 12). The committee based its findings on the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. (R-119). The committee found non-compliance with 1.7.3 because the 55 form letters submitted by Petitioner were dated January 9, 1992. The committee determined that a letter dated January 9 was too late to give MBEs time to respond to the January 17 bid opening date. (R.121). In regard to 1.7.4, the committee found the Petitioner in non- compliance because no follow-up letters, telegrams, or meetings notes were provided in the good faith documentation. (R-122, 124). Mr. Federico testified that the committee found non-compliance with 1.7.7 of the Good Faith Effort requirements (R-125, 126) and 1.7.8. (R-126, 127). The advisory committee determination was sent to the Vice-President of Administration and Finance at FAU, Ms. Marie McDemmond. (R-128). The University President recommended award of the contract to Centex- Rooney. (Jt. Ex. 2, R-129). The University President is not authorized to award Board of Regents contracts. The Board of Regents awards contracts for projects of $500,000 or more. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-23, at page 16). Centex-Rooney could not utilize the two additional subcontractors, Kings Plumbing and Eagle Electric Distributors, because they were not listed on the Subcontractor/MBE form submitted by Centex-Rooney at the time of bid opening. (R-129, 130, 131). The University reconsidered its recommendation (Jt. Ex. 29), and subsequently recommended State Paving for award. (Jt. Ex. 32). The Handbook distributed by FAU at the pre-bid/pre-solicitation meeting contains a disclaimer which states that it is not intended to replace or supplement any information in the Project Manual or conditions for contract award (R-31, 132). State Paving met and exceeded the 15% MBE participation requirements for BR-65 (Jt. Ex. 14, R-20). Centex-Rooney's bid plus three alternatives was $9,590,000, and State Paving's bid plus three alternates was 9,592,500, so that the two bidders were $2,500 apart. (Jt. Ex. 7). At least seven of the twelve bidders on BR-658 met the 15% MBE participation goal (R-19). The FAU committee has reviewed many bids and has had several that met good faith efforts and several where the low bidders had met 15% MBE goal. (R- 117, 142). Ms. Jackson received a telephone call from Centex-Rooney regarding the FAU advisory committee's determination of non-compliance. (R-149). Ms. Jackson contacted Mr. Federico and reviewed the bid proposal and good faith efforts of Centex-Rooney on behalf of the Board of Regents. (R-148, 149). Ms. Jackson reviewed Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts as submitted to FAU and found non-compliance with 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions in the Project Manual for BR-658. (R-149). The Special Conditions of the Project Manual at page I-5 for 1.7.4, provide that the State University System requires that a bidder shall make no less than one written follow-up contact per initial contact. In the event a positive response is obtained, the Bidder shall request, in writing, a meeting between the MBE and Bidder's staff. The documentation required in the Special Conditions for 1.7.4 are copies of letters, telegrams and/or meeting rates. Ms. Jackson testified that the telephone log submitted by Centex-Rooney to document compliance with 1.7.4 did not meet the Special Conditions requirements because it was not a letter nor a telegram or a meeting note. (R-149). Nor did the telephone log reflect one written follow-up per initial contact as required by the University implementation of 1.7.4 in the Special Conditions (R-149, 157). Ms. Jackson contacted Centex-Rooney by phone and informed it of her finding that Centex-Rooney's reversal of the telephone calls and letters did not conform to the requirements of 1.7.4. (R-152). Thereafter, a meeting was arranged between Ms. Jackson and other BOR staff to provide Centex-Rooney an opportunity to provide supplemental evidence of good faith effort. (R-152). The Special Conditions section, at I-2, paragraph 1.1.2 provides that incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of Paragraph 1.7 (good faith requirements) shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the Owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the bidder. (R- 152). Centex-Rooney supplemented its submittal with 55 form letters dated January 24, 1992. These form letters were not considered satisfactory by Respondent as a written follow-up to each initial contact or to meet any other requirements in 1.7.4 because the letters were dated after the date of the bid opening. (Jt. Ex. 27, R-157, 158). Pursuant to Centex-Rooney's request at the February 25, 1992 meeting, Ms. Jackson again reviewed the company's documentation of its good faith efforts, evaluating the January 9, 1992 letters originally submitted as documentation for 1.7.4, as documentation for 1.7.3, and evaluating the telephone log, originally submitted as documentation of follow-up contact for 1.7.4 as initial solicitation documentation for 1.7.3. (R-153, 154). Considering Centex-Rooney's efforts in their best light, it was still determined by BOR that Centex-Rooney was not in compliance with 1.7.4. because there was no initial written contact and no written follow-up for each positive response. The telephone log is deemed to be analogous to meeting notes; however, the documentation viewed most favorably for Petitioner does not meet the written requirements of the Special Conditions which cannot be waived. (R- 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171). Two spread sheets were provided to BOR as supplemental documentation (Jt. Ex. 26). The Summary (Jt. Ex. 37) and other spread sheets (Jt. Ex. 36) were not provided to FAU by Centex-Rooney nor to Respondent in its subsequent review or as part of its option to permit supplementary documentation for good faith compliance. (R-55, 70, 71). Petitioner did not obtain the 15% MBE participation for BR 658. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.1.1 of the Special Conditions. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-1). Two of the MBEs listed by Petitioner with its bid proposal were not certified by DGS at the time of bid submittal. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.6.1. (Jt. Ex. 2, I-3). The telephone log submitted by Petitioner was insufficient as required documentation. Petitioner did not meet the good faith efforts requirement set out in 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions (Jt. Ex. 2, page I-4). (R-175, Jt. Ex. 28, 29). The telephone log, as presented by Centex-Rooney was not a copy of a letter, a telegram or a meeting note. The telephone contact did not constitute a written follow-up contact per initial contact as required by the Special Conditions, nor did it suffice as a request in writing for a meeting between the MBE and bidder's staff if a positive response was obtained from an MBE. (R-149, 157). Conversely, as proposed by Petitioner, the telephone contact was not acceptable under the terms of the Special Conditions as an initial notice under 1.7.3 because the contact was not by letter as required. Also, there was not a letter for each initial telephone contact, and the January 9 letters did not request meetings with those MBEs who responded positively, nor did the letters provide evidence of any meeting notes. (R-157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Centex-Rooney's bid for project BR-658 was properly rejected by the Respondent, and that the Board of Regents may proceed with its award of the contract to the Intervenor, State Paving. DONE and ENTERED this day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of May, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-2272BID Board of Regent's proposed findings were read and considered. The findings of the BOR were adopted except for Paragraph 22 which was deemed a conclusion of law. State Pavings' proposed findings were read and considered. The following list indicated which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: 1 through 3. Adopted. Was not specifically adopted, but is correct and is subsumed in other findings. Subsumed in other findings. Rejected that Centex-Rooney "freely admits" their bid failed to meet 15% requirement, a contrary to the evidence. Subsumed Paragraphs 32, 33 and 34. Subsumed Paragraphs 44, 45, 46 and 47. Subsumed Paragraph 50. Subsumed Paragraph 29 re documentation. Comments re Mr. Hamlin are argument and rejected. Rejected in part a restatement of statutes and law, and subsumed in other findings. Adopted that Centex-Rooney complied with 1.7.1, 1.7.2, and failed to comply with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. Centex-Rooney did comply with 1.7.5 and 1.7.6 and 1.7.8. To the extent that the evidence in this case did not show Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, 1.7.7 was not proven. Rejected as argument. Subsumed Paragraph 35. Subsumed Paragraphs 39 and 41. Rejected as argument. Subsumed in Paragraphs 55, 56 and 57. Rejected as conclusion of law. The Petitioner's proposed findings were read and considered. The following list which of the findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. Paragraphs 1 through 11. Adopted. Adopted, Paragraph 23. True; adopted in part in Paragraph and in Paragraphs 23 and 28. 