The Issue The issue for resolution in this proceeding is whether Respondent's lottery prize should be withheld to be applied against an unpaid student loan.
Findings Of Fact In an application and promissory note dated June 30, 1987, Respondent, Ms. White, applied for an auxiliary student loan in the amount of $2,000 to attend school at Orlando College in Orlando, Florida, for the loan period June 1987 through June 1988. The loan was issued by Florida Federal Savings and Loan Association (lender) in one disbursement on or about September 2, 1987. Interest accrues on the loan at a variable rate which is currently 10.27 percent per year. This loan is Loan Number AL00010400 (loan 10400) which was guaranteed by the federal government through the DOE. In an application and promissory note dated December 9, 1987, Respondent applied for a second auxiliary student loan in the amount of $2,000 to attend the school for the same loan period. That loan was made by the lender in one disbursement on or about March 8, 1988. Interest accrues on that loan at a variable interest rate which is currently 10.27 percent per year. That loan is Loan Number AL00014434 (loan 14434) which was guaranteed by the federal government through DOE. As auxiliary loans, each of Respondent's loans accrued interest from the date of disbursement. For auxiliary loans, the borrower is required to make loan payments even while attending school. However, a borrower may request a deferment or forbearance from payment for several reasons, including attending school on a minimum part-time basis. While an auxiliary loan is in deferment/forbearance status, interest still accrues on the loan. In an application dated January 4, 1988, Respondent requested a deferment of repayment because she was attending school on a full-time basis. That application was approved for any payments due between June 22, 1987, through June 20, 1988. Following the deferment period, Harper-Smith and Associates, Inc., the lender's loan servicer (herein referred to as HSA) sent Respondent a repayment disclosure letter dated August 31, 1988. The letter outlined the terms and conditions of the repayment schedule assigned to both of Respondent's loans. As of the date of the disclosure letter, Respondent owed $4,082.40 in outstanding principal and capitalized interest for both loans. Additionally, Respondent owed a total of $36.23 in accrued unpaid interest. The disclosure letter indicated that Respondent's first payment of $56.06 was due September 20, 1988. Respondent failed to make any payments on the loans and Respondent was declared in default by HSA. HSA filed a lender application for claim payment with DOE dated May 11, 1989. On November 23, 1989, DOE, as guarantor of the loans, paid HSA for both of Respondent's defaulted auxiliary student loans. When DOE acquired loan 10400 and loan 14434, the outstanding interest was capitalized, resulting in a balance of $4,680.86 ($4,082.40 in claim principal and $598.46 in claim interest). This sum is subject to a variable interest rate which is currently 10.27 per cent per year. Since DOE acquired Respondent's loans, payments received from the Respondent's federal income tax returns (herein referred to as IRS offsets) have been applied to Respondent's outstanding balance as follows: 4/09/91 $1,082 3/30/92 $1,628 10/04/93 $1,140 5/08/95 $ 614 5/08/95 $ 727 After applying each IRS offset payment according to federal regulations (outstanding interest first, then principal), Respondent's account had a net balance of $1,445.43 in principal due on May 8, 1995, and all interest was paid through that date. DOE's earlier certification of amount owed was based on DOE's records which did not include the 1993 and 1995 IRS offsets. Ms. White provided the evidence of those and DOE verified that those should be applied against her debt. On June 30, 1995, Respondent filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. The filing occurred less than seven years after Respondent's loans went into repayment on September 20, 1988. On October 17, 1995, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, issued a "Discharge of Debtor" order in Respondent's case, number 95-03350-687. That order provides in pertinent part, "The above-named debtor is released from all dischargeable debts . . . . . . [including] debts dischargeable under 11 U. S. C. [Section] 523." On April 28, 1996, the Department subrogated (sold) loan 10400 to the United States Department of Education (USDOE). DOE still owns loan 14434. On May 8, 1995, the day the last IRS offset payment was applied, Respondent owed $722.72 in principal on loan 14434 which currently accrues interest at the rate of 10.27 percent per year. No other payment was received between May 8, 1995, and the time the DOE received Respondent's lottery winnings which are the subject of this action. Ms. White produced evidence that an additional $941.69 was withheld in an IRS offset, but that was after her lottery winnings were withheld. By letter of February 12, 1999, the DOE notified the Department of the Lottery (Lottery) that Respondent owed DOE $2,811.88, in principal and interest, as a consequence of her outstanding defaulted student loan. That amount has been amended as explained in paragraph 8, above. Pursuant to Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, the Lottery transmitted Respondent's $800 lottery prize to the DOE. By letter of February 25, 1999, DOE notified Respondent that it was in receipt of her $800 lottery prize in accordance with Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes. DOE applied Respondent's lottery winnings to her outstanding balance on the remaining loan, number 14434, held by DOE in accordance with federal requirements.2 DOE's letter also advised Respondent of her right to request a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the action. This proceeding arose when Respondent made her request for formal hearing. DOE has demonstrated that even when the five IRS offsets noted above were properly applied to both loans, there remained a balance due on loan 14434 of $722.72 in principal as of May 8, 1995, plus interest accruing since that date, plus $585.11 in collection costs. DOE also demonstrated that loan 14434 was not discharged in bankruptcy, because it was not in repayment for more than 7 years when the bankruptcy petition was filed, the minimum time required in order for a student loan to be eligible for discharge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DOE enter a final order which authorizes Respondent's lottery prize of $800 be applied toward her outstanding debt for a defaulted student loan. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1999.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner won $2,500 in Florida Lottery prize. By Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County Family Law Division, Case Number 86-3999, dated June 20, 1986, the Petitioner was ordered to pay $100 weekly for the support of three minor children. By Order on Arrears in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Putnam County, Case Number 91-6412-FD-57, dated November 7, 1996, the court found the following facts: Respondent was ordered to pay $100.00 per week for the support of his 3 children by the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County. Respondent never made a payment on this obligation. Arrears totaling $33,200.00 accrued until this Court's order in November 1992. This Court reduced the support obligation to $35.00 per week effective November 9, 1992, in view of two of the three children reaching the age of majority. Support was suspended effective July 1, 1996 Based on the calculation of unpaid support which was somewhat offset by Social Security benefits paid to the mother of the children, the court calculated the total arrears as $22,509. The Order on Arrears concludes that the "Department of Revenue may apply funds withheld from the [Petitioner's] lottery winnings in satisfaction" of the unpaid child support.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Office of Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, enter a Final Order transferring the Petitioner's lottery prize winnings to the Department of Revenue as partial satisfaction of the Petitioner's unpaid child support obligation. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Ken Hart General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Marcia Mann, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 John I. Chandler, Pro Se 6216 50th Street Tampa, Florida 33610 Josephine A. Schultz, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance The Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Chris Walker, Esquire Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the State of Florida, through its agencies, collected the money owed it by the Petitioner prior to receipt of a letter from her doctor certifying her disability.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 21, 1990, the Petitioner, Therese L. Hodge, applied for a student loan to pursue educational courses at Career City College in Gainesville, Florida. The loan applied for was a Stafford Loan, a student loan administered by the Department of Education (DOE) through the Office of Student Financial Assistance (OSFA). Under the Stafford Loan program, DOE through OSFA, serves as the guarantee agent performing its responsibilities in accordance with regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Education (USDOE). The essential elements and operation of the loan program are that a participating bank or financial institution agrees to make a loan to a student on the condition that the DOE will issue a written guarantee that it will repay the loan to the lender if the student defaults on the loan. When DOE repays a defaulted loan to the lender, DOE acquires the promissory note and the right to collect from the student. DOE is required by USDOE to pursue collection in order to receive reimbursement from USDOE of the amount paid to the lender. On or about July 7, 1990, OSFA issued its guarantee of a student loan to the Petitioner, and Florida Federal loaned her $1,213.00. While enrolled in her first term at college, the Petitioner suffered a stroke. The Petitioner was observed at the hearing and it was apparent that she had some moderate limitations on her ability to communicate, comprehend, and remember. Petitioner lives on Social Security disability income. Her brother- in-law, who had accompanied her to the hearing, assisted in presentation of Petitioner's case without objection from the Respondents. After the Petitioner defaulted on her student loan, the Petitioner won $5,000 in a Florida lottery game. The Petitioner made demand for payment of the prize money. The Department of Lottery checks winnings of more than $600 to determine if the winner owes any money to the State. In the course of its comparison, the Department of Lottery determined that the Petitioner owed the State money on the defaulted student loan. The Department of Lottery confirmed the indebtedness with the Department of Education, and it was determined that the Petitioner owed $1,231.98 including interest on the defaulted student loan. On January 9, 1993, the Department of Lottery forwarded the $5,000 to the Office of the Comptroller, and notified the Petitioner of her right to request a formal hearing to controvert the Department's collection of the indebtedness. On January 12, 1993, the Petitioner called the Department of Lottery and advised the Department that she was disabled. The Department forwarded to the Petitioner medical forms on January 20, 1993. Subsequently, the Petitioner's physician certified to the state that she was totally and permanently disabled. Documents introduced at hearing show that the Petitioner advised the lending bank on June 17, 1991 that she was disabled due to a stroke and unable to work. The bank sent the Petitioner medical forms in order for her to have her disability certified. The Petitioner did not return the forms due to her financial inability to obtain the required physical. After the Department of Education had repaid the student loan and had turned the matter over to a collection agency, the Petitioner advised the collection agency that she was disabled and the collection agency sent her medical certification forms which she did not have completed due to her financial inability. After she had won the lottery, the Petitioner had the medical certification forms which were forwarded to her by the Department of Education completed by a physician and these were returned to the State after the end of January, 1993 certifying that the Petitioner was totally and permanently disabled.