The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the Self Contained Breathing Apparatus section (the SCBA section) of the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination (the Examination) administered September 25, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to Respondent for certification as a firefighter. Pursuant to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes, Petitioner was required to take and pass the written portion and all four sections of the practical portion of the Examination to achieve this certification. The practical portion of the Examination consists of four sections: the SCBA section; the Hose and Nozzle Operation section; the Ladder Operation section; and the Fireground Skills section. On May 29, 2003, Petitioner took both the written and practical portions of the Examination. She passed the written portion and three sections of the practical portion. Petitioner failed the SCBA section. Petitioner was not required to retake the written portion of the examination or the three sections of the practical examination she passed. Petitioner thereafter retook the SCBA section on September 25, 2003. As implied by the name of the section, the SCBA section involves the use of equipment that enables a firefighter to breathe in a hostile environment, such as a burning building. The candidate must check the equipment, properly don the equipment, activate the equipment, and properly doff the equipment. Mr. Chase was responsible for administering and grading Petitioner’s retake of the SCBA section on September 25, 2003. To pass each section of the practical examination, including the SCBA section, a candidate has to achieve a score of at least 70 points.2 The candidate’s performance on the SCBA section is graded in ten categories, with each category being worth ten points. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's performance on the SCBA section of the practical examination was appropriately and fairly graded. Petitioner earned a score of 40 points on her retake the SCBA portion of the practical examination. Petitioner was awarded no points for six of ten categories for which points could be awarded.3 Petitioner failed to establish that she was entitled to additional credit for her performance on the SCBA section. Respondent established that Mr. Chase appropriately administered and graded the subject SCBA section pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 69A-37, Florida Administrative Code, which set forth guidelines for the practical examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Petitioner failed the SCBA section of the practical portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standard Examination administered September 25, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of June, 2004.
The Issue The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether the Department’s intended award of state term contracts for information technology staff augmentation services was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for procuring state term contracts. See §§ 287.012(28), 287.042(2)(a), 287.056-057, Fla. Stat. A “state term contract” is a term contract that is competitively procured by the Department. § 287.012(28), Fla. Stat. A “term contract” means an indefinite quantity contract to furnish commodities or contractual services during a defined period. § 287.012(29), Fla. Stat. The Department initiated this competitive procurement to establish a state term contract for information technology (“IT”) staff augmentation services. The procurement’s objective is to enable state agencies and other eligible users (“Customers”) to supplement their IT staff. The solicitation at the center of these protests is Request for Proposals for Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services – 3rd Bid, RFP 15- 80101507-SA-D (the “RFP”). The RFP is intended to replace an existing state term contract for IT staff augmentation services. The current contract has an estimated annual spending volume of approximately $66,800,000. As described in the RFP, the Department intends to award up to approximately 200 vendors with the ability to provide (temporary) IT staff services per specific position. Thereafter, a Customer who desires IT staff assistance will issue a Request for Quote, which is available for review by all vendors awarded with the state term contract (the “Contractors”). A Contractor who desires to fulfill the request responds to the Customer’s Request for Quote agreeing to provide IT staff who possess the technical skills needed. A Request for Quote also allows Customers to obtain pricing and service information from interested Contractors. See § 287.056(2), Fla. Stat. If selected, the Contractor will then charge the Customer for the assigned personnel on an hourly basis.6/ In other words, the Department will competitively procure IT staffing services from multiple vendors/Contractors. A vendor who is awarded a contract under the RFP is not given an actual IT job, but rather is included on a list of Contractors as a potential source to fill an IT position in the future. Thereafter, Customers may obtain IT staff assistance, through a Request for Quote, without having to conduct a separate, independent solicitation. The Department issued the RFP on February 5, 2019.7/ On February 11, 2019, the Department posted Addendum No. 1 to the RFP. Addendum No. 1 notified vendors that the RFP was a “new solicitation,” and that the previous solicitation had been cancelled and rebid. The Department subsequently posted Addendum No. 2 to the RFP revising and clarifying the bid specifications. The Department posted Addendum No. 3 to