The Issue Whether Petitioners received salary overpayments from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners Ileana Toledo, Norma Pedraza, and Lil Guerrero have been career service employees of Respondent. The Department of Management Services (“DMS”) has a classification and pay system that is used by Respondent, and DMS is responsible for designating employment positions within Respondent. A position is either included for overtime pay or excluded from overtime pay. At issue is whether Petitioners erroneously received monetary compensation for overtime hours worked after their position was reclassified from an included career service position to an excluded career service position. Prior to March 28, 2013, Petitioners held the position of Human Services Counselor III, which was designated by DMS as an included career service position. On March 26, 2013, Respondent proposed to reclassify Petitioners’ position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, which is designated by DMS as an excluded career service position. The proposed reclassification resulted from a reorganization of Respondent’s regional offices, and an effort by Respondent to standardize its functions, services, and types of positions in its regional offices. In a letter dated March 26, 2013, Petitioners were advised by Respondent’s Human Resources Director, Dale Sullivan, that if they accepted an offer to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, their “current status and salary will remain unchanged.” Notably, the March 26, 2013, letter makes no specific mention of overtime. On March 28, 2013, Petitioners accepted Respondent’s offer of employment to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst. Typically, employees of Respondent who are appointed to new positions are placed in probationary status, as opposed to permanent status, and are required to review and execute new position descriptions. However, the reclassification of Petitioners’ position by Respondent was not typical. As part of the reclassification of Petitioners’ position to Human Service Program Analyst, Respondent provided Petitioners with a new position description. However, Petitioners’ job duties, salaries, and permanent status remained the same as they had been in their prior position of Human Services Counselor III. Petitioners read and acknowledged their receipt of the new position description on March 28, 2013. On the first page of the position description, there is a heading titled “Position Attributes”. Under this heading, the term “Overtime” is shown, followed by two boxes, “Yes” and “No.” The “No” box is marked, indicating that Petitioners are not eligible to work overtime hours. The position description further indicates that Petitioners would be career service employees. However, the position description does not specifically include the terms included or excluded. Prior to the reclassification, Petitioners were paid bi-weekly based on an 80-hour pay period. If they worked more than 80 hours in a pay period, they received additional monetary compensation for their overtime hours. Payment for Petitioners’ regular and overtime work hours was based on employee timesheets submitted to the People First leave and payroll system. After the reclassification of their position, Petitioners continued to work overtime in excess of their bi-weekly contractual hours, despite the prohibition in the position description. Petitioners were required to obtain approval by their supervisors before being allowed to work overtime. Petitioners’ overtime was approved by their supervisors after the reclassification despite the prohibition on working overtime hours as indicated in the position description. During the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-June 23, 2013, Petitioner Ileana Toledo worked a total of 28 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $464.63 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Norma Pedraza worked a total of 32.25 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $624.14 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Lil Guerrero worked a total of 25.50 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $426.65 from Respondent for these overtime hours. Respondent’s payment of monetary compensation to Petitioners for the overtime hours worked after the reclassification of their position to Human Service Program Analyst occurred due to an administrative coding error, thereby resulting in the overpayment of monetary compensation to Petitioners by Respondent in the amounts the Respondent seeks to recover from Petitioners. The administrative coding error occurred because of Respondent’s failure to note the change from included to excluded on the People First system following the reclassification of Petitioners’ position. The error occurred due to an honest mistake, and resulted in the overpayments at issue. Petitioners should not have received monetary compensation for their overtime hours in the Human Service Program Analyst position because a Human Service Program Analyst position is an excluded career service position. An excluded career service employee must earn and receive regular compensation leave credits for overtime work, but cannot receive monetary compensation for overtime work. On the other hand, included career service employees, such as those persons in Petitioners’ previous position of Human Services Counselor III, must receive monetary compensation for overtime hours worked, rather than regular compensatory leave credits. Neither Petitioners nor their supervisors were aware at the time that the overpayments were made that Petitioners could not receive monetary compensation for their overtime hours, but must instead receive regular compensatory leave credits. At hearing, Petitioners did not dispute the amounts and hours of overtime worked as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. In accordance with the Department of Management Services’ Bureau of Payroll Manual, the amount of salary overpaid, and the amount sought to be repaid, was calculated as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. When an agency has determined that a salary overpayment has occurred, it is required to follow procedures set forth in the above-referenced manual, to seek repayment. Respondent followed those procedures in making the calculations relevant in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities determining that: 1) Petitioner Ileana Toledo was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $464.63; 2) Petitioner Norma Pedraza was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $624.13; 3) Petitioner Lil Guerrero was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $426.65; and 4) Petitioners are entitled to be compensated by Respondent through compensatory leave credits for the overtime hours worked as reflected in paragraphs 12-14 above. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2013.
The Issue The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether the Department’s intended award of state term contracts for information technology staff augmentation services was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for procuring state term contracts. See §§ 287.012(28), 287.042(2)(a), 287.056-057, Fla. Stat. A “state term contract” is a term contract that is competitively procured by the Department. § 287.012(28), Fla. Stat. A “term contract” means an indefinite quantity contract to furnish commodities or contractual services during a defined period. § 287.012(29), Fla. Stat. The Department initiated this competitive procurement to establish a state term contract for information technology (“IT”) staff augmentation services. The procurement’s objective is to enable state agencies and other eligible users (“Customers”) to supplement their IT staff. The solicitation at the center of these protests is Request for Proposals for Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services – 3rd Bid, RFP 15- 80101507-SA-D (the “RFP”). The RFP is intended to replace an existing state term contract for IT staff augmentation services. The current contract has an estimated annual spending volume of approximately $66,800,000. As described in the RFP, the Department intends to award up to approximately 200 vendors with the ability to provide (temporary) IT staff services per specific position. Thereafter, a Customer who desires IT staff assistance will issue a Request for Quote, which is available for review by all vendors awarded with the state term contract (the “Contractors”). A Contractor who desires to fulfill the request responds to the Customer’s Request for Quote agreeing to provide IT staff who possess the technical skills needed. A Request for Quote also allows Customers to obtain pricing and service information from interested Contractors. See § 287.056(2), Fla. Stat. If selected, the Contractor will then charge the Customer for the assigned personnel on an hourly basis.6/ In other words, the Department will competitively procure IT staffing services from multiple vendors/Contractors. A vendor who is awarded a contract under the RFP is not given an actual IT job, but rather is included on a list of Contractors as a potential source to fill an IT position in the future. Thereafter, Customers may obtain IT staff assistance, through a Request for Quote, without having to conduct a separate, independent solicitation. The Department issued the RFP on February 5, 2019.7/ On February 11, 2019, the Department posted Addendum No. 1 to the RFP. Addendum No. 1 notified vendors that the RFP was a “new solicitation,” and that the previous solicitation had been cancelled and rebid. The Department subsequently posted Addendum No. 2 to the RFP revising and clarifying the bid specifications. The Department posted Addendum No. 3 to the RFP on May 20, 2019.8/ Addendum No. 3 instructed vendors that all proposals were due by March 19, 2019. On or before March 19, 2019, the Department received proposals from 378 vendors,9/ including ArnAmy and Seva. Under the RFP’s evaluation methodology, vendors’ proposals were scored in four Evaluation Criteria, as follows: Evaluation Criteria Maximum Possible Points IT Experience Certification (Attachment B) 100 Staffing Resource Management Plan 300 IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience 200 Price (Attachment C) 400 per Job Title Total Score Possible Per Job Title 1000 Regarding the IT Experience Certification criteria, vendors submitted information on an IT Experience Certification Form which was included in the RFP. The form was scored based on the number of years the vendor had been in the IT business. The Procurement Officer identified in the RFP, Joel Atkinson, scored this criteria. (Both ArnAmy and Seva received the maximum 100 points in this category.) Regarding the Staffing Resource Management Plan (the “Management Plan”) and the IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience (“IT Staff Contract Experience”) categories, the Department appointed three individuals (the “Evaluators”) to independently score these sections of each proposal. (The three Evaluators are referred to as the “Scoring Team”.) The Scoring Team consisted of Stephanie Reaves, Denise Roberts, and Heather Shoup. For the Management Plans, the Evaluators were to assign point values based on whether the vendors demonstrated “exceptional ability” (300 points); “intermediate ability” (200 points); “minimal ability” (100 points); or “fails to demonstrate ability” (0 points). For the IT Staff Contract Experience category, the Evaluators were to assess a point value based on whether the vendor demonstrated “extensive” experience (200 points); “intermediate” experience (150 points); “minimal” experience (100 points); or “fails to demonstrate experience” (0 points). Regarding the Price criteria, each vendor was required to complete a price sheet wherein the vendor quoted an hourly rate for each specific IT staff service for which the vendor desired to contract. The price sheet divided each staff service into “Job Families.” Within each Job Family, the RFP listed multiple “Job Titles.” The RFP included a total of 130 different Job Titles for which vendors could submit proposals. In addition, the price sheet further divided the majority of Job Titles into “Scope Variants,” which are degrees of experience within an individual Job Title (typically up to three Scope Variants per Job Title). For example, in the Job Family of Applications Development, the Job Title of Systems Analyst was broken out into Scope Variant levels of Entry, Intermediate, and Advanced.10/ Further, the RFP attached a “Ceiling Rate” to each Scope Variant. The RFP explained that the Department would not consider or evaluate