Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters concerned herein, either the Department of Management Services, or its successor, the Commission of Minority Economic and Business Development, was the state agency in Florida responsible for certification of Minority Business Enterprises in this state. Johnston was started by Mrs. Cloversettle's grandfather and operated by him and his three sons, including Conrad Johnston, Mrs. Cloversettle's father, for many years. As a child and young woman, Mrs. Cloversettle worked at the place of business in differing capacities and learned something of the business operation. At some point in time, she married Mr. Cloversettle who was and has been an employee of the firm, and over the years, he operated much of the equipment used in the business. Mrs. Cloversettle is also a licensed cosmetologist, and owns and operates a beauty salon through a corporation she owns with her husband. He does much of the handyman work at that shop and she works, part time, as a cosmetologist. Most of her time, however, is occupied with the affairs of Johnston. There are currently 60 shares of common stock issued in Johnston Lithograph & Engraving, Inc.. Seven and three quarters shares are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Cloversettle. Three and three-quarters shares came from her father, and she acquired four additional shares at the time she bought the business. Three and three quarters shares are owned by Mrs. Cloversettle's aunt, Ms. Sims, who lives in North Carolina; fifteen shares are held in the name of her father, Conrad Johnston; and eighteen and three-quarters shares each are held by his two brothers, Bert and Don. Ms. Sims takes no income from Johnston, does not participate in the management of the company, and plays no role in it other than as share owner. At one point, Mr. Cloversettle owned a one-half interest in the four shares his wife got at the time of purchase, but she considered herself the owner in that they were titled jointly only "for simplicity", just as the house and their bank accounts are also owned jointly. On April 26, 1994, after the initial denial of Petitioner's application for MBE certification, the joint ownership was terminated and the shares registered in Ms. Cloversettle's name only without any exchange of consideration therefor. Much the same pertains to the company bank accounts. Before the denial, both George and Brenda Cloversettle could sign company checks. Since then, however, George Cloversettle has been removed as an authorized signatory on company accounts. The shares owned by Ms. Cloversettle's father and his brothers, Donald, Bertram, are presently held as "security" for the payment of the purchase of Johnston by Mrs. Cloversettle. The shares are not voted and are held in escrow under an escrow agreement. A stock pledge agreement, dated February 7, 1986, to which the Cloversettles were not parties, produced after the hearing, pertains only to the corporation and Conrad and Margaret Johnston. Its terms, somewhat confusing, can best be interpreted as providing that upon default in payment, the stock held in escrow would revert to the original holder as titled on the face of the certificate or, at the option of the original owner, be sold. At the time of denial, the shares owned by Donald and Bertram had not been properly endorsed into the escrow but this was done prior to formal hearing when, by affidavit dated August 1, 1994, the escrow agent indicated both Donald's and Bertram's shares were subject to the 1986 escrow agreement. The 1986 agreement prohibits the issuance of any new or additional shares of stock until the purchase obligation is paid off. This provision may have been violated when the four additional shares were issued to the Cloversettles in 1990. The shares owned by both Bertram and Donald were the subject of a stock sale agreement for $93,000.00 for each block of eighteen and three-quarters shares. Both the date of the agreement and the signatures of the parties are not evidenced on the documents, however, but it appears Bertram deposited fifteen of his shares with the Tampa 1st National Bank in 1975, some fifteen years prior to the Cloversettle's 1990 purchase of the company. Conrad Johnston entered into a purchase agreement in 1985 with the original owners which did not include the Cloversettles. His fifteen shares were signed into escrow on February 6, 1986. These discrepancies in capital ownership were not clarified at hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Cloversettle entered into the agreement to buy the company from the Johnstons in 1990 for a purchase price of $300,000. Though in an earlier deposition, Mrs. Cloversettle indicated only about $3,000 of the purchase price had been paid, which money allegedly came from the proceeds of an insurance policy loan and a mortgage on their home, at hearing, she testified $30,000 had been paid, all of which came from the mortgage on their home. No payments on the obligation are currently being made by the Cloversettles because each of the original owners executed an agreement deferring payment until the company is financially able to make regular payments. The minutes of a special shareholder's meeting held on July 8, 1994, reflect the above-noted Johnston brothers' certificates were surrendered for cancellation in July, 1990. However, the minutes also note that the sale and redemption of the certificates was subject to an escrow pursuant to the February, 1986 escrow agreement which, in November, 1993, was affixed to an amended agreement naming Edward Hill as Escrow Agent, which referred to the Johnston brothers not as stockholders but as secured creditors. Because of the complex manipulation of the shares and their status, it is impossible to determine the relative ownership of the parties. Petitioner has not established with any degree of clarity that Brenda Cloversettle, though a minority owner, has actual and real ownership of at least 51 percent of the company equity free of any residuary or reversionary interest which could divest her of her 51 percent ownership. The shares covered by the escrow agreement, while classified by Petitioners as treasury stock, cannot legitimately be so considered since it is still in the name of the original owners and does not become property of the company until the obligation incurred for its purchase is satisfied. While, as noted previously, no additional payments have been made on the purchase price, the company maintains a life insurance policy on each Johnston which Ms. Cloversettle indicates is to be used to pay off the outstanding debt upon their respective deaths. She admits however, there is no document requiring the insurance proceeds to be used that way, and no independent evidence of the policies' existence was forthcoming. The primary business of Johnston is commercial printing/graphics. Ms. Cloversettle is the sole director of the corporation whose bylaws, as of July 8, 1994, require all directors to be minority persons. She has asserted, and it was not disproved by evidence to the contrary, that she has the primary role in decision-making concerning the company's business transactions and she is the sole person required to execute any transaction related documents. She has final authority as to all corporate decisions and is not required to consult with anyone else when corporate decisions are being made, though she may do so. Johnston does not keep inventory on hand but purchases supplies necessary on a job driven basis. According to Ms. Cloversettle, she controls the purchase of inventory and determines the need and appropriateness of equipment rentals or purchases. She seems to be familiar with and to understand the use of the products utilized by the company in its daily operations. She has a fundamental knowledge of the equipment used in the company's operation and, though she may not be fully qualified to operate every piece, can operate some of it. Though she periodically consults with her husband regarding business operations, she is not required to do so and has the responsibility for the hiring and management of employees. She alleges she sets employment policies, wages, benefits, and employments conditions at the company without the need to coordinate her actions with anyone. However, in a phone interview with the Department's representative, in February, 1994, Ms. Cloversettle had difficulty correctly answering many of the technical questions she was asked at hearing. Mr. Cloversettle, who has worked with the firm for approximately twenty years, is its key employee in computer graphics and serves as production manager and vice-president. Without doubt, along with Mr. Ezell, the firm's printer, he is primarily responsible for the daily plant operations, supervising the other employees, planning daily work flow, and insuring the vendors who supply the needed raw materials do so in a timely fashion. Ms. Cloversettle is college trained and, as noted previously, a licensed cosmetologist. She has done bookkeeping for the firm and acted as office manager, but has no formal training in printing, or graphics, other than years of observation as she grew up with the operation when it was operated by her father. Her primary hands-on experience is in book bindery and shop cleaning but she can run some of the smaller, less exotic equipment. She is not familiar with all the terms and duties involved in the operation of this business and could not accomplish them all. She acknowledges she spends most of her time in the office. She claims to be solely responsible for the financial affairs of the company and is the only one currently authorized to sign company checks. This situation, as has been noted, is of but recent origin, however. Nonetheless, Mr. Cloversettle continues to remain subject to equal debt responsibility with Ms. Cloversettle because of his prior co-signing of risk documents relative to loans taken by the company prior to the application, denial and hearing. Ms. Cloversettle's testimony regarding her method of evaluating the company's ability to perform potential jobs creates the impression that she is aware of the company's limitations and its abilities. She does not run the cameras or the presses and she need not do so. She does not solicit business but she hires a salesperson to do so and has the authority and capability to evaluate and accept or reject the work brought in. In the last two quarters of 1993, according to company payroll records, Mr. Cloversettle was paid approximately $6,426.00 while Ms. Cloversettle was paid only $2,650.00. However, after the application was denied, the ratio was changed dramatically to where she now earns $180.00 per week, and he, only $52.95.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Johnston Lithograph & Engraving, Inc.'s request for certification as a minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1994, 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 15th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted as to the shares of Ms. Cloversettle and Ms. Sims. However, this does not indicate acceptance of the proposition that there are no other shareholders, or that the transfer of shares from Mr. Cloversettle to his wife was bona fide. 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted. However, as noted in the body of the Recommended Order, it is impossible to clearly define the actual status of the brothers' and father's retained shares or whether they have the potential to dilute Ms. Cloversettle's shares. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Not proven. 