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of the Comptroller return to the Petitioner the amount $1,231.98. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 93-1218 The Petitioner's sister wrote a letter in the Petitioner's behalf which was read and considered, and is treated as a final argument. The Department of Education filed a proposed order which was read and considered. The following proposed findings were adopted, or rejected for the reason stated: Respondent's (DOE) Proposed Findings: Recommended Order: Paragraph 1-6 Adopted Paragraph 7 Irrelevant Paragraph 8 Adopted Paragraph 9 The Department was on notice of the Petitioner's disability. Total and permanent disability is a medical determination based upon medical certification. The lender was on notice of Petitioner's disability on June 17, 1991. The purpose of the bank sending Petitioner the medical forms was to confirm the medical determination. Paragraph 10-15 Adopted COPIES FURNISHED: Therese L. Hodge and 5855 West Wood Lawn Street Post Office Box 36 Dunnellon, FL 34433 Ocklawaha, FL 32179 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance Tha Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Background On March 12, 1991, the Department of Lottery (Department) issued Request for Proposal No. 91-007-LOT/TEN/P entitled "Request for Proposal for the Provision of Advertising and Related Services to the Florida Lottery" (hereafter "the RFP"). The deadline for submitting sealed proposals in response to the RFP was established as April 22, 1991, but extended to April 29, 1991, by Amendment 3 to the RFP. At the time of the deadline, ten proposals had been filed, including those of petitioner, Bozell, Inc. (Bozell), and intervenors, Earle Palmer Brown (EPB) and BBDO South (BBDO). By "Notice of Selection of Finalists," dated May 1, 1991, and posted at the Department's headquarters, the Department advised all bidders that: After review of written proposals submitted in response to the subject RFP, the Florida Department of the Lottery's Evaluation Committee has ranked the responsive proposals in the following order of preference: Ogilvy & Mather Earle Palmer Brown BBDO South Bozell W.B. Doner Fahlgren Martin Benito West & Company Beber Silverstein LMPM The Ad Team In accordance with Section 5.3 of the RFP, the Department intends to conduct oral presentations with the following firms for the purpose of determining final rankings: Ogilvy & Mather Earle Palmer Brown BBDO South Bozell W.B. Doner Pursuant to Florida Statute and Rule 53ER87-16, failure to file a formal written protest and the bond required by Section 287.042(2)(c), Fla. Stat., with the Secretary within 72 hours shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Here, there was no showing that any protest was timely filed to contest the Department's selection of the five finalists. The five finalists made oral presentations to the evaluation committee on May 7 and 8, 1991, and their cost proposals were opened and scored on May 8, 1991. At the conclusion of its work, the committee awarded EPB an average total score of 174.550 and Bozell an average total score of 171.150; 200 points was the maximum total possible. By notice dated Wednesday, May 8, 1991, at 8:07 p.m., the Department issued its "Notice of Intent to Negotiate a Contract" ranking the top five firms in the following order of preference: (1) EPB, (2) Bozell, (3) Ogilvy & Mather; BBDO; and (5) W.B. Doner. Bozell filed its formal written protest and petition for formal administrative hearing with the Department of Monday, May 13, 1991, at 4:29 p.m. The Request for Proposals The RFP consists of the original RFP issued by the Department, three amendments, and the Department's response to various written questions submitted by potential bidders. Pertinent to this case, the RFP provided: SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION Introduction. This Request for Proposal ("RFP") has been issued by the Florida Department of Lottery ("Lottery") to obtain sealed proposals from qualified firms for the provision of advertising and related services to the Florida Lottery. This RFP, and all other activities leading toward the execution of a contract per this RFP, are conducted under the Lottery policies set forth in Rules 53ER87-10 through 53ER87-19, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 24, Fla. Stat. The Lottery considers it in the best interest of the State of Florida to procure the commodities/services described herein through a competitive process. All responding firms should read and be familiar with the Florida Public Education Lottery Act [Chapter 24, Fla. Stat.] to ascertain an understanding of the purposes and requirements placed on the Lottery. A copy of Chapter 24, Fla. Stat., is attached to this RFP. This proposed purchase is a Major Procurement as defined in Section 24.103, Fla. Stat. (1989). Glossary of Terms. * * * Responsive Proposal - Refers to a proposal which contains, in the manner required by this RFP, all documentation, drawings, information, plans, materials, certifications and affirmations, regardless of which section of the RFP sets forth the particular requirements. * * * Questions About This RFP. * * * If revisions to this RFP are necessary after the closing date for submitting proposals, the revisions will be provided to only those Respondents who have submitted Responsive Proposals and have met the basic requirements of this RFP. Such Respondents will then have the opportunity to modify their proposals in conformance with the revisions. Timetable The following timetable will be strictly adhered to in all actions relative to this procurement. * * * All proposals will be opened by Lottery employees at 2:00 p.m. on April 22, 1991 [extended to April 29, 1991, by Amendment 3] in the Purchasing Office at the aforesaid Lottery Headquarters. The public may attend the opening but may not review any proposals submitted. The evaluation process will begin immediately following the proposal opening. The Evaluation Committee will rank the proposals in order of preference based on the evaluation of the technical proposals in accordance with the criteria specified herein. Notice of selection of finalists shall be posted at the Lottery's headquarters. If more than five Responsive Proposals are submitted, at least the five top firms which have submitted Responsive Proposals will be selected for oral presentations to be made in Tallahassee, Florida, at the Lottery's Headquarters. Oral presentations are tentatively scheduled for the week of April 29, 1991 [extended to the week of May 6, 1991, by Amendment 3] . . . . The Evaluation Committee will score the oral presentations and then open and score the cost proposal. The final rankings will be determined based on the evaluation of the technical proposals, oral presentations and cost proposals. Notice of Intent to negotiate with the highest ranked firm will be posted at the Lottery's headquarters. If negotiations with the highest ranked firm are not successful, the Lottery may negotiate with the other listed firms in descending order of rank. Upon successful conclusion of negotiations with a Respondent, a Notice of Award of Contract will be posted at the Lottery's headquarters. * * * 1.12. Proposal Submission. It is the Respondent's responsibility to ensure that its proposal is delivered by the proper time at the place of the proposal opening.... * * * 1.14 Correction or Withdrawal of Proposal. A correction to, or withdrawal of, a proposal may be requested within 72 hours after the proposal opening time and date. Requests received in accordance with this provision may be granted by the Lottery upon proof of the impossibility to perform based upon an obvious error. The Lottery, in its sole discretion, will determine whether a bid may be corrected or withdrawn. Interpretations/Disputes. Any questions concerning conditions and specifications of this RFP shall be directed in writing to the Issuing Officer in the manner provided in Sections 1.8 and 1.9 of this RFP. Inquiries must reference the bid number and the date of proposal opening. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the Lottery. Any prospective Respondent who disputes the reasonableness or appropriateness of the terms, conditions, and specifications of this RFP shall file a formal written protest in appropriate form within 72 hours of the availability of answers to questions as provided in Section 1.9 of this RFP. Any Respondent who disputes the Lottery's Notice of Selection of Finalists, Notice of Intent to Negotiate, or Notice of Award of Contract, shall file a formal written protest in appropriate form within 72 hours of the notices. Any person who files a formal written protest shall, at the time of filing the formal written protest, post a bond as set forth in Section 287.042(2)(c), Fla. Stat. Failure to file both a protest and bond within the time prescribed in Rule No. 53ER87-16, Florida Administrative Code, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Fla. Stat. Legal Requirements. Applicable provisions of all federal, state, county, and local laws and administrative procedures, regulations, or rules shall govern the development, submittal and evaluation of all proposals received in response hereto and shall govern any and all claims and disputes which may arise between persons submitting a proposal hereto and the Lottery. Lack of knowledge of the law or applicable administrative procedures, regulations or rules by any Respondent shall not constitute a cognizable defense against their effect. * * * Purpose and Overview. A. In accordance with Chapter 24, Fla. Stat., the Florida Department of the Lottery has been charged with the responsibility "to operate the state lottery . . . so as to maximize revenues in a manner consonant with the dignity of the state and the welfare of its citizens." The Contractor will support the Lottery in its mission by providing the advertising services set forth in Section 2.2. The goal of these services is to maximize the sale of tickets, enhance the public image and visibility of the Lottery, and assist in communicating the intent that Lottery proceeds enhance education . . . . Scope of Services. The Contractor shall be the principal advisor and provider to the Lottery for the following advertising and services: Development of strategic advertising plan; Creative strategy, creation and production of all advertising (including television, radio, print, transit and outdoor); Placement of all print, radio, television, transit and outdoor advertising at the lowest competitive rate; Coordination of and contracting for televised broadcasts of lottery drawings; Ticket design; Creation and production of point-of- sales material; Media plans; Educational, promotional and other related activities as directed. The Technical Proposal. The objective of the technical proposal is to demonstrate the Respondent's understanding and proposed method of rendering the requested services. Each Respondent shall provide a written statement of the