a vendor’s proposal for a particular Job Title if the hourly rate the vendor quoted was higher than the Ceiling Rate. Finally, the price per hour the vendor quoted for the Job Title was considered a “not to exceed” price. In other words, after the state term contract was awarded, when a Contractor received a Request for Quote from a Customer, the Contractor could not charge a higher hourly rate than the price listed in its proposal. However, the RFP permitted Contractors to respond with a (competitively) lower hourly rate for the IT staffing services it would agree to provide. RFP, section 5.2.4 set forth a formula to calculate the score for the prices the vendors quoted for the specific Job Titles. The Department designed the formula to establish a base line with which to compare proposals. Using the formula, the vendor with the lowest price per Job Title or Scope Variant11/ was awarded 400 points (the maximum). Thereafter, every other vendor received points for price per Job Title using the following calculation: (X) x 400 = Z (N) Where: X = lowest price of all Proposals submitted per Job Title N = Respondent's submitted total price per Job Title Z = points awarded The Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, (not the Scoring Team) calculated and assigned the points for price. The Vendors’ scores for IT Experience Certification and Price (from the Procurement Officer) were added to the Evaluators’ scores for the Management Plan and Staff Contract Experience for a total score for each proposal. Upon winning a contract, Contractors are only permitted to provide services for the specific IT positions awarded through the solicitation. As explained in RFP, Exhibit A, STATEMENT OF WORK, the Contractors agree to provide IT staffing services described in a document entitled “Job Families Descriptions.” The Contractors will be responsible for the following activities: The Contractor shall possess the professional and technical staff necessary to allocate, outsource, and manage qualified information technology staff to perform the services requested by the Customer. The Contractor shall provide Customers with staff who must have sufficient skill and experience to perform the services assigned to them. All of the information technology staff augmentation services to be furnished by the Contractor under the Contract shall meet the professional standards and quality that prevails among information technology professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout Florida under the same or similar circumstances. The Contractor shall provide, at its own expense, training necessary for keeping Contractor's staff abreast of industry advances and for maintaining proficiency in equipment and systems that are available on the commercial market. The Contractor shall be responsible for the administration and maintenance of all employment and payroll records, payroll processing, remittance of payroll and taxes, and all administrative tasks required by state and federal law associated with payment of staff. The Contractor shall, at its own expense, be responsible for adhering to the Contract background screening requirements, testing, evaluations, advertising, recruitment, and disciplinary actions of Contractor’s information technology staff. The Contractor shall maintain during the term of the Contract all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the information technology staff augmentation services. In short, the Contractors are responsible for finding, hiring, and recruiting qualified IT personnel. Thereafter, the Contractors must provide and manage their IT staff pursuant to the terms of the Request for Quote. Awards under the RFP were made by Job Title. RFP, section 5.3, explained the Basis for Award as follows: The Department intends to make multiple awards from this solicitation and anticipates awarding 200 contracts per Job Title. Contracts will be awarded to the responsible and responsive Vendors that are determined to be the most advantageous to the state based on, per Job Title, the highest total evaluation criteria scores, which includes price, IT Experience Certification, Staffing Resource Management Plan, and IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience scores. The maximum possible total score per Job Title is 1000. * * * For those Job Titles where, in determining the 200th awarded Vendor, there are multiple responsible and responsive Respondents with the same numeric score, the Department reserves the right to award more than 200 contracts per Job Title to those responsive and responsible Respondents who are tied for the 200th contract award. Awards will be made per Job Title. A vendor was not required to submit a response for every Job Title. Instead, vendors were free to bid for only those Job Titles for which they desired to provide IT Staffing services. However, if a vendor did respond to a specific Job Title, the vendor was required to provide a price per hour for every Scope Variant within that Job Title. On June 5, 2019, the Department held a public meeting during which the three Evaluators, as well as the Procurement Officer, confirmed their scores. On June 24, 2019, the Department posted its Revised Notice to the Vendor Bid System listing all vendors to whom the Department intended to award IT staffing contracts. The Department awarded contracts to the top 200 vendors (plus ties) for each of the 130 Job Titles. ArnAmy bid for all 130 Job Titles. The Department awarded ArnAmy 21 out of 130 Job Titles. In other words, ArnAmy finished in the top 200 for 21 of 130 Job Titles. Seva bid for all 130 Job Titles. The Department did not award Seva any Job Titles. In other words, Seva did not finish in the top 200 for any of the Job Titles. ARNAMY’S PROTEST: ArnAmy protests the Department’s decision to award it a state term contract for only 21 of 130 Job Titles offered through the RFP. Mr. Datta Kadam testified on behalf of ArnAmy. Mr. Kadam is the founder and chief executive officer of ArnAmy. Mr. Kadam prepared and submitted ArnAmy’s response to the RFP. Mr. Kadam initially relayed that ArnAmy was formed in 2007 as an IT consulting and software development company. He further expressed that ArnAmy has extensive experience under the current (2016) state term contract, for which it is authorized to support all 130 IT staff positions. Approximately 85-90 percent of ArnAmy’s IT consulting practice is dedicated to providing IT staff augmentation services through contracts such as the Department’s state term contract. ArnAmy also services staffing contracts for Maryland and Texas. ArnAmy (through Mr. Kadam) presented three primary arguments protesting the Department’s award. The Scoring Team Failed to Evaluate ArnAmy’s Final Management Plan: ArnAmy argues that the Scoring Team was not provided with the final version of its Management Plan. Instead, the three Evaluators scored an incomplete, preliminary draft. Mr. Kadam believes ArnAmy would have received higher scores for Job Titles had the Evaluators scored the correct version of its Management Plan. ArnAmy attributes this mistake to a possible error in the MyFloridaMarketPlace (“MarketPlace”) program that interfered with or prevented Mr. Kadam from uploading, saving, and/or submitting the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan for scoring. MarketPlace is the State of Florida online procurement system. MarketPlace served as the “web portal” for vendors to access the Department’s procurement documents, as well as a guide to assist them through the purchase process. The RFP required vendors to submit proposals through MarketPlace. The main software component of MarketPlace is a program called “Ariba,” which is a suite of programs or tools. MarketPlace (through Ariba) allowed vendors to electronically submit their responses to the RFP. A vendor may take three distinct actions within MarketPlace/Ariba: (1) upload documents; (2) save documents; and (3) submit documents to the Department. Mr. Kadam maintained that the version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan that the Evaluators scored was an “intermediate working copy” that he had saved “locally” to MarketPlace. Mr. Kadam testified that he uploaded and saved at least three versions of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to MarketPlace. He intended the Department to score the last version of the Management Plan that he saved and submitted on March 18, 2019. Mr. Kadam explained that he was not aware that the Department did not score the appropriate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan until after the Department posted its Revised Notice on July 24, 2019. Upon learning that ArnAmy was only awarded 21 Job Titles, Mr. Kadam conducted a “root cause analysis” to determine the reason. He initially reviewed the scores of several other proposals “to obtain a baseline of comparison.” He soon discovered that the Management Plan the Evaluators scored for ArnAmy was not the last (and correct) version he believes he uploaded to MarketPlace. Mr. Kadam suggests that a glitch occurred within the MarketPlace program that replaced or substituted an earlier version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan for the final version. At the final hearing, Mr. Kadam relayed that he did not find any error at the “front” or “user’s” (ArnAmy’s) end of the system. Nor did he receive any error messages after submitting ArnAmy’s Management Plan. He did, however, offer several possible, “logical” causes for the inconsistency. His theories included “deadlock,” or a situation that occurs on the system when one document is in use on the server that prevents another document (i.e., ArnAmy’s Management Plan) from being properly uploaded. Mr. Kadam explained that the difference between the early version and the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan was significant. RFP, section 5.2.2, instructed vendors to recite how they proposed to recruit, staff, and manage requests for IT services. The intermediate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan did not include the information referenced in RFP, section 5.2.2.B, which specifically directed vendors to identify and describe the roles and expertise of their Principal Personnel.12/ Mr. Kadam represented that the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan did contain this information. ArnAmy argues that if the MarketPlace error had not occurred, its proposal would have received a much more favorable score. Mr. Kadam specifically pointed to the score from one Evaluator, Stephanie Reaves, who only awarded ArnAmy’s Management Plan 100 out of 300 points. Mr. Kadam contends that if Ms. Reaves had just increased her score to the next level (200), ArnAmy would have been awarded most, if not all, of the 130 Job Titles. As more fully discussed below, despite Mr. Kadam’s detailed analytical investigation into the MarketPlace program, ArnAmy did not produce conclusive or direct evidence to support his theory that an error within MarketPlace was responsible for the submission of an intermediate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to the Department, instead of Mr. Kadam’s final version. During his testimony, Mr. Kadam stated that “a lot could have happened” to the documents he uploaded. However, he conceded that he did not know exactly what that might have been. The Scoring Team was Not Qualified to Score the Proposals: ArnAmy also charges that the Department failed to properly train the three Evaluators or provide them adequate guidance on how to effectively score the vendors’ proposals. Specifically, ArnAmy asserts that the Department failed to select Evaluators with the requisite background, experience, and knowledge in the subject matter of the RFP, i.e., information technology. Consequently, the Evaluators could not have conducted a comprehensive or sound review of the IT staffing services listed in the RFP. In other words, the Department could not have competently or fairly decided that ArnAmy should not be awarded an IT staff augmentation contract because the Evaluators did not know how to properly score its proposal. To support its argument, ArnAmy points out that not a single Evaluator possessed IT experience. ArnAmy contends that the technical details involved in evaluating proposals for IT staff services require direct experience in the IT field or in acquiring and/or utilizing IT staffing services. Because the Evaluators were unqualified, as well as the fact that the Evaluators were under time pressure to evaluate all 374 proposals, ArnAmy alleges that they inconsistently applied the RFP’s evaluation criteria, and, in some cases, failed to apply it altogether. As discussed below, the facts adduced at the final