The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to be certified as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact West Construction, Inc., is a Florida corporation that is engaged in the construction business. The focus of the business is the renovation and new construction of commercial buildings. Petitioner has been certified as a minority business enterprise by several local governmental entities. Petitioner regularly bids on governmental contracts. Petitioner's application to the Respondent for certification as a minority business enterprise was denied. Petitioner is a "small business" as that term is defined by Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes. 1/ At the time of the formal hearing, Martha A. Morgan owned 51 percent of the issued shares of stock in West Construction, Inc., served as one of two members of the Board of Directors, and was the President, Treasurer, and Assistant Secretary of the corporation. Ms. Morgan is an American woman. 2/ At the time of the formal hearing, Donald West owned the remaining 49 percent of the authorized and issued shares of stock, served as the other member of the Board of Directors, and was Vice-President and Secretary of the corporation. Mr. West is not a "minority person". Ms. Morgan and Donald West have been married to each other since 1985. West Construction, Inc. was incorporated by Donald West and his father in 1977 after they had operated as a partnership for several years. The corporation is authorized to issue 1,000 shares of common stock. When it was incorporated, a total of 200 shares of stock were issued, with Donald West and his father each being issued 100 shares of stock. When Donald West's father retired in 1984, the corporation repurchased his 100 shares of stock and distributed to him an amount equal to 50 percent of the assets of the business. This distribution adversely impacted the corporation's ability to secure performance bonds for projects. After that repurchase, the only issued shares of stock were the 100 shares that had been issued to Donald West in 1977. Prior to her marriage to Mr. West in 1985, Ms. Morgan had her own separate assets. She contributed these assets to the marriage. The marital assets were thereafter used to obtain performance bonds for the corporation and served as security for other obligations of the company. Ms. Morgan is a college graduate with a degree in Business Administration. Her experience includes working as a certified legal assistant for a land development company. In 1985, Ms. Morgan started working for West Construction doing accounting, posting, and general record keeping. In 1989, she began to take a more active role in the affairs of West Construction in that she did more of the day to day bookkeeping, including payroll and accounting. Since December 1992, Ms. Morgan has been licensed by the State of Florida as a certified building contractor. Ms. Morgan became the majority owner of the company on January 1, 1993, when Donald West transferred to her 51 of his 100 shares of stock in the corporation. Donald West remained the only other stockholder with 49 shares of stock. Effective January 1, 1993, Ms. Morgan became the President, Treasurer, and Assistant Secretary of the corporation. Ms. Morgan and Mr. West became the only two members of the board of directors of the corporation. One of the reasons for the transfer of stock was to qualify the corporation for certification as a minority business enterprise. The consideration for the transfer of the stock to Ms. Morgan was the contribution she had made to the marital assets and the work she had done on behalf of the corporation. There was no separate payment of money by Ms. Morgan for this stock. Donald West has been in the construction business all of his adult life. He has a degree from the University of Florida in building construction and has a general contractor's license and a building contractor's licensed from the State of Florida. Mr. West's construction licenses were used to qualify the firm for construction work between 1977 and December 1992, when Ms. Morgan obtained her building contractor's license. Ms. Morgan's license has been used to qualify the corporation since she obtained it. Ms. Morgan is in charge of managing the finances of the company. Ms. Morgan keeps the company books, pays the bills, and invests any profits. She is responsible for payroll, insurance, bonding, accounts receivables, and billings. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. West have the authority to sign checks, make withdrawals and deposits on company accounts, and execute bank documents. Both have the authority to draw on a line of credit that has been established by the company, but neither has had the need to do so. Mr. West has the authority to sign company checks, but he seldom does so. Ms. Morgan and Mr. West are jointly and severally liable as indemnitors on the company's bond, and their personal assets, including the jointly owned marital assets, act as security for this risk. Both serve as guarantor's on the company's line of credit. At the time of her application for certification, Mr. West and Ms. Morgan were paid the same salary. Between that time and the formal hearing, Ms. Morgan had increased her salary so that she was being paid $3,000 per month and Mr. West was being paid $2,000 per month. Ms. Morgan testified that she determined her own salary without consulting Mr. West. Ms. Morgan arranged for the financing of the latest vehicle purchased by the company, she determined that the building out of which the company operates should be financed. She made the decision as to how the company's idle capital would be invested. In addition to Mr. West and Ms. Morgan, the company has two other full time employees who were employed by Mr. West before Ms. Morgan became an owner, officer and director of the company. One of these employees is a carpenter and the other is a general laborer. Mr. West is the direct supervisor for these two employees. Ms. Morgan reviews submittals from subcontractors and works as the liaison between subcontractors and the project architect. Mr. West supervises the work of subcontractors. Ms. Morgan is also responsible for finding projects for the company to bid upon. The company subscribes to two services that provide information to potential bidders as to public works projects. Ms. Morgan reviews that information and determines the projects upon which the company will bid. Ms. Morgan obtains and reviews the bid packages, secures any other information she deems necessary by communicating with the contract letting agency or architect, and attends the pre-bid meeting. Both Mr. West and Ms. Morgan work on the company's bid. Mr. West's role is to prepare quantitative takeoffs from the bid plans. Ms. Morgan determines the overhead by factoring in the amount of current business undertaken by the company, the complexity of the project, and the difficulty of the project. Both Mr. West and Ms. Morgan attend pre-construction meetings. Ms. Morgan usually signs the company bids and any resulting contracts as its president and uses her license to qualify the company. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. West develop the company's work schedule. Despite being licensed as a certified building contractor, Ms. Morgan has never supervised a construction project from beginning to conclusion. The actual construction projects undertaken by the company are supervised and managed by Mr. West. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. West order materials and supplies for construction projects. Ms. Morgan would have to hire someone to manage the construction projects if Mr. West were not available. The management of this family run company is divided between Ms. Morgan and Mr. West. Petitioner established that Ms. Morgan takes a meaningful role in the management of the affairs of the corporation, but it is also clear that Mr. West takes a meaningful role. The managerial functions performed by both stockholders are essential to the operation of the company. One was not established to be more important than the other. It is found that Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Morgan exercises dominate control of the affairs of the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development enter a final order that denies West Construction, Inc.'s application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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, 1995.
The Issue Should Petitioner be certified as a minority business enterprise (MBE) by the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a sole proprietor seeking certification as an MBE under the minority status of Native American (Indian). Also in his application seeking MBE certification, Petitioner claimed the category of Hispanic American but did not attempt to prove this category at the hearing. Petitioner is seeking certification as an MBE qualified to perform building maintenance, grounds maintenance, painting, cleaning, landscaping, and clearing and grubbing. Petitioner’s great-grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee Indian (Native American) who lived her life as an Indian. However, Petitioner presented no evidence that his great-grandmother was a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe, as that term is defined by Rule 38A-20.001(17), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner was at one time a member of the American Cherokee Confederacy of Georgia. However, Petitioner resigned from the American Cherokee Confederacy of Georgia and no longer claims any ties to that group. The American Cherokee Confederacy of Georgia is not a federally recognized Indian Tribe as that term is defined by Rule 38A-20.001(17), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner is not a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe as that term is defined by Rule 38A-20.001(17), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent stipulated at the hearing that its denial was based solely on the fact that Petitioner had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that he was a minority person as that term is defined in Section 288.703(3)(d), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner's application for Minority Business Enterprise status be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Calvin W. "Bill" Wood 10577 Schaefer Lane Lake Wales, Florida 33853 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 303 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner should be certified as a Minority Business Enterprise, (Woman-Owned).