firm's understanding of the services requested herein as well as a detailed written plan outlining how the firm proposes to go about providing the services set forth in Section 2.2. At a minimum, the technical proposal shall consist of the following information and materials: * * * E. Firm Qualifications. At a minimum, each Respondent must provide the following information which demonstrates the Respondent's ability to provide the services requested: * * * 4. Resumes not to exceed one page each in length of all personnel who would be assigned major roles in the fulfillment of the work obligation outlined in Section 2.2, with a statement identifying the percentage of time, calculated annually, of each person who will work on the Lottery account. * * * 12. Certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years including an auditor's report. Certified financial statements must be the result of an audit of the Respondent's records in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by a certified public accountant . . . . * * * 18. List of type and number of additional employees that may be needed if awarded contract. * * * 33. Disclosure information required by and listed in Section 24.111, Fla. Stat. * * * Section 3: INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM RESPONDENT 3.1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. * * * D. Technical proposals must include the following information, be limited to not more than 100 pages (not including cover sheet, table of contents, divider pages, creative materials or resumes) and be presented in the following sequence: * * * Vendor Information Form (Attachment B). * * * Performance bond commitment letter required by Section 6.6. All material or information required to be submitted as part of the technical proposal required by Section 2.3. * * * 13. Any other material or information required by this RFP. * * * 3.4 Use of Subcontractors. If a Respondent proposes to use one or more subcontractors, the proposal must identify the contemplated subcontractor(s) and the scope of the subcontractor's services, and must include evidence of each subcontractor's ability to fulfill its respective duties on behalf of the Respondent. Respondent must also provide the information required by Section 24.111(2), Fla. Stat., for each subcontractor as if the subcontractor were itself a vendor. * * * 3.6 Additional Information and Comments. Respondent shall not submit with their written proposals material beyond that which is covered in the 100-page technical proposal (not including cover sheet, table of contents, divider pages, creative materials or resumes), plus creative comps and samples, resumes of key personnel and the separate cost proposals. The Lottery reserves the right to request additional information from a Respondent in order to make a thorough review and fair comparison of all proposals submitted.... Section 4: MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS Terms. The Lottery has established certain mandatory requirements which must be included as part of any proposal. The use of the terms "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicate a mandatory requirement or condition. The words "should" or "may" in this RFP indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature will not by itself cause rejection of a proposal. 4.2 Non-responsive Proposals. Proposals which do not meet all material requirements of the RFP or which fail to provide all required information, documents, or materials will be rejected as non- responsive. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth in Section 3.1 and without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is impossible. The Lottery reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP and to accept proposals which deviate from the requirements of the RFP in a minor or technical fashion as determined by the Lottery. SECTION 5: PROPOSAL REVIEW AND CRITERIA FOR SELECTION 5.1. Proposal Submission. Only proposals submitted in the time frame stated herein and with the content required above will be reviewed and considered by the Lottery. A copy of Chapter 24, Florida Statutes, was attached to the RFP, and Section 24.111, Florida Statutes, was specifically referenced in Sections 2.3.E.33 and 3.4 of the RFP. The vendor information form itself referenced the requirements of Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes. In accordance with RFP Section 1.8, EPB submitted the following question, among others, to the Department: "Does Attachment B [Vendor Information Form] need to be completed by all company officers?" The Department answered "Yes, see question #8, BBDO Atlanta, letter dated March 26, 1991." The referenced answer to BBDO Atlanta emphasized that "a vendor information form must be completed by each person listed in the instructions on the form [all officers, all directors, all owners, all partners, all trustees, all stockholders holding five percent or more, executive director and chairman of the board]." Even section 1.27 of the RFP required that vendor information forms be submitted to the Department prior to or at the time of submitting the proposal. Responsiveness of proposals Under the terms of the RFP, Sections 5.1 and 5.2, the Department was not to consider and evaluate non-responsive proposals. Non-responsive proposals are defined by Section 4.2 of the RFP as follows: Proposals which do not meet all material requirements of this RFP or which fail to provide all required information, documents, or materials will be rejected as non- responsive. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth in Section 3.1 and without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is impossible. The Lottery reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP and to accept proposals which deviate from the requirements of the RFP in a minor or technical fashion as determined by the Lottery. At the time it submitted its proposal, EPB did not submit the vendor information forms required by subsections 2.3E33, 3.1 and 3.4 of the RFP and by Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes, for at least three of its corporate officers or directors (Sally Brown, Louise Smoak, and Robert Morse), and did not submit any vendor information forms for its designated subcontractor, Premier Maldonado & Associates. The Department, through its counsel, first requested submission of these forms from EPB on May 8, 1991, the date on which the Notice of Intent to Negotiate was posted. EPB did not supply the missing forms for Premier Maldonado & Associates until May 14, 1991, and for the three corporate officers or directors until on or about May 29, 1991. The RFP required that the vendor information forms be submitted with the proposal, and Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes, provided in mandatory language that: The Department shall investigate the financial responsibility, security, and integrity of any person who submits a bid proposal or offer as part of a major procurement. Any person who submits a bid proposal or offer as part of a major procurement must, at the time of submitting such bid proposal or offer, provide the following: A disclosure of the vendor's name and address and, as applicable, the name and address of the following: If the vendor is a corporation, the officers, directors, and each stockholder in such corporation, except that in the case of owners of equity securities of a publicly traded corporation, only the names and addresses of those known to the corporation to own beneficially 5 percent or more of such securities need be disclosed. If the vendor is a trust, the trustee and all persons entitled to receive income or benefit from the trust. If the vendor is an association, the members, officers, and directors. If the vendor is a partnership or joint venture, all of the general partners, limited partners, or joint ventures. If the vendor subcontracts any substantial portion of the work to be preformed to a subcontractor, the vendor shall disclose all of the information required by this paragraph to the subcontractor as if the subcontractor were itself a vendor. (Emphasis added) The Department, at hearing offered proof that it did not consider the language of the RFP or Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes, to require that all such forms be submitted at the time the proposal is submitted, and that it had been the Department's policy to allow bidders to submit additional forms after bid submission. The articulated rationale for such policy is that based solely on the proposals or, stated differently, absent investigation, the Department is unable to assure itself that forms for all required individuals are submitted with any proposal. Accordingly, the Department considers the omission of such forms a technical deficiency that can be cured up to the point of contracting, and limits its investigation to the successful bidder. While the Department may find it difficult, absent investigation, to assure itself that the vendor information mandated by section 24.111(2) is submitted with the proposal, the mandate of section 24.111(2) and the RFP is clear and unequivocal: such information "must" be submitted with the proposal. Notably, under the provisions of the statute and RFP, the onus is on the bidder, the party privy to such information, to assure that its disclosure is complete and where, as here, its disclosure is not complete its bid is non-responsive, since it is at variance with the mandate of section 24.111(2) and the RFP. Importantly, under the requirements of section 24.111(2), the Department is precluded from contracting with any bidder who fails to submit the required vendor information. Accordingly, a successful bidder who, wittingly or unwittingly, failed to make the required disclosure (such as EPB in the instant case) could subsequently decline to provide the Department with the information and thereby effectively withdraw its bid, contrary to the provisions of section 1.14 of the RFP. Such renders the failure to submit the required information at the time of bid submittal a material defect, since it accords such bidder an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders that submitted the required information. In accordance with subsection 3.1D9 of the RFP, each bidder was required to submit with its technical proposal the performance bond commitment letter required by section 6.6 of the RFP. Section 6.6, as amended by Amendments 1 and 3, provided, in pertinent part: The successful Respondent shall be required, at the time of executing the Contract with the Lottery, to post an appropriate performance bond or other security acceptable to the Lottery in the amount of $2.5 million . . . The other acceptable forms of security are: irrevocable letter of credit; Certificate of Deposit assigned to the Lottery (which must be obtained from a financial institution having its principal place of business in the State of Florida) . . . . Respondents must submit with their proposal evidence that they will be able to provide the performance bond or other security. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, a letter from an authorized agent of a bonding company committing to provide the performance bond or indicating that the bond underwriter is processing a request to provide the bond and stating unequivocally that the bond will be available upon execution of the Contract. At the time it submitted its proposal, EPB submitted an April 25, 1991, letter addressed to it from Sovran Bank as evidence of its ability to provide the required security. That letter provided: As follow up to our conversation yesterday, the company can restrict its revolving line of credit by $2,500,000 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars) for a Letter of Credit of the same amount. The alternative is to apply for the Letter of Credit as a separate facility. The particular terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit would be worked out at the time of application . . . . While of the opinion that the Sovran letter evidenced EPB's ability to provide the required security, the Department likewise felt that the letter failed to evidence any commitment on EPB's part to restrict its line of credit to secure the subject letter of credit. Accordingly, it requested additional information from EPB, and by letter of May 1, 1991, EPB responded: This is to clarify the language in the Sovran Bank letter of April 25, 1991, included as Page 9 in Earle Palmer Brown's Proposal . . . Should Earle Palmer Brown be a successful respondent we will, at the time of executing the contract with the Lottery, either restrict our revolving line of credit with Sovran Bank by $2,500,000.00 for an irrevocable letter of credit, or will provide the Lottery with a surety bond for a like amount. The letter of May 1, 1991, adds more confusion than enlightenment regarding EPB's commitment to provide a letter of credit. Clearly, under the provisions of subsection 6.6 of the RFP, EPB's bare assurance that it would, alternatively, provide the Department with a surety bond was not acceptable evidence of its ability to provide such bond. As importantly, by phrasing its proposal as an alternative, to be exercised at its discretion, EPB lent confusion to the issue of what form of security it would provide. Notwithstanding, the requirement of the RFP was that the bidders "submit with their proposals evidence that they will be able to provide the . . . security," and the letter of April 25, 1991, while perhaps sparse, is facially adequate in that regard. Notably, the proof in this case confirms that EPB does have an adequate credit line with Sovran Bank which could be so restricted for a $2.5 million irrevocable letter of credit. In accordance with section 2.3E12 of the RFP, each bidder was required to submit with its technical proposal "certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years including an auditor's report." In response to a question submitted pursuant to section 1.8 of the RFP, which asked: "If a company does not have certified financial statements for the last three years as required by Section 2.3.E.12 of the RFP, will it be disqualified from submitting a proposal?", the Department answered: "No. Although the absence of certified financial statements would render the proposal nonresponsive." At the time EPB submitted its proposal, it submitted certified financial statements for fiscal years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. As EPB's fiscal year is the calendar year, its auditors had not yet completed their audit for fiscal 1990 by the response deadline. When EPB's certified financial statement for its fiscal 1990 became available on May 14, 1991, it promptly delivered a copy to the Department. While the RFP required financial statements for the last three fiscal years, the Department understood that a bidder's ability to provide such statements would depend on when its fiscal year closed. In this regard, it is common for an independent audit to require up to six months following the close of a fiscal year. Here, EPB was faced with exactly such a dilemma, specifically disclosed such dilemma in its proposal, and provided the financial statements for the last four fiscal years that were available to it. Under such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the Department departed from the essential requirements of law when it declined to declare EPB's proposal non- responsive for its failure to include a certified financial statement for fiscal 1990, and accepted, as satisfying the requirements of the RFP, financial statements for the last three fiscal years that were reasonably available to EPB. In accordance with the RFP, each bidder was to identify all personnel who would be assigned major roles in the fulfillment of work under the contract. Pertinent to this case, subsection 2.3E provided: At a minimum, each Respondent must provide the following information which demonstrates the Respondent's ability to provide the services requested: * * * 4. Resumes not to exceed one page each in length of all personnel who would be assigned major roles in the fulfillment of the work obligation outlined in Section 2.2, with a statement identifying the percentage of time, calculated annually, of each person who will work on the Lottery account. * * * 18. List of type and number of additional employees that may be needed if awarded contract. At the time EPB submitted its proposal, it identified twenty-four key positions in account service, creative, media and several other categories. As to the management supervisor, the employee is identified as "selected," and as to an account executive and public relations supervisor, the employee is identified as "TBD" (To Be Determined). All other positions were identified with specific individuals and resumes were included for each. Here, Bozell contends that EPB's proposal is non-responsive because EPB did not name and include resumes for the foregoing three positions. Such contention is, however, unpersuasive. Section 2.3E18 clearly contemplated that some bidders would have to hire additional personnel if awarded the contract, and EPB complied with that section of the EPB by identifying such positions. Accordingly, EPB's proposal was not at material variance from the RFP in this regard. Although the Department's "Notice of Selection of Finalists," dated May 1, 1991, discussed supra, purported to rank the "responsive proposals" in order of preference, the proof demonstrates that the evaluation committee, who was charged with such responsibility, did not, by consensus or otherwise, ever determine the responsiveness of any proposal. Here, for the reasons heretofore set forth, EPB's proposal was non-responsive to the RFP, and the committee's failure to address the issue of responsiveness prior to scoring the proposals, for reasons discussed infra, materially affected the fairness of the evaluation process. Bozell's proposal was, however, responsive to the RFP. 2/ The evaluation committee Pursuant to Rule 53ER87-13(5)(i)(2), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 5.3 of the RFP, the Secretary of the Department appointed an evaluation committee, consisting of six members, to evaluate the proposals which were received from interested firms. Regarding the composition of such committee, the Department advised all prospective bidders, in response to a question posed pursuant to Section 1.8 of the RFP, that: The Evaluation Committee will be comprised of Lottery staff and volunteers from a cross- section of Florida business and academic communities. Subsequently, by notice of April 16, 1991, the Department advised all prospective bidders that the members of the evaluation committee would be as follows: Bernard Edwards Deputy Secretary Marketing Department of the Lottery Tallahassee, Florida Ben Johnson Newspaper Columnist Homles Beach, Florida Robert W. McKnight Assistant Secretary Department of Lottery Tallahassee, Florida Richard Mizerski Professor Tallahassee, Florida John Ruchalski Retired Businessman Jupiter, Florida Alan Sawyer Professor Gainesville, Florida Of the six committee members, only two, Bernard Edwards and Robert W. McKnight, were employees of the Department. No objection to the composition of the committee was lodged until the filing of the subject protest; however, there was likewise no point of entry provided by the Department to challenge the composition of the committee. Robert W. McKnight, who chaired the committee, has been employed by the Department as Assistant Secretary since March 4, 1991, and in such capacity has been responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Department. Mr. McKnight holds a B.S. and M.B.A. degree in business administration, with concentrations in advertising, and has in excess of fifteen years experience in marketing. Throughout the course of such employments, as well as his tenure as a Florida legislator, he has had the opportunity to monitor or supervise the work of advertising agencies employed to advance his products or person. Bernard Edwards, currently Deputy Secretary for Marketing of the Department, has been with the Department since 1988. During that tenure, he has filled, at various times, all three deputy secretary positions (operations, administration and marketing), and has participated in the advertising operations of the Florida lottery. Prior to his employment with the Department, Mr. Edwards was Executive Director of the Washington, D.C., lottery, and from 1983 to 1987 Deputy Executive Director of the Pennsylvania State lottery. During the course of such employments, Mr. Edwards has acquired significant experience in the marketing of lottery products, and the advertising incident thereto. Alan Sawyer is a Professor of Marketing and Chairman of the Department of Marketing of the University of Florida in Gainesville, and holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University in marketing. In addition to his teaching and research, Dr. Sawyer has worked with the Federal Trade Commission, as well as numerous other clients, on advertising matters, including matters of advertising deception, and is a recognized expert in advertising and marketing. Ben Johnson is a Doctoral Teaching Associate and Adjunct Professor at the University of South Florida where he teaches upper division and graduate College of Education courses in methods of teaching English, reading, and learning skills. In addition to teaching, Mr. Johnson has, for some years, been researching the lottery operations of various states. As a consequence of the knowledge he has gained concerning those operations he has written a book, The Lottery Book, scheduled for publication in September 1991, which provides general information for players of various state lotteries, and has a nationally syndicated newspaper column called "The Lottery Column" wherein he answers readers' questions regarding lottery operations. From such experience, Mr. Johnson has developed a knowledge of lottery operations, as well as an appreciation for effective lottery marketing and advertising. John Ruchalski, currently retired, holds a degree in business and marketing, and has 35 years of retail management experience. Of those years, 17 were spent as Senior Vice President of Burdines, three as Chief Executive Officer of Bullock's, and two as president of Bloomingdale's. Mr. Ruchalski's past activities have also included service as president of the Florida Chamber of Commerce and chairman of the board of the Florida Retail Federation. In all, the proof shows that Mr. Ruchalski has a strong marketing background, and a familiarity with the advertising needs incident to such operations. The final member of the committee, Richard Mizerski, is a Professor of Marketing at Florida State University, and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Florida in Economics and Business Administration, with a major concentration in marketing and a minor concentration in advertising. Dr. Mizerski, like Dr. Sawyer, has, in addition to his teaching and research, extensive consulting experience in marketing and advertising, and is a recognized expert in the field. Overall, the proof demonstrates that the composition of the evaluation committee was appropriate for the work it was tasked to do, and that it had adequate time to perform an appropriate evaluation. Each committee member had experience and knowledge in marketing, and advertizing incident thereto, and lent to the evaluation process common and diverse experiences in such areas which helped provide a balanced consideration of the proposals. As importantly, each was shown to be committed to the integrity of the process, and complied