14 and 15. Rejected as irrelevant. True, subsumed in Paragraph 28. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32 and 46. True, but irrelevant. There was no allegation that Centex-Rooney failed to advertise. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28 and 33. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32, 48 and 52. True but irrelevant because Centex-Rooney had fewer than 15%. True but irrelevant. Subsumed in various paragraphs. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35. True subsumed in Paragraphs 36 and 37. Subsumed in Paragraphs 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51. Irrelevant because it does not establish compliance with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. BOR properly rejected this evidence which was presented after the bid opening. Copies furnished: Charles B. Reed, Chancellor Florida Board of Regents State University System 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 James E. Glass, Esquire 6161 Blue Lagoon Dr., Suite 350 Miami, FL 33126 Jane Mostoller, Esquire 325 W. Gaines St., Suite 1522 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 J. Victor Barrios, Esquire 1026 Ease Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to certification as a Minority Business Enterprise pursuant to Rule 38A-20.005, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: On February 12, 1998, Teddy L. Serdynski and Janice A. Serdynski entered into a Partnership Agreement which in pertinent part provides as follows: NAME: The name of the partnership shall be known as "Ted's Auto Parts." PURPOSE: The purpose of the partnership shall be the operation of an automobile parts business and related enterprises. * * * COMMENCEMENT: The partnership shall officially commence upon execution of this agreement. DURATION: The partnership shall continue until dissolved, either by the parties or by legal proceedings, or by liquidation. CAPITAL: The capital of the partnership shall be contributed in amounts equalling 51% by JANICE A. SERDYNSKI and 49% by TEDDY L. SERDYNSKI, thereby granting to the said JANICE A. SERDYNSKI the controlling interest of said partnership. WITHDRAWAL: No partner shall withdraw any invested capital without the consent of the other partner. CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES: Capital gains and losses shall be shared in a proportionate amount of their investment and ownership interest. * * * MANAGEMENT: Although JANICE A. SERDYNSKI is the owner of a controlling interest in the partnership, each shall have equal voice in the management of the affairs of the partnership. Both parties shall administer to the general affairs of the partnership and shall carry out and put into effect the general policies and specific instructions of their decision on any given matter. BANK ACCOUNTS: The partnership shall maintain checking and other accounts in such bank or banks as the partners shall agree upon. Withdrawals and writing of checks on the partnership account may be done jointly and/or singly. PROFITS AND LOSSES: The partners shall share in accordance with their ownership interest in the profits and losses. . . . LIMITATIONS ON PARTNER: No partner, without the consent of the other partner, shall borrow money in the partnership name for partnership purposes or utilize collateral owned by the partnership as security for such loans, assign, transfer, pledge, compromise or release any of the claims or debts due to the partnership except on payment in full; consent to the arbitration of any dispute or controversy of the partnership; transfer firm assets; make, execute or deliver any assignment for the benefit of creditors; maker, execute or deliver any bond, confession of judgment, guaranty bond, indemnity bond, or surety bond or any contract to sell, bill of sale, deed, mortgage, lease relating to any substantial part of the partnership assets or his/her interest therein; or engage in any business or occupation without the consent of the other partner. * * * 17. DISPUTES: That the parties agree that all disputes and differences, if any, which shall arise between the parties, shall be referred to and decided by two indifferent, competent persons in or well acquainted with the trade, one person to be chosen by each party, or to submit to arbitration by a recognized arbitration service, and his/her or their decisions shall, in all respect, be final and conclusive on all parties. Ted's Auto Parts was a sole proprietorship from May 1, 1985 until February 11, 1998. From May 1, 1985, until February 11, 1998, Janice A. Serdynski shared ownership in Ted's Auto Parts equally with her husband, Teddy L. Serdynski, a non- minority. Janice A. Serdynski does not share income from Ted's Auto Parts commensurate with her 51 percent ownership. Decision-making, withdrawal of funds, borrowing of money, and the day-to-day management of Ted's Auto Parts are shared equally between Janice A. Serdynski and Teddy L. Serdynski. Ted's Auto Parts is a family operated business with duties, responsibilities, and decision-making occurring jointly, and, at time, mutually among family members. Both Janice A. Serdynski and Teddy L. Serdynski are authorized to sign checks on the account of Ted's Auto Parts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it recommended that the Department enter a final order finding that Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements for Minority Business Enterprise certification and dismiss the petition filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas I. Jamerson. Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Janice A. Serdynski Ted's Auto Parts 190 Second Avenue, South Bartow, Florida 33830 Joseph L. Shields, Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact Iris Reed and her husband, Mark Reed, own and operate a business known as Reed Landscaping, Inc., the Petitioner in this cause. Mrs. Reed is an American woman and owns 60 percent of the subject business. Her husband owns the remaining 40 percent. The Reeds previously owned a lawn maintenance business in New York but moved to Florida several years ago and started doing business as "Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance by Mark." Eventually, approximately 1992, "Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance by Mark" changed its name to Reed Landscaping, Inc. As to Petitioner and all former entities, Mrs. Reed has held an office position with the company while Mr. Reed has operated the field crew or crews. Mr. Reed has the experience and expertise necessary to handle the work at each site for the business. On the other hand, Mrs. Reed has the office and management skills to direct the "paperwork" side of the business. This includes insurance matters and personnel for the office. Mrs. Reed is particularly active in this business since she put up the capital that largely funded the business enterprise. Although her personal financial investment is primarily at risk, creditors and bonding companies require both Reeds to sign for the company and to be individually obligated as well. Mrs. Reed serves as President/Treasurer of the Petitioner and Mr. Reed is Vice-President/Secretary. Both are authorized to sign bank checks for the company. Mr. Reed has formal training and education in landscape architecture and horticulture as well as extensive experience in this field. Mrs. Reed is responsible for many decisions for the company but relies on the opinions of others and delegates, where appropriate, duties to others as well. Among the delegated duties are: all field work for the company (delegated to Mr. Reed, another foreman, or to crews working a job); estimating or preparing bids (an estimator helps with bids); bookkeeping; contract review; and purchasing (some of which she does herself with input from others). As to each delegated area, however, the Reeds stress teamwork; that they are all working together for the common good of the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5684 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: None submitted. Iris Reed on behalf of Petitioner submitted a letter summary of her position concerning the hearing which, if intended to be a presentation of fact, is rejected as argument or comment not in a form readily reviewable for either acceptance or rejection as required by rule. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Shields Senior Attorney Commission on Minority Economic & Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Iris F. Reed, Pro se 951 Southwest 121st Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33325 Veronica Anderson Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic & Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated March 2, 1982, Respondent, Department of Transportation, advised Petitioner that its application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise was denied on the basis that it "[l]acks minority ownership and control." By letter dated March 9, 1982, Petitioner, in the person of its Vice President, Charles J. Cedeno, appealed the Respondent's denial. Pursuant to a notice of hearing dated April 1, 1982, issued by Hearing Officer Charles C. Adams, a hearing on the denial of certification of Petitioner was held on July 7, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner did not have a representative at that hearing, although based upon a representation from Respondent's counsel, Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., indicating the possibility that Petitioner was considering the possibility of requesting a continuance of the July 7, 1982, hearing, the matter was in fact continued by Hearing Officer Adams and rescheduled for hearing by service of a notice of hearing dated July 19, 1982, scheduling the matter for hearing on September 15, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. Copies of the notice of hearing were sent to the parties of record and there was no showing that the notice of hearing was returned as being undeliverable. As noted herein, Petitioner did not appear at the subject hearing herein nor was any communique received from Petitioner indicating that a continuance was being requested. During the hearing, counsel for Respondent made an ore tenus motion to dismiss the Petition on the ground of default as Petitioner failed to appear at the time and place noticed for hearing. That motion was granted by the undersigned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Department of Transportation, issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Anthony Charles Fabian, a journeyman electrician, is the president of Fabian's Electrical Contracting, Inc. (FEC). Mr. Fabian owns 51 percent of the stock in FEC. FEC was incorporated in 1984 and since that time has been continuously engaged in the electrical contracting business. In 1987, FEC applied for and received certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE). Mr. Fabian has at all times maintained he is entitled to MBE status as a Hispanic American. Mr. Fabian was born in Tampa, Florida and lived in a Hispanic neighborhood there until he was six years old. During the time he resided in Tampa, Mr. Fabian's neighbors, family, and friends used Spanish as their predominant language. The family culture was Cuban as was that of the area where the family resided. At age six Mr. Fabian moved from Tampa to Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Fabian later moved from Pensacola to Tallahassee mid-way through his sixth grade. School mates in Pensacola and Tallahassee called him various ethnic nicknames, all related to his Hispanic ancestry. Such names included: "Julio," "Taco," "Spic," "El Cubano," and "Cuban Wheatman." Other than an affection for Cuban food, Mr. Fabian currently has no cultural practices to tie him to his Hispanic heritage. Mr. Fabian does not speak Spanish. Mr. Fabian does not reside in a predominantly Hispanic community. Mr. Fabian does not practice the religious faith of his progenitors. Mr. Fabian does not instruct his child in any Cuban cultural practice. Mr. Fabian does not know of any Spanish cultural aspect that came to him from his family. Mr. Fabian has never been refused work because of his Hispanic heritage. Mr. Fabian's mother has no Hispanic progenitors. Mr. Fabian's father, also born in Tampa, Florida, has the following ancestors: his father (Mr. Fabian's grandfather) was born in Spain, his mother (Mr. Fabian's grandmother) was born in Key West. Mr. Fabian's grandmother, Anna Rodriguez Fabian, who Mr. Fabian spent time with in Tampa spoke Spanish and claimed Cuban heritage as both of her parents had immigrated from there to Key West. For this reason, Mr. Fabian maintains he is a Cuban from Tampa. None of Mr. Fabian's grandparents was born in Mexico, South America, Central America, or the Caribbean. He has never claimed otherwise. Sometime after FEC obtained certification as a MBE, the Department adopted what is now codified as Rule 60A-2.001(8), Florida Administrative Code. Such rule defines "origins" as used in Section 288.703(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to mean that a Hispanic American must substantiate his cultural and geographic derivations by at least one grandparent's birth. In July, 1992, when FEC submitted its recertification affidavit, the Department notified Mr. Fabian that he had failed to establish that at least one of his grandparents was born in one of the applicable geographic locations. Accordingly, Mr. Fabian was advised his request for recertification would be denied. Approximately eleven other persons have been denied minority status because they were unable to substantiate origin by the birth of a grandparent. Of those eleven, none had been previously certified. FEC is the only formerly certified MBE which has been denied recertification because of the rule. However, when FEC was granted certification in 1987 it was not based upon the Department's agreement that Mr. Fabian met the statutory definition of a Hispanic American. Such certification was issued in settlement to the preliminary denial of certification since the word "origins," as used in the statute, had not as yet been defined by rule. Additionally, the recertification of FEC was based upon Department error and not an agreement that Mr. Fabian met the "origins" test. Finally, in 1991, the Department cured the rule deficiencies to create parallel requirements for certification and recertification for MBE status. When FEC submitted its recertification affidavit under the current rule, the request was denied. Mr. Fabian has been aware of the Department's position regarding his requests for recertification from the outset; i.e. since 1987. The Department promulgated the "origins" rule in response to a number of applications for MBE status from persons with distant relations or ancestors within the minority classifications. The necessity for an "origins" rule was demonstrated since the Department needed a clear standard, which staff and the public could recognize as the dividing line for who would and would not qualify as a Hispanic American, and since the purpose of the program is to provide preferences in contracting to businesses run by individuals who have been disadvantaged. In deciding to use the grandparent test, the Department looked to outside sources. Since there was no legislative history resolving the "origins" issue, the Department sought guidance from dictionary definitions and statutory uses in other contexts. In promulgating the rule, the Department gave notice to outside sources, including groups listed in the publication Doing