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Commission On Minority Economic and Business Development, now the Division of Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security, was the state agency in Florida charged with the responsibility for certifying minority and women-owned businesses for most state agencies. It is required, by statute, to ensure that the preference for minority business firms obtained by the certification process are awarded only to those firms for which the benefit is intended. Petitioner, Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc., is a small business corporation registered in Florida on August 7, 1985. At the time of the original incorporation of the corporation, 1,000 shares of corporate stock were issued of the 7,000 shares authorized in the Articles of Incorporation. Of these, 510 were issued to John D. Richeson, the individual who, with his brother in the late 1970's, started the window cleaning business while a student in college as a means of supporting himself and, later, his wife and family. The remaining 490 shares were issued to Hope L. Richeson, his wife. The funds utilized to start the business and ultimately incorporate were jointly owned by Mr. and Mrs. Richeson. The Articles of Incorporation, as filed initially, list John D. Richeson as incorporator and registered agent, and John D. Richeson and Hope L. Richeson as the Initial Board of Directors. On January 1, 1986, an additional 500 shares of corporate stock was issued in her name to give her a total of 990 shares out of a total 1,500 shares issued and outstanding. Mrs. Richeson's percentage of ownership, after the issuance of the additional 500 shares, was 66 percent. Share certificates reflect this fact. No additional funds were contributed to the corporate assets by Mrs. Richeson as consideration for the issuance of those shares. Mrs. Richeson, currently the President of the company, attended Bible College in Kansas for three years, graduating in 1978. She moved to Florida in 1980 where she attended Hillsborough Community College (HCC), taking as many business education courses as she could in pursuit of an Associates Degree in Business. In addition to that, she has taken the Small Business Administration Class offered by the University of South Florida. She married John Richeson in 1982 and they have worked together in the window cleaning business since that time. After graduating from HCC Mrs. Richeson contacted a family friend, an attorney, for the purpose of incorporating the business. It was at this time she began to run the business. Without asking any questions about the division of duties or the responsibility for leadership in the business, the attorney drafted the incorporation papers making Mr. Richeson the president. Ms. Richeson took the position of vice-president. She admits she did not, at the time, understand the ramifications of that action. Had she known the importance of the title, she would not have acquiesced in having her husband made president. Even though Ms. Richeson was the de-facto head of the business from the time of its expansion from a one-man operation, John D. Richeson served as president of the corporation from inception up to January 1, 1996, when Hope L. Richeson was elected president. At the annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the corporation, held on December 20, 1995, attended by Mr. and Mrs. Richeson, the two directors, the Board recognized Mrs. Richeson's control over the operation of the business since its inception and made her president effective January 1, 1996, when Mr. Richeson, the incumbent, became vice- president Mrs. Richeson indicates, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that neither she nor her husband had any specific training in order to operate the business. What was most important was a general business sense and a knowledge, gained by reading trade periodicals and from experience, of specific window cleaning products. Most of the major business contracts obtained by Petitioner come from bids to government entities and corporations. Other than herself, several employees, namely those who were brought into the business because of their experience with large cleaning projects, evaluate prospective jobs and prepare proposals. This proposal is then brought to her for approval before it is submitted to the potential client. These individuals are her husband and the Van Buren brothers. Based on a job costing formula learned in school, Mrs. Richeson then evaluates the bid to determine if it is too low or too high. She determines if the company can do the job for the price quoted. In addition to bidding, Ms. Richeson claims to oversee every aspect of the business. These functions range from buying office supplies to costing jobs. No one but she has the authority to purchase supplies or equipment other than minor items in an emergency. She also supervises the finances of the operation, determining how earnings are to be distributed and how much corporate officers and employees are to receive as compensation. By her recollection, on several occasions, due to a shortage of liquid funds, she has waived her right to be paid for a particular work period. She claims not to have taken a withdrawal from the corporation for a year, but the corporation's payroll documents reflect otherwise. The salary of each employee is set by Mrs. Richeson. Employees are paid on a percentage of job income. Those employees who do the high-rise jobs receive 40 percent of the income from those jobs. From her experience in the business, this arrangement for paying washers works far better than paying a straight salary. On the other hand, office personnel are paid on an hourly basis. In the event the business were to be dissolved due to insolvency, Mrs. Richeson would lose her 66 percent stock interest in the corporation and her husband would lose his 34 percent interest. There are no other owners of the company, and no one other than the Richesons would bear any loss. Not only can no one but Mrs. Richeson make purchases for the company, even Mr. Richeson cannot sign company checks by himself nor can he pay bills or make any major business decisions. Only she has the authority to borrow money in the name of the corporation. This was not always the case, however. In 1994, Mr. Richeson purchased a new vehicle for the corporation, signing the finance arrangement as president of the company, but even then, Mrs. Richeson signed as co-buyer. Also, the 1994 unsigned lease agreement for the company's use of real property owned by the Richesons calls for Mr. Richeson to sign as president of the company. Mrs. Richeson is the only one in the company who has the authority to hire or fire employees. While she believes the company would go out of business if she were not the president, she also believes she would be able easily to hire someone to replace Mr. Richeson if he were to leave the company. These beliefs are confirmed and reiterated by Mr. Richeson who claims that his role in the company from its very beginning has been that of services rather than management. On August 14, 1995, Mrs. Richeson, who at the time owned 990 of 1,500 shares of corporate stock, filed an application for certification as a minority business enterprise. The application reflected Mrs. Richeson as the owner of a 66 percent interest in the corporation, but also reflected Mr. Richeson as president. This was before the change mentioned previously Melissa Leon reviewed this application as a certification office for the Commission in September 1995. She recommended denial of the application on several bases. The Articles of Incorporation submitted with the application reflect the Director of the corporation as John D. and Hope Richeson and list only John Richeson as incorporator in August 1985. The corporate detail record as maintained in the office of the Secretary of State also reflects the resident agent for the corporation is John Richeson. The corporation's 1993 and 1994 federal income tax returns show John Richeson as 100 percent owner. No minority ownership is indicated. Income tax returns are afforded great weight by the Commission staff in determining ownership. Though Mrs. Richeson claims to own the majority interest in the corporation in her application, the tax returns do not reflect this. In addition, the corporation payroll summaries for February 28, 1995, March 31, 1995 and April 30, 1995 all show John Richeson receiving more income from the business than did Hope Richeson. In the opinion of Ms. Leon, Mrs. Richeson's salary was not commensurate with her claimed ownership interest. The same records for the last three months of 1995 and through April 1996 reflect Mrs. Richeson as receiving more than Mr. Richeson, however. Other factors playing a role in Ms. Leon's determination of non- qualification include the fact that the purchase order for the truck reflected Mr. Richeson as president; the lease agreement shows him signing as president; the bank signature card reflects him as president in 1994 and the corporate detail record shows Mrs. Richeson as resident agent by change dated May 14, 1996, after the filing of the application. Upon receipt of the Petitioner's application, Ms. Leon reviewed the documents submitted therewith and did a telephone interview with Mrs. Richeson. Based on this information and consistent with the guidelines set out in the agency's rules governing certification, (60A-2, F.A.C.), she concluded that the application did not qualify for certification. Not only was the required 51 percent minority ownership not clearly established, she could not determine that the minority owner contributed funds toward the establishment of the business. Ms. Leon determined that the payroll records, reflecting that from February through April 1995, Mrs. Richeson drew less than Mr. Richeson, were not consistent with the same records for the period from October 1995 through April 1996, which reflected that Mrs. Richeson was now earning more than her husband. Further, the amount Mrs. Richeson earned constituted only 53.2 percent of the salary while her ownership interest was purportedly 66 percent. A further factor militating toward denial, in Ms. Leon's eyes, was the fact that there were only two directors. Since Mrs. Richeson was one of two, she could not control the Board, and minority directors do not make up a majority of the Board. While the documents played an important part in Ms. Leon's determination, the telephone interview was also important. Here Ms. Leon found what she felt were many inconsistencies between what was stated in the interview and Mrs. Richeson's testimony at hearing. Therefore, Ms. Leon concluded at the time of her review that the business was jointly owned and operated. It was not sufficiently controlled by the minority party, to qualify for certification. Nothing she heard at hearing would cause her to change her opinion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order denying Minority Business Enterprise status to Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1996, 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 22nd day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5913 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the last sentence which is rejected as a legal conclusion. Accepted that she ran the operation. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as a restatement of the testimony of Mrs. Richeson and a generalized agreement with the comments made. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein, 11. - 12. Accepted. 13. - 14. Accepted. 15. - 17. Accepted. 18. - 19. Not proper Finding of Fact, but accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. 20. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 25. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contradicted by the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that until after the application was filed, Mr. Richeson was paid more than Mrs. Richeson, but the difference was not great. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not consistent with the evidence of record except for the allegation concerning Mr. Richeson's authority to sign corporate checks, which is accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam L. Sumpter, Esquire 2700 North Dale Mabry Avenue, Suite 208 Tampa, Florida 33607 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 303 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be certified as a minority business enterprise by the Respondent, pursuant to Section 288.703(1) and (2), Florida Statutes and the applicable rules implementing the statute.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation, established in 1988 and is owned by Barbara Pedone (Pedone). Pedone is the corporation's president and sole stockholder. Michael Pedone, who is married to Barbara Pedone, of the applicant company, is not a minority under Florida law. Pedone has been involved in the construction business since the early 1960's in a administrative capacity. Pedone has been a part owner of certain construction businesses with her husband that involved residential insulation, as well as the installation of pipe and duct insulation material. Michael Pedone is employed by the applicant company as its Vice President. He runs the field operation. He does the field work for the applicant company, gathering materials, supervising the workers and working on proposals for new jobs. He consults on these matters with his wife. The applicant company is a family-run business with shared responsibilities between Barbara and Michael Pedone. Both Mr. And Mrs. Pedone make decisions concerning which jobs to bid on, what equipment to buy and whom to hire and fire. Hiring and firing duties are also shared with the field lead, Alex Uzaga. Pedone concentrates on the management end of the business, and Michael Pedone concentrates more on the technical and field work of the applicant company. The applicant is required to have a license in most of the jurisdictions in which it does business. Michael Pedone carries all the necessary licenses and is the qualifier for the applicant company. Barbara Pedone does not have a license and cannot qualify the applicant company. Barbara Pedone writes most, if not all, of the business checks for the applicant company, performs bidding functions, and administrative responsibilities, visits the various job sites, and, in recent months, has signed most of the job proposals. Barbara Pedone has never performed any work of installing or applying insulations or fireproofing materials. Barbara Pedone draws a weekly salary of $100. Michael Pedone draws a weekly salary of $1,000. The reason given for the disparity in salaries is that this allows Michael Pedone to accrue certain social security retirement credits. Barbara Pedone accrues her credits through her other employment. Barbara Pedone is employed full-time by Collier County and works no less than 40 hours weekly there. Other income and dividends of the corporation are deposited in a joint account. Barbara Pedone has full authority to sell the company or to change its corporate existence in any manner she may determine. Applicant has not established by competent evidence that Barbara Pedone exercises a real, substantial continuing ownership and control of the applicant corporation. Other than her minimum salary, no evidence was introduced to establish that Barbara Pedone receives income commensurate with the percentage of her ownership in the company. Barbara Pedone failed to establish that she shares in all of the risk through her role in decision-making, negotiations, or execution of documents and risk capital as either an individual or officer of the corporation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed by Fire Stop Systems, Inc., on July 30, 1996, be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire 215 Airport Road South Naples, Florida 34104 Joseph L. Shields Senior Attorney Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Veronica Anderson Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was incorporated in July 1992. Petitioner is a graphic design firm specializing in strategic, market-driven design. Petitioner conducts market analysis of a client and, only after defining the corporate identity of the client, engages in the development of suitable graphic design. Mary Francis Weathington is the president and chief executive officer of Petitioner. Her experience in communications began in 1980 as a technical writer and editor. From 1989-92, Ms. Weathington served as an account supervisor for an advertising firm. In this role, Ms. Weathington supervised all junior account executives, developed marketing plans, presented proposals to clients, and communicated client needs to agency staff. Ms. Weathington started Petitioner with John LoCastro, who had worked with her at the advertising agency during the same period of time. Mr. LoCastro was responsible for concept development, management, and design direction at the advertising agency. A third person, David Miller, was also involved with the formation of Petitioner. Mr. Miller served as secretary and treasurer, Mr. LoCastro as vice president, and Ms. Weathington as president. Until December 31, 1993, when Mr. Miller resigned from Petitioner, the three principals each owned 50 shares of the 150 issued shares of Petitioner. The capital contribution of each principal was valued at $4500. When he left the company, Mr. Miller transferred his stock to Petitioner in a transaction that required him to pay money to the company due to its thin capitalization and performance. At the same time, Ms. Weathington purchased two more shares. In the summer of 1994, Ms. Weathington bought three more shares and Mr. LoCastro's wife bought two shares. Presently, Ms. Weathington owns 55 shares, Mr. LoCastro owns 50 shares, and Mrs. LoCastro owns two shares. Petitioner has not issued other shares. Petitioner's board of directors consists of Ms. Weathington, her husband, Mr. LoCastro, and his wife. However, Mr. Weathington is a nonvoting director. Besides the two principals, Petitioner employs only one other fulltime employee, an office manager who is responsible for answering the phone, bookkeeping, proofreading, and handling miscellaneous clerical duties. Petitioner also employs, as needed, freelance graphic designers. Petitioner has recently employed a freelance copywriter. In a small company like Petitioner, there is necessarily some sharing of responsibilities in order to secure and produce design work and ensure that payables and receivables are properly managed. However, there are clear areas of responsibility for Ms. Weathington and Mr. LoCastro. As his resume states, Mr. LoCastro is "[r]esponsible for overall creative management, with an emphasis on creative development, planning and design." He is in charge of visual graphics and does nearly all of the computer graphics work, unless it is assigned to a freelancer. Ms. Weathington is responsible for marketing in two respects. First, she markets for Petitioner. She has brought a large majority of the clients to Petitioner and continues to remain responsible for their use of the company. Second, Ms. Weathington assists the clients in developing advertising and design programs that will effectively market the products and services of the clients. Ms. Weathington conducts market research of a client's needs and prepares advertising and design strategies to maintain and enhance the client's business. Ms. Weathington also is chiefly responsible for the management and administration of Petitioner. The office manager's bookkeeping duties are performed under the supervision of Ms. Weathington, who handles personnel, purchasing, planning, and accounting. Although the signatures of both principals are required on checks over $500, this requirement reflects security concerns and does not have a bearing on the division of responsibilities between Ms. Weathington and Mr. LoCastro. Although Mr. LoCastro is responsible for the in-house visuals, Ms. Weathington is responsible for copywriting, which is performed in-house nearly in its entirety. Each principal has been required to guarantee personally the debt of Petitioner. But, given the greater assets of Ms. Weathington, the financial risk is actually borne by her, not Mr. LoCastro. Petitioner's lender would not have made the loan on Mr. LoCastro's guarantee alone, but would have on Ms. Weathington's guarantee alone. Ms. Weathington's control of Petitioner is evidenced in other respects. Petitioner pays for a cellular telephone for her, but not Mr. LoCastro. The marketing brochure prepared by Petitioner features Ms. Weathington in a superior role to the subordinate roles of Mr. LoCastro and Mr. Miller. Ms. Weathington's indispensable contribution to Petitioner is documented by gross sales figures for 1993, during which, for personal reasons, she was unable to work in the spring and fall. When she returned to work in the summer, gross sales increased from less than $10,000 per month to over $50,000 per month. When she left work again in the fall, gross monthly sales fell again to the $20,000 level. Profits have also increased by 16 percent since Ms. Weathington's return.