the RFP on May 20, 2019.8/ Addendum No. 3 instructed vendors that all proposals were due by March 19, 2019. On or before March 19, 2019, the Department received proposals from 378 vendors,9/ including ArnAmy and Seva. Under the RFP’s evaluation methodology, vendors’ proposals were scored in four Evaluation Criteria, as follows: Evaluation Criteria Maximum Possible Points IT Experience Certification (Attachment B) 100 Staffing Resource Management Plan 300 IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience 200 Price (Attachment C) 400 per Job Title Total Score Possible Per Job Title 1000 Regarding the IT Experience Certification criteria, vendors submitted information on an IT Experience Certification Form which was included in the RFP. The form was scored based on the number of years the vendor had been in the IT business. The Procurement Officer identified in the RFP, Joel Atkinson, scored this criteria. (Both ArnAmy and Seva received the maximum 100 points in this category.) Regarding the Staffing Resource Management Plan (the “Management Plan”) and the IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience (“IT Staff Contract Experience”) categories, the Department appointed three individuals (the “Evaluators”) to independently score these sections of each proposal. (The three Evaluators are referred to as the “Scoring Team”.) The Scoring Team consisted of Stephanie Reaves, Denise Roberts, and Heather Shoup. For the Management Plans, the Evaluators were to assign point values based on whether the vendors demonstrated “exceptional ability” (300 points); “intermediate ability” (200 points); “minimal ability” (100 points); or “fails to demonstrate ability” (0 points). For the IT Staff Contract Experience category, the Evaluators were to assess a point value based on whether the vendor demonstrated “extensive” experience (200 points); “intermediate” experience (150 points); “minimal” experience (100 points); or “fails to demonstrate experience” (0 points). Regarding the Price criteria, each vendor was required to complete a price sheet wherein the vendor quoted an hourly rate for each specific IT staff service for which the vendor desired to contract. The price sheet divided each staff service into “Job Families.” Within each Job Family, the RFP listed multiple “Job Titles.” The RFP included a total of 130 different Job Titles for which vendors could submit proposals. In addition, the price sheet further divided the majority of Job Titles into “Scope Variants,” which are degrees of experience within an individual Job Title (typically up to three Scope Variants per Job Title). For example, in the Job Family of Applications Development, the Job Title of Systems Analyst was broken out into Scope Variant levels of Entry, Intermediate, and Advanced.10/ Further, the RFP attached a “Ceiling Rate” to each Scope Variant. The RFP explained that the Department would not consider or evaluate a vendor’s proposal for a particular Job Title if the hourly rate the vendor quoted was higher than the Ceiling Rate. Finally, the price per hour the vendor quoted for the Job Title was considered a “not to exceed” price. In other words, after the state term contract was awarded, when a Contractor received a Request for Quote from a Customer, the Contractor could not charge a higher hourly rate than the price listed in its proposal. However, the RFP permitted Contractors to respond with a (competitively) lower hourly rate for the IT staffing services it would agree to provide. RFP, section 5.2.4 set forth a formula to calculate the score for the prices the vendors quoted for the specific Job Titles. The Department designed the formula to establish a base line with which to compare proposals. Using the formula, the vendor with the lowest price per Job Title or Scope Variant11/ was awarded 400 points (the maximum). Thereafter, every other vendor received points for price per Job Title using the following calculation: (X) x 400 = Z (N) Where: X = lowest price of all Proposals submitted per Job Title N = Respondent's submitted total price per Job Title Z = points awarded The Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, (not the Scoring Team) calculated and assigned the points for price. The Vendors’ scores for IT Experience Certification and Price (from the Procurement Officer) were added to the Evaluators’ scores for the Management Plan and Staff Contract Experience for a total score for each proposal. Upon winning a contract, Contractors are only permitted to provide services for the specific IT positions awarded through the solicitation. As explained in RFP, Exhibit A, STATEMENT OF WORK, the Contractors agree to provide IT staffing services described in a document entitled “Job Families Descriptions.” The Contractors will be responsible for the following activities: The Contractor shall possess the professional and technical staff necessary to allocate, outsource, and manage qualified information technology staff to perform the services requested by the Customer. The Contractor shall provide Customers with staff who must have sufficient skill and experience to perform the services assigned to them. All of the information technology staff augmentation services to be furnished by the Contractor under the Contract shall meet the professional standards and quality that prevails among information technology professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout Florida under the same or similar circumstances. The Contractor shall provide, at its own expense, training necessary for keeping Contractor's staff abreast of industry advances and for maintaining proficiency in equipment and systems that are available