hearing support a finding that the Evaluators were suitably qualified to score the vendors’ proposals. Therefore, the undersigned finds this argument insufficient to reverse the Department’s award. Evaluator Stephanie Reaves Incorrectly Scored ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience: Finally, as a direct result of the Scoring Team’s inexperience, ArnAmy asserts that one of the three Evaluators, Stephanie Reaves, failed to properly score its IT Staff Contract Experience. ArnAmy specifically alleges that, in her haste to review ArnAmy’s proposal, Ms. Reaves overlooked key information included in its IT Staff Contract Experience submission. RFP, section 5.2.3, advised that a vendor “will be scored” based on “the best representation of its experience in providing IT Staff Augmentation.” Section 5.2.3 specifically asked vendors to include information regarding: Total number of IT Staff Augmentation contract/purchase orders. Total combined dollar amount of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders. At page 19 of its response to section 5.2.3, ArnAmy reported on its IT Staff Contract Experience document that ArnAmy had 11 years of IT staffing experience with the State of Florida involving 147 total contracts worth over $19,600,000. As discussed in paragraphs 93, 146, and 147 below, ArnAmy’s argument on this point has merit. Ms. Reaves awarded ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience 150 out of 200 points. At the final hearing, Ms. Reaves admitted that she did not see this information in ArnAmy’s proposal prior to formulating her score. SEVA’S PROTEST: Seva was not awarded any of the 130 Job Titles for which it bid. Seva protests the Department’s award arguing that the RFP’s scoring formula was built on an arbitrary evaluation system and a mathematically deficient price scoring system. Consequently, the evaluation process resulted in unfair and unreliable awards that should not have excluded Seva’s proposal. Danny O'Donnell spoke on behalf of Seva. Mr. O’Donnell prepared and submitted Seva’s proposal to the RFP. In addition, at the final hearing, Mr. O’Donnell was accepted as an expert in statistics, data presentation, and pattern analysis. Mr. O’Donnell explained that he is very competent at extracting and compiling data from spreadsheets and reports and presenting that information in a form that is more easily understood. Mr. O’Donnell testified that Seva is an IT consulting and software development services firm headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida. He further represented that Seva has extensive experience providing IT staffing services to the State of Florida. Seva has provided temporary IT staff for state agencies since 2009, and has participated in a total of 120 IT staffing contracts with the state worth over $19,800,000. Further, Seva is an active vendor supporting 129 of the 130 IT jobs awarded in the 2016 state term contract. Mr. O’Donnell also commented that Seva’s 2019 proposal was substantially the same as its 2016 submission. Further, the 2019 RFP criteria was very similar to the 2016 procurement terms. In 2016, Seva received good (and winning) scores for its Management Plan. Consequently, Mr. O’Donnell was puzzled why Seva received such low scores under this RFP. To understand the reason the Department did not award Seva any Job Titles, Mr. O’Donnell culled through reams of Department data, charts, and spreadsheets. Based on his statistical analysis, Mr. O’Donnell reached two primary conclusions why the Department’s scores for the 2019 RFP are unsound. The RFP’s Price Scoring System: Initially, Mr. O’Donnell argued that the RFP’s “extremely flawed” price scoring formula set forth in RFP, section 5.2.4, produced arbitrary and unreliable scoring results. Specifically, the formula allowed vendors to propose “low-ball,” “unrealistic,” and “unsustainable” prices that are excessively below the market value for IT staffing services in order to procure higher scores for their proposals. Consequently, vendors who submitted these “unbalanced” bids received an unfair competitive advantage over vendors who presented realistic prices (i.e., ArnAmy and Seva) for their IT staffing services. Mr. O’Donnell further urged that the formula caused a very narrow “band compression of price points,” which gave rise to “price neutralization.” In other words, vendors who offered legitimately low, but realistic, prices for Job Titles received no corresponding benefit because the unbalanced bids “caused the relative value of the pricing criteria to be neutralized in value.” Concomitantly, the two subjectively scored criteria graded by the Scoring Team (Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience) took on much greater significance in determining whether a particular vendor was awarded a state term contract. A vendor could lose more points on pricing than it could earn for its Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience. As a result, vendors who tendered “unbalanced” bids (with unreasonably low prices) obtained an inequitable and unwarranted benefit. Mr. O’Donnell asserted that there is no correlation between winning vendors having the best price, and the responsible and responsive vendors who can provide the best IT staffing service to Customers. Mr. O'Donnell testified to his belief that the Department did not account for or prevent these artificially low, “unbalanced,” bids. Consequently, it was his opinion that the Scoring Team did not select vendors whose proposals will be the most advantageous to the State of Florida (i.e., Seva). Therefore, the Department’s decision not to award the IT staffing contract to Seva must be overturned. Mr. O’Donnell alleged that his extensive statistical analysis reveals that the three Evaluators used markedly different standards to review, then score, vendors’ proposals. To support his argument, Seva produced a chart showing that Ms. Reaves awarded 161 of the 374 Management Plans a top score of 300. Ms. Shoup awarded 116 Management Plans with 300 points. Ms. Roberts awarded only 66 Management Plans the maximum 300 points. Mr. O’Donnell stressed that these diverse scores indicate an arbitrariness that is outside any zone of reasonable results. Consequently, as a matter of fairness, all proposals must be reevaluated. Mr. O’Donnell further argued that the inequity is compounded by the fact that the Department limited state term contracts for each Job Title to 200 vendors (and ties). Not only is restricting the available Contractors to 200 arbitrary, but the 200 Contractor cap impacts whether legitimate vendors were awarded IT staffing contracts. In addition to Mr. O’Donnell’s analysis and conclusions, Seva presented expert testimony from Dr. Wei Wu. Dr. Wu is a professor in the Department of Statistics at Florida State University. Dr. Wu was accepted as an expert in statistics, including the chi-square correlation test, as well as the “p value” as applied to the solicitation scoring. To formulate his opinion, Dr. Wu applied basic statistical methods and tools. He explained that he conducted a “standard chi-square test” to determine whether the three Evaluators produced the same scoring distribution. Dr. Wu then analyzed the data, reviewed the intuitive results, and formulated his conclusion. He rechecked his data to ensure that it was mathematically correct. Based on his statistical analysis, Dr. Wu announced, with “very high confidence,” that the three Evaluators did not apply the same methodology when scoring Management Plans. Dr. Wu specifically opined that he was “99.99 percent confident that, of the three evaluators; they don’t have the same standard to give the score.” In other words, his research indicated that the Evaluators did not have the same, common understanding of the RFP’s scoring criteria. On the contrary, the Evaluator’s scoring distributions were arbitrarily and unreasonably different. Further, Dr. Wu expressed that the scores awarded for price were “crunched” in the final results, thereby reducing their importance in the proposals’ total scores. Dr. Wu testified that, if the Evaluators had followed the same scoring standard, the score distributions across the 374 proposals would not have been so varied. Dr. Wu acknowledged that some deviation between Evaluators is expected, but not this much. Based on Mr. O’Donnell’s analysis, as supported by Dr. Wu, Seva asserts that statistical data confirms that each Evaluator applied dissimilar grading scales, which manifested itself into erratic scoring. Each Evaluator appears to have a different understanding of what a vendors’ proposal would have to show in order to earn a top-ranked score. Despite his conclusions, however, Mr. O’Donnell conceded that he has no previous experience forming statistical inferences from procurement criteria. Neither does he feel qualified to explain the meaning of his statistical analysis of the scores. Consequently, he could not testify “why” the data shows what it shows. Similarly, Dr. Wu acknowledged that he has never researched procurement scoring formulas, scoring of requests for proposals criteria, or the scoring behavior of procurement evaluators. Nor did his opinion take into account the subjective opinions of the three Evaluators. The Scoring Team was Not Qualified to Score the Proposals: Secondly, similar to ArnAmy, Seva asserts that the wide-ranging scores show that the Department failed to select Evaluators with the requisite experience and knowledge in IT. Seva further charges that the Department neglected to effectively train the Scoring Team. The Department only provided the three Evaluators poorly defined guidelines explaining how to evaluate the vendors’ Management Plans. In addition, Seva argues that amount of time the Department allotted for scoring (eight weeks) was too short to reasonably evaluate 374 separate proposals. DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO THE TWO PROTESTS: In response to ArnAmy and Seva’s challenges, the Department asserts that it properly acted within its legal authority, as well as the RFP specifications, to award the RFP to qualified responsive and responsible vendors. The Scoring Team Selection/Qualifications: Initially, the Department rejects ArnAmy and Seva’s allegations that the Scoring Team members lacked the requisite experience and knowledge to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. To score a procurement in a request for proposals solicitation, section 287.057(16)(a)1 directed the Department to appoint: At least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought. In accordance with section 287.057(16)(a)1, the Department appointed three individuals (Ms. Reaves, Ms. Roberts, and Ms. Shoup) to serve on the Scoring Team. The three Evaluators were selected by Cliff Nilson (Deputy Director of the Division of State Purchasing), and Joel Atkinson (the Department’s Procurement Officer). Thereafter, the Evaluators were approved by the Department’s Secretary. At the final hearing, Mr. Nilson testified as the Department’s corporate representative. In his role as Deputy Director of State Purchasing, Mr. Nilson oversees the Department’s procurement process, as well as the state term contracts awarded under the RFP. Initially, Mr. Nilson discussed how the Department selected the three Evaluators. Mr. Nilson explained that the state term contract in this solicitation is fundamentally a “staffing” contract. Mr. Nilson characterized the procurement as “essentially . . . a human resource function that’s outsourced to a vendor to recruit, employ, and manage those people.” Mr. Nilson explained that the RFP’s purpose is to solicit vendors who will find, recruit, and manage IT personnel; then effectively provide those employees to Customers to use on an hourly basis to perform IT work. Vendors awarded with a state term contract are only responsible for providing “a person,” not directing or overseeing an IT project. Accordingly, the Department sought evaluators who had experience in human resources and staff management. Further, Mr. Nilson did not believe that a working knowledge of IT services was necessary for a fair and reasonable evaluation of the vendors’ proposals. Mr. Nilson relayed that, because the RFP’s purpose was to identify staffing companies, extensive knowledge of the IT tasks and responsibilities listed in the 130 Job Titles was not necessary when reviewing the vendors’ Management Plans and IT Staff Contract Experience. At the final hearing, the Department elicited testimony from Mr. Kadam (for ArnAmy) and Mr. O’Donnell (for Seva) admitting that the “deliverable” under this state term contract is people and their time and expense, not the various vendors’ IT prowess. During the hearing, both Mr. Kadam