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for minority business enterprise certification. ENTERED on January 24, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on January 24, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 8, 9, and 12: adopted, although based on the facts and not a claimed concession or absence of dispute. 22: adopted, except that the evidence showed only that gross revenues went down during Ms. Weathington's absences. Nothing in the record addressed net earnings or profits during these periods. Remaining proposed findings: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1 (first sentence): adopted. 1 (remainder)-4 (except for last sentence): rejected as subordinate. 4 (last sentence): adopted. 5-6: rejected as subordinate. 7-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 10: to the extent not subordinate, adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: adopted or adopted in substance. 13 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 13 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, subordinate, and recitation of evidence. 20 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 20 (second sentence): rejected as legal argument. 21: adopted or adopted in substance, except for the implication that, as a practical matter, Mr. LoCastro's guarantee represents as real a financial risk as Ms. Weathington's guarantee. 22 (first sentence): adopted. 22 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Increased sales does not mean increased profits, and nothing in the record indicates increased profits. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 John S. Derr Bush & Derr, P.A. 2874-A Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, FL 32308 Attorney Cindy Horne Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Reguest for Statement of Qualification for Petroleum Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. Attachment F to the solicitation sought information related to utilization of minority business enterprises as subcontractors. Points were available for said utilization. The Department awarded zero points to parties which failed to include the three pages of the attachment in the responses to the solicitation. The issue in this case is whether the Department acted in accordance with law in awarding zero points for failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F.
Findings Of Fact On March 1, 1991, The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSOQ) for Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. As stated in the RFSOQ, the DER's objective is to enter into approximately ten contracts for petroleum cleanup services with contractors most qualified to perform the services. It is in the best interests of the state and the DER to enter into such contracts with the most qualified contractors available. Selected firms will be placed under contract with the DER to respond to task assignments. There is no work guaranteed to any contractor as a result of being selected and placed under contract. The cover sheet to the DER Solicitation #9111C identifies Attachment B as "General Instructions", Attachment C as "Instructions for Preparation of an SOQ", Attachment F as "Minority Business Certificate" and Attachment N as an "SOQ Checklist." In the RFSOQ, the DER specifically reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. The general instructions set forth at Attachment B provide, that the DER "may waive minor informalities or irregularities in the SOQs received where such are merely a matter of form and not substance, and the corrections of which are not prejudicial to other contractors." The DER is not required to waive all minor irregularities. The ability to waive such defects is within the jurisdiction of the agency. The evidence establishes that the DER applied such discretion consistently. There is no evidence that, at any time prior to the SOQ opening, did the Petitioner or Intervenors seek additional information from the DER regarding the agency's discretion to waive minor irregularities. Attachment C provides that "ANY AND ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY A CONTRACTOR IN VARIANCE WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE REVIEWED OR EVALUATED (e.g. pages beyond the 20-page SOQ limit will not be reviewed) or may result in the response being deemed non-responsive and rejected as noted." The purpose of the statement was to discourage responders from submitting information beyond that required by the RFSOQ, in order to provide a common basis for the evaluation of all SOQs submitted. The provision also provided the DER with the ability to reject an SOQ which failed to substantially comply with the agency's solicitation. Attachment C states that an SOQ shall consist of three parts, a one- page transmittal letter, a 20-page SOQ, and "other required information". According to Attachment C, the SOQ was to contain an introduction, a section on the company's background, a statement of experience and knowledge related to the qualifications required by the RFSOQ, a description of project organization and management appropriate to the tasks assigned, a list of personnel responsible for completion of assigned task, a list of "a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the FDER" and related information. Work performed for the DER was to be set forth separately in addition to the ten non-DER clients. "Other required information" included minority business utilization information. Attachment C provides as follows: Contractors submitting SOQs under this solicitation must identify intended minority subcontractors and estimated percentage of total contract amount to be awarded to minority firms on Attachment F of this Request for Statement of Qualifications. Use of any document other that Attachment F shall result in disallowance of any credit for use of minority subcontractors. (emphasis supplied.) Evaluation points were available on a scaled basis to contractors based upon their commitment to utilization of minority businesses enterprises in their SOQs. Attachment B provides that "Minority Business Utilization will be evaluated. provided that the responder complies with the reporting requirements contained in Attachment F...." (emphasis supplied.) Attachment F, page 1 of 3, provides as follows: Directions: Each contractor and/or subcontractor which meets the definition of a certified small minority business, as described below, shall submit an originally signed copy of page 1 of this Attachment in the response package to this solicitation. If more than one minority business is to be used, the prime contractor shall copy this page and have each minority business complete that copy as though it were an original. A prime contractor which intends to utilize subcontractors meeting the definition of small minority business is responsible for completing page 2 of this Attachment. A prime contractor which meets the definition of a small minority business is responsible for completing page 3 of this Attachment. If a particular page of this Attachment is not applicable, the prime contractor shall so indicate on that page and include the page as part of the response package. At a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit-- this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization. (emphasis supplied.) Attachment N, the "SOQ checklist," provides a list of items which are to be "properly completed, signed and enclosed" in order to "ensure that your SOQ is responsive to FDER Solicitation No. 9111C...." Item 3.b. of Attachment N reads: "Minority Business Utilization Form - if applicable (Attachment F)". As stated in Attachment B to the RFSOQ, on March 13, 1991, a mandatory pre-bid meeting was held in Tallahassee, Florida, at the DER's offices for all contractors wishing to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ). Failure to attend the meeting would have resulted in rejection of SOQs submitted by non- attending contractors. The Petitioner and Intervenors were represented at the pre-bid meeting. The meeting provided an opportunity during the solicitation process to have technical, legal or administrative questions answered. Accordingly, potential responders are expected to have read the complete RFSOQ prior to the meeting. At the pre-bid meeting, the DER did not review every part of the solicitation, but invited questions from participants. The DER official conducting the meeting stated that "any and all information submitted by a contractor in variance with these instructions will not be reviewed or evaluated," however, the other directions provided in the RFSOQ were otherwise reviewed only upon request. Although there was a specific discussion of the requirements for reporting proposed minority business utilization, there were no questions asked with regard to the requirements for completion of Attachment F. There were no questions asked regarding the DER's right to waive irregularities, or whether the failure to submit Attachment F in accordance with the directions would be regarded by the agency as a minor irregularity. Potential responders also had an opportunity to submit written questions prior to a time certain. There is no evidence that questions were raised related to the requirements of Attachment F or to the DER's application of it's discretionary authority to waive minor irregularities. On March 22, 1991, the DER issued an addendum, not material to this case, to the Request for SOQs. The addendum was sent by certified mail to each contractor represented at the March 13, 1991 meeting. On March 27, 1991, a second addendum was sent to each contractor. The addendum, among other things, changed the date for submission of an SOQ from April 1, 1991 to April 15, 1991 at 2:00 P.M. On April 15, 1991, SOQs were submitted by the Petitioner and Intervenors in this case. The bids were opened at 2:00 P.M. or shortly thereafter, and subsequently evaluated and scored by DER personnel. In some categories, points were awarded on a weighted basis, which provided a relative ranking of responders. For example, the prime contractor with the highest minority business enterprise subcontractor utilization received 13 points, with lesser ranked contractors receiving fewer points. On June 3, 1991, at 10:05 A.M. bid tabulation results were posted in the DER's contract office. The Petitioner and Intervenors in this case submitted responsive SOQ's to DER solicitation #9111C. The result of the DER's evaluation was the development of a short list of contractors permitted to make oral presentations to agency officials after which the DER will initiate contract discussions with approximately ten contractors. The SOQs were reviewed by DER officials who initially identified information submitted which did not comply with the requirements