with the provisions of Section 286.011, Florida Statutes, by assuring that all committee meetings at which official acts were to be taken were conducted publicly, and by not discussing any matter pertaining to their evaluations with any other member except during meetings that had been properly noticed. Market research data Prior to reviewing the proposals, one or more of the committee members requested information from the Department that would accord them insight into the program area. In response to such request, the Department provided each committee member with the market research data it had available. Such data provided demographic insight into Florida lottery marketing operations. At hearing, Bozell complained that it was never informed that the market research data had been provided to the committee, and offered proof, if credited, that had it known such fact it would have drafted its proposal differently. Such proof was not, however, persuasive, nor was the provision of such information to the committee inappropriate. Here, the proof demonstrates that the data provided by the Department was a matter of public record, and many of the committee members, through their research and training, were already familiar with it prior to their appointment. Bozell, as the current provider of advertising services to the lottery, was very familiar with the data, its subcontractor had complied it, and Bozell used it extensively in its proposal. In sum, Bozell was not disadvantaged by the provision of such data to the committee, and it was not treated any differently than any other bidder in this regard. As importantly, the provision of such information to the committee to lend insight into the program area for which services were being sought was quite appropriate to the evaluation process. Technical proposed evaluation Section 2.3 of the RFP describes the items required to be submitted with a firm's technical proposal, and was designed to assess a firm's understanding and proposed method of rendering the services requested by section 2.2 of the RFP. It provides that, "at a minimum," the proposal shall contain the information and materials requested by subsections 2.3A through 2.3E. Subsection 2.3A required submittal of a proposed advertising approach for the Florida lottery which addresses a three-year summary outline advertising plan, to include recommendations for advertising and promotion, and a proposed one-year timetable for advertising, showing development of creative, production, approval, placement and run-time. Subsection 2.3B required comprehensive artistic representations consisting of a detailed media plan for an eight-week Florida lottery instant game within a $1,250,000 budget; a name, ticket design and prize structure for the instant game; a 30-second radio spot for the instant game; a print ad for newspaper or magazine placement for the game; and a point- of-sale example for the game. Subsection 2.3C required one complete advertising campaign representative of the firm's work, including budget, creative strategy, positioning, media strategy and execution, and post-buy analysis. Subsection 2.3D required creative samples previously produced by key members of the proposed creative team consisting of TV ads, radio ads, print ads, outdoor campaigns, and point-of-sale samples. Finally, subsection 2.3E, entitled "firm qualifications," required, "at a minimum," information concerning 33 specific items, "which demonstrates the [firm's] ability to provide the services requested." Among the items for which information was required were the following: 3. Brief and concise statement of Respondent's advertising philosophy, taking into consideration the following points and others that you may feel are appropriate: Method the Respondent uses for developing advertising. How the Respondent currently measures the effectiveness of its advertising. * * * Evidence of any work done for a state, multi-state, national or provincial lottery. Information regarding any advertising or other experience with state agencies and other governmental entities. * * * 12. Certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years including an auditor's report . . . . * * * 29. Discussion of contributions that your firm could make toward the growth of the Lottery. Section 5.4 of the RFP set forth the general criteria by which a firm's response to subsections 2.3A-E would be evaluated. Such general criteria were the overall qualifications, experience and abilities of the firm, its staff, and contractors to provide timely and professional advertising and related services, determined by evaluating the information contained in subsection 2.3E; and, the relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the firm's proposed plans directed toward subsections 2.3A-D of the RFP. Such section concluded: "The evaluation worksheet for the technical proposal is attached as Attachment F." Attachment F to the RFP set forth the specific criteria by which a firm's response would be evaluated. That attachment provided as follows: This evaluation considers information submitted in the technical proposal. Emphasis is placed on the firm's qualifications and ability to do the work, which is addressed in the Technical Proposal. A total of 80 points is obtainable. The Technical Proposal shall be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria: Overall Ability - 40 points maximum Do the resumes of the account team support the Respondent's competency to provide the services required by Section 2.2? Proposed Account Team: Is the team make-up appropriate for the work? Do the team members have experience with comparable work? Are there any sub-contracted firms involved? Are minority sub-contractors utilized? Are the hours assigned to the various team members for each task appropriate? Has the Respondent provided advertising services of the scope required in the past? Experience of the Respondent and staff providing advertising service within the State of Florida. Experience of the Respondent and staff in providing Lottery, pari- mutuel, or other gaming related advertising. Financial stability of the firm and financial capability to provide the entire scope of services. Experience of the firm in providing advertising services to accounts in excess of $10 million. Experience of the firm in placing large volumes of electronic media in all media markets in Florida. Based on 1-3, award points, as follows: 20-30 points for exceptional experience 10-20 points for average experience 0-10 points for minimal experience Has the Respondent provided advertising services to other state or governmental entities? If the work was acceptable, award up to 3 points. If the firm has not done such work, award zero points. Does the Respondent possess unique abilities which would make a noticeable (positive) impact on the project? If the answer is yes, award up to points and note reasons. If the answer is no, award zero points. Does the team composition and each member's percentage of involvement, the use of subcontractors (if any), office location, and/or information contained in the proposal indicate that the Respondent will meet time and budget requirements? If the answer is yes, award up to points and note reasons. If the answer is no, award zero points. Does the Respondent's current workload make it likely the Respondent can provide timely and complete service? If the answer is yes, award up to 2 points and note reasons. If the answer is no, award zero points. Advertising approach and creative samples required by Sections 2.3A-D = 40 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the firm's proposed plan for providing the requested services required by Section 2.3(A). Value: 10 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the comprehensive artistic representations required by Section 2.3(B). Value: 10 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the advertising campaign required by Section 2.3(C). Value: 5 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of samples required by Section 2.3(D). Value: 15 points The criteria for evaluating the creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of above items B-1 through B-4 are as follows: Creativity Were the ideas and approach exciting and interesting? Did the samples evoke positive and appropriate emotions? Did the samples capture and hold attention? Did the samples demonstrate fresh and original thought or were they banal and mundane? Approach Was the approach germane and appropriate? Was the approach unified and integrated? Was the approach clear, direct and unambiguous? Quality Were images crisp, sharp, and distinct except where the intention is clearly otherwise? Was the production professional? Was sound free of distortion and visual free of unnecessary clutter? Thoroughness Did the advertising show an appropriate consideration for all facets of the market? Was the advertising comprehensive and balanced? Did the advertising use a full range of tools and techniques to ensure maximum penetration and retention? By memo to all committee members, entitled "Instructions and Timetable for Evaluation Committee Members," and again at the commencement of their deliberations, all committee members were advised that they must evaluate the proposals based on the criteria set forth in the RFP, and to utilize their own individual expertise in applying the criteria. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the members of the committee abided such directive, and scored the proposals based on the established criteria, except as hereinafter discussed, as applied through their own background and experience. 3/ At the commencement of their deliberations, the committee members agreed that the format they would follow in evaluating the technical proposals would be to first review all the proposals, and then score the proposals individually. This procedure was followed although, not unexpectedly, some members made preliminary assessments as they progressed through the various proposals. Upon completion of their review, the members then scored each proposal and, as appropriate, made adjustments to preliminary assessments they had made based on the perspective they had acquired after their review of all the proposals. Here, Bozell complains that the RFP did not permit the scoring of proposals relative to each other but, rather, required that the proposals be evaluated and scored solely by applying the criteria independently to each proposal, and that the failure of all committee members to so evaluate the proposals is a fundamental flaw in the evaluation process. Bozell's complaint is not, however, persuasive. Here, the RFP required, among other things, a determination of the relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of a firm's plans for providing the services requested by subsections 2.3A-D of the RFP. Under such circumstances, considering the subjective nature of the evaluation, it would not be unreasonable to assign points based on relative merit. And, considering the fact that the proposals were not scored until all proposals had been reviewed that, more likely than not, is what was done by each committee member, consciously or subconsciously. As importantly, each member of the committee scored the proposals independent of any other member of the committee, and was consistent with the approach he took as to each firm's proposal. 