Business in Florida, such as the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Commerce, small business development centers, community development corporations, local minority business certification offices, and the Minority Business Advocate's office. At the public hearing conducted for the purpose of receiving input regarding the grandparent test, no one offered opposition to the "origins" definition. Mr. Fabian is not a black American as defined in Section 288.703(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and agreements of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The costs and attorney fees sought by BTST in the amount of $2,344, are adequately substantiated and constitute reasonable costs and attorney fees for the representation of BTST in DOAH Case No. 88-3885. DOAH Case No. 88-3885 resulted in a Final Order granting recertification as a minority business enterprise to BTST. Therefore, BTST was a prevailing party in that case. The underlying agency action that resulted in DOAH Case No. 88-3885, was a Department letter of July 18, 1988, to BTST which notified BTST that its application for recertification was denied, stated the reasons for denial, and advised BTST of its right to request a hearing if it was dissatisfied with the Department's decision. The Department's letter of July 18, 1988, "initiated" the subsequent formal administrative proceedings. Business Telephone systems of Tallahassee, Inc., is a "small business party." The Department of General Services has the responsibility to certify and recertify minority business enterprises. The Department has developed a procedure which is followed by the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office in processing applications for certification and recertification. Upon receipt of an application, the entire business file is assigned by the supervisor of certification activities to an eligibility examiner, frequently referred to as a "reviewer." The reviewer conducts a desk audit and review, searches the Division of Corporation records, and by letter requests any items omitted from the application. The applicant then has 30 days in which to respond by sending the requested information to the Minority Business Enterprise Assistant Office. After receipt of requested additional information, the reviewer schedules an on-site interview with applicants whose eligibility for MBE status cannot be determined immediately. After the on-site review, the reviewer listens to the tape recording of the interview and completes the on- site review questionnaire form. At this point, all documents and on-site interview responses are reviewed by the eligibility examiner for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to grant or deny certification or recertification. The supervisor of certification activities reviews the recommendation and all materials related to the business for the purpose of either concurring or questioning the recommendation. The file is then referred to the coordinator of the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office for independent review. If the recommendation is for denial of MBE certification or recertification, the file is forwarded to the Office of the General Counsel for review of all documents, information, recommendations and findings by a staff attorney. By memorandum to the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office, the staff attorney will either concur in the recommendation or raise legal questions. In the case of concurrence, a letter of denial is prepared. Legal questions about the potential denial are generally resolved by discussion with all involved staff persons. BTST, a company principally engaged in sales, installation, and service of telephone systems and equipment, filed an application for recertification as a Minority Business Enterprise on April 13, 1988. The application was assigned to Stephen Johnson, an eligibility examiner of the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office. The initial recommendation to deny recertification of Petitioner was made by Stephen Johnson. Stephen Johnson received training by the Department in minority business enterprise certification and recertification review during his tenure at DGS. As the first step in the review process, Stephen Johnson, the eligibility examiner, performed a desk audit of the application, noting changes in ownership, management, daily operations, and domicile of the company. He also conducted a document search of State of Florida corporate records which revealed different corporate ownership than that which BTST stated in the application and different composition of the Board of Directors of three non- minority members and two minority members. Upon request of the eligibility examiner, additional documents were submitted by BTST. These documents named Mr. William Nuce as president and treasurer of BTST, listed a Board of Directors composed of one minority person and three non-minority persons, and included a BTST lease agreement signed by William Nuce as President of BTST and attested by Nancy Nuce, Secretary of BTST. An amendment to the lease dated May 4, 1988, was signed in the same manner. Upon review by the eligibility examiner and his supervisor of the information submitted by BTST, changes in the business raised the question of whether a minority person controlled the management and operations of the business. The application for recertification revealed that two of the three women owners of BTST "no longer performed any duties for the company." The minority owner who left the company possessed significant technical knowledge about the telephone systems business which in previous certifications of BTST had been a dispositive factor in the determination. William Nuce had not been working full-time for the company until January 1988. Until that time, the company had been run by three women, one being an out-of-state resident. With the concurrence of his supervisor, the eligibility examiner scheduled an on-site visit to BTST for the purpose of acquiring a new description of how the business operated and to establish whether the applicant owner was eligible for MBE certification. The on-site interview was tape recorded During the on-site review, Mrs. Nuce, the minority owner of BTST, made statements which were considered significant by DGS minority certification reviewers. Mrs. Nuce explained decision-making by her husband William Nuce and herself at BTST as "It is really a partnership." In response to the question, "Is anyone considered a supervisory person?", Mrs. Nuce stated, "Well, I guess Bill would be." Then she was asked, "Is he the installer supervisor?" and Nancy Nuce replied, "Yeah, I would say so." Continuing the on-site interview, in response to the question, "[W]ho employed Don?" Mrs. Nuce replied, "We both went to Jacksonville to where Don lived and interviewed Don in Jacksonville and we discussed it on the way back and when we got back Bill called him and offered him the job." She also said that William Nuce had invested "almost twice" as much as she had in the business. The occupational license issued by the City of Tallahassee was in the name of William Nuce. Concerning a truck which was the only large piece of equipment of the business, Mrs. Nuce said, "Bill signed the guarantee on it." Mrs. Nuce had never received a salary from BTST. During the on-site review, Mrs. Nuce confirmed the composition of the Board of Directors as having four members, one minority person and three non-minority persons. After this on-site interview, the eligibility examiner came back to his office, listened to the interview tapes, and reviewed his notes. He came to the conclusion that the minority owner of BTST did not have the capability, knowledge, and experience required to make the critical decisions in that the company heavily relied on Mr. Nuce's 20 years of experience in the installation and servicing of telephone systems, rather than Mrs. Nuce's limited prior experience and training in the bookkeeping area. The eligibility examiner further relied, as a basis for denial, on the fact that the Board of Directors at the time of the decision to deny recertification were Nancy' Nuce; William Nuce, a non-minority person; Peggy Ingram, a non-Florida resident (and therefore a non-minority person); and Don