of the RFSOQ. Irregularities were identified and discussed with DER legal counsel to determine the materiality of the irregularity and to ascertain the appropriate treatment of the defects. The DER officials did not disclose the identity of the responder during the discussions, although the person identifying the defect was aware of the related responder. However, there is no evidence that the three DER officials were aware of an individual non-complying contractor's identity, or that the decision to waive such irregularities was based upon the identity of the participants. The DER determined that, in order to be equitable to all participants, it would not waive irregularities where the directions were clear and the consequences for noncompliance were specifically set forth. If the solicitation were less clear, or the consequence of noncompliance with the requirement was not specifically identified, the Department attempted to be more lenient regarding the waiver of such irregularities. Where the DER waived irregularities, such waivers were awarded on a consistent basis without regard to the individual responders involved. Information which was not to be reviewed or evaluated was concealed by either covering the information with white paper, or stapling excess pages together. The DER waived several types of minor irregularities in the SOQs received for Solicitation #9111C. Some contractors submitted transmittal letters consisting of multiple pages rather than the one page letter specified in the RFSOQ. The transmittal letter received no evaluation points. The DER stapled multiple page letters together and considered only information contained on the first page. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the one- page limit was not reviewed or evaluated. The DER did not waive the failure to attach a transmittal letter. DER waived some irregularities related to subcontractor letters. Multiple page letters were stapled together and only page one information was reviewed. The DER decision to waive such defects was based upon the fact that such subcontractors were less familiar with the DER's submission requirements than were the prime contractors, that such letters were submitted by the subcontractors, that it was unfair to penalize the prime contractors for the minor irregularities of the subcontractor letters, and that the tasks to be performed by subcontractors were generally not critical to the successful completion of the prime contractor's assigned responsibilities. There was sufficient information to permit the DER to conclude that the subcontractor and prime contractor were committed to the project. There is no evidence that the identities of the subcontractors was considered in determining whether such defects should be waived. The DER waived other irregularities related to subcontractor letters, including the failure of a subcontractor to sign the letter. There was no specific requirement that the subcontractor sign the letter. However, the DER did not waive the failure to submit subcontractor letters. In instances where no letters were submitted, the DER awarded zero points and references to the subcontractor in the SOQ were deleted. The DER's actions related to subcontractor letters was reasonable and appropriate. Another irregularity waived by the DER was the failure to supply a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the DER, with work performed for the DER set forth separately. The DER did not waive the failure to submit ten references, however, in some cases, not all ten references were acceptable. Attachment C does not state that the failure to submit ten acceptable references shall result in an award of zero points. In such instances, the DER reduced the number of points available to reflect the percentage of acceptable references provided. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the requirements, such as unacceptable references, was not evaluated. The DER acted reasonably and consistently with the provisions set forth in the RFSOQ. The DER requested that responders identify three "deliverables" required through an ongoing contract which had been effective within the past year. The DER did not consider deliverables related to contracts which had not been effective within the past year. The DER checked the references and awarded no points for unacceptable references. Several SOQ's did not appropriately identify key personnel as required. The DER did not consider information which was not reported as required by the RFSOQ. Where minor irregularities were waived, the waiver was applied consistently to all responders. The DER did not waive the failure of any responder to submit the three pages of Attachment F, as clearly required by the directions to the attachment. All parties which failed to submit all three pages of the attachment received a score of zero. There is no evidence that the DER, at any time, indicated that the directions set forth on Attachment F were optional. Approximately 20 of 45 of contractors submitting SOQs failed to include all three pages of the MBE utilization form, Attachment F to the Request for SOQs. Most failed to include page three of the attachment. The Petitioner, as well as Intervenors ERM-South, ITC and Westinghouse, were included in the 20 responders which failed to submit all three pages of Attachment F. As provided in the directions to Attachment F, failure to include all three pages of the attachment resulted in a score of zero points for MBE utilization. The DER could have made certain assumptions about the applicability of Attachment F to specific responders to the solicitation. However, given that the directions were clear and the penalty for not complying with the directions was equally clear, the DER did not waive the failure to submit all three pages of the attachment as part of the SOQs. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the DER's action was outside the agency's discretion or the requirements of law. Extensive testimony was offered in support of the assertion that the directions related to reporting of minority business utilization were confusing and ambiguous. However, the directions to Attachment F are clear and provide that, "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." There is no credible evidence to establish that such directions are confusing or ambiguous. The instructions to the RFSOQ consistently refer to Attachment F as being the only acceptable means of reporting minority business utilization information. Attachment F consists of three pages, with the "Directions" for completing and submitting the attachment set forth at page one, paragraph one. The Petitioner and Intervenors timely filed SOQ's and are substantially affected by the DER's determination that responders failing to submit all three pages of Attachment F were awarded zero points for minority business utilization. There is no evidence that the Petitioner or Intervenors are unable to perform the tasks identified in the RFSOQ.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (Case No. 91-4318B1D), as well as Cases No. 91- 43I6BID and 91-4317B1D, as set forth in the preliminary statement to this Recommended Order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-4316B1D, 90-4317B1D, and 90-4318B1D The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected as to the implication that DER had no right to waive minor irregularities, contrary to the evidence. 12, 16, 19. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected. Such additional points appear to have been awarded to M&E in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 24-25. Rejected. Although the specific waivers are factually correct, the implication of the proposed finding is contrary to the weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER waives such irregularities, even though the instructions were clear, where the consequences for failing to comply with each specific instruction were unclear. There was no penalty set forth at the requirement that a document be signed or not exceed one page in length. The evidence establishes that the DER's actions were reasonable, logical, and within the authority of the agency. 29-32. Rejected. Contrary to the clear "Directions" of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." Responders were referred to Attachment F by the instructions cited in the proposed finding. 33-34, 36-38, Rejected, irrelevant. 39. Rejected, immaterial. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by M&E and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40-41 Rejected. A logical reading of the checklist reference to Attachment F would be that, if the attachment were applicable, the attachment should be included. The clear and specific directions to Attachment F require the submission of the three page package to receive points. 42-43. Rejected, irrelevant. 44. Rejected. The failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F resulted in zero points, as provided in the directions to the attachment. The DER policy related to waiver of irregularities does not include the waiver of irregularities where the instructions are clear, the penalty for noncompliance is specific, and a responder fails to comply. The policy is reasonable and was applied consistently. 47. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. It appears that M&E's assertion that it would be included in the "short list" requires addition of points awarded by the DER in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 49-50. Rejected. While "instructions in a competitive bidding solicitation can be rendered ambiguous by their location," in this case, the instructions contained in the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. Attachment F's directions are not ambiguous or confusing. 51-53. Rejected, immaterial. This proposed finding is also contrary to the suggestion that the instructions were unclear, and indicates, not that the instructions were unclear, but that the M&E representative did not read the RFSOQ. It is not possible to find that a careful and intelligent reader of the directions to Attachment F could misunderstand the meaning of "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 54-61. Rejected, immaterial. The fact that a substantial number of responders failed to comply with the clear directions of Attachment F does not establish that the directions are confusing. The instructions to the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. The first paragraph of Attachment F is entitled and contains "Directions" which are clearly set forth. There is nothing at all ambiguous about the requirement that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 62-65. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no requirement that the DER waive all irregularities. Such irregularities may be waived at the Department's discretion. The DER chose not to waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for failure to comply with said requirements, were clear. The DER applied this policy appropriately and consistently. There was no appearance of favoritism when the agency's policy is fairly and consistently applied. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER expects potential responders to have read the RFSOQ prior to the pre-bid meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to answer questions and provide clarifying information. The fact that no questions were asked regarding the requirement to submit all three pages of Attachment F indicates that participants either clearly understood the requirement or had not read the RFSOQ prior to the only mandatory opportunity to obtain clarification. In any event, the DER is not obligated to read every sentence of the RFSOQ aloud at a pre-bid meeting in order to make certain that responders who fail to read the document will submit responsive SOQs. Rejected, cumulative. 68-69. Rejected, immaterial, unnecessary. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 23. Rejected as to the implication that Attachment C, Page 1, indicated the DER could not waive any irregularities. Cited language states that information submitted in variance with instructions would not be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence establishes that information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated, but was disregarded. 28. Rejected. It is not clear what is meant by this proposed finding. 37-39. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. 41. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. 42-43. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible, especially given M&E/PIECO's correct submission in response to similar requirements of RFSOQ #9003C. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. The fact that the cited witness understood the directive and failed to comply due to oversight does not suggest that the directive was unclear. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. The reason for the cited witnesses failure to comply is unclear. Rejected, cumulative. 48. Rejected, unnecessary. 50-51. Rejected, immaterial. The issue in this case is not whether to goals of the minority business utilization program are met, but whether the DER acted inappropriately in reviewing SOQs submitted in response to the DER RFSOQ #9111C. 52-53. Rejected, unnecessary. 54-56. Rejected, unnecessary, cumulative. Intervenor ERM-South The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, cumulative. 14-19. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. 21. Last sentence rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER applied the language of the RFSOQ in a reasonable way, and that material information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated. 32-39, 41. Rejected, immaterial. The issue is whether the failure to follow the clear directions of Attachment F should result, as the directions provide, in zero points being awarded. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by ERM-South and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. There is no evidence that the omission of Attachment F, page three, is the sole basis for exclusion of a contractor from the short list. The short list was determined by ranking scores awarded. As stated in the directions to Attachment F, the result of noncompliance with said directions was an award of zero points for minority business utilization. 42-46. Rejected, cumulative, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER's action in reviewing the submitted Attachment F was reasonable, logical, and was applied in a consistent manner. As to whether the DER should have contacted other agencies to determine MBE status, the agency is under no obligation to do so. 47-49. Rejected, contrary to the clear directions of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." It is simply not possible to find, as suggested in the proposed finding, that such language cannot be relied upon to put contractors on notice that the failure to submit the three pages would result in zero points. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. Rejected, irrelevant. 52-54. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. 55-57. Rejected, irrelevant. 59-64. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. Intervenor ITC The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Proposed findings of fact #7, #10 and #14-16 relate to evidence introduced at hearing by ITC to support it's position that it had been excluded from the "short list" due to DER's clerical error. As stated in the preliminary statement, ITC failed to timely file a notice of protest subsequent to the posting of the bid tabulation results challenging the DER's clerical error. Accordingly, this Recommended Order does not set forth Findings of Fact related to the clerical error due to ITC's failure to timely file a written notice of protest as required by Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes. 12. Rejected. The M&E formal written protest does not allege that the DER had improperly drawn the line for the "short list." 18-20. Rejected. Although likely correct, the proposed findings are irrelevant to the issue in this case. Rejected. Such additional points awarded to M&E by the DER appear to have been awarded contrary to Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. Rejected, cumulative. ITC had an opportunity to timely file a written notice of protest subsequent to the bid tabulation posting, but failed to do so. An intervenor takes the case as it is found. Rejected, cumulative. 25. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The evidence does not establish that the failure to complete all of Attachment F was based on it's inapplicability. Attachment F clearly states that inapplicable pages should be so marked and submitted with the response package. If such pages were not returned, as suggested, because there did not apply, then it is reasonable to conclude that the responder failed to read the clearly stated directions to Attachment F. 26-29. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER did nothing more than apply the clearly stated direction that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package" and imposed the clearly stated penalty, stating that "[f]ailure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 32-33. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence that the DER did not waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for noncompliance with said requirements, were clearly stated. The DER did waive other irregularities where the instructions were ambiguous or confusing, or where there was not a specific penalty attached for the failure to follow a specific requirement. The evidence establishes that the DER actions were appropriate. 34. Rejected, immaterial. All three pages of Attachment F were clearly required to be submitted or a score of zero would be awarded. Intervenor E&E The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-3. Rejected, cumulative. 12. Rejected, contrary to the cited evidence. Although Attachment F was discussed in terms of reporting requirements, there were no questions asked related to the directions for completing or submitting the attachment. 21. Rejected, cumulative. Intervenors EBASCO, ABB, OHM, Cherokee and Westinghouse jointly filed a proposed recommended order. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 13, 16-17, 43-45, 47. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esq. Carlos Alvarez, Esq. 123 S. Calhoun Street Post Office Drawer 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 M. Christopher Bryant, Esq. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George N. Meros, Esq. 101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barrett G. Johnson, Esq. 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rex D. Ware, Esq. 106 East College Avenue Highpoint Center, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Robert Venzina, III, Esq. Mary M. Piccard, Esq. 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0589 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esq. Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are: (1) whether the Respondent properly rejected the lowest bid because the bid did not comply with the requirements set forth in the Project Manual, and (2) whether the Respondent properly awarded the bid to the second lowest bidder.
Findings Of Fact Findings Based Upon Stipulation of All Parties The Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, issued a Call For Bids, as published in Vol. 16, No. 7, February 16, 1990, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly, for project number BR-183, Life Safety and Fire Code Corrective Work, J. Hillis Miller Health Center, University of Florida., Gainesville, Florida. Sealed bids were received on March 15, 1990, at which time they were publicly opened and read aloud. Petitioner, Anglin Construction Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Anglin"), submitted the lowest monetary bid for the project; and Charles R. Perry (hereinafter referred to as "Perry") submitted the second lowest monetary bid on the project. By letter dated March 19, 1990, the University of Florida notified Anglin that its bid proposal, submitted on March 15, 1990, had been found to be in non-compliance with the Project Manual and rejected by the University of Florida. The specific reason for non-compliance was that Anglin's advertisement for Minority Business Enterprise ("MBE") participation, as part of its demonstration of good-faith effort, did not appear in the media at least seven (7) days prior to bid opening. On March 23, 1990, the contract for this project was awarded to Perry by the Chancellor of the Florida Board of Regents. By letter dated March 26, 1990, Anglin filed a notice of protest in regard to the award of this contract to Perry. Anglin timely filed a formal bid protest in regard to this action, which was received by the Florida Board of Regents on April 4, 1990. A representative from Anglin and Perry attended the required pre- solicitation/pre-bid meeting scheduled for March 1, 1990 for this project. Mr. Larry Ellis, Minority Purchasing Coordinator, University of Florida, was present at the pre- solicitation/pre-bid meeting and distributed a handbook entitled "Minority Business Enterprise Requirements for Major and Minor Construction Projects Survival Handbook" to those in attendance. Anglin and Perry obtained or examined the Project Manual for BR-183. By letter dated March 6, 1990, Anglin requested the Gainesville Sun newspaper to run an advertisement for seven (7) consecutive days to solicit bids from qualified MBE/WBE companies for BR-183. The advertisement in the Gainesville Sun was initially published in the March 9, 1990 edition and ran consecutively through the March 15, 1990 edition. The Project Manual, at page L-2 of L-13 pages, Special Conditions section, paragraph 1.7.2.2, provides that advertisements for minority business enterprises must run or be published on a date at least seven (7) days prior to the bid opening. Findings Based Upon Documentary Evidence The Call for Bids provided that at least fifteen percent (15%) of the project contracted amount be expended with minority business enterprises certified by the Department of General Services and if fifteen percent (15%) were not obtainable, the State University System would recognize good- faith efforts by the bidder (Jt. Ex. 1). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 1) provided that all bidders must be qualified at the time of their bid proposal in accordance with the Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2. The Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2, at page 9 of the Project Manual (Jt. Ex. 2) provided, in pertinent part, that in order to be eligible to submit a Bid Proposal, a bidder must meet any special requirements set forth in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Special Conditions, paragraph 1.1 at page L-1 sets forth the MBE requirements. Paragraph 1.1.2 provides that evidence of good- faith efforts will be required to be submitted to the University Planning Office within two working days after the opening of the bids. Paragraph 1.1.2 further provides that incomplete evidence which does not fully support the good-faith effort requirements shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be non- responsive. Subparagraph 1.7.2.2 of the Special Conditions section in the Project Manual at page L-2 (Jt. Ex. 2) provides that a contractor, as part of meeting the good-faith efforts for this project, should advertise to inform MBEs of contracting and subcontracting opportunities, through minority focus media, through a trade association, or one local newspaper with a minimum circulation of 25,000. Subparagraph 1.7.2.3 provides for required documentation and provides for a copy of the advertisement run by the media and the date thereof. The copy of the tear sheet from The Gainesville Sun for Anglin regarding BR-183 and the affidavit from the Gainesville Sun reflect that Anglin's advertisement ran or was published beginning March 9, 1990, which was six (6) days prior to bid opening, through March 15, 1990 (Jt. Ex. 9 at section 1- 7.2). Anglin's advertisement did not run in the Gainesville Sun seven (7) days prior to the bid opening (Jt. Ex. 9 at section 1-7.2, and Jt. Ex. 8). The Respondent interprets paragraph 1.7.2.2 to require that advertising through minority focus media, through a trade association or one local newspaper with a minimum circulation of 25,000 to be run on at least one day, seven (7) days prior to the day the bids are opened. Anglin ran an otherwise qualifying advertisement for seven (7) consecutive days, the seventh of which was the day the bids were opened. Anglin sent letters to fourteen (14) minority businesses qualified for participation in state contracts inviting participation and providing information about the program. These letters indicated that Anglin would subdivide work to assist in their participation and invited them to inspect the drawings. Anglin sent followup letters to the same fourteen (14) minority businesses. Anglin apparently divided portions of the electrical work between two minority businesses and included their estimates totaling $288,000.00 in the bid which is at issue (see Jt. Ex. 9 at section 1-7.7). A representative of Anglin, Dennis Ramsey, attended the pre- solicitation/pre-bid meeting on March 1, 1990 (Jt. Ex. 4). One of the purposes of the pre-solicitation/pre-bid meeting is to invite MBEs to attend to become familiar with the project specifications and to become acquainted with contractors interested in bidding the project. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-23 at page 16 (Jt. Ex. 2) provides that the contract award will be awarded by the Respondent for projects of $500,000.00 or more, to the lowest qualified bidder, provided it is in the best interest of the Respondent to accept it. The award of the contract is subject to the provisions of Section 287.0945, Florida Statutes, and the demonstration of "good-faith effort" by any bidder whose Bid Proposal proposes less than fifteen percent (15%) participation in the contract by MBEs. The contract award will be made to the bidder who submits the lowest responsive aggregate bid within the pre-established construction budget. Sealed bids for BR-183 were opened on March 15, 1990 (Jt. Ex. 1). Anglin's bid of $1,768,400.00 was the lowest monetary bid (Jt. Ex. 5). Perry was the second lowest monetary bidder (Jt. Ex. 5). Anglin submitted its bid proposal (Jt. Ex. 6) and documentation of good-faith efforts for BR-183 (Jt. Ex. 9). Anglin was notified by letter dated March 19, 1990 that its bid proposal had been found to be in noncompliance with the requirements of the Project Manual and was, therefore, rejected. The specific reason for Anglin's noncompliance was that the advertisement for MBE participation did not appear in the media at least seven (7) days prior to the day the bids were opened (Jt. Ex. 10). By letter dated March 19, 1990, the Project Manager from the architectural and planning firm responsible for BR-183 recommended to Respondent that the contract be awarded to Perry (Jt. Ex. 11). By letter dated March 20, 1990, the University of Florida recommended to the Director of Capital Programs for Respondent that Perry be awarded the contract for BR-183 for the base bid and alternates #1 through #5 in the amount of $1,789,400.00 (Jt. Ex. 12). The Respondent awarded the contract to Perry on March 23, 1990 (Jt. Ex. 14). The MBE award to electricians of $288,000.00 is 16.29% of the $1,768,400.00 Anglin bid.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board of Regents award the contract to Anglin. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 18th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX "A" TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2652BID Anglin and Perry's proposed findings of fact were adopted as paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Recommended Order. The Board of Regents' proposed findings of fact, which duplicated the stipulation, were adopted as paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Recommended Order, and otherwise ruled upon as follows: Adopted as paragraph 11. Adopted as paragraph 12. Adopted as paragraph 20. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted as paragraph 19. Adopted as paragraph 13. Adopted as paragraph 14. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted as paragraph 21. Adopted as paragraph 22. Adopted as paragraph 15. Adopted as paragraph 23. Adopted as paragraph 24. Adopted as paragraph 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Reed Chancellor of Florida State University System 325 W. Gaines Street Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950 Gregg Gleason, Esquire General Counsel Board of Regents 107 W. Gaines Street Room 210-D Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Mostoller, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Board of Regents 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950 William B. Watson, III, Esquire Watson, Folds, Steadham, Christmann, Brashear, Tovkach & Walker P.O. Box 1070 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Raymond M. Ivey, Esquire Rakusin, Ivey, Waratuke, Solomon & Koteff, P.A. 703 North Main Street Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32601 =================================================================
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to certification as a Minority Business Enterprise pursuant to Rule 38A-20.005, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: On February 12, 1998, Teddy L. Serdynski and Janice A. Serdynski entered into a Partnership Agreement which in pertinent part provides as follows: NAME: The name of the partnership shall be known as "Ted's Auto Parts." PURPOSE: The purpose of the partnership shall be the operation of an automobile parts business and related enterprises. * * * COMMENCEMENT: The partnership shall officially commence upon execution of this agreement. DURATION: The partnership shall continue until dissolved, either by the parties or by legal proceedings, or by liquidation. CAPITAL: The capital of the partnership shall be contributed in amounts equalling 51% by JANICE A. SERDYNSKI and 49% by TEDDY L. SERDYNSKI, thereby granting to the said JANICE A. SERDYNSKI the controlling interest of said partnership. WITHDRAWAL: No partner shall withdraw any invested capital without the consent of the other partner. CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES: Capital gains and losses shall be shared in a proportionate amount of their investment and ownership interest. * * * MANAGEMENT: Although JANICE A. SERDYNSKI is the owner of a controlling interest in the partnership, each shall have equal voice in the management of the affairs of the partnership. Both parties shall administer to the general affairs of the partnership and shall carry out and put into effect the general policies and specific instructions of their decision on any given matter. BANK ACCOUNTS: The partnership shall maintain checking and other accounts in such bank or banks as the partners shall agree upon. Withdrawals and writing of checks on the partnership account may be done jointly and/or singly. PROFITS AND LOSSES: The partners shall share in accordance with their ownership interest in the profits and losses. . . . LIMITATIONS ON PARTNER: No partner, without the consent of the other partner, shall borrow money in the partnership name for partnership purposes or utilize collateral owned by the partnership as security for such loans, assign, transfer, pledge, compromise or release any of the claims or debts due to the partnership except on payment in full; consent to the arbitration of any dispute or controversy of the partnership; transfer firm assets; make, execute or deliver any assignment for the benefit of creditors; maker, execute or deliver any bond, confession of