9. Not proven. 10. - 12. Accepted, but based entirely on unsupported testimony of Ms. Cloversettle. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted, but based entirely on unsupported testimony of Ms. Cloversettle. 19. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 22. & 23. Accepted. 24. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 25. Not an appropriate Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: First four sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance accepted as a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Not a proper Finding of Fact but more a comment on the state of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted but more as a comment on the state of the evidence. - 12. Accepted and incorporated more briefly herein. More a comment on the evidence and a Conclusion of Law than a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. First two sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance more a comment on the meaning and effect of the basic fact. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. First three sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance comment on the evidence. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23. & 25. This is a restatement of testimony by both sides. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire Langford, Hill, Trybus & Whalen, P.A. Post Office Box 3277 Tampa, Florida 33601-3277 Wayne H. Mitchell, Esquire Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building, Suite 201 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John Thomas Interim Executive Director Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact Iris Reed and her husband, Mark Reed, own and operate a business known as Reed Landscaping, Inc., the Petitioner in this cause. Mrs. Reed is an American woman and owns 60 percent of the subject business. Her husband owns the remaining 40 percent. The Reeds previously owned a lawn maintenance business in New York but moved to Florida several years ago and started doing business as "Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance by Mark." Eventually, approximately 1992, "Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance by Mark" changed its name to Reed Landscaping, Inc. As to Petitioner and all former entities, Mrs. Reed has held an office position with the company while Mr. Reed has operated the field crew or crews. Mr. Reed has the experience and expertise necessary to handle the work at each site for the business. On the other hand, Mrs. Reed has the office and management skills to direct the "paperwork" side of the business. This includes insurance matters and personnel for the office. Mrs. Reed is particularly active in this business since she put up the capital that largely funded the business enterprise. Although her personal financial investment is primarily at risk, creditors and bonding companies require both Reeds to sign for the company and to be individually obligated as well. Mrs. Reed serves as President/Treasurer of the Petitioner and Mr. Reed is Vice-President/Secretary. Both are authorized to sign bank checks for the company. Mr. Reed has formal training and education in landscape architecture and horticulture as well as extensive experience in this field. Mrs. Reed is responsible for many decisions for the company but relies on the opinions of others and delegates, where appropriate, duties to others as well. Among the delegated duties are: all field work for the company (delegated to Mr. Reed, another foreman, or to crews working a job); estimating or preparing bids (an estimator helps with bids); bookkeeping; contract review; and purchasing (some of which she does herself with input from others). As to each delegated area, however, the Reeds stress teamwork; that they are all working together for the common good of the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5684 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: None submitted. Iris Reed on behalf of Petitioner submitted a letter summary of her position concerning the hearing which, if intended to be a presentation of fact, is rejected as argument or comment not in a form readily reviewable for either acceptance or rejection as required by rule. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Shields Senior Attorney Commission on Minority Economic & Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Iris F. Reed, Pro se 951 Southwest 121st Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33325 Veronica Anderson Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic & Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005
Findings Of Fact Anthony Charles Fabian, a journeyman electrician, is the president of Fabian's Electrical Contracting, Inc. (FEC). Mr. Fabian owns 51 percent of the stock in FEC. FEC was incorporated in 1984 and since that time has been continuously engaged in the electrical contracting business. Although FEC shares office space with other business entities, it is an independent business operation not affiliated with any other business. In 1987, FEC applied for and received certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE). Mr. Fabian has at all times maintained he is entitled to MBE status as a Hispanic American. Mr. Fabian was born in Tampa, Florida and lived in a Hispanic neighborhood there until he was six years old. During the time he resided in Tampa, Mr. Fabian's neighbors, family, and friends used Spanish as their predominant language. The family culture was Cuban as was that of the area where the family resided. At age six Mr. Fabian moved from Tampa to Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Fabian later moved from Pensacola to Tallahassee mid-way through his sixth grade school year. School mates in Pensacola and Tallahassee called him various ethnic nicknames, all related to his Hispanic ancestry. Such names included: "Julio," "Taco," "Spic," "El Cubano," and "Cuban Wheatman." Other than an affection for Cuban food, Mr. Fabian currently has no cultural practices to tie him to his Hispanic heritage. Mr. Fabian does not speak Spanish. Mr. Fabian does not reside in a predominantly Hispanic community. Mr. Fabian does not practice the religious faith of his progenitors. Mr. Fabian does not instruct his child in any Cuban cultural practice. Mr. Fabian does not know of any Spanish cultural practice that came to him from his family. Mr. Fabian has never been refused work because of his Hispanic heritage. Mr. Fabian's mother has no Hispanic progenitors. Mr. Fabian's father, also born in Tampa, Florida, has the following ancestors: his father (Mr. Fabian's grandfather) was born in Spain, his mother (Mr. Fabian's grandmother) was born in Key West. Mr. Fabian's grandmother, Anna Rodriguez Fabian, (who Mr. Fabian spent time with in Tampa) spoke Spanish and claimed Cuban heritage as both of her parents had immigrated from there to Key West. For this reason, Mr. Fabian maintains he is a Cuban from Tampa. None of Mr. Fabian's grandparents was born in Mexico, South America, Central America, or the Caribbean. He has never claimed otherwise. Sometime after FEC obtained certification as a MBE, the Department adopted what is now codified as Rule 60A-2.001(8), Florida Administrative Code. Such rule defines "origins" as used in Section 288.703(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to mean that a Hispanic American must substantiate his cultural and geographic derivations by at least one grandparent's birth. In July, 1992, when FEC submitted its recertification affidavit, the Department notified Mr. Fabian that he had failed to establish that at least one of his grandparents was born in one of the applicable geographic locations. Accordingly, Mr. Fabian was advised his request for recertification would be denied. Approximately eleven other persons have been denied minority status because they were unable to substantiate origin by the birth of a grandparent. Of those eleven, none had been previously certified. FEC is the only formerly certified MBE which has been denied recertification because of the rule. However, when FEC was granted certification in 1987 it was not based upon the Department's agreement that Mr. Fabian met the statutory definition of a Hispanic American. Such certification was issued in settlement to the preliminary denial of certification since the word "origins," as used in the statute, had not as yet been defined by rule. Additionally, the recertification of FEC was based upon Department error and not an acceptance that Mr. Fabian met the "origins" test. Finally, in 1991, the Department cured the rule deficiencies to create parallel requirements for certification and recertification for MBE status. When FEC submitted it recertification affidavit under the current rule, the request was denied. Mr. Fabian has been aware of the Department's position regarding his requests for certification from the outset. The Department promulgated the "origins" rule in response to a number of applications for MBE status from persons with distant relations or ancestors within the minority classifications. The necessity for an "origins" rule was demonstrated since the Department needed a clear standard which staff and the public could recognize as the dividing line for who would and would not qualify as a Hispanic American, and since the purpose of the program is to provide preferences in contracting to businesses run by individuals who have been disadvantaged. The standard devised afforded a narrowly drawn, recognizable criterion. In deciding to use the grandparent test, the Department looked to outside sources. Since there was no legislative history resolving the "origins" issue, the Department sought guidance from dictionary definitions and statutory uses in other contexts. In promulgating the rule, the Department gave notice to outside sources, including groups listed in the publication Doing Business in Florida, such as the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Commerce, small business development centers, community development corporations, local minority business certification offices, and the Minority Business Advocate's office. At the public hearing conducted for the purpose of receiving input regarding the grandparent test, no one offered opposition to the "origins" definition. Mr. Fabian is not a black American as defined in Section 288.703(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's recertification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6777 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 through 25, 28 through 31, 33 through 41, 43, 44, 46 through 50, 60, 64, and 70 are accepted. The first sentence in paragraph 8 is accepted. With regard to the second sentence it is accepted that the neighbors et al enjoyed Cuban food and cultural aspects but spoke Spanish. No proof was submitted that a language of "Cuban" was spoken by the community. The last sentence of paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant, otherwise the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as an incomplete statement of fact which, of itself, is insufficient to stand without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 26 is rejected as repetitive and unnecessary. With regard to paragraph 27 it is accepted Mr. Fabian has 16 years of experience, otherwise rejected as repetitive and unnecessary. The first sentence of paragraph 32 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as not supported by the evidence or irrelevant. Mr. Fabian does have a phone number whether that number is listed in the telephone book is not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 42 is rejected as irrelevant. The first two sentences of paragraph 45 are accepted. It is also accepted that Lewis & Thompson have used other minority subcontractors. Whether they "regularly" use them is irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 51 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as comment or argument. With regard to paragraph 52, it is accepted that Mr. De La O did not visit a job site; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 53, 54, and 55 are accepted as the applicable law of this case, not fact. Paragraph 56 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 57 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence; the definition also applies to other minorities. Paragraph 58 is accepted as a partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is accepted as a partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 61 is accepted as a partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 63 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 65 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 66 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 67, 68, and 69 are rejected as irrelevant or incomplete statements. Paragraphs 71 through 73 are rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary or repetitive. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 17 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the first, second, sixth and seventh sentences are accepted; the remainder is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not statements of fact. The first sentence of paragraph 3 is accepted, the remainder is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not statements of fact. The first sentence of paragraph 9 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as argument or partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. The second and third sentences of paragraph 11 are accepted, the first rejected as recitation of testimony, not statements of fact. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument or partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as argument or partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Coppins Gwendolyn P. Adkins Cooper & Coppins, P.A. 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Cindy Horne Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel Suite 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Suite 307 Knight Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sylvan Strickland Acting General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Suite 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department had the authority to certify those firms who qualified as MBE's for the purpose of contracting with it under the provisions of Chapter 13-8, F.A.C. When an application for MBE status is received at the Department's certification office in Tallahassee, it is assigned to one of five certifying officers who reviews it and determines whether it is complete as submitted or requires additional documentation. This is called a desk audit review. In the event all required documents have not been submitted with the application, they are requested in writing and the applicant has thirty days to provide them. Failure to do so results in denial of the application. If, on the other hand, all the required documentation is present, a decision is then made as to whether an on-site visit of the applicant's operation is necessary. If so, Department personnel go to the site and look to see if the business can qualify as an MBE. If an on-site visit is appropriate, but for some reason cannot be made, Department personnel try to get the required information by phone. The decision to approve or deny certification is made, based on the reviewing certifying officer's recommendation, by the certification manager who, before making a decision, personally reviews the file and, if appropriate, sends it to the Department's legal staff for additional review. Once the legal staff has made its recommendation, if the decision is made to deny the application, a letter of denial is sent to the applicant who may then appeal that decision. An application must meet all criteria set out in Rule 13-8, F.A.C. to be certified as an MBE. Each application is looked at on a case by case basis to see if those criteria are met. In the instant case, the denial was based on the Department's concern over several factors. These are related to Rule 13- 8.005(3), F.A.C. and included A question as to whether the business was actually controlled by Ms. Hogan. The nature of the corporate structure. The application of Chapter 47, F.A.C., dealing with the construction industry. The ability of both Hogan and Perretta to sign business checks. Whether Ms. Hogan had the technical and mechanical capability, skills and training to run a construction company, and Whether Ms. Hogan could effectively control such areas as financing, purchasing, hiring and firing, and the like. In arriving at its decision to deny Petitioner's application, the Department relied only on those matter submitted with the application. It did not ask for or seek any information about the company and its operation beyond that initially provided. Notwithstanding her recommendation in this case, Ms. Freeman has previously recommended the certification of numerous woman owned businesses as MBEs. On April 6, 1990, Ms. Hogan, as owner of E.C. Construction, Inc., a licensed general contractor qualified under the license of Carmen M. Perretta, applied to the Department for certification as a woman owned MBE. The application form reflected Ms. Hogan as the sole owner of the business, a corporation created under the laws of Florida. Ms. Hogan was listed on both the Articles of Incorporation, (1989), and the application form in issue here as the sole officer and director of the corporation, as well. Mr. Perretta was to be merely an employee of the firm, E.C. Construction, Inc.. In that regard Ms. Hogan claims, and it is so found, that the letters, "E. C." in the corporate name do not stand for Elinor and Carmen. Instead, they stand for Elite and Creative. Ms. Hogan is a 63 year old widow who professes a long-standing interest in building, design and decorating. In 1950, she and her husband started a floor covering business in another state which they operated for nineteen years. In 1969 they moved to Florida where her husband started a lawn maintenance business in Sarasota. She worked full time as a nurse at a local hospital and still found time to assist her husband in every aspect of their business including marketing, bookkeeping, public relations, etc. Her husband took ill in early 1986 and from that time on and after his death in May, 1988, until the business was sold almost a year later, she exercised complete control. She still runs a wedding supply and stationery business from her home. She sold the lawn business because she wanted to break the emotional links with the past and since she had some experience in construction, design and remodeling of her own home, went into the construction business establishing the Petitioner firm. In the few preceding years, she had designed and supervised several construction projects in the area in which she attended to financing, hiring the1 subcontractors, and supervision of the work. She also took some courses in design and has taken other courses and seminars in financing, accounting, marketing, advertising and operating a small business. Ms. Hogan and her husband met Mr. Perretta in 1987 when they put an addition on their house and she was impressed by his talents. When she decided to look into going into the construction business, she turned to him for advice and ultimately recruited him as the corporation's qualifying agent. Notwithstanding the fact that neither the corporate documents nor the application for MBE status so reflect, Ms. Hogan's lawyer now indicates that Perretta was also made a Vice-President of the firm, but his authority was limited to those actions necessary to meet the minimum compliance requirements of Florida law. When confronted with this discrepancy, Ms. Hagan claimed that the corporate papers and the application were in error and that she didn't know what they meant when she signed them. Ms. Hogan claims to be in full and complete control of all corporate activities, and to delegate to Mr. Perretta those responsibilities and functions, relating to the actual construction, that he is best qualified to carry out. She claims she does not share dominant control of the daily business activities of the firm though the evidence indicates both she and Mr. Perretta can individually sign corporate checks. In that regard, she claims he has signed only 19 of more than 500 checks issued by the firm since its inception. They have an understanding he will sign checks only for the purchase of materials, and then only in an emergency situation. He claims to no longer use that authority. The Department introduced no evidence to the contrary. Ms. Hogan admits to not having formal construction training or experience but, based on her other experience, believes she is qualified to run a business. Under her leadership the company has reportedly secured over one million dollars in contracts and for the most part, has performed them successfully. Under oath she claims to negotiate the contracts, prepare the estimates and deal with contracting customers in all the projects in which the company is engaged. She claims to have made those contractual decisions independent of Mr. Perretta to whom she is not accountable. Yet, as was seen, the Articles of Incorporation wrongfully indicate her as the only officer when Mr. Perretta was actually a Vice-President, and she claims not to have known that. This gives rise to some doubt as to her business credentials. In reality, Mr. Perretta actually directs and supervises the actual construction work at all job sites and schedules the subcontractors and materials to insure their presence at the job when needed. When changes are required, Mr. Perretta gives the necessary information to Ms. Hogan who prepares the change orders, including the typing, and forwards them as appropriate. Ms. Hogan has also entered into an agreement, dated June 25, 1989, with Mr. Perretta whereby, in lieu of salary as qualifying agent and field superintendent for the company, he is to receive 40% of the gross profits of each construction project. He gets a periodic draw against that percentage. In addition, in May, 1989, Ms. Hogan, as President, and Mr. Perretta, as Vice- President, entered into an agreement with Raymond Meltzer to retain him as general manager of E.C.'s Designer Structures division. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Meltzer was to have "absolute, unlimited and exclusive authority" to conduct all affairs of the division, except to incur debt other than short term debt to subcontractors. Mr. Meltzer was to have the right to draw checks on a separate E.C. account in a bank of his choosing, and was to receive 95% of all monies received as a result of the activities of that division. E.C. was to obtain the required permits or licenses for projects and to provide such supervision as is required by law. Though Petitioner did not incorporate under the name Designer Structures, nor did it register that name under the fictitious name statue, it continues to do business under that name. When it does, business is not conducted out of E.C.'s office, but from Meltzer's office instead. This is not consistent with Petitioner's MBE application which reflects only one office. Petitioner submitted at the hearing a notarized statement dated December 8, 1990, from Mr. Meltzer in which he admits to seeking to originally use Mr. Perretta and E.C. primarily as a qualifying agent for his own construction activities. The terms of the agreement referenced above tend to confirm that arrangement. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion that Ms. Hogan possess excellent business acumen and administrative abilities, and, he claims that, based on his initial meeting with her, he abandoned his plans to set up his own business and went into a business relationship with her. The evidence indicates he develops the work for the division and gets 95% of the fee. Ms. Hogan claims to be considering terminating the arrangement since it has not proven to be a lucrative one. She is apparently not aware the agreement specifically states it is for a three year term and carries options to renew. Though both Petitioner's application for MBE status and its bonding application indicate E.C. has no employees, Ms. Hogan testified that both Mr. Perretta and Mr. Meltzer are employees. She claims to use only subcontractors in the accomplishment of company projects and this appears to be so. She claims to have the strength of character and the will. to manage, hire and fire subcontractors as required. There is other evidence in the record, however, to indicate that Mr. Perretta actually schedules the subcontractors and materials to insure their presence at the job site when needed. It is found that there are no other employees who do direct, hands on contracting work, but while there may be a question of word meaning, it is clear that both Perretta and Meltzer qualify as employees. E.C.'s application for MBE status also indicates that it had not executed any promissory notes, yet there is a note for $3,500.00 from E.C. to Mr. Perretta, dated May 10, 1989, on which no payments have been made. Though Ms. Hogan claims to be fully in charge of running the business side of the operation, she is apparently also unaware of certain basic facts other than those previously mentioned. In addition to the inconsistencies regarding the office structure and her mistake concerning the employee status of Mr. Perretta and Mr. Meltzer, as well as her error regarding the loan, she was also in error as to the company's net worth. Whereas she indicated it was set at about $30,000.00, the company's most current financial statement reflects net worth at just above, $6,000.00, revealing her estimate to be 80% off. She also did not know the character of Mr. Perretta's license, (Class E.C. owns very little construction equipment and Ms. Hogan rents all needed equipment as indicated to her by Mr. Perretta. The lack of ownership is not significant, however. The one piece of equipment the company owns is a transit level which was purchased at Mr. Perretta's insistence. He has also donated to the company some used office equipment from his prior business as a contractor. He was not paid for it. Other equipment, in addition to office space, was furnished by Mr. Meltzer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case denying E.C. Construction, Inc.'s application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 1991, 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 January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-5217 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. & 10. Accepted 11. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as to her prior experience though it was limited. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 24. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. & 29. Accepted. Not proven. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. & 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. Unknown but accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Guy Brisson, Personal Representative E. C. Construction, Inc. 105 Island Circle Sarasota, Florida 34232-1933 Dannie L. Hart, Esquire Joan V. Whelan, Esquire Department of General Services Suite 309, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Knight Building Koger Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 3399-0950 Susan Kirkland General Counsel DGS Suite 309, Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be certified as a minority business enterprise (MBE) by the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security (Department).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, All Kinds of Blinds, was incorporated in the State of Florida on January 15, 1999, as All Kinds of Blinds of So. Fla., Inc. The President of the Petitioner is Angela Conroy, a female. Mrs. Conroy owns 51 percent of the company. The remaining 49 percent of the company is owned by Phillip Conroy, Angela’s husband. Mr. Conroy also serves as the company’s vice president and secretary. On June 2, 1999, Mrs. Conroy executed a Florida Statewide and Inter-local Minority Business Enterprise Certification Application that was filed with the Department. The application identified Angela Conroy as the person who makes policy, financial decisions, signs payroll, signs surety bonds and insurance, and makes contractual decisions for the Petitioner. The application also identified Phillip Conroy as the person who makes personnel decisions and signs payroll for the Petitioner. Mr. Conroy is authorized to sign checks on behalf of the company. According to the application, the Petitioner performs various functions regarding the sales, consultation, service, and installation of all types of window coverings. Mrs. Conroy sought MBE certification as an American woman with majority ownership of the Petitioner. Mrs. Conroy has ten years of experience in this type of business but was reluctant to let her former employer know that she was opening her own business. Accordingly, Mrs. Conroy authorized Mr. Conroy to execute applications and various papers on behalf of the Petitioner. She relied on his business experience to guide her through the start-up process. An initial loan in the amount of $4,000 from the couple’s joint bank account was the start-up funds for the Petitioner. Mr. Conroy does the installations for the Petitioner. He performs other functions for the company as may be necessary. He also owns and operates an air conditioning filter company that leased a vehicle also used for the Petitioner’s business. Mr. Conroy maintained that his name appears on records pertaining to the Petitioner as a convenience for his wife. Mr. Conroy is a white male.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office, enter a final order denying the Petitioner’s application for MBE certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela Conroy All Kinds of Blinds 123 North Congress Avenue Suite 328 Boynton Beach, Florida 33426 Joseph L. Shields, Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 301, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Haul-It, Inc., is a trucking company in the business of hauling road building materials. It owns 19 trucks and 13 trailers worth about $106,000; and owes between $75,000 and $79,000 to a bank. Occasionally petitioner engages additional trucks and drivers. All but eight of its 15 or 16 employees are truck drivers. Haul-It, Inc., was organized in 1973. Jack Taylor and his father started the business but later sold out to Hubert E. Real, the president, half- owner and operator of Columbia Paving, and Wiley Jinwright, a 24-year employee of Columbia Paving. Mr. Jinwright became president of Haul-It, Inc., and Jack Taylor stayed on as truck foreman. Messrs. Real and Jinwright each owned 20 shares of stock, representing half interest in petitioner. Columbia Paving itself has never held any of the 40 shares of stock that petitioner has issued. In November of 1980, Mr. Real conveyed all 20 of his shares to his wife, Helen Real; and Mr. Jinwright conveyed one share to Mrs. Real. Both transfers of stock to Mrs. Real were gratuitous. She knew at the time that her ownership might help Haul-It, Inc., qualify as a minority business enterprise. In addition, Mr. Real "had had a couple of heart attacks" (T. 14) and Mrs. Real "thought it would be nice to have a related [to Columbia Paving] business." (T. 14.) The evidence did not reveal whether Mr. Real has spent more, less, or the same amount of time with petitioner's affairs since his divestiture as before. Mr. Real remains active as president of Columbia Paving. From November of 1980 to the time of hearing, Mrs. Real has owned 52.5 percent of petitioner's stock and Mr. Jinwright has owned 47.5 percent. Petitioner's only offices are housed in a trailer located on land owned by Columbia Paving. Haul-It, Inc., pays Columbia Paving rent for the land on which its office trailer, trucks, and other equipment are parked. At the time of the hearing, between 70 and 80 percent of Haul-It, Inc.'s work was being performed under contract to Columbia Paving. As far as the evidence showed, petitioner has always performed most of its services under contract to Columbia Paving. Although it has had other customers, Columbia Paving is petitioner's only regular customer. (T. 27.) Petitioner uses Columbia Paving's computer to keep its books and shares a bookkeeper with Columbia Paving. Each company pays the bookkeeper a separate salary. Mrs. Real sits on Columbia Paving's board of directors. Neither Columbia Paving nor any other entity uses petitioner's hauling equipment unless it has contracted to do so. When Haul-It, Inc., "bid[s] through Columbia Paving" (T. 39) in response to invitations by the Department of Transportation, Columbia Paving personnel check the bid over to make sure that it "fits whatever plan or whatever estimates they feel are in order." (T. 40.) Soon after she became owner of a majority of petitioner's Stock, Mrs. Real became petitioner's vice-president, secretary, and treasurer, even though she had had no prior experience in the trucking business. Mr. Jinwright remains president of Haul-It, Inc. It was also in November of 1980 that Haul-It, Inc., applied for certification as a minority business enterprise. At that time and for some months afterward, Mrs. Real was not working for Haul-It, Inc., on any regular schedule. On the basis of the information petitioner furnished with its application, respondent, in November of 1980, "certified them for 12 months, on the condition that an on-site review would be conducted and at that time the decision would be made as to the ownership and control and whether this minority business enterprise should be continued as certified." (T. 61.) In April of 1981, respondent's Mr. Nath conducted an on-site review. At that time, Mr. Nath requested additional documents which petitioner eventually mailed to respondent. In September of 1981, respondent for the first time communicated to Haul-It, Inc., its intention to disqualify petitioner as a minority business enterprise. After receiving this news, Mrs. Real began going to work for petitioner daily. She has an office in the trailer that she shares with Mr. Jinwright, whose role in Haul-It, Inc., was reduced to cosigning checks when Mrs. Real began working full time. Most of Mr. Jinwright's time is now spent as Superintendent of Columbia Paving's four asphalt plants. Even so, he still draws a salary from Haul-It, Inc., equal to Mrs. Real's salary. Despite their respective titles, both Mr. Jinwright and Mrs. Real act on the assumption that she, rather than he, has ultimate authority in the conduct of Haul-It, Inc.'s business. Mrs. Real has full authority to hire and fire, authority which she has delegated, in the case of the truck drivers, to Jack Taylor. She has the final say on all questions of policy and operations that arise in the business. Haul-It, Inc., cannot borrow money or make expenditures without her permission. Jack Taylor and two other employees buy for Haul-It, Inc., but she cosigns all checks with Mr. Jinwright. She has not learned how to prepare a written bid for the Department of Transportation, although she is involved with bidding. Mrs. Real relies heavily on Jack Taylor's bidding expertise, as have petitioner's other owners. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation reflect the good work done in this case by counsel on both sides. To the limited extent proposed findings have not been adopted, they have been deemed immaterial or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny Haul-It, Inc., certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick E. Hurley, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Ella Jane P. Davis, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent properly rejected the Petitioner's bid for Board of Regents (BOR) project 658 because it did not comply with the good faith effort requirements of the General and Special Conditions of the project's specifications?