Ingram, a non-minority person. The corporate bylaws indicated that a majority of the directors legally controlled the management of the company. Since Mrs. Nuce was the only director who was a minority, the eligibility examiner concluded that, pursuant to the statutes, Mrs. Nuce did not have the legal authority to control the corporate Board of Directors and, therefore, the business of thee corporation.. After consultation and review of the BTST file, Stephen Johnson and Marsha Nims, the Labor Employment and Training Manager of the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office, reached the tentative decision to deny the recertification application of BTST. At the time of the decision to deny recertification of BTST, Ms. Nims was the Labor Employment and Training Manager in the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office and the supervisor of Stephen Johnson, the eligibility examiner. She had been with DGS since March of 1986. Her duties included supervision of the professional staff who conducted eligibility reviews of applications, assistance in eligibility determinations, advising the coordinator, supervision of staff involved in retention of records, preparation of documents, and preparation of the monthly MBE Directory. In evaluating the application for recertification of BTST, Marsha Nims reviewed the application and supporting documentation, the Desk Review and Audit by Stephen Johnson, the additional documents obtained by Stephen Johnson from Business Telephone Systems of Tallahassee, Inc., the Bylaws of BTST, the memo from Stephen Johnson to Marsha Nims, the reviewer's case management log, the on- site review questionnaire form and comments completed by Stephen Johnson, the denial recommendation drafted by Stephen Johnson, and the file of BTST on which previous certification had been based. Marsha Nims relied upon the information about BTST complied by the eligibility examiner. She had no reason to doubt the credibility of Stephen Johnson, the eligibility examiner. At the time of the decision to deny recertification to BTST, Marsha Nims was familiar with the Florida Statutes which governed certification and recertification of minority business enterprises as well as Chapter 13-8, Florida Administrative Code, which the Department promulgated to implement the statutes. Marsha Nims was familiar with the relevant Final Orders of the Department of General Services and the related Recommended Orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings. She concluded that the corporate structure analysis and the determination of lack of control over the management and daily business operations was consistent with the legal conclusions established in prior Department Final Orders denying certification. Following review by Ms. Nims, the entire BTST file described in Finding of Fact Number 15 was referred to Carolyn Wilson-Newton, the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Officer Coordinator. Mrs. Wilson-Newton was the person charged with making the final decision to grant or deny certification and recertification to applicants. At the time of the decision to deny recertification, Mrs. Wilson- Newton was familiar with the Florida Statutes which govern certification and recertification of minority business enterprises, Chapter 13-8, Florida Administrative Code, and the relevant Final Orders of the Department of General Services and Recommended Orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Carolyn Wilson-Newton concurred with the recommendations of Stephen Johnson and Marsha Nims to deny recertification as set forth in the denial recommendation prepared by Stephen Johnson, and made the decision to deny minority business enterprise recertification. The proposed denial was approved by Sandra Allen, an attorney in the General Counsel's Office with previous experience in review of minority business enterprise decisions. The denial letter was mailed to the applicant on July 18, 1988. Although BTST prevailed in Case No. 88-3885, it is important to note that some of the evidence presented at the formal hearing in that case was substantially different from the information furnished to DGS prior to the July 18, 1988, denial letter. Some of the differences resulted from new developments (such as eleventh-hour stock purchases and changes in the corporate provisions regarding directors). Other differences resulted from more careful and precise descriptions than had been furnished earlier. Four competent, experienced MBE certification reviewers for DGS concluded that the information in the possession of the Department at the time of the decision to deny recertification of BTST was sufficient to warrant denial of recertification of the Petitioner. The denial of recertification had a reasonable basis in fact at the time of the decision. This is especially true when note is taken of the fact that BTST's corporate provisions regarding directors at the time of the decision were essentially the same as corporate provisions which had been the basis for denial of certification in other Department final orders.
The Issue The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Reguest for Statement of Qualification for Petroleum Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. Attachment F to the solicitation sought information related to utilization of minority business enterprises as subcontractors. Points were available for said utilization. The Department awarded zero points to parties which failed to include the three pages of the attachment in the responses to the solicitation. The issue in this case is whether the Department acted in accordance with law in awarding zero points for failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F.
Findings Of Fact On March 1, 1991, The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSOQ) for Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. As stated in the RFSOQ, the DER's objective is to enter into approximately ten contracts for petroleum cleanup services with contractors most qualified to perform the services. It is in the best interests of the state and the DER to enter into such contracts with the most qualified contractors available. Selected firms will be placed under contract with the DER to respond to task assignments. There is no work guaranteed to any contractor as a result of being selected and placed under contract. The cover sheet to the DER Solicitation #9111C identifies Attachment B as "General Instructions", Attachment C as "Instructions for Preparation of an SOQ", Attachment F as "Minority Business Certificate" and Attachment N as an "SOQ Checklist." In the RFSOQ, the DER specifically reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. The general instructions set forth at Attachment B provide, that the DER "may waive minor informalities or irregularities in the SOQs received where such are merely a matter of form and not substance, and the corrections of which are not prejudicial to other contractors." The DER is not required to waive all minor irregularities. The ability to waive such defects is within the jurisdiction of the agency. The evidence establishes that the DER applied such discretion consistently. There is no evidence that, at any time prior to the SOQ opening, did the Petitioner or Intervenors seek additional information from the DER regarding the agency's discretion to waive minor irregularities. Attachment C provides that "ANY AND ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY A CONTRACTOR IN VARIANCE WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE REVIEWED OR EVALUATED (e.g. pages beyond the 20-page SOQ limit will not be reviewed) or may result in the response being deemed non-responsive and rejected as noted." The purpose of the statement was to discourage responders from submitting information beyond that required by the RFSOQ, in order to provide a common basis for the evaluation of all SOQs submitted. The provision also provided the DER with the ability to reject an SOQ which failed to substantially comply with the agency's solicitation. Attachment C states that an SOQ shall consist of three parts, a one- page transmittal letter, a 20-page SOQ, and "other required information". According to Attachment C, the SOQ was to contain an introduction, a section on the company's background, a