and Mr. O’Donnell acknowledged that their primary responsibilities would be to find, recruit, and place suitable IT staff with a state agency. Regarding training the Evaluators, Mr. Nilson conveyed that the Department anticipated that scoring would be fairly straightforward. Therefore, the Department did not plan a lengthy training regime for the Evaluators. Mr. Nilson further commented that the grading criteria described in the RFP did not require specific knowledge of IT services. The Evaluators were to review how each vendor proposed to hire, manage, and retain persons with IT skills. The Evaluators were not scoring the specialized knowledge of the vendors or their employees. Before starting their reviews, the Department arranged for each Evaluator to receive a copy of each proposals’ Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience section. The Evaluators also received an Evaluators Guide, as well as Instructions for the Evaluator Score Sheet. Each Evaluator also received and signed a document entitled Evaluator Instructions for Ethics, Sunshine Law, and Conflict of Interest. Finally, the Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, contacted each Evaluator separately to explain their role and answer any questions. The RFP gave the three Evaluators eight weeks to review and score every proposal. Mr. Nilson envisioned the Evaluators spending approximately 30 minutes on each proposal. Mr. Nilson recognized that the scoring would entail hard work, but he was comfortable that the Evaluators would have enough time to perform their responsibilities. The Evaluators scored Petitioners’ proposals as follows: ArnAmy: Management Plan (out of 300 points): Ms. Reaves: 100 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points Ms. Shoup: 200 points IT Staff Contract Experience (out of 200 points): Ms. Reaves: 150 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points (maximum) Ms. Shoup: 200 points (maximum) Seva: Management Plan (out of 300 points): Ms. Reaves: 100 points Ms. Roberts: 0 points Ms. Shoup: 100 points IT Staff Contract Experience (out of 200 points): Ms. Reaves: 150 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points (maximum) Ms. Shoup: 200 points (maximum) Mr. Nilson testified that he was not concerned that the Evaluators’ scores were slightly different. He commented that in his experience, a one-step difference in the scoring spread between evaluators was “not unusual at all.” At the final hearing, each of the Evaluators testified about their background and experience in state procurements and IT staffing contracts as follows: Stephanie Reaves: Ms. Reaves testified that she has worked in the field of human resources for her entire career. She has hired, managed, recruited, and trained employees. At the time Ms. Reaves was selected as an evaluator, she was employed as the Director of Human Resources for the Department of Children and Families. During the RFP process, she transferred to the Department of Environmental Protection where she works as an Employee Relations Specialist. In addition, Ms. Reaves was previously employed with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, where she reviewed and scored proposals submitted in response to requests for proposals for public contracts. Ms. Reaves also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration, as well as a Masters in Human Resource Development. Prior to this RFP, however, she has never been involved in procuring IT staff services. Ms. Reaves declared that she had a firm grasp of her responsibilities as an evaluator. Before she scored the proposals, she reviewed and understood the scoring criteria described in RFP, section 5. She also read the Evaluators Guide, as well as the score sheet instructions. She further relayed that she spoke with the Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, who provided general guidance. Ms. Reaves expressed that she felt adequately trained to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. She also believed that she had the necessary human resources experience to discern whether vendors sufficiently described their staffing abilities in their proposals. Ms. Reaves explained that, when evaluating a proposal, she read the vendor’s submission twice, as well as reviewed the applicable RFP sections. She then compared the proposal to the RFP evaluation criteria. At that point, she scored accordingly and submitted her scores electronically to the Department. Ms. Reaves spent approximately 20-30 minutes per proposal. Ms. Reaves rejected any concerns that her lack of IT knowledge affected her evaluation. She relayed that she did not find scoring difficult. She did not encounter terms in the RFP or the various vendors’ proposals that she did not understand. Ms. Reaves asserted that she worked fairly and independently. Further, she testified that she used the criteria set forth in the RFP and applied the scoring criteria consistently to each proposal. She relayed that she held vendors to the same standard and used the same method when evaluating each proposal. Finally, despite the large amount of commitment and work this evaluation required, Ms. Reaves firmly asserted that she had sufficient guidance and time to review and score each proposal. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Reaves testified that she awarded ArnAmy 100 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that, for a perfect score of 300, a proposal would have to “demonstrate exceptional ability.” This score meant that she thoroughly understood how a vendor would provide prospective IT staff to Customers, and the vendor did an excellent job in describing how it would identify potential IT staff that would respond to a Customer’s Request for Quote. ArnAmy’s Management Plan, however, only showed minimal ability to meet the RFP’s objectives. Specifically, ArnAmy did not explain “how” it intended to accomplish or implement a plan to provide IT staff to Customers. In addition, ArnAmy failed to include information regarding the experience of its Principal Personnel to manage IT staff. Regarding ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience, Ms. Reaves awarded ArnAmy 150 out of 200 points. Ms. Reaves explained that she did not find in ArnAmy’s proposal responses to two specific requests for information: 1) the total number of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders; and 2) the total combined dollar amount of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders. However, as became apparent during the final hearing, ArnAmy’s proposal did, in fact, include information on these two specific points. What appears to have happened is that Ms. Reaves missed this information because ArnAmy presented these numbers at the very end (page 14) of its IT Staff Contract Experience section (and in tiny print).13/ In RFP, section 5.2.3, the total number of IT contracts and their combined dollar amount are the first two bullet points listed in the IT Staff Contract Experience criteria section.14/ Accordingly, Ms. Reaves looked for this information in the order set forth in the RFP, i.e., at the beginning of each vendors’ response to this section. (For example, Seva inserted its contract history in the first two lines of its IT Staff Contract Experience submission.) The RFP did not contain any specific instructions on how a vendor was to format its response to this section. At the final hearing, Ms. Reaves testified that she would still have given ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience a score of 150, even if she had found the entry for total IT contracts. It does appear, however, that Ms. Reaves plainly overlooked this information when evaluating ArnAmy’s proposal. Regarding Seva, Ms. Reaves awarded it 100 points (out of 300) for its Management Plan. She explained that she did not believe Seva adequately explained “how” it was going to accomplish “what was critical” to performing the IT staffing contract. On the contrary, Seva’s proposal lacked specifics, which left Ms. Reaves questioning Seva’s ability to provide quality IT staff for potential Customers. Ms. Reaves awarded Seva 150 out of 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She testified that she could not determine the level or type of Seva’s staffing experience from its proposal. Denise Roberts: Ms. Roberts has spent her entire public service career working in the procurements field for various state agencies. When she was selected to serve as an evaluator, Ms. Roberts was employed as a Purchasing Agent for the Agency for State Technology. During her evaluation, Ms. Roberts moved to the Department of Lottery where she processed procurements, solicitations, and purchase orders. Notably, Ms. Roberts has previously procured IT staff augmentation services, as well as obtained quotes for IT staff assistance for the Agency for State Technology, the Department of Corrections, as well as the Department of Transportation. Additionally, Ms. Roberts is a Certified Public Professional Buyer and a Florida Certified Contract Manager. She does not, however, have any IT experience or training. Nor did she have knowledge of what the IT Job Titles listed in the RFP specifically entailed. Ms. Roberts testified that, before she scored the proposals, she reviewed and understood the RFP, as well as the documents she was to score. In addition, she spoke with the Department’s Procurement Officer (Mr. Atkinson) who provided general guidance on how to score the proposals. Ms. Roberts expressed that she followed the instructions the Department gave her and felt sufficiently trained to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. She also believed that she had enough experience to evaluate proposals regarding IT staffing services. Ms. Roberts explained that she generally conducted the following evaluation process: Initially, she read the vendor’s proposal, followed by a review of the RFP’s requirements. She then reviewed the proposal again to determine how the vendor complied with the RFP criteria. At that point, she scored the proposal. When scoring, Ms. Roberts handwrote all scores onto the RFP’s scoresheet. Thereafter, she input her scores online and submitted them electronically to the Department. Ms. Roberts spent about 30 to 45 minutes evaluating each proposal. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Roberts testified that she awarded ArnAmy 200 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that, for a perfect score of 300, a proposal had to meet every aspect the RFP requested in great detail, as well as describe how the vendor was going to accomplish the RFP’s tasks. ArnAmy’s Management Plan, however, was missing information and provided less detail than she expected. Specifically, Ms. Roberts did not find a response to the RFP’s requirements that ArnAmy list the “Respondent’s Principal Personnel who will make management decisions concerning staff placement for services under the contract(s),” or the “role each Principal Personnel” would have in the contract. Regarding ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience, Ms. Roberts awarded ArnAmy the maximum 200 points. She found that ArnAmy provided “quite a bit” of information regarding its prior experience. Regarding Seva, Ms. Roberts awarded it 0 points for its Management Plan. She explained that she did not believe Seva’s proposal provided the information the RFP requested. Specifically, Seva did not explain “how” it was going to accomplish “any” of the RFP’s staffing requirements. Seva simply offered general comments with no details or step-by-step processes describing how it would acquire, then manage, IT personnel for potential Customers. Neither did Seva include the role its principals would play in its Management Plan. Conversely, Ms. Roberts awarded Seva with the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that Seva provided all the information requested regarding its prior contract experience. Ms. Roberts asserted that she worked independently and did not communicate with the other Evaluators. Further, she testified that she conscientiously used the criteria set forth in the RFP and gave each proposal consistent and fair consideration. Despite the large amount of proposals, Ms. Roberts confidently voiced that she had adequate time to consider, then score, each proposal. Heather Shoup: Ms. Shoup currently serves as the Director of Human Resources for the Department. In this position, she oversees all human resource activities for the Department, including recruitment and retention, benefit administration, classifications, compensation, employee relations issues, orientation, and retirement coordination. Ms. Shoup testified that her professional experience has been primarily in the areas of financial and human resources. In addition, she has experience hiring and managing individuals who provide IT services. However, she has no prior experience in public procurements. In preparing for her evaluations, Ms. Shoup met with the RFP’s Procurement Officer (Mr. Atkinson), as well as reviewed the RFP criteria, the Evaluators Guide, and the Instructions for the Evaluator Score Sheet. Ms. Shoup expressed that she understood her responsibilities and had sufficient training and time to evaluate each proposal. When evaluating, Ms. Shoup relayed that she worked independently through each proposal and scored as best as she could. For a perfect score, she was looking for answers to all RFP criteria. She wanted to see clear, precise responses that provided all information the RFP requested. She specifically reviewed “how” the vendor intended to deliver IT staff support for Customers. Ms. Shoup testified that she spent approximately ten minutes per evaluation. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Shoup awarded ArnAmy 200 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that ArnAmy’s Management Plan was missing information regarding its Principal Personnel who would make management decisions under a potential staffing contract. On the other hand, Ms. Shoup awarded ArnAmy the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that ArnAmy’s proposal reflected extensive IT staffing experience. Regarding Seva, Ms. Shoup awarded it 100 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that Seva’s proposal was “too broad.” Specifically, Seva did not answer the “how” questions in multiple categories. Conversely, Ms. Shoup awarded Seva with the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that Seva’s proposal clearly showed its prior IT contract experience. Finally, Ms. Shoup testified that she fairly scored each proposal she evaluated. She did not have difficulties reviewing the various submissions. Ms. Shoup also expressed that she had adequate time to consider, then score, each proposal. Based on the testimony received, the Department persuasively demonstrated that the Scoring Team “collectively [had] the experience and knowledge” required to score the RFP. Each Evaluator convincingly conveyed her ability to ably participate in the Department’s solicitation process. Although, none of the Evaluators had prior experience in the IT profession, each possessed the acumen and ability to competently conduct a procurement for IT staffing services. Ms. Reaves and Ms. Shoup both had extensive experience in personnel and human resource functions, including hiring and managing employees. Further, Ms. Roberts had broad knowledge in procuring services, including IT staff augmentation services. Finally, upon reviewing their scores again at the final hearing, each Evaluator testified that they would not change their scores. They each credibly expressed that neither ArnAmy nor Seva adequately addressed some or all of the criterion set out in the RFP. Therefore, based on their various professional and educational backgrounds and vocational experience, the undersigned finds that the Scoring Team was fully capable and proficient to review and score all aspects of each of the 374 vendor proposals. The Evaluators were adequately knowledgeable of, and sufficiently experienced for, their task of understanding and evaluating the vendors’ IT staffing plans. Conversely, neither ArnAmy nor Seva established that the Department’s appointment of a Scoring Team consisting of Stephanie Reaves, Denise Roberts, and Heather Shoup was contrary to the governing authority in section 287.057(16)(a)1. The RFP was not Contrary to the Department’s Governing Statutes, Rules, Policies, or the Solicitation Specifications: In addition to describing the Evaluator selection process, Mr. Nilson explained why the RFP limited the number of awards to 200 Contractors per Job Title (plus ties).15/ Initially, Mr. Nilson conveyed that the Department desired that vendors continue to compete to provide staffing services. Two hundred potential Contractors for each Job Title would maintain active competition when Customers requested price quotes. This arrangement would help ensure that Customers would continue to receive fair and reasonable prices in response to a Request for Quote. Secondly, restricting the number of Contractors to 200 would enable the Department to more easily monitor the large pool of vendors. Finally, the Department hoped to keep the Request for Quote process as simple and straightforward as possible for the Customers. When seeking IT staff services, Customers would have a definite and finite list of prospective Contractors. Further, Mr. Nilson added that market research indicated that only about 90 vendors actually participated in the prior/currently existing state term contract. Consequently, the Department determined that economical and fair competition for IT staff services would reasonably end at approximately 200 Contractors. Finally, the Department called Kimberly Stiver to discuss the possibility that an error occurred in the MarketPlace online system that impeded ArnAmy’s attempt to submit the final version of its Management Plan to the Department. MarketPlace is operated by Accenture. Ms. Stiver is Accenture’s Program Manager for MarketPlace. Ms. Stiver testified that, after learning of ArnAmy’s allegations, she and her staff investigated the MarketPlace system to uncover any evidence that would justify ArnAmy’s claim. Ms. Stiver reviewed event logs, the attachment history log, and the system logs to determine whether an error took place within MarketPlace related to the uploading, saving, or transmitting of ArnAmy’s Management Plan. Initially, Ms. Stiver explained that responding to a solicitation takes two steps. First, the vendor uploads the document. Then, the vendor “submits” the document to the agency. After uploading the document, but prior to submitting it, MarketPlace allows vendors to replace, revise, or upload additional documents. After a vendor has “submitted” the document, the agency then accesses the last uploaded and successfully saved version of the document in MarketPlace. At the final hearing, Ms. Stiver declared that, following her detailed inquiry, she found no indication within MarketPlace that ArnAmy was not able to, was prevented from, or encountered any difficulties in properly submitting its Management Plan to the Department. Expanding on her assertion, Ms. Stiver explained that each procurement in MarketPlace is a unique and distinct “event” that tracks key activity from the vendor community. ArnAmy’s activity on MarketPlace relating to this RFP shows that ArnAmy submitted a Management Plan at approximately 1:41 p.m. on March 18, 2019. Based on the event log, Ms. Stiver stated that ArnAmy logged onto MarketPlace only one time on March 18, 2019, and that ArnAmy only uploaded one document identified as its Management Plan at that time. The event log does not support Mr. Kadam’s suggestion that he uploaded multiple versions of a Management Plan which may have resulted in an earlier version being submitted to the Department instead of ArnAmy’s final intended version. The attachment history log also shows that ArnAmy logged into MarketPlace only one time on March 18, 2019, to upload, save, and submit documents. Ms. Stiver testified that, like the event log, the attachment history log does not support Mr. Kadam’s assertion that he saved at least three versions of ArnAmy’s Management Plan in MarketPlace. If Mr. Kadam had uploaded and saved, but not submitted, multiple versions of a Management Plan, Ms. Stiver asserted that the attachment history log would document the entries as “not submitted.” The attachment history log for ArnAmy, however, records no entries or messages with a status of “not submitted.” Finally, Ms. Stiver reviewed ArnAmy’s system log for the period of March 12 through 19, 2019, the time period during which MarketPlace was open to receive vendors’ proposals. The system log shows no system errors occurred at any time while ArnAmy was logged into MarketPlace from March 12 through 19, 2019. Based on her comprehensive explanation, Ms. Stiver persuasively testified that no errors or inconsistencies occurred in the MarketPlace online system that caused an earlier (incomplete) version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to be submitted to the Department or prevented ArnAmy from effectively and timely uploading its Management Plan in response to the RFP. The logical conclusion is that the discrepancy between the version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan that the Evaluators eventually scored and the final version that Mr. Kadam claims he submitted in MarketPlace was the result of ArnAmy’s unfortunate oversight. The Possibility of “Unbalanced” Bids: Regarding Seva’s (and ArnAmy’s) complaint that the Department failed to identify and reject “unbalanced bids,” Mr. Nilson expressed that the RFP did not prevent vendors from presenting “unbalanced” proposals. Moreover, no statute, rule, or solicitation specification required the Department to reject a vendor’s proposal simply because the hourly rate quoted might be lower than market value for a certain Job Title or Scope Variant. Further, nothing in the RFP directed the Department to conduct a statistical analysis of vendor prices prior to awarding the state term contract.16/ The RFP clearly informed all vendors of the scoring criteria the Department would apply for price. Every vendor was free to submit a hourly rate for each Job Title for which it would agree to abide. The Department uniformly applied the RFP’s price formula to every Job Title from every proposal. Finally, while Seva asserts that the price formula could have led to unfair and/or misleading scoring results, the RFP allowed all vendors (including ArnAmy and Seva) to present “low-ball” prices in their proposals. Further, even if certain vendors did include unrealistic prices for their IT staffing services, the RFP protects Customers by binding a Contractor to the maximum price per Job Title or Scope Variant listed in its proposal. (In fact, a Contractor could offer even lower prices for its IT staff services in response to a Request for Quote.) Finally, regarding Seva’s complaint that its proposal was substantially similar to its previous proposal (which received a higher score), Mr. Nilson commented that Seva’s 2019 proposal was materially different from its 2016 proposal. Seva presented fewer Principal Personnel in 2019 (two versus four individuals). Mr. Nilson surmised this factor may have reduced the amount of IT experience Seva represented. In addition, Mr. Nilson believed that Seva’s prior proposal presented a clearer description of how it intended to recruit, and then place, prospective IT personnel for Customers. In that regard, Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that Seva’s 2019 proposal contained several substantive differences from its 2016 proposal. To summarize the findings in this matter, neither ArnAmy nor Seva established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department’s decision to award only 21 of 130 Job Titles to ArnAmy and 0 of 130 Job Titles to Seva was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evidence does not demonstrate that either ArnAmy or Seva were placed at a competitive disadvantage in this solicitation. Neither is there evidence that the Department conducted this procurement in a manner that was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of the RFP. Regarding ArnAmy and Seva’s complaint that the Department did not assemble a qualified Scoring Team, the evidence establishes the contrary. Testimony at the final hearing demonstrated that the individuals the Department assigned to score the vendors’ proposals possessed the “experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which [the] contractual services [were] sought” as required by section 287.057(16)(a)1. The Evaluators’ scores for ArnAmy and Seva’s proposals were logical, reasonable, and based on a sound understanding of the criteria requested in the RFP.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order dismissing the protests of ArnAmy and Seva, except that the Department should rescore ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience. Otherwise, the Department should award state term contracts under Request for Proposals for Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services – 3rd Bid, RFP 15-8010H07- SA-D as set forth in the Revised Notice of Intent to Award the RFP issued on June 24, 2019. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2020.