Findings Of Fact Call for Bids was issued by the Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, for Board of Regents ("BOR") project numbered 658, Southeast Campus Building - Davie at Broward Community College Central Campus, in Florida Administrative Weekly. (Stipulated). The Project Manual is the volume assembled which includes the bidding requirements, sample forms, and Conditions of the Contract and Specifications (Jt. Ex. 1 at pp. 8 of 106 pages). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that at least fifteen (15) percent of the project contracted amount will be expended with minority business enterprises (MBE) certified by the Department of General Services as set forth under the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. If fifteen percent were not obtainable, the State University System would recognize good faith efforts by the bidder (Jt. Ex. 2). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that the bidder be advised to review the Good Faith Efforts requirements in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual immediately, in order to schedule the necessary tasks to accomplish Good Faith Efforts. The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that all bidders must be qualified at the time of their bid proposal in accordance with the Instruction to Bidders, Article B-2. The Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2 at page 9 of the Project Manual, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides in pertinent part, that in order to be eligible to submit a Bid Proposal, a bidder must meet any special requirements set forth in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-23 at page 16 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the contract will be awarded by the Respondent for projects of $500,000 or more, to the lowest qualified and responsible bidder, provided the bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Respondent to accept it. The award of the contract is subject to the demonstration of "good faith effort" by any bidder whose Bid Proposal proposes less than fifteen (15) percent participation in the contract by MBEs (Minority Business Enterprise). Demonstrated "good faith effort" is set forth in the Special Conditions. The contract award will be made to that responsible bidder submitting the low responsive aggregate bid within the preestablished construction budget. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-25 at page 17, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes requires the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The Respondent/Owner has adopted a program for the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The application of that program is set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26 at page 17 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26, at page 15 provides that falsification of any entry made on a bidder's proposal will be deemed a material irregularity and will be grounds for rejection. The Project Manual, Special Conditions, Article 1, subparagraph 1.1.1, at page I-1 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that the SUS has established a Construction Minority Business Enterprise Program in compliance with the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. The expenditure of at least fifteen (15) percent of the Base Bid with certified MBEs is a requirement of this contract, unless Good Faith Effort, as identified in paragraph 1.7 can be demonstrated by the Bidder. MBEs not certified by Department of General Services will be deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, and evidence of Good Faith Effort in lieu thereof will be required as identified in subparagraph 1.1.2 and paragraph 1-7 of these Special Conditions. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article I, subparagraph 1.1.2 at page I-2 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that evidence of good faith efforts will be required as specified by the Respondent/Owner within two working days after the opening of bids. Incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of paragraph 1.7 of the Special Conditions shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the Bidder. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article 1, paragraph 1.6 at page I-3 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1) states that MBE's participating in the State University System Minority Construction Program must be certified as a MBE by the Florida Department of General Services (hereinafter referred to as DGS) at the time of bid submittal. Certification identifies and limits the Specialty Area of business the MBE can perform and still qualify as a certified MBE. Therefore, the trade service listed on the Proposal for each of the MBEs must be within the scope of the Specialty Area. The bidder is required to ascertain that a listed MBE is certified by the DGS in the appropriate specialty area to perform the services for which it is listed. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-15, at p. 13). On January 17, 1992, Petitioner, Centex-Rooney Consturction Company, Intervenor, State Paving Corporation, and ten other bidders submitted bids on BOR Construction Project No. BR-658. After review of the bids and preparation of the bid tabulatio it was announced by FAU that Centex-Rooney was the apparent low bidder, but that Centex-Rooney had failed to meet the fifteen percent (15%) MBE participation requirement, and therefore, would be required to submit evidence of Good Faith Efforts within two days. The bid submitted by Centex-Rooney listed four (4) subcontractors which Centex-Rooney represented as DGS certified MBE firms, for a total of $867,000 which was 9.56% of the base bid of $9,067,000. (Stipulated). Since the bid submitted by Centex-Rooney was less than fifteen (15) percent required participation in the contract by MBEs, the University Planning Office requested that Centex-Rooney submit documentation to demonstrate "good faith effort" as set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney timely submitted its good faith documentation on January 22, 1992. (Stipulated). The Board of Regents with representatives of Centex-Rooney on February 25, 1992 to give Petitioner an opportunity to clarity and submit any additional good faith evidence in support of its bid. After reviewing the additional evidence, the Respondent contended that Centex-Rooney was in non-compliance with paragraphs 1.1.1 and 1.6.1 of the Special Conditions of the Project Manual, requiring at least 15% participation by MBEs at the time of bid opening, and at least one good faith effort criteria, paragraph 1.7.4, Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney was informed of the Board of Regents decision to reject its bid for non-compliance with Respondent's MBE requirements, and on March 6, 1992, the Chancellor of the Florida Board of Regents awarded the contract to State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). ^ The Board notified by letter dated March 6, 1992, all bidders of its award of contract for BR-658 project to the next lowest responsive bidder, State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest on March 10, 1992. (Stipulated). On March 19, 1992, Petitioner timely filed its Petition for Formal Written Protest for BR-658. (Stipulated). A representative from Centex-Rooney attended the pre-bid/pre- solicitation meeting. (Jt. Ex. 10, R-115, 116). The minority business enterprise program was discussed and the Board of Regents' requirements for good faith efforts were reviewed. (R-116, 117, 131). Centex-Rooney submitted its bid proposal on January 17, 1992. (Jt. Ex. 13). On page 2, paragraph c., of the bid proposed form submitted by Centex- Rooney, it provides that expenditure with minority business enterprises shall be consistent with the requirements of Article 1. of the Special Conditions, Minority Business Enterprise Requirements. Centex-Rooney listed four subcontractors on its List of Subcontractors and MBE participation form as DGS certified MBEs for a total of 9.56% participation (Jt. Ex. 13, Jt. Ex. 31). The List of Subcontractors form is an integral part of the proposal (Jt. Ex. 13, List of Subcontractors Form page 1) and it is required of all bidders that MBEs must be certified at the time of bid opening for bona fide participation. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-3 of I-26 pages, R-163, 174). Two of the four subcontractors listed by Centex-Rooney, Quality Concrete and S&S Roofing, were not DGS certified MBEs at the time of bid submittal. (R-19, 150, 163, 164, 174). Therefore, the two non-DGS certified subcontractors were deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, so that the total DGS certified MBE participation of Centex-Rooney at the time of bid submittal was 5%. (Jt. Ex. 1, Spec. Conditions 1.1.1, page I-1, Jt. Ex. 13, R-19, 150, 163-4, 174). Therefore, Centex-Rooney was required to show a good faith effort to engage MBE's. See Paragraph 16 above. Ms. Patricia Jackson, MBE Coordinator for Respondent, testified that requiring the DGS certified MBEs to be named at the time of bid opening makes the contract bidding procedures consistent, and eliminates any unfair price differentials between contractors. (R-151). Centex-Rooney was pressed for time in responding to the bid. It called a large number of the MBEs listed the documentation provided, and wrote letters to those subcontractors who expressed an interest and to other subcontractors. Mr. Charles Federico was chairman of the MBE advisory committee at Florida Atlantic University (Jt. Ex. 6, R-115). The committee reviewed the good faith efforts submitted by Petitioner (Jt. Ex. 6, 25, R-115, 140). The good faith effort submittal to FAU from Centex-Rooney contained nine sections (Jt. Ex. 25) with the following consecutive headings: Pre-Bid Meeting Attendance, Advertisements for MBE Participation, Solicitation Letter to Minority Businesses, Follow-Up Contacts to Minority Businesses, Selected Items (or portions) of Work for Minority Businesses, Specific Project Bidding Information made available to Minority Businesses, Utilization of Minority Businesses in Bid, Solicitation