4/ Accordingly, it cannot be concluded, based on the proof in this case, that the evaluation process was fundamentally flawed because of the manner in which points were awarded. However, because points were awarded on a relative basis, the inclusions of non-responsive proposals in the evaluation process could have materially affected the scoring of proposals and the Department's failure to exclude non-responsive proposals from the scoring process, as required by section 5.1 of the RFP, was a material departure from the requirements of the RFP. Bozell also complains that Mr. Johnson evaluated the technical proposals in light of his knowledge about the success of other states' lottery advertising. The application of such expertise to the criteria contained in the RFP was, however, appropriate, as discussed supra. As noted by Mr. Johnson: . . . That's my frame of reference against which I measured all of the companies. I could tell that some of the companies really didn't know what they were talking about, because they were suggesting things that were failing in other states. And I was aware of that from my general information background. [Tr. 471] As heretofore noted, selection of committee members with knowledge of the program area, and the exercise of that expertise in applying the criteria, is most appropriate to a reasoned evaluation of a proposal. Finally, with regard to the evaluation of the technical proposals, Bozell offered proof that some committee members failed to apply specific criteria mandated by the RFP, or otherwise scored the proposals in a manner at variance with that called for by the RFP. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that while proposals were to be evaluated, at least in part, based on the different games and formats that were presented in the technical proposals (see subsection 2.3B of the RFP), Mr. Ruchalski did not do so because he had no knowledge upon which to base a decision. Regarding subsections A5-8 of Attachment F (the scoring criteria), Mr. Johnson did not award points in the manner mandated by each subsection. Finally, notwithstanding that an evaluation of the overall ability of the applicant, as set forth in section A of Attachment F to the RFP, required an examination of the "financial stability of the firm and financial capability to provide the entire scope of services," no evaluation of the financial integrity and responsibility of any of the firms was made, and such criteria were not applied in the evaluation process. 5/ In its proposed recommended order, the Department suggests that it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require a detailed financial review by the agency at the initial bid analysis stage since, ultimately, only one firm will be awarded the contract, and because security and financial investigations will be done before a contract is awarded. While such may be the case, it was the Department's election to provide for an analysis of financial stability and capability as part of the review criteria. Oral presentation evaluation The second phase of the evaluation process was the scoring of the oral presentations. Pertinent to this case, section 5.3 of the RFP provided: . . . The oral presentations must be made by the account service, creative and media personnel who would work on the account. There will be no limitation on the information and materials pertinent to this RFP which may be utilized . . . . Section 5.5 of the RFP provided that presentations would be scored based on the following general criteria: Understanding of services requested -- up to 20 points, account team -- up to 25 points, responsiveness to questions -- up to 15 points, and overall impression -- up to 20 points. Finally, Attachment G to the RFP provided that the evaluation relative to the account team would be scored as follows: Account Team = 25 points maximum Did the proposed account team participate? Creativity, quality, uniqueness demonstrated by account team? Respondent's advertising philosophy demonstrated, long term image building? Did account team members prepare samples submitted? EPB's oral presentation was made by Jeb Brown, the chief executive officer of EPB; Craig Davis, the president of EPB's Florida operations; Mike Knaisch, account group head; Kandi Kirkland, account supervisor; Bruce Ayers, media director; Scott Mackey, associate creative director; Pat Hanlon, creative director; Tom Hall, chairman of EPB; and Jeff Tucker, president of public relations. Each of the presenters were identified by EPB as key personnel to be assigned to the Florida lottery account, except Jeb Brown and Tom Hall. As part of its oral presentation, EPB utilized a video tape, which presented favorable comments by the head of the Virginia lottery concerning EPB's performance for it. Addition-ally, EPB included in such video a character it utilizes for the Virginia lottery, "Lady Luck," who also said "nice things" about EPB. Here, Bozell complains that the participation of Jeb Brown and Tom Hall, in the oral presentation, as well as the use of the video which included comments by the head of the Virginia lottery and "Lady Luck," was improper under the provisions of the RFP because they were not members of the account team. Such compliant is, however, unpersuasive. While section 5.3 of the RFP did require that the oral presentation be made by the account, creative, and media personnel who would work on the account, it did not expressly preclude others from participating, and the RFP placed no restrictions on the information and materials pertinent to the RFP that could be utilized. Accordingly, EPB's oral presentation was not at variance from the RFP and, if it were, it was not shown to be a significant deviation. As heretofore noted, the evaluation relative to the account team allowed an award of up to 25 points, and required, among other things, a determination of whether the account team participated; the creativity, quality and uniqueness demonstrated by the account team; and whether the account team members prepared the samples that were submitted. The committee members did not, however, make any specific inquiry regarding whether the account team participated or prepared the samples, although the bidders generally made it a practice to introduce the account team members, but assumed such to be the case for purposes of scoring the presentations. Here, Bozell contends that the committee's failure to expressly inform itself as to whether the account team participated and prepared the samples, as opposed to indulging the assumption that they did, constitutes a significant failing in the evaluation process. However, Bozell failed to demonstrate, at hearing, that the committee's assumption was misplaced. Finally, Bozell offered proof that Dr. Sawyer awarded Bozell 21 points and EPB 22 points for "overall impression," when 20 points were the maximum contemplated by the RFP. Such error was, however, inadvertent, it simply being the intention of Dr. Sawyer to award EPB one more point than Bozell, and was harmless since it did not affect the overall outcome. Cost proposal evaluation Section 5.6 of the RFP provided the criteria for evaluation of the cost proposals and provided that: Finalists' cost proposals will be given points based on an evaluation of the proposed compensation and the experience and qualifications of the proposed staff. A maximum value of 40 points was established for this part of the evaluation. The cost proposals, which the committee members were to evaluate, were contained in a "sealed cost proposal envelope" and were, pursuant to subsection 2.4B of the RFP, to contain: The cost proposal shall include a calculation of the Respondent's proposed compensation for undertaking and completing all phases of the services requested and outlined in this RFP. The cost proposal shall be prepared in the same format as illustrated on Attachment "E" and shall be completed as follows: The Respondent shall provide an aggregate gross salary by work category and position classification for all personnel who will work on the Lottery's account. The aggregate gross salary shall include only that portion of each individual staff member's time that will be attributable to the Lottery account. The portion of time proposed in the cost proposal shall match the labor hour percentages proposed for each individual as required in Section 2.3(E)(4). The Respondent shall also include a proposed multiplier of the type described in paragraph A above. The Respondent shall multiply the aggregate gross salary by the multiplier and the product shall be included in the cost proposal. The Respondent shall also include, in the sealed cost proposal envelope, resumes for all personnel whose salary, or portion thereof, was included in the calculation of the proposed aggregate gross salary resumes shall be included regardless of whether the resumes have also been included in the technical proposal envelope. While the RFP contemplated that all three sections of the proposal (technical, oral presentation, and cost) would be evaluated and scored independent of each other, and that the evaluation of the cost proposal would be limited to an evaluation of the information contained in the "sealed cost proposal envelope," not all committee members so limited their evaluation. Rather, some committee members utilized the knowledge they had gleaned from evaluating the technical proposals and oral presentations, as well as the scores they had assigned during the course of those evaluations, to assist them in assessing the qualifications and experience of the proposed personnel and weighing the firms' proposed compensation. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how any committee member could ignore the knowledge he had acquired during the course of his evaluations that was reflective of the quality and experience of the proposed staff, any more than he could ignore the expertise he had acquired through his life experiences, in evaluating the cost proposal. Notably, the RFP, as it related to the cost proposals, provided that "the portion of time proposed in the cost proposal shall match the labor hour percentages proposed for each individual as required by section 2.3(E)(4)" of the RFP [the key personnel], and the committee had, as part of their evaluation of the technical proposal, previously evaluated the proposed account team, as well as the relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of their proposals relative to subsections 2.3A-D of the RFP. At the oral presentation, the committee had an opportunity to put faces with names, and broaden their knowledge of the individuals involved. Accordingly, when it came time to evaluate the cost proposals, which involved a consideration of staffing and salary, the members of the committee had certainly formulated opinions regarding the quality of the staff proposed by the respective firms, and balanced that opinion against the proposed compensation to derive the most cost effective proposal. While it may seem unreasonable to restrict the committee to the bare resumes and costs set forth in the cost proposal, as the basis for their evaluation, the reasonableness of the provisions the Department formulated are not at issue in this proceeding. Accordingly, it is concluded that by going beyond the information contained within the cost proposal, the members of the committee materially deviated from the requirements of the RFP. This conclusion prevails, since those bidders who were favored in the evaluation of the technical proposals or oral presentation were, by the consideration of the opinions derived from such evaluations, accorded an unfair advantage over other bidders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which rejects all bids, and that a new invitation to bid be extended. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of July 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July 1991.