on the commercial market. The Contractor shall be responsible for the administration and maintenance of all employment and payroll records, payroll processing, remittance of payroll and taxes, and all administrative tasks required by state and federal law associated with payment of staff. The Contractor shall, at its own expense, be responsible for adhering to the Contract background screening requirements, testing, evaluations, advertising, recruitment, and disciplinary actions of Contractor’s information technology staff. The Contractor shall maintain during the term of the Contract all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the information technology staff augmentation services. In short, the Contractors are responsible for finding, hiring, and recruiting qualified IT personnel. Thereafter, the Contractors must provide and manage their IT staff pursuant to the terms of the Request for Quote. Awards under the RFP were made by Job Title. RFP, section 5.3, explained the Basis for Award as follows: The Department intends to make multiple awards from this solicitation and anticipates awarding 200 contracts per Job Title. Contracts will be awarded to the responsible and responsive Vendors that are determined to be the most advantageous to the state based on, per Job Title, the highest total evaluation criteria scores, which includes price, IT Experience Certification, Staffing Resource Management Plan, and IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience scores. The maximum possible total score per Job Title is 1000. * * * For those Job Titles where, in determining the 200th awarded Vendor, there are multiple responsible and responsive Respondents with the same numeric score, the Department reserves the right to award more than 200 contracts per Job Title to those responsive and responsible Respondents who are tied for the 200th contract award. Awards will be made per Job Title. A vendor was not required to submit a response for every Job Title. Instead, vendors were free to bid for only those Job Titles for which they desired to provide IT Staffing services. However, if a vendor did respond to a specific Job Title, the vendor was required to provide a price per hour for every Scope Variant within that Job Title. On June 5, 2019, the Department held a public meeting during which the three Evaluators, as well as the Procurement Officer, confirmed their scores. On June 24, 2019, the Department posted its Revised Notice to the Vendor Bid System listing all vendors to whom the Department intended to award IT staffing contracts. The Department awarded contracts to the top 200 vendors (plus ties) for each of the 130 Job Titles. ArnAmy bid for all 130 Job Titles. The Department awarded ArnAmy 21 out of 130 Job Titles. In other words, ArnAmy finished in the top 200 for 21 of 130 Job Titles. Seva bid for all 130 Job Titles. The Department did not award Seva any Job Titles. In other words, Seva did not finish in the top 200 for any of the Job Titles. ARNAMY’S PROTEST: ArnAmy protests the Department’s decision to award it a state term contract for only 21 of 130 Job Titles offered through the RFP. Mr. Datta Kadam testified on behalf of ArnAmy. Mr. Kadam is the founder and chief executive officer of ArnAmy. Mr. Kadam prepared and submitted ArnAmy’s response to the RFP. Mr. Kadam initially relayed that ArnAmy was formed in 2007 as an IT consulting and software development company. He further expressed that ArnAmy has extensive experience under the current (2016) state term contract, for which it is authorized to support all 130 IT staff positions. Approximately 85-90 percent of ArnAmy’s IT consulting practice is dedicated to providing IT staff augmentation services through contracts such as the Department’s state term contract. ArnAmy also services staffing contracts for Maryland and Texas. ArnAmy (through Mr. Kadam) presented three primary arguments protesting the Department’s award. The Scoring Team Failed to Evaluate ArnAmy’s Final Management Plan: ArnAmy argues that the Scoring Team was not provided with the final version of its Management Plan. Instead, the three Evaluators scored an incomplete, preliminary draft. Mr. Kadam believes ArnAmy would have received higher scores for Job Titles had the Evaluators scored the correct version of its Management Plan. ArnAmy attributes this mistake to a possible error in the MyFloridaMarketPlace (“MarketPlace”) program that interfered with or prevented Mr. Kadam from uploading, saving, and/or submitting the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan for scoring. MarketPlace is the State of Florida online procurement system. MarketPlace served as the “web portal” for vendors to access the Department’s procurement documents, as well as a guide to assist them through the purchase process. The RFP required vendors to submit proposals through MarketPlace. The main software component of MarketPlace is a program called “Ariba,” which is a suite of programs or tools. MarketPlace (through Ariba) allowed vendors to electronically submit their responses to the RFP. A vendor may take three distinct actions within MarketPlace/Ariba: (1) upload documents; (2) save documents; and (3) submit documents to the Department. Mr. Kadam maintained that the version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan that the Evaluators scored was an “intermediate working copy” that he had saved “locally” to MarketPlace. Mr. Kadam testified that he uploaded and saved at least three versions of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to MarketPlace. He intended the Department to score the last version of the Management Plan that he saved and submitted on