of Available Minority Organizations to Recruit Minority Businesses, and a Table of Contents. Under the third heading in Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, Solicitation Letters to Minority Businesses, Petitioner provided 55 form letters in his submittal to FAU and a bulletin. The text of each form letter provided the following: Centex-Rooney is bidding as general contractor on the Southeast Campus Building for FAU and BCC, Central Campus, Davie, FL and invites your firm to submit a quotation for the materials and/or labor on any portion of said project which falls within your scope of work. Please review the attached notices with respect to pertinent information pertaining to the bid. If your firm will be unable to submit a bid on the project, please state your reasons on the enclosed unavailability certificate form, sign and return to the Office of C-R. By doing this, it will help maintain an active MBE directory at Centex-Rooney and continue to indulge you on our bid list. Centex-Rooney encourages that participation of MBE contractors will be more than happy to answer your questions regarding this project. Under the section heading, Follow-up Contracts to Minority Businesses, for Petitioner's good faith submittal to FAU Petitioner included a 14 page log gridded with subcontractor/ vendor names, telephone numbers, MBE designation, will bid, bid submitted, low bid, date contacted and remark sections. The FAU MBE advisory committee found Petitioner in non-compliance with 1.7.3, 1.7.4, 1.7.7 and 1.7.8 of the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual that contains the good faith efforts requirements of Respondent. (Jt. Ex. 6, Jt. Ex. 12). The committee based its findings on the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. (R-119). The committee found non-compliance with 1.7.3 because the 55 form letters submitted by Petitioner were dated January 9, 1992. The committee determined that a letter dated January 9 was too late to give MBEs time to respond to the January 17 bid opening date. (R.121). In regard to 1.7.4, the committee found the Petitioner in non- compliance because no follow-up letters, telegrams, or meetings notes were provided in the good faith documentation. (R-122, 124). Mr. Federico testified that the committee found non-compliance with 1.7.7 of the Good Faith Effort requirements (R-125, 126) and 1.7.8. (R-126, 127). The advisory committee determination was sent to the Vice-President of Administration and Finance at FAU, Ms. Marie McDemmond. (R-128). The University President recommended award of the contract to Centex- Rooney. (Jt. Ex. 2, R-129). The University President is not authorized to award Board of Regents contracts. The Board of Regents awards contracts for projects of $500,000 or more. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-23, at page 16). Centex-Rooney could not utilize the two additional subcontractors, Kings Plumbing and Eagle Electric Distributors, because they were not listed on the Subcontractor/MBE form submitted by Centex-Rooney at the time of bid opening. (R-129, 130, 131). The University reconsidered its recommendation (Jt. Ex. 29), and subsequently recommended State Paving for award. (Jt. Ex. 32). The Handbook distributed by FAU at the pre-bid/pre-solicitation meeting contains a disclaimer which states that it is not intended to replace or supplement any information in the Project Manual or conditions for contract award (R-31, 132). State Paving met and exceeded the 15% MBE participation requirements for BR-65 (Jt. Ex. 14, R-20). Centex-Rooney's bid plus three alternatives was $9,590,000, and State Paving's bid plus three alternates was 9,592,500, so that the two bidders were $2,500 apart. (Jt. Ex. 7). At least seven of the twelve bidders on BR-658 met the 15% MBE participation goal (R-19). The FAU committee has reviewed many bids and has had several that met good faith efforts and several where the low bidders had met 15% MBE goal. (R- 117, 142). Ms. Jackson received a telephone call from Centex-Rooney regarding the FAU advisory committee's determination of non-compliance. (R-149). Ms. Jackson contacted Mr. Federico and reviewed the bid proposal and good faith efforts of Centex-Rooney on behalf of the Board of Regents. (R-148, 149). Ms. Jackson reviewed Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts as submitted to FAU and found non-compliance with 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions in the Project Manual for BR-658. (R-149). The Special Conditions of the Project Manual at page I-5 for 1.7.4, provide that the State University System requires that a bidder shall make no less than one written follow-up contact per initial contact. In the event a positive response is obtained, the Bidder shall request, in writing, a meeting between the MBE and Bidder's staff. The documentation required in the Special Conditions for 1.7.4 are copies of letters, telegrams and/or meeting rates. Ms. Jackson testified that the telephone log submitted by Centex-Rooney to document compliance with 1.7.4 did not meet the Special Conditions requirements because it was not a letter nor a telegram or a meeting note. (R-149). Nor did the telephone log reflect one written follow-up per initial contact as required by the University implementation of 1.7.4 in the Special Conditions (R-149, 157). Ms. Jackson contacted Centex-Rooney by phone and informed it of her finding that Centex-Rooney's reversal of the telephone calls and letters did not conform to the requirements of 1.7.4. (R-152). Thereafter, a meeting was arranged between Ms. Jackson and other BOR staff to provide Centex-Rooney an opportunity to provide supplemental evidence of good faith effort. (R-152). The Special Conditions section, at I-2, paragraph 1.1.2 provides that incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of Paragraph 1.7 (good faith requirements) shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the Owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the bidder. (R- 152). Centex-Rooney supplemented its submittal with 55 form letters dated January 24, 1992. These form letters were not considered satisfactory by Respondent as a written follow-up to each initial contact or to meet any other requirements in 1.7.4 because the letters were dated after the date of the bid opening. (Jt. Ex. 27, R-157, 158). Pursuant to Centex-Rooney's request at the February 25, 1992 meeting, Ms. Jackson again reviewed the company's documentation of its good faith efforts, evaluating the January 9, 1992 letters originally submitted as documentation for 1.7.4, as documentation for 1.7.3, and evaluating the telephone log, originally submitted as documentation of follow-up contact for 1.7.4 as initial solicitation documentation for 1.7.3. (R-153, 154). Considering Centex-Rooney's efforts in their best light, it was still determined by BOR that Centex-Rooney was not in compliance with 1.7.4. because there was no initial written contact and no written follow-up for each positive response. The telephone log is deemed to be analogous to meeting notes; however, the documentation viewed most favorably for Petitioner does not meet the written requirements of the Special Conditions which cannot be waived. (R- 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171). Two spread sheets were provided to BOR as supplemental documentation (Jt. Ex. 26). The Summary (Jt. Ex. 37) and other spread sheets (Jt. Ex. 36) were not provided to FAU by Centex-Rooney nor to Respondent in its subsequent review or as part of its option to permit supplementary documentation for good faith compliance. (R-55, 70, 71). Petitioner did not obtain the 15% MBE participation for BR 658. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.1.1 of the Special Conditions. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-1). Two of the MBEs listed by Petitioner with its bid proposal were not certified by DGS at the time of bid submittal. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.6.1. (Jt. Ex. 2, I-3). The telephone log submitted by Petitioner was insufficient as required documentation. Petitioner did not meet the good faith efforts requirement set out in 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions (Jt. Ex. 2, page I-4). (R-175, Jt. Ex. 28, 29). The telephone log, as presented by Centex-Rooney was not a copy of a letter, a telegram or a meeting note. The telephone contact did not constitute a written follow-up contact per initial contact as required by the Special Conditions, nor did it suffice as a request in writing for a meeting between the MBE and bidder's staff if a positive response was obtained from an MBE. (R-149, 157). Conversely, as proposed by Petitioner, the telephone contact was not acceptable under the terms of the Special Conditions as an initial notice under 1.7.3 because the contact was not by letter as required. Also, there was not a letter for each initial telephone contact, and the January 9 letters did not request meetings with those MBEs who responded positively, nor did the letters provide evidence of any meeting notes. (R-157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Centex-Rooney's bid for project BR-658 was properly rejected by the Respondent, and that the Board of Regents may proceed with its award of the contract to the Intervenor, State Paving. DONE and ENTERED this day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of May, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-2272BID Board of Regent's proposed findings were read and considered. The findings of the BOR were adopted except for Paragraph 22 which was deemed a conclusion of law. State Pavings' proposed findings were read and considered. The following list indicated which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: 1 through 3. Adopted. Was not specifically adopted, but is correct and is subsumed in other findings. Subsumed in other findings. Rejected that Centex-Rooney "freely admits" their bid failed to meet 15% requirement, a contrary to the evidence. Subsumed Paragraphs 32, 33 and 34. Subsumed Paragraphs 44, 45, 46 and 47. Subsumed Paragraph 50. Subsumed Paragraph 29 re documentation. Comments re Mr. Hamlin are argument and rejected. Rejected in part a restatement of statutes and law, and subsumed in other findings. Adopted that Centex-Rooney complied with 1.7.1, 1.7.2, and failed to comply with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. Centex-Rooney did comply with 1.7.5 and 1.7.6 and 1.7.8. To the extent that the evidence in this case did not show Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, 1.7.7 was not proven. Rejected as argument. Subsumed Paragraph 35. Subsumed Paragraphs 39 and 41. Rejected as argument. Subsumed in Paragraphs 55, 56 and 57. Rejected as conclusion of law. The Petitioner's proposed findings were read and considered. The following list which of the findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. Paragraphs 1 through 11. Adopted. Adopted, Paragraph 23. True; adopted in part in Paragraph and in Paragraphs 23 and 28. 14 and 15. Rejected as irrelevant. True, subsumed in Paragraph 28. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32 and 46. True, but irrelevant. There was no allegation that Centex-Rooney failed to advertise. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28 and 33. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32, 48 and 52. True but irrelevant because Centex-Rooney had fewer than 15%. True but irrelevant. Subsumed in various paragraphs. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35. True subsumed in Paragraphs 36 and 37. Subsumed in Paragraphs 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51. Irrelevant because it does not establish compliance with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. BOR properly rejected this evidence which was presented after the bid opening. Copies furnished: Charles B. Reed, Chancellor Florida Board of Regents State University System 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 James E. Glass, Esquire 6161 Blue Lagoon Dr., Suite 350 Miami, FL 33126 Jane Mostoller, Esquire 325 W. Gaines St., Suite 1522 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 J. Victor Barrios, Esquire 1026 Ease Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue 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 issue for consideration in this case was whether Petitioner, F & M Concrete Company, Inc., should be recertified as a disadvantaged business enterprise, pursuant to Chapter 14-78, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, F & M Concrete Company, Inc., was a bridge and culvert construction company doing business in the State of Florida with principal offices in Plant City. Respondent, Department of Transportation, is the state agency responsible for certifying minority and disadvantaged business enterprises for bid award purposes with the Department. Prior to February 3, 1988, the Petitioner had been certified by the Department as a minority business enterprise, (women owned). Petitioner's stock is owned as follows: Jaretha Fletcher,. 43.3% Kathleen Fletcher,. 33.0% Jennifer Fletcher Prado,......21.67%, and Vesta Thomas,. 2.0%. All of the above, with the exception of Ms. Thomas, the retired bookkeeper, are members of the Fletcher family. Kathleen is W. Eddie Fletcher's mother, Jaretha is his wife, and Jennifer Fletcher Prado, is his sister. W. Eddie Fletcher is the President of F & M Concrete Company, Inc., and Chief Operating Officer. Kathleen Fletcher is Chairman of the Board of Directors. For approximately 15 years prior to the last 2 years, the stock owned by Jaretha Fletcher was owned in joint tenancy with W. Eddie Fletcher. Approximately 2 years ago, the ownership was transferred to Jaretha Fletcher alone. There is no evidence as to the consideration for that transfer. Mr. Fletcher claims he is not his wife's heir, and will not inherit her stock should she predecease him. Kathleen Fletcher, Mr. Fletcher's mother, has had tuberculosis for many years, and is incapable of taking a substantial, active part in the business. However, she comes to the office approximately once a week, and speaks with Jaretha by phone periodically. Jaretha is employed in the corporate office in a training capacity. Jennifer Fletcher Prado works for the Hillsborough County Road Department as an inspector, and in the course of her travels about the county, periodically sees Petitioner's crews at work. Though she does not interfere with or become involved in the supervision of those crews, if she sees something that causes her to question the crew's performance, she will phone Mr. Fletcher and demand an explanation. This is the extent of her participation in the operation of the business with the exception of serving as a member of the Board of Directors. When she retires from her position with the county, because of her experience, she will be eligible to work with Petitioner corporation but would have to spend some time gaining experience in the contracting end of the business before she could assume any managerial position. On November 1, 1988, Jaretha Fletcher, as Assistant Secretary of F & M Concrete Company, Inc., submitted the corporation's application for DBE certification. The application indicates that the firm was established in September, 1956, and is engaged in the business of building bridges, concrete pavements, curbs, sea walls, storm drainage systems, and culverts. It has 35 full time employees, of whom 57% are minority, and it serves the geographical areas incorporating numerous counties in the central part of the state. The firm is 100% woman owned in that the four individuals mentioned above own 100% of the 100 shares of stock authorized and issued. The firm is managed by a President, Vice President, Assistant Secretary, and Secretary-Treasurer. W. Eddie Fletcher is President. W. Randall Fletcher is Vice President. Jaretha Fletcher is Assistant Secretary, and Dori M. Keeler is Secretary- Treasurer. The Board of Directors is made up of the three Fletcher women. W. Eddie Fletcher received a salary of $33,800.00 in 1987; W. Randall Fletcher received $28,600.00; Dori Keeler received $20,800.00; Kathleen Fletcher received $13,520.00; Jaretha Fletcher received $7,800.00, and David L. Cox, General Manager, received $28,600.00. Question 18 of the application for recertification reflects that policy making and financial decisions are made by Kathleen Fletcher as Chairman of the Board, Jaretha Fletcher, and Jennifer Prado. Management personnel are hired and fired by the Board. Hourly personnel are hired and fired by Mr. Cox and the four job foremen. At question 19 of the application, Petitioner indicates that any decision to bid on a job is made by W. Eddie Fletcher as President and Jaretha Fletcher as Assistant Secretary. Since Mrs. Fletcher is currently serving the corporation as a trainee, her contribution to the decision making process must be minimal. Job estimating is done by W. Eddie Fletcher and David Cox. Purchases of equipment are approved by the Board upon the recommendation of W. Eddie Fletcher. Supervision of field operations is accomplished by Mr. Cox. Jaretha Fletcher, as Assistant Secretary, along with Randall Fletcher, shop foreman and Vice President; W. Eddie Fletcher, President; and Dori M. Keeler, Secretary-Treasurer, all sign the payroll checks. The application was mailed to the Department by certified package delivery on November 1, 1988 and was received by it on November 2, 1988. This was 94 days before the Petitioner's then current certification expired. On December 2, 1988, the Department mailed a letter to the Petitioner requesting additional information. This was 31 days after the date of receipt of the application, which exceeds the rule period of 30 days or requesting additional information. However, Petitioner responded to the request on December 7, 1988, one day after receipt. The additional information requested by the Department was forwarded to it by Petitioner on December 21, 1988, with the exception of two forms that had to be procured from the Department of State. After all the requested information was submitted, the Department set up an onsite review of the Petitioner's operation. According to Petitioner, though the rule governing MBE certification requires that the Department conduct the on- site review within 60 days of receipt of application, it was not done in this case until the 98th day after the application was submitted. The rule also states that approval or denial must be announced within a 90 day period from application. This was not done here until March 14, 1989, when Mr. Pete Davis, DBE Certification Coordinator for the Department, notified the Petitioner by certified mail that its application had been denied. Since the application was submitted on November 1, 1988 and received on November 2, 1988, March 14, 1989 terminates a period of 132 days from the date of receipt of application. Mr. Donnie Alford, an engineer, works for the Department's construction office and is a member of the DBE Certification Committee which considered Petitioner's application. This committee, which consists of three voting members and one nonvoting member, reviewed Petitioner's file. The application was reviewed by all committee members before a vote was taken and Mr. Alford, as a voting member, considered all the information in the file including such items as gross receipts, ownership, directorship, the officers, their salaries, the ethnic status and span of control of the ownership and other personnel, and all other matters mandated for consideration by Rule 14-78 F.A.C. Mr. Alford noted that Jaretha Fletcher, the majority stockholder, was paid the smallest salary of any salaried employee. This indicates to him that the rule in question, which dictates that salary should be consistent with ownership and job responsibility, was not followed. The committee also examined the resumes of the officers and directors with a view toward minority owners. Mr. Alford noted that prior to 1986, two years before the application in question, Mrs. Jaretha Fletcher had been a housewife, and he was concerned that her background did not qualify her to make business decisions. According to Mr. Fletcher, Jaretha signs all checks issued by the corporation though she does not prepare them. She has worked on the preparation of at least one bid. She has acted as signatory for insurance policies covering the operation of the business. She was a personal guarantor on the last capital loan taken out by the business. In addition, the company has developed a computer program which would enable Jaretha to prepare bids on all curb related projects. This, has not yet been implemented, and absent a showing of how much independent judgement and authority she would exercise, by itself, it is not particularly probative of anything. She is also assuming more responsibility in the bidding process though she is not yet qualified to prepare a bid. She has learned to take company owned equipment charges and the daily reports received from the field foremen to prepare reports for the comptroller. She works with the comptroller in determining who of the various business creditors get paid at any given time, and she has begun to serve as a liaison between the corporation and the various contractors who utilize its services. Further, she is in training to use the computer to prepare the weekly payroll. On the other hand, Jaretha is not qualified to go into the field by herself as a supervisor and by her own admission, is "afraid to drive outside the Plant City area." She works in the office daily from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM except on those days when she has to be with her children. There is substantial evidence to indicate that the participation in business control and operation by Kathleen Fletcher and Jennifer Fletcher Prado is minimal, other than as members of the Board. The Board of Directors' primary function is to set policy for the operation of the Petitioner's business. The business is operated by W. Eddie Fletcher who is employed by the Board as President. He makes the day to day business decisions and decides what matters should be taken to the Board for ratification and approval. It is quite clear from the evidence as presented and all the permissible inferences and presumptions which may be drawn therefrom, that the operation and control of F & M Concrete Company, Inc., is exercised by W. Eddie Fletcher, and the Board of Directors does what he requests of it and provides what he asks. There is evidence, for example, that though the Board must provide for the purchase of major equipment, it "gives approval for whatever Eddie wants." In fact, two contracts, introduced by Respondent, which were prepared and executed by Petitioner with others in the operation of its business, for substantial sums and major projects, failed to reveal the signature or participation of any of the minority owners. All execution was accomplished by W. Eddie Fletcher on behalf of the corporation. After considering all the available information, the Department's committee voted to deny Petitioner recertification. The vote of the committee is not, however, binding on the Director of Administration who has final discretion to approve or disapprove the application for certification. Here the application for recertification was disapproved primarily because it was evident to the committee members and the Director of Administration, that the minority owners did not exercise the requisite amount of control over the operation of the business required under the intent and language of the rule governing minority business enterprise certification. The Department does not claim that the arrangement between the minority owners of the Petitioner corporation and Mr. Fletcher is in any way inappropriate or improper, nor does it deny that Jaretha Fletcher is now learning to participate in the operate in the operation of the business. However, the degree of control over the day to day operations of the business by the minority ownership, notwithstanding the propriety of the delegation of management to Mr. Fletcher, is not sufficient to qualify Petitioner as a minority owned business enterprise. Rule 14-78, F.A.C., allows management to be contracted out, but it does not allow delegation of the policy making function. Here, the committee and the Director of Administration concluded, and it is so found, that the owners of F & M Concrete Company, Inc. did not exercise sufficient control over the business to qualify it for certification. It is abundantly clear from the evidence adduced at the hearing, that Mr. Fletcher is, in fact, F & M Concrete Company, Inc. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that he is closely related by blood and marriage to the three principal owners; that prior to 1987 he owned 43.3% of the stock in the corporation jointly with Jaretha; that none of the principal owners other than Jaretha participate in the decision making process except as members of the Board; and that the Board does not engage in operating the business. Bids are not approved by the Board and operating decisions are within the exclusive province of the management team headed by Mr. Fletcher. Notwithstanding that the terms of the employment agreement between Mr. Fletcher and the Board provide that it may be terminated by the Board at any time for cause, from a pragmatic standpoint, with the Board's makeup being so closely related to Mr. Fletcher, the likelihood of this happening is remote. Instead, it becomes abundantly clear that the attempt to divest Mr. Fletcher from ownership of the corporation and demonstrate a bona fide minority owned and operated business enterprise is in form only and a sham and while the organization is in no way illegal or improper, it is not, in reality, a minority operated business so as to qualify for certification as such.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, F & M Concrete Company, Inc.'s application for recertification as a disadvantaged business enterprise be denied. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of December, 1989, 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 7th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11.-13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17.&18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19.-21. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Eddie Fletcher President F & M Concrete Company, Inc. Post Office Box 938 Plant City, Florida 34289-0938 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel DOT 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 K.N. Henderson, P.E. Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Ruth B. Dillard, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Commission, was the state agency responsible for the certification of Minority Business Enterprises in Florida. Petitioner, Computer Service, was founded by Ronald E. Willett in January, 1987. It is a computer maintenance and repair company of which Brenda Willett is currently President and Chairman of the Board and owner of a 51 percent share of the capital stock issued on December 15, 1993. Ronald E. Willett is the Executive Vice-president, a Director, and owner of a 49 percent share of the capital stock. Mr. Willett was the sole owner and Chairman of the Board until May, 1994, at which time he gave 51 percent of the stock to his wife, Ms. Willett, and the Board elected her Chairman. Ms. Willett has been in the data processing field for 13 years. Before she began working with the Petitioner, she was a computer programmer for the State Attorney's office. She uses computer software to help with managing the affairs of the company, but she is neither a programmer nor a technician. She does not do any repair work for the company because she is not trained to do it. Most of the repair work is done by her husband and two computer engineers employed by the company. A fifth employee works in the warehouse and repairs printers. Of the non-family employees, Ms. Willett interviewed one and hired another. Now she is responsible for all interviewing and hiring. Because of the technical nature of the work, however, she does the initial screening interview after which either Mr. Willett or one of the engineers evaluates the candidates' technical qualifications. She completes the evaluations of her employees' performance by relying on her customers to evaluate the employees' technical performance. In addition, she notes when an employee orders an inordinate amount of parts for a job instead of doing repair work because that generally indicates the employee is not performing properly. Ms. Willett is paid $1,500 every two weeks. Her husband is paid $6,500 per month, and each of the engineers is paid $40,000 per year. Ms. Willett is primarily in charge of the business administration. The inventory of repair parts is maintained at the company warehouse and at the various work sites where the company has contracts to maintain the equipment. Each repairman notifies her of the parts needed. She gets prices and orders the needed parts. The company does not have a line of credit with suppliers. Ms. Willett has, in the past, personally signed for a line of credit which was used for the company. The company presently owes $18,000 to a power supply company under a contract which she negotiated. For the past year, she has been the only company official to sign to commit the company on loans. In addition, Ms. Willett negotiates the company's contracts with customers and she works as a team with the engineers on pricing. The company works on a basis of 35 - 50 percent off IBM prices for similar service. Though her husband helps her decide on what machines the company can buy and repair, she would not need to replace him if he should retire. He is currently working only 18 -20 hours per week. The company submitted its application for minority business enterprise certification on April 18, 1994. Ms. Willett indicated she did not know about the program until it was mentioned to her by an instructor in a course she was taking, and she felt it would help her secure business. As a woman, she was finding it difficult to be taken seriously by the male business officers and managers she dealt with in soliciting business, and she understood that the minority certification would help her qualify for state contracts. The initial review of Petitioner's application was accomplished by Mr. DeLaO, who requested and received from Petitioner matters needed in clarification or amplification of the information contained in the application. Mr. DeLaO also conducted a telephone interview with Ms. Willett to determine how the business was operated and to reaffirm the accuracy of the documentation. Mr. DeLaO did not look elsewhere for information. Based on the information listed above, he recommended denial of the Petitioner's certification. Mr. DeLaO's recommendation was based on several factors, all of which are listed in the recommendation submitted in writing to his supervisor. The problems he found included: The risk of the minority owner, as weighed against the risk of the non-minority owner indicated Ms. Willett, who had received her shares as a gift, had no investment in the corporation to lose. Mr. DeLaO felt the risk of the minority owner should be greater than that of the non-minority owner. Risk was defined as the amount of investment capital put in to start the company or to purchase ownership. The minority owner's wages were not commen- surate with her percentage of ownership. Here, Mr. Willett, the non-minority owner, was making more than she was, as were both engineers. The Board of Governors of the corporation was not controlled by the minority owner. At the time of the review, only Mr. Willett was on the Board. Now that she is on the Board, she still does not control it because she one of only two Directors. Ms. Willett does not appear to have the technical expertise and capability to control the business of the company. She does not appear to have the technical education or experience to do the work of the company herself or to properly evaluate how her employees are performing it - computer repair. Her contribution appeared to be only administrative. Ms. Willett admits her ownership of the 51 percent of the shares of the company was a gift from her husband who felt she deserved it. She claims, however, that the initial cash infusion to the company, when it was first started, came from jointly owned funds utilized to purchase the necessary tools to start Mr. Willett in business. From that initial investment the corporation grew. It should be noted, however, that the actual transfer of stock ownership to Ms. Willett took place just four months prior to the filing of the application for certification, and Ms. Willett's election to the Board came in May, 1994, after the application was filed. The allegation regarding Ms. Willett's salary relative to that of her husband and two of the three other employees is correct. By the same token, the comments regarding her Board membership are also correct. In addition, it is clear her technical competence is insufficient to permit her to accomplish a majority of the computer repair functions completed by her employees. Whether she must be qualified to perform all tasks done by each employee is debatable. She must, however, have a general knowledge of the business which would make her supervision and management meaningful, and it is not at all clear she possesses either those skills or that knowledge. She is quite correct in her claim, however, that if she did not get the contracts, the workmen would have no work to do. Mr. DeLaO's supervisor, to whom his recommendation for denial of certification was addressed, on August 24, 1994 concurred with his recommendation and notified Ms. Willett, on behalf of the Petitioner, that the request for certification as an MBE was denied. The letter of denial contained the Commission's basis for denial.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order in this case denying Computer Service Concepts, Inc.'s request for certification as a minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda J. Willett, pro se Computer Service Concepts, Inc. 7616 Industrial Avenue, Suite 3 New Port Richey, Florida 34668 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Suite PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Crandall Jones Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building 2727 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 General Counsel Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building 2727 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