judgment, guaranty bond, indemnity bond, or surety bond or any contract to sell, bill of sale, deed, mortgage, lease relating to any substantial part of the partnership assets or his/her interest therein; or engage in any business or occupation without the consent of the other partner. * * * 17. DISPUTES: That the parties agree that all disputes and differences, if any, which shall arise between the parties, shall be referred to and decided by two indifferent, competent persons in or well acquainted with the trade, one person to be chosen by each party, or to submit to arbitration by a recognized arbitration service, and his/her or their decisions shall, in all respect, be final and conclusive on all parties. Ted's Auto Parts was a sole proprietorship from May 1, 1985 until February 11, 1998. From May 1, 1985, until February 11, 1998, Janice A. Serdynski shared ownership in Ted's Auto Parts equally with her husband, Teddy L. Serdynski, a non- minority. Janice A. Serdynski does not share income from Ted's Auto Parts commensurate with her 51 percent ownership. Decision-making, withdrawal of funds, borrowing of money, and the day-to-day management of Ted's Auto Parts are shared equally between Janice A. Serdynski and Teddy L. Serdynski. Ted's Auto Parts is a family operated business with duties, responsibilities, and decision-making occurring jointly, and, at time, mutually among family members. Both Janice A. Serdynski and Teddy L. Serdynski are authorized to sign checks on the account of Ted's Auto Parts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it recommended that the Department enter a final order finding that Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements for Minority Business Enterprise certification and dismiss the petition filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas I. Jamerson. Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Janice A. Serdynski Ted's Auto Parts 190 Second Avenue, South Bartow, Florida 33830 Joseph L. Shields, Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Findings Of Fact General Contractors & Construction Management, Inc. (Petitioner), is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of general contracting and construction (construction and renovation of commercial and residential buildings), including subcontracting, since 1985. Petitioner's President is Ms. Akram Niroomand-Rad and its Vice-President is Mr. Kamran Ghovanloo, Ms. Niroomand-Rad's husband. Petitioner is a small business concern as defined by Subsection 288.703(1), Florida Statutes. Prior to April 1990, Ms. Niroomand-Rad owned 50 percent of Petitioner's stock. In April 1990, she acquired 100 percent of the stock and became the Petitioner's sole owner. Ms. Niroomand-Rad is a minority person as defined by Subsection 288.703(3), Florida Statutes. According to Petitioner's articles of incorporation and by-laws, its corporate business is conducted by a majority of the board of directors. Petitioner has two directors, Ms. Niroomand-Rad and Mr. Ghovanloo, 1/ and as such, the minority owner does not control the board of directors. Also, according to Petitioner's by-laws, Petitioner's President manages its business and affairs subject to the direction of the board of directors. Petitioner's licensed contractor is Mr. Ghovanloo who is a certified general contractor. Ms. Niroomand-Rad is not a licensed contractor although she is taking course work to become a licensed contractor. Mr. Ghovanloo is Petitioner's qualifier, and, as its qualifier, brings his expertise and license to the business. Further, as qualifier, he is also responsible for the finances of Petitioner and for pulling the necessary permits in order for Petitioner to perform the contractual work. Additionally, Mr. Ghovanloo performs Petitioner's estimating, handles quality inspection of job sites, assists in the evaluation and preparation of bids, and attends some of the pre-bid meetings on projects. Ms. Niroomand-Rad has been involved in soliciting bids, reviewing bids and estimates, negotiating contracts, visiting clients, responding to correspondence, overseeing financial activities, hiring and firing, and visiting job sites. However, Ms. Niroomand-Rad relies heavily upon Mr. Ghovanloo's technical expertise, expert opinions, and judgment and upon others for guidance and for handling the technical aspects of the business. Further, Ms. Niroomand-Rad relies heavily on Mr. Ghovanloo, and others to a lesser degree, regarding the purchasing of goods, equipment, or inventory, and services needed for the day-to-day operation of the business, including evaluating and retaining subcontractors. Mr. Ghovanloo is authorized to sign checks without restriction. Ms. Niroomand-Rad was reared in a construction environment. Also, she has completed a construction management course offered by the City of Miami and is a licensed real estate broker. Petitioner has been certified as an MBE by Dade County and the Dade County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development enter a final order denying General Contractors & Construction Management, Inc., certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 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 24th day of July, 1995.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be certified by Respondent as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc. (Jupiter), is an environmental testing laboratory established in October 1995. The services performed by Jupiter include testing samples of water, oil, soil, and waste water in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency standards. Jupiter also tests for inorganic and organic compounds by mass spectrography and gas chromatography. Jupiter is owned 70 percent by Glynda Russell, a female, and 30 percent by her husband, Edward Dabrea, who is a non- minority. Prior to forming Jupiter, Ms. Russell had not worked in a laboratory such as Jupiter. Her work experience had been in real estate and selling women's apparel. According to Ms. Russell she did gain some knowledge and experience in environmental testing because she was a customer of testing laboratories while she was in the real estate business. She became familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency's requirements while she was investigating environmental impacts when she was a realtor. Mr. Dubrea has a degree in earth science (geology) and has done post graduate studies in geoscience (organic geochemistry). He has extensive work experience in environmental testing laboratories. Both Ms. Russell and Mr. Dabrea are jointly liable for a $50,000 loan from the Small Business Administration and a $15,000 line of credit. Ms. Russell has also incurred debt of over $100,000 on her personal credit card for Jupiter's expenses. The company has three equipment leases which Ms. Russell signed and indicated she was personally liable. Ms. Russell also signed the lease for the space occupied by the business. Ms. Russell is the president of the corporation. Her duties include directing all marketing, sales, and financial operations. She is responsible for recruiting and hiring personnel, maintaining state certifications, prioritization of work flow (sample pick-up, sample log-in and report generation), bid pricing, selection of subcontracting laboratories, customer service and purchasing of supplies. Mr. Dabrea is the Technical Director for the company. In addition to working for Jupiter, he does freelance research. His resume states that his work at Jupiter includes the following: Planned and organized all technical details for new laboratory, including equipment requirements and analytical supplies. Received and setup instrumentation, performs necessary calibrations. Coordinates information with Laboratory Director and QA/QC Officer. Develops new methods and provides research assistance to clients with unusual assessments. Coordinates between laboratory and governmental agency to ensure compliance. Submits performance evaluation studies to E. P. A. for certification on quarterly basis. Responsible for ensuring adequate instrument capacity for continued growth of the company. Cliff Ross, a non-minority, is the Laboratory Director and works part-time for Jupiter. Start-up funds for Jupiter were contributed by Ms. Russell and Mr. Dabrea. Ms. Russell contributed $25,000 in cash, and computer equipment worth approximately $8,000. Mr. Dabrea contributed an $11,000 truck and $5,000 in computer equipment. Ms. Russell contributed 67 percent and Mr. Dabrea contributed 32 percent. Jupiter is certified in certain categories of environmental water testing by the State of Florida, Department of Health, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. In order to acquire such certification, tests must be performed in the laboratory by qualified technical personnel with the proper educational credentials. In order to acquire the certification for Jupiter, the tests were performed by Mr. Dabrea and Mr. Ross. Ms. Russell is not technically or educationally qualified to perform the tests required for certification. It is not necessary to have the certification to operate an environmental laboratory, but many companies acquire the certification as a marketing tool. Ms. Russell indicated in her response to the denial of her certification that "current market conditions make it all but impossible to get work without it." (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Ms. Russell can perform the extractions. Once the extractions are done for certain types of testing, the testing is automated. She cannot do chromatography. The Quality Assurance Director for Jupiter is Pamela Shore-Loeb. Her duties include responsibilities for all quality assurance and quality control requirements to ensure continued State of Florida laboratory certifications and project management to a growing client list. She, along with Ms. Russell, developed the quality assurance manual used by the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner, Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc., meets the requirements of Rule 38A-20.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, but does not meet the requirements of Rules 38A- 20.005(3)(c), (d)1, 4 and (6) and (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Consequently, the final order should deny Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc.'s application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 1st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Glynda E. Russell, President Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 220 Venus Street, Suite 16 Jupiter, Florida 33458 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