Findings Of Fact Respondents hold license 23-3237 COP and at all times here relevant were so licensed. On 7 November, 1977, Respondent, Juan Rodriguez, sold less than five grams of marijuana to Rocco Delio, an undercover policeman, on the licensed premises. Delio paid Rodriguez $11 for the marijuana and two beers. When arrested in December 1977 on a warrant charging him with the sale of marijuana, Rodriguez had an old lottery ticket in his possession as well as a list of numbers which the arresting officers thought to be lottery numbers. Rodriguez testified that the lottery ticket was an old one he bad obtained in Puerto Rico and that he had forgotten the ticket was in his wallet. He further identified the list of numbers as measurements he had taken for a building. Rodriguez denied ever selling any lottery tickets. At his trial on the charge of possession and sale of marijuana and possession of lottery paraphernalia Rodriguez pleaded guilty, upon the advice of counsel, to unlawful sale of marijuana, and adjudication of guilt was withheld. (Exhibit 1). Rodriguez testified that he paid a $300 fine and was told by his attorney that the plea and subsequent withholding adjudication of guilt would not affect his business. At this hearing Rodriguez denied selling marijuana to the policeman who had testified to the contrary. The Petitioner's witness is deemed a much more credible witness and it was this testimony, plus the guilty plea entered in Circuit Court that resulted in the finding that Respondent possessed and sold marijuana on the licensed premises. No evidence was submitted with respect to Counts 3, 4 and 7 of the Notice to Show Cause. The admissions of Respondent with respect to the facts alleged in Counts 5 and 6 were rebutted by Respondent's testimony, which was not contradicted by Petitioner's witness, that the lottery ticket was old and that the list of numbers found on Rodriguez' person was not a list of lottery numbers.
Findings Of Fact On November 28, 1994, a hearing officer of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida (Seventeenth Judicial Circuit) conducted an evidentiary hearing on a petition to determine child support filed against Thomas Boganski (Petitioner). By Report dated November 28, 1994, the hearing officer determined, among other things, that Petitioner was liable for a past public assistance obligation in the amount of $8,871, representing monies received by his children from October 1991 through November 1994 and that payments on the child support obligation would be payable through the court. By Order dated December 12, 1994, a circuit judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit ratified and approved the hearing officer's Report; thereby, establishing a child support debt, payable through the court. On June 26, 1995, a hearing officer of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit conducted an evidentiary hearing on a motion for contempt filed against Petitioner for nonpayment of the child support obligation. By Report dated June 26, 1995, the hearing officer determined, among other things, that Petitioner had a past public assistance obligation and arrears totaling $10,551 as of June 14, 1995. By Order dated July 14, 1995, a circuit judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit ratified and approved the hearing officer's Report. On January 9, 1995, Petitioner presented to the Department of the Lottery (Respondent Lottery) a claim for payment of a lottery ticket which he had purchased. The lottery ticket had a prize value of $2,500. On June 9, 1995, the Department of Revenue (Respondent Revenue) certified to Respondent Lottery that, as of that date, Petitioner had a court- ordered past public assistance debt of $9,500. The $2,500 prize winnings was transmitted to the Department of Banking and Finance, Office of the Comptroller (Respondent Banking and Finance) by Respondent Lottery. Respondent Banking and Finance did not disburse the $2,500 to Petitioner but retained the entire amount. By letter dated May 9, 1995, Respondent Banking and Finance notified Petitioner that the $2,500 prize winnings had been transmitted to it by Respondent Lottery. Furthermore, Respondent Banking and Finance notified Petitioner that the entire $2,500 was going to be applied to his unpaid past public assistance obligation of $9,500.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance, Office of the Comptroller enter a final order providing for payment to the Department of Revenue the lottery prize winnings of $2,500 claimed by Thomas Boganski. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 27th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX Respondents' joint proposed findings of fact 1 - 6 have been adopted in substance in this recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Boganski 1519 North 57th Terrace Hollywood, Florida 33021 Stephen S. Godwin Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Chriss Walker, Esquire Child Support Enforcement Department of Revenue P.O. Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner, Raymond J. Holmes, is entitled to the entire $5,000.00 won by him in the Florida Lottery or whether a portion thereof should be withheld for reimbursement of public assistance payments previously paid for the support of his child.
Findings Of Fact On May 7, 1993, a Judge of the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit In and For Collier County, Florida, entered, in case No. 93-1327, an Order Determining Obligation And Repayment of Public Assistance for the repayment of support and repayment of foster care payments, made on behalf of Petitioner's child, Allen J. Holmes, against Petitioner, "Ray" Holmes and his wife, Rachel Holmes, in the amount of $5,439.46 plus costs in the amount of $88.20 and attorneys fees of $176.40, This amount was to be paid at a rate of $80.00 plus $3.20 clerk's fee ($83.20) per month, beginning on June 1, 1993, payments to continue until "all prior public assistance has been completely repaid." This Order was acknowledged in writing by both Petitioner and his wife. The Order also provided: ... the State of Florida, or any political subdivision thereof, or the United States, is directed to deduct from all moneys due and payable to the Respondent [Petitioner, Holmes] the amount of child support ordered above. This income deduction shall be effective immediately, and shall become binding on ... [a] comptroller or disbursing officer, the State of Florida, ... two weeks after receipt of service of this order. None of the money called for under the Court's Order has been repaid. Petitioner's one-half of the joint obligation was $2,807.93. On or about August 2, 1993, Petitioner purchased a scratch-off lottery ticket which carried a prize of $5,000.00. Petitioner immediately submitted a claim form for the award of the prize. He listed his social security number as 144-53-7433 on the form. The social security account card issued in his name reflects the correct number to be 144-52-7433 but there is no doubt the Petitioner was the individual who purchased the winning ticket. The claim form was submitted for payment to Lottery headquarters in Tallahassee. In the course of routine coordination between agencies to determine if any obligations to the state were owing by a lottery winner, the above-noted Court Order was identified and when the Petitioner's winnings were transmitted to the Department of Banking and Finance for payment, his half of the obligation was withheld and only the net amount of $2,192.07 forwarded. Thereafter, by state warrant 4-02 909 875, dated August 20, 1993, this net amount was paid to Petitioner. This figure was arrived at by deducting the amount owed by Petitioner, ($2,807.93) from the gross winnings, ($5,000.00). Petitioner was notified by letter dated August 24, 1993 accompanying the warrant of the reason for the deduction. Petitioner thereafter demanded hearing and this hearing ensued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner, Raymond J. Holmes' request for payment of $2,807.93 withheld from his lottery prize of $5,000.00 by the Department of Banking and Finance. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1993, 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 9th day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond J. Holmes 3397-2 Sacramento Way Naples, Florida 33942 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Banking & Finance The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking & Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Marcia Mann, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ken Hart General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Education (Respondent) acted properly within its authority to claim lottery winnings of Kevin Frye (Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was a borrower, participating in the federal student loan program. Two of the loans involved funds disbursed in 2002, and the third involved funds disbursed in 2003. Repayment of the three loans was to begin in 2005. The Respondent acted as the guarantee agency for the Petitioner's three loans under the federal student loan program. The program provided that the Respondent was obligated to repay the loan in the event of default by the borrower. Such loans were regarded as in default after passage of a 270-day payment delinquency period. Lenders reported defaulted loans by filing claims with the Respondent. The Respondent paid the claims and initiated a collection process to obtain the funds from the borrowers. The Respondent became aware of the Petitioner's defaulted loans in February 2007, when claims were filed with the Respondent by the Petitioner's lender. The Respondent paid the claims and became the owner and holder of three promissory notes documenting the loans. By letter dated March 24, 2009, the Respondent notified the Lottery that the Petitioner had outstanding student loans in the amount of $5,788.08. The amount included accrued interest as of April 8, 2009. The letter stated that such interest would continue to accrue according to the terms of the notes. The letter requested that any lottery prize proceeds won by the Petitioner be transmitted to the Respondent to be credited towards the debt. On April 9, 2009, the Lottery delivered a check in the amount of $1,000 to the Respondent with a letter identifying the amount as lottery winnings of the Petitioner. By letter dated May 13, 2009, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that the lottery proceeds had been received and would be credited towards his student loan debt. The Petitioner's request for hearing stated that he had entered into and completed a "loan rehabilitation" program and that "there is no reflection in outstanding loan balance that coincides with the lottery winnings." Although the Respondent has a program designed to rehabilitate defaulted student loans, there was no evidence presented at the hearing that the Petitioner has entered into any rehabilitation agreement with the Respondent applicable to the debt obligations relevant to this dispute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Education enter a final order applying the $1,000 lottery prize winnings of Kevin Frye to the student loan debt referenced herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Large, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kevin Frye 7429 Oakvista Circle Tampa, Florida 33634 Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner properly and timely re-enrolled students from her private school so they would be eligible for McKay Scholarship Program payments from the Department of Education.