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent is guilty of unlawful employment practices as alleged in the Petition for Relief. AUTHORITY Chapters 120 and 760, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, D. Paul Sondel, was born August 13, 1928, and was, at the time of final hearing, 65 years of age. On April 11, 1993, Petitioner saw a newspaper advertisement for the position of Analyst I with the Florida Board of Bar Examiners (FBOBE). On April 12, 1993, Petitioner went to the office of the employment agency which the FBOBE was using to locate and screen applicants. Petitioner was told that he would not be allowed to apply or take the pre- employment test for the position because he had a graduate degree and only persons who have a Bachelor's degree but no graduate degree(s) were allowed to apply. On June 1, 1993, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, in which he alleged that the FBOBE requirement that no one would be considered for the position of Analyst I who had a higher level degree than the minimum required Bachelor's degree, served the "intended purpose" of eliminating older applicants, especially those over Petitioner further alleged that the existence and implementation of such FBOBE policy was in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Respondent hired two persons to fill the April 1993 advertised position of Analyst I. One of the persons hired was 24 and the other was 23 years of age. The FBOBE is an administrative agency of the Supreme Court of Florida and charged by the court with the responsibility of evaluating the character, fitness and competence of each applicant for admission to the Florida Bar. Petitioner has established that he is a person in a protected group; that adverse employment action was taken against him; that the persons hired for the position in question were outside the protected group; and that, but for his graduate degree, he was qualified for the position in question. The FBOBE has a current staff of 29 full time employees. As of March 30, 1994, of those employees, three were 40 years or older at the time of employment. Nine of these employees are currently 40 or older. The employment application used by the FBOBE does not request any information regarding an applicant's age. The FBOBE have hired individuals in the past who were 40 years of age or older. The FBOBE uses the American Employment Agency, Inc. to advertise vacancies and to conduct preliminary screening. Kathryn E. Ressel has been employed by the Respondent for over 22 years and is currently the Deputy Executive Director of the FBOBE. Ms. Ressel is responsible for the instructions given to the employment agency concerning the qualifications for the position of Analyst I. Ms. Ressel testified that the reason for the FBOBE policy of excluding applicants with post graduate college or university degrees is not intended to restrict employment opportunities to younger persons and is not related to the age of any applicant. Ms. Ressel's testimony is that past experience in hiring persons with graduate degrees has indicated that such persons tend to stay in the Analyst positions for short periods of time and leave when an employment opportunity presents itself in the field for which the person is educated. Ms. Ressel testified that the Analyst I position is an entry level position and that the Analyst receives extensive on-the-job training to enable the newly hired employee to perform assigned duties and meet job related responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner. Therefore, according to Ms. Ressel, when Analyst I's leave the employment of the FBOBE after a short time on the job, the Respondent is unable to recoup the time, energy and expense involved in training such individuals. Ms. Ressel's testimony articulates a reasonable nondiscriminatory basis for the employment practice at issue. Ms. Ressel's testimony indicates that the employment policy at issue is age neutral in that it is applied to all individuals who apply for the position of Analyst I, regardless of age. Ms. Ressel's testimony in this regard is unrefuted. Official notice is taken that a given individual is generally older at the time such person receives a graduate degree than when the same individual receives a Bachelor's degree. It does not follow, however, and Petitioner has failed to prove (statistically or otherwise), that in any specific job applicant pool available to the Respondent to fill Analyst I positions, potential applicants with graduate degrees are older than potential applicants who possess only Bachelor's degrees. Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (statistical or otherwise) that the employment policy at issue has a disparate impact on persons 40 years of age or older. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the FBOBE as the basis for rejecting Petitioner's application is in fact a pretext and/or that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for relief filed in this case be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, 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 19th day of May, 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to formal training and education sponsored by the Division of Workers' Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.491(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact From 1985 through 1995, Petitioner was employed by Truly Nolen, a pest-control company. In April 1995, Petitioner was a termite supervisor engaged in fumigation work. In this job, Petitioner set up crews and sent different crews to do jobs. He scheduled work and performed actual work on the job, such as dragging sand bags around a building and putting tarps on the roofs of buildings. While so employed on April 26, 1995, Petitioner fell while spreading tarp on a roof. Petitioner injured his back, suffering what the neurosurgeon described as “fundamentally a frozen back,” and was unable even to bend forward and touch his knee caps. Diagnosed with a herniated disc in the lumbar region, Petitioner had surgery on September 12, 1995. Although the surgery repaired the herniated disc, Petitioner’s recovery was prolonged. The surgeon determined that Petitioner reached maximum medical improvement on January 19, 1996. At this time, the surgeon stated that Petitioner was capable of working in light- to medium-duty work with no lifting of more than 50 pounds and no repetitive lifting of 25 pounds or more. The surgeon assigned Respondent a 12 percent impairment of the person as a whole, but later agreed that it was a 16 percent permanent partial impairment. The surgeon believes that Petitioner may have intermittent problems with his back for the rest of his life, but it is not medically probable that he will require surgery or any other form of aggressive intervention. The day after being released by the surgeon, Petitioner met with the branch manager of the Truly Nolen office, out of which Petitioner had worked at the time of his accident. For about one month, Petitioner had been performing part-time, light office duties at this office as part of a work-hardening program. The branch manager offered Petitioner a residential pest-control route, rather than Petitioner’s old job as a termite supervisor. Although not entirely clear in the record, the office appears to have employed only one termite supervisor. By the time that Petitioner was able to return to work, the branch manager had hired another person for the job of termite supervisor. It is, in any event, unclear whether Petitioner would have been able to do his old job anymore, as it required the supervisor to drag heavy tarps over the tops of buildings, as Petitioner was doing when he fell and was injured. Petitioner and the branch manager discussed two routes, but the manager was inclined to give Petitioner the route that Petitioner found less preferable. Petitioner visited one house on the route and determined that the value of the route, as posted in the office, was less than one-half of what Petitioner had been making at the time of the injury. Petitioner then informed his supervisor that he would not take the job due to inadequate money. Petitioner admits that money, rather than the physical demands of the job, was the sole reason for declining the job offer. The most productive pest-control routes in this Truly Nolen office earn $35,000 annually. Petitioner could probably earn $20,000 to $25,000 from the route that the branch manager offered him. Two weeks prior to the hearing, Petitioner started work as a car salesperson at a local Chevrolet dealer. He was earning about $250 weekly and 4 percent of the profit on each car sold. He had sold only one car for a commission of $50. Previously, he had worked on an occasional basis for his uncle driving a mowing tractor and earning $5.25 hourly; however, he had not worked over one week consecutively on this job. At the time of his injury, Petitioner’s average weekly wage was about $800. He was born on January 15, 1966. Petitioner completed his formal education when he finished high school. Petitioner is a certified pest-control technician. Except for some general construction and service work experience, Petitioner’s entire work history consists of his employment with Truly Nolen. The record does not disclose if Petitioner applied to Truly Nolen or its competitors for work as a termite supervisor or pest-control technician. Petitioner has not proved that he is physically unable to work in either position. To the contrary, it is likely that he could do the job as a pest-control technician, given his refusal to take the offer of such a job solely on monetary grounds and the relatively light physical demands of this work. In light of Petitioner’s age, education, work history, transferable skills, previous occupation, and injury, the job offered by the branch manager in January 1996 gave Petitioner a chance to regain as soon as practicable and as nearly as possible his pre-accident average weekly wage. Thus, the branch manager’s offer to take a pest-control route represented suitable gainful employment.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order denying Petitioner’s requests for training and education sponsored by the Division and attorneys' fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter C. Burkert Burkert & Hart Post Office Box 2485 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Attorney Michael G. Moore, Sr. Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Russell Schropp Henderson Franklin Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Edward A. Dion General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Findings Of Fact Coflin was a permanent Career Service Employee, in Employment Office Supervisor (EOS) III Position. Coflin was "bumped" from his position by another permanent Career Service employee (Mr. Reddy), whose EOS III position was abolished by virtue of the failure of Hillsborough County to renew a contract for service with the Department of Commerce in November, 1975. Coflin was "bumped" on April 1, 1976 because pursuant to Department guidelines approved by the State Personnel Director as required by the State Personnel Rules, Coflin had fewer retention points than Reddy. Coflin, pursuant to the guidelines and rules and regulations, was in turn entitled to "bump" either the incumbent of an EOS III position who was not permanent in the position of EOS III or the employee within the State with the least retention points. This right and the positions available to him were communicated to Coflin; however, because he would have had to move to another area of the State to assume either of these positions, Coflin elected under protest to take the third alternative, demotion to another class in which he held permanent status in his immediate geographical area. Coflin appealed the resulting demotion, asserting that he had been wrongfully demoted. The demotion was solely the result of Coflin having been "bumped" in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Commerce and not because of Coflin's job performance and conduct which were above average. The Department's guidelines were not adopted as rules in the manner prescribed in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Coflin be reinstated to his position as EOS III, the personnel action taken having not been for good cause. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day September, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Division of Personnel and Retirement Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Kenneth H. Hart, Jr., Esquire 401 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Brian Duffy, Esquire Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners were inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution in Raiford, Florida. Respondent has stipulated that Petitioners have "standing" to challenge the rules and the policy and procedure directives which are the subject matter of this proceeding. The Secretary of the Department of Corrections has issued Policy and procedure Directive initially dated June 23, 1982, and revised July 12, 1982. The purpose of the directive was . . ." [t]o thoroughly explain the gain time program and to set forth guidance for uniform implementation department-wide on its face, the directive purports to be issued pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 944.275, 944.28, 945.21, and 775.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33-11, Florida Administrative Code. The directive contains ten separate sections. The first two sections, entitled Authority and Purpose of Directive merely recite the aforementioned statutory and rule basis for issuance of the directive, and indicate that the purposes of the directive is to explain and facilitate implementation of the gain time program. The third section, entitled Definitions, simply reiterates in substantially similar language, the definitions of the different types of gain time contained in Section 944.275, Florida Statutes. Section 4 of the directive contains special conditions to the award of gain time, including disciplinary or court action, unsatisfactory institutional performances, corrective consultations, administrative confinement, close management, inmates' assignment on Death Row, inmates serving three years' mandatory sentences, and the like. Each of the requirements of this section of the directive is either identical to or drawn directly from Rule 33-11.11, Florida Administrative Code, or Section 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The remaining six sections of the directive deal with eligibility for, methods for crediting and processing procedures for the award of basic gain time, additional gain time, work gain time, constructive gain time, extra gain time, and special gain time. Again, each of these sections reiterate requirements already contained in Rules 33- 11.045, 33-11.055, 33-11.065, 33-11.075, 33-11.085, and 33-11.09. These sections of the directive do not purport to create or otherwise adversely affect rights of inmates in any manner which differs from the aforementioned rules. Under the policy and procedure directive, classification officers employed by the Department of Corrections serve a limited function in the award of gain time. With respect to basic gain time, corrections officers merely check to make sure that no disciplinary report has been filed against an inmate for the period in which gain time is being awarded. They exercise no discretion in the award of basic gain time. With respect to extra gain time or constructive gain time, the classification officer merely sits as a member of a classification team which determines the amount of any such award. Meritorious gain time is customarily instituted by the classification team as a whole, with the final decision-making authority resting with the agency head of the Department of Corrections. In each instance, classification officers have limited participation in the award of gain time, and may not act alone to deny inmates appropriate gain time awards.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice because of Petitioner's race.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Gainey is an African-American and is currently unemployed. She has a tenth-grade education and at the time of the hearing was 31 years of age. Winn Dixie is a corporation engaged in the grocery business. It is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, and has stores throughout the southeastern United States. Winn Dixie is an employer as that term is used in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Beginning in 1996, Ms. Gainey began employment more or less continuously in Winn Dixie stores. In 2005, she was working in Winn Dixie's Port Orange Store. She began her Winn Dixie employment by working as an overnight stocking clerk and then worked in the bakery department. In time she became a general merchandise stocking clerk. Eventually she was promoted to cashier. Subsequently, she was promoted to front-end manager and her responsibilities increased. She was also asked to be an in-store trainer, and she accepted this additional duty. She trained newly hired cashiers and baggers. Ms. Gainey did an excellent job as front-end manager and was such a proficient in-store trainer, that she was asked on occasion to train personnel at other Winn Dixie stores. She was a popular manager. Both her peers and supervisors believed her to be a good employee. At least one Winn Dixie customer testified that at the Port Orange store she was, "Miss Winn Dixie." Training at Winn Dixie had been accomplished at individual stores prior to 2005. Accordingly, there was no standardization. Management at Winn Dixie determined that training should be accomplished regionally so that uniformity could be established. Winn Dixie thereafter established a pilot program in the Jacksonville region, which included Ms. Gainey's store, that would develop specialized district trainers who would be responsible for training all new hires. Winn Dixie issued a "job posting notice" dated March 23, 2005, through March 25, 2005, announcing the job title of "District Trainer 'New Hire Orientation & Cashier Training.'" The notice stated that the position would be responsible for conducting, "training sessions to support the delivery and dissemination of company-wide operational information, job-specific requirements, performance standards, human resource programs and policies, as well as pertinent safety program guidelines." The skills set for an in-store trainer were not transferable to the district trainer position. The district trainer position being contemplated was much more demanding and required intensive training. The position of district trainer would result in a promotion and an increase in salary for Ms. Gainey if she attained it. Consequently, she applied for it. Others did also. In the region in which Ms. Gainey was working, 50 people applied for 21 available positions. Ms. Gainey was selected for an interview. Winn Dixie managerial employees Catherine Cole, Gary Lloyd, and Mathew Toussaint interviewed Ms. Gainey and all of the other applicants. Sixteen applicants were chosen for training as district trainers. Five were black and 11 were white or Hispanic. One person was selected from each district. Ms. Gainey was not selected. Nevertheless, Ms. Cole recommended that Ms. Gainey attend training, and Ms. Cole and Mr. Toussaint overruled the recommendation of the interview board and determined she should attend training. This occurred because of the recommendation of her co-manager, who asserted that her presentation skills were "awesome" and because no one else from her district had applied. Ms. Gainey was informed that she was to participate in the training. Despite Ms. Gainey's belief to the contrary, she was never given a job as district trainer. Rather, she was informed that upon successful completion of training she might be placed in that position. Regrettably, and erroneously believing she had received a promotion, Ms. Gainey bade a tearful farewell to her fellow workers. They threw a going away party for her. The training commenced in Orlando, Florida, on Monday, May 9, 2005, and was scheduled for five days. During classes, Ms. Gainey did not absorb the information provided to her, gave inappropriate responses to questions, did not follow instructions, demonstrated that she could not follow along in the training book, and asked questions not related to the material. Her efforts were such as to evoke ridicule from her fellow students. Her demonstrated deficiencies resulted in a determination that she was unsuitable to be a district trainer. Of the six African-Americans that underwent training, all but Ms. Gainey, were successful. Of the ten whites, all were successful. The one Hispanic was successful. Ms. Gainey departed the training site convinced that she had successfully completed the course. However, a few days later she was informed by Ms. Cole, Mr. Toussaint, and John Koulouris that she had failed the course and would not be promoted. The decision not to promote her was solely based on her performance at the training and was not in any way based on her race. She was a valuable Winn Dixie employee and management wanted her to succeed. Winn Dixie was committed to working with her so that she could develop her skills and eventually advance. She was informed of this. Ms. Gainey, upon learning of her failure, became very emotional. She was offered an opportunity to return to her old job or, should she choose, a job anywhere in the district. Ms. Gainey refused to return to the Port Orange store because she did not want her co-workers to learn of her failure. Ms. Gainey asserted that she wanted to work in Gainesville, so she was assigned to Store 160 in Gainesville. Subsequently, she learned that Store 160 was slated to be closed, and she was allowed to return to her old store. However, she went on sick leave instead and never returned to work for Winn Dixie. She was terminated on May 13, 2006, due to her uncommunicative absence. The job to which Ms. Gainey aspired was never filled. Winn Dixie, within a matter of months, determined that the district trainer plan was not sound and terminated the entire program. Winn Dixie has a strong equal opportunity policy. No evidence was adduced during the course of the hearing that indicated that any action taken in regard to Ms. Gainey was based on discrimination. To the contrary, the evidence clearly demonstrated that Ms. Gainey was not placed in the position she desired because she was not qualified.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Princess Catrice Gainey Post Office Box 290264 Port Orange, Florida 32129 Tishia Green, Esquire Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3350 Post Office Box 1840 Tampa, Florida 33601 Princess C. Gainey 500 Southeast 18th Street Apartment 67 Gainesville, Florida 32641 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, the Petitioner Fox was employed by the Department of Labor and Employment Security in Position Number 02076, class title, Unemployment Executive II. Petitioner's latest appointment to the Career Service was prior to July 1, 1972. Under the terms of the Governor's Recommendations for Implementation of the 1985-86 Fiscal Year Performance Incentive Increase, Petitioner's anniversary date was adjusted from October 30, 1985 to July 1, 1985. On July 25, 1985, the Petitioner was evaluated by his supervisors as "Exceeds Performance Standards." Petitioner qualified for and received a Performance Incentive Pay Increase, which advanced his base pay rate from $2,950.79 to $3,043.26 per month, the maximum for his class. The percentage increase equaled .03133737 of Petitioner's base salary. Petitioner received this increase without protest. No administrative, legal, or grievance action was filed by Petitioner challenging the propriety of his agency's calculation of the Performance Incentive Increase. On January 1, 1986, all Career Service pay ranges were increased pursuant to the Fiscal Year 1985-86 General Appropriations Act. This had the effect of increasing the maximum rate which could be paid to members of the Career Service System. As a result of the increase, Petitioner was once again below the maximum of the pay range. Petitioner's supervisor submitted an additional personnel action form, which sought an amount which would bring Petitioner's total performance incentive increase to five percent of his June 30, 1986, base salary. That increase equaled $55.07 per month for the months of January, 1986, through June, 1986. Plaintiff is, therefore, seeking a total additional salary increase of $330.42. At the time Petitioner received his July, 1985, pay increase, he was informed by certain Department of Labor and Employment Security officials that an additional performance incentive increase could be granted if the pay grade was subsequently adjusted and the maximum pay allowed for the class was increased. The Petitioner's supervisor within his agency apparently based this assumption on oral information which had been received from an unidentified individual within the Department of Administration. At the same time, the Bureau Chief of Classification and Pay within the Department informed agency personnel offices that such an increase was not authorized. By letter dated February 3, 1986, Don Bradley, Chief, Classification and Pay for the Department of Administration, officially advised the Department of Labor and Employment Security that the requested additional performance incentive increases could not be approved. Final Department of Administration action was taken by letter from Secretary Lambert to Secretary Wallace Orr dated June 20, 1986, which denied a special pay increase request in order to maintain fairness among all the departments. In anticipation of the adjustment to the maximum pay ranges, certain personnel officers within the agencies elected to postpone granting employee pay raises until after January 1, 1986. By doing so, they avoided running afoul of the Governor's Recommendation which states that "no employee shall be eligible to receive more than one merit salary advance during fiscal year 1985-1986."