statement of experience and knowledge related to the qualifications required by the RFSOQ, a description of project organization and management appropriate to the tasks assigned, a list of personnel responsible for completion of assigned task, a list of "a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the FDER" and related information. Work performed for the DER was to be set forth separately in addition to the ten non-DER clients. "Other required information" included minority business utilization information. Attachment C provides as follows: Contractors submitting SOQs under this solicitation must identify intended minority subcontractors and estimated percentage of total contract amount to be awarded to minority firms on Attachment F of this Request for Statement of Qualifications. Use of any document other that Attachment F shall result in disallowance of any credit for use of minority subcontractors. (emphasis supplied.) Evaluation points were available on a scaled basis to contractors based upon their commitment to utilization of minority businesses enterprises in their SOQs. Attachment B provides that "Minority Business Utilization will be evaluated. provided that the responder complies with the reporting requirements contained in Attachment F...." (emphasis supplied.) Attachment F, page 1 of 3, provides as follows: Directions: Each contractor and/or subcontractor which meets the definition of a certified small minority business, as described below, shall submit an originally signed copy of page 1 of this Attachment in the response package to this solicitation. If more than one minority business is to be used, the prime contractor shall copy this page and have each minority business complete that copy as though it were an original. A prime contractor which intends to utilize subcontractors meeting the definition of small minority business is responsible for completing page 2 of this Attachment. A prime contractor which meets the definition of a small minority business is responsible for completing page 3 of this Attachment. If a particular page of this Attachment is not applicable, the prime contractor shall so indicate on that page and include the page as part of the response package. At a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit-- this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization. (emphasis supplied.) Attachment N, the "SOQ checklist," provides a list of items which are to be "properly completed, signed and enclosed" in order to "ensure that your SOQ is responsive to FDER Solicitation No. 9111C...." Item 3.b. of Attachment N reads: "Minority Business Utilization Form - if applicable (Attachment F)". As stated in Attachment B to the RFSOQ, on March 13, 1991, a mandatory pre-bid meeting was held in Tallahassee, Florida, at the DER's offices for all contractors wishing to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ). Failure to attend the meeting would have resulted in rejection of SOQs submitted by non- attending contractors. The Petitioner and Intervenors were represented at the pre-bid meeting. The meeting provided an opportunity during the solicitation process to have technical, legal or administrative questions answered. Accordingly, potential responders are expected to have read the complete RFSOQ prior to the meeting. At the pre-bid meeting, the DER did not review every part of the solicitation, but invited questions from participants. The DER official conducting the meeting stated that "any and all information submitted by a contractor in variance with these instructions will not be reviewed or evaluated," however, the other directions provided in the RFSOQ were otherwise reviewed only upon request. Although there was a specific discussion of the requirements for reporting proposed minority business utilization, there were no questions asked with regard to the requirements for completion of Attachment F. There were no questions asked regarding the DER's right to waive irregularities, or whether the failure to submit Attachment F in accordance with the directions would be regarded by the agency as a minor irregularity. Potential responders also had an opportunity to submit written questions prior to a time certain. There is no evidence that questions were raised related to the requirements of Attachment F or to the DER's application of it's discretionary authority to waive minor irregularities. On March 22, 1991, the DER issued an addendum, not material to this case, to the Request for SOQs. The addendum was sent by certified mail to each contractor represented at the March 13, 1991 meeting. On March 27, 1991, a second addendum was sent to each contractor. The addendum, among other things, changed the date for submission of an SOQ from April 1, 1991 to April 15, 1991 at 2:00 P.M. On April 15, 1991, SOQs were submitted by the Petitioner and Intervenors in this case. The bids were opened at 2:00 P.M. or shortly thereafter, and subsequently evaluated and scored by DER personnel. In some categories, points were awarded on a weighted basis, which provided a relative ranking of responders. For example, the prime contractor with the highest minority business enterprise subcontractor utilization received 13 points, with lesser ranked contractors receiving fewer points. On June 3, 1991, at 10:05 A.M. bid tabulation results were posted in the DER's contract office. The Petitioner and Intervenors in this case submitted responsive SOQ's to DER solicitation #9111C. The result of the DER's evaluation was the development of a short list of contractors permitted to make oral presentations to agency officials after which the DER will initiate contract discussions with approximately ten contractors. The SOQs were reviewed by DER officials who initially identified information submitted which did not comply with the requirements of the RFSOQ. Irregularities were identified and discussed with DER legal counsel to determine the materiality of the irregularity and to ascertain the appropriate treatment of the defects. The DER officials did not disclose the identity of the responder during the discussions, although the person identifying the defect was aware of the related responder. However, there is no evidence that the three DER officials were aware of an individual non-complying contractor's identity, or that the decision to waive such irregularities was based upon the identity of the participants. The DER determined that, in order to be equitable to all participants, it would not waive irregularities where the directions were clear and the consequences for noncompliance were specifically set forth. If the solicitation were less clear, or the consequence of noncompliance with the requirement was not specifically identified, the Department attempted to be more lenient regarding the waiver of such irregularities. Where the DER waived irregularities, such waivers were awarded on a consistent basis without regard to the individual responders involved. Information which was not to be reviewed or evaluated was concealed by either covering the information with white paper, or stapling excess pages together. The DER waived several types of minor irregularities in the SOQs received for Solicitation #9111C. Some contractors submitted transmittal letters consisting of multiple pages rather than the one page letter specified in the RFSOQ. The transmittal letter received no evaluation points. The DER stapled multiple page letters together and considered only information contained on the first page. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the one- page limit was not reviewed or evaluated. The DER did not waive the failure to attach a transmittal letter. DER waived some irregularities related to subcontractor letters. Multiple page letters were stapled together and only page one information was reviewed. The DER decision to waive such defects was based upon the fact that such subcontractors were less familiar with the DER's submission requirements than were the prime contractors, that such letters were submitted by the subcontractors, that it was unfair to penalize the prime contractors for the minor irregularities of the subcontractor letters, and that the tasks to be performed by subcontractors were generally not critical to the successful completion of the prime contractor's assigned responsibilities. There was sufficient information to permit the DER to conclude that the subcontractor and prime contractor were committed to the project. There is no evidence that the identities of the subcontractors was considered in determining whether such defects should be waived. The DER waived other irregularities related to subcontractor letters, including the failure of a subcontractor to sign the letter. There was no specific requirement that the subcontractor sign the letter. However, the DER did not waive the failure to submit subcontractor letters. In instances where no letters were submitted, the DER awarded zero points and references to the subcontractor in the SOQ were deleted. The DER's actions related to subcontractor letters was reasonable and appropriate. Another irregularity waived by the DER was the failure to supply a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the DER, with work performed for the DER set forth separately. The DER did not waive the failure to submit ten references, however, in some cases, not all ten references were acceptable. Attachment C does not state that the failure to submit ten acceptable references shall result in an award of zero points. In such instances, the DER reduced the number of points available to reflect the percentage of acceptable references provided. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the requirements, such as unacceptable references, was not evaluated. The DER acted reasonably and consistently with the provisions set forth in the RFSOQ. The DER requested that responders identify three "deliverables" required through an ongoing contract which had been effective within the past year. The DER did not consider deliverables related to contracts which had not been effective within the past year. The DER checked the references and awarded no points for unacceptable references. Several SOQ's did not appropriately identify key personnel as required. The DER did not consider information which was not reported as required by the RFSOQ. Where minor irregularities were waived, the waiver was applied consistently to all responders. The DER did not waive the failure of any responder to submit the three pages of Attachment F, as clearly required by the directions to the attachment. All parties which failed to submit all three pages of the attachment received a score of zero. There is no evidence that the DER, at any time, indicated that the directions set forth on Attachment F were optional. Approximately 20 of 45 of contractors submitting SOQs failed to include all three pages of the MBE utilization form, Attachment F to the Request for SOQs. Most failed to include page three of the attachment. The Petitioner, as well as Intervenors ERM-South, ITC and Westinghouse, were included in the 20 responders which failed to submit all three pages of Attachment F. As provided in the directions to Attachment F, failure to include all three pages of the attachment resulted in a score of zero points for MBE utilization. The DER could have made certain assumptions about the applicability of Attachment F to specific responders to the solicitation. However, given that the directions were clear and the penalty for not complying with the directions was equally clear, the DER did not waive the failure to submit all three pages of the attachment as part of the SOQs. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the DER's action was outside the agency's discretion or the requirements of law. Extensive testimony was offered in support of the assertion that the directions related to reporting of minority business utilization were confusing and ambiguous. However, the directions to Attachment F are clear and provide that, "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." There is no credible evidence to establish that such directions are confusing or ambiguous. The instructions to the RFSOQ consistently refer to Attachment F as being the only acceptable means of reporting minority business utilization information. Attachment F consists of three pages, with the "Directions" for completing and submitting the attachment set forth at page one, paragraph one. The Petitioner and Intervenors timely filed SOQ's and are substantially affected by the DER's determination that responders failing to submit all three pages of Attachment F were awarded zero points for minority business utilization. There is no evidence that the Petitioner or Intervenors are unable to perform the tasks identified in the RFSOQ.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (Case No. 91-4318B1D), as well as Cases No. 91- 43I6BID and 91-4317B1D, as set forth in the preliminary statement to this Recommended Order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-4316B1D, 90-4317B1D, and 90-4318B1D The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected as to the implication that DER had no right to waive minor irregularities, contrary to the evidence. 12, 16, 19. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected. Such additional points appear to have been awarded to M&E in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 24-25. Rejected. Although the specific waivers are factually correct, the implication of the proposed finding is contrary to the weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER waives such irregularities, even though the instructions were clear, where the consequences for failing to comply with each specific instruction were unclear. There was no penalty set forth at the requirement that a document be signed or not exceed one page in length. The evidence establishes that the DER's actions were reasonable, logical, and within the authority of the agency. 29-32. Rejected. Contrary to the clear "Directions" of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." Responders were referred to Attachment F by the instructions cited in the proposed finding. 33-34, 36-38, Rejected, irrelevant. 39. Rejected, immaterial. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by M&E and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40-41 Rejected. A logical reading of the checklist reference to Attachment F would be that, if the attachment were applicable, the attachment should be included. The clear and specific directions to Attachment F require the submission of the three page package to receive points. 42-43. Rejected, irrelevant. 44. Rejected. The failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F resulted in zero points, as provided in the directions to the attachment. The DER policy related to waiver of irregularities does not include the waiver of irregularities where the instructions are clear, the penalty for noncompliance is specific, and a responder fails to comply. The policy is reasonable and was applied consistently. 47. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. It appears that M&E's assertion that it would be included in the "short list" requires addition of points awarded by the DER in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 49-50. Rejected. While "instructions in a competitive bidding solicitation can be rendered ambiguous by their location," in this case, the instructions contained in the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. Attachment F's directions are not ambiguous or confusing. 51-53. Rejected, immaterial. This proposed finding is also contrary to the suggestion that the instructions were unclear, and indicates, not that the instructions were unclear, but that the M&E representative did not read the RFSOQ. It is not possible to find that a careful and intelligent reader of the directions to Attachment F could misunderstand the meaning of "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 54-61. Rejected, immaterial. The fact that a substantial number of responders failed to comply with the clear directions of Attachment F does not establish that the directions are confusing. The instructions to the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. The first paragraph of Attachment F is entitled and contains "Directions" which are clearly set forth. There is nothing at all ambiguous about the requirement that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 62-65. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no requirement that the DER waive all irregularities. Such irregularities may be waived at the Department's discretion. The DER chose not to waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for failure to comply with said requirements, were clear. The DER applied this policy appropriately and consistently. There was no appearance of favoritism when the agency's policy is fairly and consistently applied. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER expects potential responders to have read the RFSOQ prior to the pre-bid meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to answer questions and provide clarifying information. The fact that no questions were asked regarding the requirement to submit all three pages of Attachment F indicates that participants either clearly understood the requirement or had not read the RFSOQ prior to the only mandatory opportunity to obtain clarification. In any event, the DER is not obligated to read every sentence of the RFSOQ aloud at a pre-bid meeting in order to make certain that responders who fail to read the document will submit responsive SOQs. Rejected, cumulative. 68-69. Rejected, immaterial, unnecessary. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 23. Rejected as to the implication that Attachment C, Page 1, indicated the DER could not waive any irregularities. Cited language states that information submitted in variance with instructions would not be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence establishes that information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated, but was disregarded. 28. Rejected. It is not clear what is meant by this proposed finding. 37-39. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. 41. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. 42-43. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible, especially given M&E/PIECO's correct submission in response to similar requirements of RFSOQ #9003C. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. The fact that the cited witness understood the directive and failed to comply due to oversight does not suggest that the directive was unclear. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. The reason for the cited witnesses failure to comply is unclear. Rejected, cumulative. 48. Rejected, unnecessary. 50-51. Rejected, immaterial. The issue in this case is not whether to goals of the minority business utilization program are met, but whether the DER acted inappropriately in reviewing SOQs submitted in response to the DER RFSOQ #9111C. 52-53. Rejected, unnecessary. 54-56. Rejected, unnecessary, cumulative. Intervenor ERM-South The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, cumulative. 14-19. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. 21. Last sentence rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER applied the language of the RFSOQ in a reasonable way, and that material information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated. 32-39, 41. Rejected, immaterial. The issue is whether the failure to follow the clear directions of Attachment F should result, as the directions provide, in zero points being awarded. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by ERM-South and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. There is no evidence that the omission of Attachment F, page three, is the sole basis for exclusion of a contractor from the short list. The short list was determined by ranking scores awarded. As stated in the directions to Attachment F, the result of noncompliance with said directions was an award of zero points for minority business utilization. 42-46. Rejected, cumulative, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER's action in reviewing the submitted Attachment F was reasonable, logical, and was applied in a consistent manner. As to whether the DER should have contacted other agencies to determine MBE status, the agency is under no obligation to do so. 47-49. Rejected, contrary to the clear directions of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." It is simply not possible to find, as suggested in the proposed finding, that such language cannot be relied upon to put contractors on notice that the failure to submit the three pages would result in zero points. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. Rejected, irrelevant. 52-54. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. 55-57. Rejected, irrelevant. 59-64. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. Intervenor ITC The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Proposed findings of fact #7, #10 and #14-16 relate to evidence introduced at hearing by ITC to support it's position that it had been excluded from the "short list" due to DER's clerical error. As stated in the preliminary statement, ITC failed to timely file a notice of protest subsequent to the posting of the bid tabulation results challenging the DER's clerical error. Accordingly, this Recommended Order does not set forth Findings of Fact related to the clerical error due to ITC's failure to timely file a written notice of protest as required by Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes. 12. Rejected. The M&E formal written protest does not allege that the DER had improperly drawn the line for the "short list." 18-20. Rejected. Although likely correct, the proposed findings are irrelevant to the issue in this case. Rejected. Such additional points awarded to M&E by the DER appear to have been awarded contrary to Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. Rejected, cumulative. ITC had an opportunity to timely file a written notice of protest subsequent to the bid tabulation posting, but failed to do so. An intervenor takes the case as it is found. Rejected, cumulative. 25. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The evidence does not establish that the failure to complete all of Attachment F was based on it's inapplicability. Attachment F clearly states that inapplicable pages should be so marked and submitted with the response package. If such pages were not returned, as suggested, because there did not apply, then it is reasonable to conclude that the responder failed to read the clearly stated directions to Attachment F. 26-29. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER did nothing more than apply the clearly stated direction that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package" and imposed the clearly stated penalty, stating that "[f]ailure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 32-33. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence that the DER did not waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for noncompliance with said requirements, were clearly stated. The DER did waive other irregularities where the instructions were ambiguous or confusing, or where there was not a specific penalty attached for the failure to follow a specific requirement. The evidence establishes that the DER actions were appropriate. 34. Rejected, immaterial. All three pages of Attachment F were clearly required to be submitted or a score of zero would be awarded. Intervenor E&E The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-3. Rejected, cumulative. 12. Rejected, contrary to the cited evidence. Although Attachment F was discussed in terms of reporting requirements, there were no questions asked related to the directions for completing or submitting the attachment. 21. Rejected, cumulative. Intervenors EBASCO, ABB, OHM, Cherokee and Westinghouse jointly filed a proposed recommended order. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 13, 16-17, 43-45, 47. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esq. Carlos Alvarez, Esq. 123 S. Calhoun Street Post Office Drawer 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 M. Christopher Bryant, Esq. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George N. Meros, Esq. 101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barrett G. Johnson, Esq. 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rex D. Ware, Esq. 106 East College Avenue Highpoint Center, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Robert Venzina, III, Esq. Mary M. Piccard, Esq. 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0589 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esq. Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