Findings Of Fact FACES is a private school which has participated in the McKay Scholarship Program since 2005. FACES is owned by Tori Wilson and Toni Ranier, who are sisters. Wilson and Ranier are both actively involved in the School as teachers and administrators. FACES caters to children with autism or autistic-related conditions. It is the duty of the School to re-enroll its students into the McKay Scholarship Program each year in order for them to be eligible to receive McKay Scholarship payments from the Department. McKay Scholarships afford disabled students an opportunity to receive funds to defray the costs of attending private schools, such as FACES. The State of Florida, Department of Education, administers the McKay Scholarship Program through its Office of Independent Education and Parental Choice. For the 2009-2010 school year, there were 12 students to be enrolled at the School. Due to certain disabilities, each of the students was eligible to receive a McKay Scholarship. FACES relies upon the scholarships to fund the cost of operating the School. In some instances, FACES accepts the McKay Scholarship funds for a student as the sole payment for that student's attendance, even though the scholarship is not equal to the cost of educating the student. In such instances, the School will allow the student's parent to provide some sort of alternative payment. That might be in the form of buying provisions needed by the School, e.g., paper products, food, and school supplies, etc; or the School might allow the parent to provide volunteer in-kind services, such as, cleaning, helping with classroom activities, etc. Each year Wilson would log on to the Department website in order to re-enroll her students. (Each returning student would have to be re-enrolled every year. At the same time, any student who was not returning would be withdrawn using the same process.) The process involved creating a Master Fee Schedule and, then, plugging each student's scholarship information into their individual fee schedule. For example, some students may be in need of tutoring services for which additional scholarship funds are available. Others may need a summer program or some technology assistance. Once the Master Fee Schedule was completed, the school could then enter the individual students into the system. The Department established definite guidelines to be followed by schools wishing to enroll students for scholarship purposes. For the 2009-2010 school year, all students had to be re-enrolled no later than August 2, 2009 (a Sunday). The re-enrollment process could have begun as early as April 10, 2009, for that school year. That is, any school could have re-enrolled its students as early as April 10, 2009, but not later than August 2, 2009. On July 13, 2009, Wilson accessed the Department website to re-enroll her students. She had been through the process each of the past four years and was generally familiar with how it worked. However, on that date, when she logged in using her school Code No. 4809 and password (FACES 5525), she experienced problems. Wilson sent a request to the Department website for a new password, which was sent to her via email within a short time. Using the new password, FACES 101, Wilson was able to log on to the website. The first screen Wilson opened contained the normal directive (accompanied by a red exclamation mark) to "Please complete a Fee Schedule Update for the 2009-2010 School Year." But when Wilson clicked on the Update Fee Schedule link, she was only given the option to update the 2008-2009 school year, rather than the upcoming school year (2009-2010). After encountering this problem, Wilson called an undisclosed person at the Department to find out what was going on with the system. She was presumably told that the system had a glitch of some sort, that if no changes to the fee schedule were being made, she could use the previous year's schedule to do re-enrollment or that she could try the process again later. This statement was not corroborated, however. The Department provided contrary evidence saying that other schools had done their re-enrollments on the same day (July 13, 2009) and time that Wilson was experiencing trouble. One school had experienced some problems saving individual fee schedules for four students, but had not experienced problems re-enrolling students. Wilson does not have any records concerning her phone call to the Department due to the fact that she changed telephone providers, and records from the prior provider were not available. Wilson possesses a printout from her computer showing her browser history for July 13, 2009. It is clear that Wilson accessed the Department website on that date. There are a number of references to the re-enrollment portion of the Department's website, including the "student_enroll.asp" and the "student_enroll1.asp," "student_enroll3.asp," and "student_withdraw.asp" URL address segments. Each of those asps is part of the enrollment process, but unless the entire process is completed, those intermediate steps will not effectuate a student enrollment. Wilson believes she was able to "submit" each of her re-enrollments for students on that date, resulting in a prompt saying, "the student has been successfully enrolled, would you like to enroll another student." However, the Department's IT experts opine that it is impossible to have received that prompt without having gone through the entire enrollment process. Department computer logs indicate that Wilson did not click on the link required to save the Master Fee Schedule, a prerequisite to enrolling students for the 2009-2010 school year. Thus, while Wilson may believe she was properly enrolling her students, computer records indicate she did not actually accomplish her goal on that date. On July 20, 2009, Wilson logged on to the website again to see if she could complete the Master Fee Schedule and get her students re-enrolled. She attempted to log on using her new password, FACES 101, but was not able to do so. She finally logged on using her old password, FACES 5525, the same one she had been using for four years. When she was logged on to the website, she was able to update the Master Fee Schedule. She did not attempt to re-enroll her students at that time, because she believed they had already been re-enrolled on July 13, 2009. Unfortunately, she did not check to verify the enrollment on July 20, 2009. Wilson believes she completed the entire enrollment process for her students on July 13 and 20, 2009. Her testimony is entirely credible as to that belief, but she has no corroborating verification of the facts. The Department computer logs indicate that the enrollment process had begun, but had not been completed. The Department sent out an email on July 31, 2009, to a number of schools who had McKay Scholarship students. The email advised the schools that as of the date of the email, "Our records indicate that one or more McKay Scholarship students enrolled in your school during the 2008-2009 school year has not been re-enrolled for the 2009-2010 school year. McKay students must be re-enrolled by August 2, 2009, in order to be eligible for a first period scholarship payment on September 1st." The email was sent to HAPPYFACES@BELLSOUTH.NET, which was FACES' email address of record at the Department as of the date of the email. FACES had actually stopped using that email address regularly in April or May of 2009, but did not notify the Department of that fact until some time later. However, as of July 2009, when the email was sent out, FACES was still using the address as a contact source for parents of potential new students. It was, therefore, still being used for some purpose. FACES' contention that it did not receive the July 31, 2009, email is not credible. Based upon the changes FACES was going through with its communications systems at that time, however, it is very possible the email was never accessed by Wilson. On August 5, 2009, Wilson logged on to the website to withdraw a student, only to find that none of her students' re-enrollments (which she verily believed to have been accomplished previously) appeared on the website. She immediately sent an email to the Department regional manager (Hyle) assigned to her geographic area. The email advised Hyle about the students not showing up as re-enrolled and inquired about receiving payments for those students. Hyle told her that other schools were having problems as well (although that statement was not true),1 asked Wilson to send him information concerning her students, and said he would speak to his supervisor. Several exchanges between Wilson and Hyde ensued. Thereafter, Wilson received an email from Laura Harrison, director of the scholarship programs, saying the information submitted by Wilson was not sufficient to establish re-enrollment of the students at FACES. Harrison reiterated what Wilson had already heard from other persons within the Department, i.e., the evidence shows a visit to the website to change her password on July 13, 2009, but no re-enrollment of students was accomplished on that date. Following notification to Wilson that the student enrollment was deemed untimely by the Department, there were three disturbing events: First, the Department erroneously advised Wilson that FACES did not have a current fire inspection; in fact, FACES did. Second, the Department erroneously advised FACES that it did not have a current health certificate; in fact, FACES did. Third, the Department took several months to issue its final agency action (despite requests by FACES' attorney) so that FACES could challenge the decision. These events reflect unfavorably on the Department, but do not affect the outcome of this case. They are noted only because they were raised by Wilson as part of her case-in-chief. The Department's database analyst and web application developer established the following facts: Wilson logged on to the Department website on July 13, 2009, using IP address 70.152.251.108 with school code 4809; On that same date, other schools logged into the website and made student changes, including re-enrollment and withdrawals; Wilson, on behalf of FACES, did attempt to engage in the re-enrollment process on that date, starting at 6:54 p.m; There were a number of entries by FACES on that date, but none of the entries went beyond phase three of the enrollment process, identified as reenroll3.asp by the server; Wilson logged on to the Department website again on July 20, 2009, on behalf of FACES; The server log shows that other schools logged in on that same date and at the same time; FACES completed its Master Fee Schedule on that date beginning at 2:52 p.m., but upon completing the schedule, FACES logged out of the website; FACES logged on to the Department website on August 5, 2009, at 11:24 a.m., at 4:36 p.m., at 6:15 p.m., and at 7:40 p.m; Other users logged on to the website at the same time FACES was on-line; FACES re-enrolled its students on that date, although it was three days after the deadline for doing so; and The re-enrollment of students by Wilson on August 5, 2009, ultimately, resulted in a computer code called "studentenroll=true" at 3:25 p.m. Clearly, no matter what Wilson attempted to do on July 13, 2009, regarding the enrollment of her students, she did not fully accomplish that task. The computer records and testimony of the Department's witnesses are clear and unequivocal. The enrollment process was not completed prior to the deadline of August 2, 2009. FACES school does not generate a surplus of income from which it might operate without the McKay Scholarships. Loss of the scholarships would be a significant financial strain on the School. Both Wilson and Ranier appear willing to suffer financial shortfalls in order to keep the School running, but cannot do so without scholarship funds. However, due to the technical failure to meet the enrollment deadline, FACES does not appear to be entitled to the scholarships for the 2009-2010 school year. Despite the findings herein, it is abundantly clear that Wilson's testimony was honest and sincere. She was simply mistaken concerning the completion of her enrollment process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Dr. Eric Smith, as Commissioner of Education, denying the claim by Petitioner, FACES Private School, for the September 2009 McKay Scholarship Program awards. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 23rd day of September, 2010.