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's request for an A additional $330.42 salary increase be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 7th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1-9 have been accepted as modified. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact have been accepted, with the exception of those portions of the unnumbered paragraphs rejected as not being germane to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregg L. Fox 2509 Killarney Way Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Pinellas County School Board can cancel Respondents' Professional Service Contracts and terminate their employment due to their failure to meet certification requirements.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Pinellas County School Board, (Board), was the agency responsible for the provision of public education from preschool through primary and secondary schooling to vocational and adult technical courses in Pinellas County. Respondent Edwards has taught agricultural subjects including horticultural service, animal service and small and large animal services, among other courses she has taught at Tarpon Springs High School since July, 1990. Respondent Corbin, Edwards' brother, has taught at Countryside High School since 1989 in the fields of horticulture, small and large animal service, and practical skills agriculture for grades 9 - 12. Neither Respondent Edwards or Respondent Corbin has a Bachelor's degree in agriculture or in any other field. Edwards has an Associate of Science degree in veterinary technology and has taken courses in agricultural education for certification at the University of Florida as well as 20 credit hours at the University of South Florida in a course in technical vocational training programs she was required to take. She was certified by the State Department of Education in horticultural science and agricultural production in 1992. Respondent Corbin has between 30 and 40 college credit hours. About 2 years after starting work, when he finished the beginning teacher program and the required technical vocational training courses, he was certified by the state to teach horticulture and agricultural production. This allowed him to teach students in grades 9 - 12, and at the adult technical/vocational level. According to Dr. Brown, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, sometime prior to March, 1995 it was reported to him that the School Board had two teachers in the agricultural program who were not properly certified. These teachers are the Respondents herein. By state law, the Respondents are not properly certified at the 9 - 12 grade level, but they can teach at the vocational/technical level. Under the provisions of Department of Education Rule 6A-4.054, teachers must hold a bachelor's degree in agriculture or a master's degree with an undergraduate major in agriculture in order to be certified to teach that subject at the 9 - 12 grade level. Neither Respondent has that qualification. When Dr. Brown found out about the problem, he consulted with his staff and then informed the Superintendent of the situation. Dr. Brown also contacted the State Board of Education to see if these Respondents could stay in their current positions. The response received from the State Board of Education indicated the teachers could be considered "out of field" teachers, in accordance with Rule 6A-1.0503, F.A.C., but would need to take a minimum of 6 semester hours of college credit each year to obtain a bachelor's degree in agriculture. After receiving that information, Dr. Brown met with both Respondents and advised them of the situation and what they had to do. At that time the indication he received from them was that they would not consider going to school for 6 credits each year because, as they indicated, this was not their fault. According to Dr. Brown, neither Respondent had taken the required courses this year, and it is his position that though they may be retained as teachers, they cannot be offered a Personal Services Contract unless they do. All that would be available to them would be a year to year appointment. It is quite evident that the 1989 change to the certification rule which creates the problem in this case, that of requiring a teacher in the field of agriculture to have a degree in that area, was not widely publicized, and even high ranking members of the Board staff in Pinellas County were not actively aware of its existence for several years after it was promulgated. Of the two Respondents, Mr. Corbin was hired prior to 1989, and Respondent Edwards was hired after 1989. Both were offered and received Personal Service Contracts after the rule was changed and, in fact, notwithstanding the Board's letter of March 13, 1995, indicating the intention to remove the Personal Service Contract of each, by letter dated in April, 1995, each Respondent was advised of the issuance of a Personal Service Contract for the 1995-1996 school year. This creates a problem for the Board in that, under Florida law, if a program is not properly staffed with properly certified instructors, the state funding for that program can be reduced, and this could, in this case, amount to a substantial amount of money lost to the Board. Dr. Brown considers both Respondents to be excellent teachers whom the Board would like to keep, and he would like to see them participate in the program which would allow them to remain as certified teachers by taking the 6 credit continuing education courses per year. This would be difficult for both Respondents, however. First, the courses to be taken must be approved by the Board as leading to a degree in the teacher's area of expertise. In this regard, Dr. Brown does not know if any of the courses that would qualify for the Respondents are available within a 100 mile radius of Pinellas County. By the same token, he also does not know if the Board would provide financial or time help to the Respondents in the event the courses were available. Another possibility would be for the Respondents to take courses at the University of Florida on Friday nights and Saturdays over a period of time, or during the summer. In that regard, however, Respondent Edwards' inquiry of the University clearly indicates it is not easy to get the required courses at the time when they are needed and Respondents are available. Someone trying to work toward a degree on such a part time basis could take an unreasonably extended period of time to get all the core and prerequisite courses to those which lead toward the degree in the specialty. Notwithstanding this, Dr. Ross is not aware of any instance where the Board has ever waived the requirement for courses because courses were not available locally. The current situation came as a great surprise, specifically to Mr. Corbin. In March, 1992, he was called in by his Vice-Principal, Mr. Moore, and told he was unqualified to teach horticulture. At that same time, however, he was advised as to what he had to do to come up to certification standards, and he took the required courses. As he understood it, that was all that was necessary. With the courses he took at this point, and all the TVT courses he had taken previously, he believed he was in good standing to receive his Personal Services Contract which, in fact, he did receive in April, 1994. However, he first learned of the instant crisis on March 13, 1995 by a copy of a letter to his Principal from Dr. Brown advising that Mr. Corbin's Personal Service Contract was being cancelled. There was no explanation and no reason given then, and Mr. Corbin got no answer to his questions as to the reason for this action. As a result, he sought the assistance of the union. Approximately 7 to 10 days after receipt of the letter, Mr. Corbin was advised by Dr. Brown that his only alternative, if he wanted to continue teaching at Countryside, was to take the courses that would be required for an "out of field" teacher. At this point, Mr. Corbin inquired about the availability of courses and found that a Bachelor's degree in Agricultural Science is available only at the University of Florida. There are no courses offered locally that would help him. He did not, however, check with the University of Florida to see what the availability of the courses was there. Mr. Corbin works from 6:45 AM to 3:00 PM each day at school. He also has a personal lawn maintenance business and he does a lot of extra volunteer work for the school helping out at school fairs, banquets and other similar functions. He has taught summer school off and on. He claims that if he had been aware of the change in the requirements in 1990 when they first went into effect, he would have chosen another career instead of staying with agriculture. He asserts he might well have gone on to get his undergraduate degree and a law degree, but at this time it is too late for that. Mr. Corbin realizes that if he wishes to continue his Personal Service Contract he must take the required courses as an "out of field" teacher. Otherwise he would be no more than an "appointee" to his position on a year to year basis. This would be a very tenuous and stressful position to be in. Such a person serves at the pleasure of the Principal, and Mr. Corbin does not want to be in that situation. However, even though he checked on the local availability of courses and found there were none to help him, he did not check what courses were available at the University of Florida, and he asserts at this time that if any were available he could take during the summers, he would do this. Ms. Edwards first learned of the certification problem when she was advised by an official at the School Board that in order to teach animal science for grades 9 - 12 she had to take a course at Seminole Education Center. She was also told that she would be teaching "out of field", and in order to continue with a Personal Services Contract "out of field" she had to take the additional 6 credit hours per year. She was not aware of the implementation of the 1989 rule change which requires the bachelor's degree. Had she known at any time up until March, 1995 when she first learned of it, she claims she probably would have worked toward a Bachelor of Science degree so she could teach in veterinary technology. The requirements for this would be 120 more hours which she could get only at the University of Florida. The credit hours she earned working toward her Associate degree will not transfer. After Ms. Edwards received the March 13, 1995 letter, she inquired and found she could not get the 6 credit hours she needed for this year before the end of the school year. The advisor at the University of Florida gave her a list of courses she could possibly take locally, but she was given no guarantee they would be transferable toward a degree program. Ms. Edwards is currently enrolled in a 3 hour math course but does not know if it will go toward certification. She contends Dr. Brown did not tell her anything about teaching without a contract, but she would not agree to doing that as an appointee. She feels it would be tenuous and she wants the security of a contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT the Pinellas County School Board terminate the professional services contracts of the Respondents, Deborah Edwards and Richard Corbin. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. & 18. Accepted but not relevant to any issue herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant to any issue herein as a Finding of Fact. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: 1. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County Schools P.O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Marguerite Longoria Robinson, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue Suite 301 P.O. Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 J. Howard Hinesley, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street S.W. P.O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942