March 18, 2019. Mr. Kadam explained that he was not aware that the Department did not score the appropriate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan until after the Department posted its Revised Notice on July 24, 2019. Upon learning that ArnAmy was only awarded 21 Job Titles, Mr. Kadam conducted a “root cause analysis” to determine the reason. He initially reviewed the scores of several other proposals “to obtain a baseline of comparison.” He soon discovered that the Management Plan the Evaluators scored for ArnAmy was not the last (and correct) version he believes he uploaded to MarketPlace. Mr. Kadam suggests that a glitch occurred within the MarketPlace program that replaced or substituted an earlier version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan for the final version. At the final hearing, Mr. Kadam relayed that he did not find any error at the “front” or “user’s” (ArnAmy’s) end of the system. Nor did he receive any error messages after submitting ArnAmy’s Management Plan. He did, however, offer several possible, “logical” causes for the inconsistency. His theories included “deadlock,” or a situation that occurs on the system when one document is in use on the server that prevents another document (i.e., ArnAmy’s Management Plan) from being properly uploaded. Mr. Kadam explained that the difference between the early version and the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan was significant. RFP, section 5.2.2, instructed vendors to recite how they proposed to recruit, staff, and manage requests for IT services. The intermediate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan did not include the information referenced in RFP, section 5.2.2.B, which specifically directed vendors to identify and describe the roles and expertise of their Principal Personnel.12/ Mr. Kadam represented that the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan did contain this information. ArnAmy argues that if the MarketPlace error had not occurred, its proposal would have received a much more favorable score. Mr. Kadam specifically pointed to the score from one Evaluator, Stephanie Reaves, who only awarded ArnAmy’s Management Plan 100 out of 300 points. Mr. Kadam contends that if Ms. Reaves had just increased her score to the next level (200), ArnAmy would have been awarded most, if not all, of the 130 Job Titles. As more fully discussed below, despite Mr. Kadam’s detailed analytical investigation into the MarketPlace program, ArnAmy did not produce conclusive or direct evidence to support his theory that an error within MarketPlace was responsible for the submission of an intermediate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to the Department, instead of Mr. Kadam’s final version. During his testimony, Mr. Kadam stated that “a lot could have happened” to the documents he uploaded. However, he conceded that he did not know exactly what that might have been. The Scoring Team was Not Qualified to Score the Proposals: ArnAmy also charges that the Department failed to properly train the three Evaluators or provide them adequate guidance on how to effectively score the vendors’ proposals. Specifically, ArnAmy asserts that the Department failed to select Evaluators with the requisite background, experience, and knowledge in the subject matter of the RFP, i.e., information technology. Consequently, the Evaluators could not have conducted a comprehensive or sound review of the IT staffing services listed in the RFP. In other words, the Department could not have competently or fairly decided that ArnAmy should not be awarded an IT staff augmentation contract because the Evaluators did not know how to properly score its proposal. To support its argument, ArnAmy points out that not a single Evaluator possessed IT experience. ArnAmy contends that the technical details involved in evaluating proposals for IT staff services require direct experience in the IT field or in acquiring and/or utilizing IT staffing services. Because the Evaluators were unqualified, as well as the fact that the Evaluators were under time pressure to evaluate all 374 proposals, ArnAmy alleges that they inconsistently applied the RFP’s evaluation criteria, and, in some cases, failed to apply it altogether. As discussed below, the facts adduced at the final hearing support a finding that the Evaluators were suitably qualified to score the vendors’ proposals. Therefore, the undersigned finds this argument insufficient to reverse the Department’s award. Evaluator Stephanie Reaves Incorrectly Scored ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience: Finally, as a direct result of the Scoring Team’s inexperience, ArnAmy asserts that one of the three Evaluators, Stephanie Reaves, failed to properly score its IT Staff Contract Experience. ArnAmy specifically alleges that, in her haste to review ArnAmy’s proposal, Ms. Reaves overlooked key information included in its IT Staff Contract Experience submission. RFP, section 5.2.3, advised that a vendor “will be scored” based on “the best representation of its experience in providing IT Staff Augmentation.” Section 5.2.3 specifically asked vendors to include information regarding: Total number of IT Staff Augmentation contract/purchase orders. Total combined dollar amount of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders. At page 19 of its response to section 5.2.3, ArnAmy reported on its IT Staff Contract Experience document that ArnAmy had 11 years of IT staffing experience with the State of Florida involving 147 total contracts worth over $19,600,000. As discussed in paragraphs 93, 146, and 147 below, ArnAmy’s argument on this point has merit. Ms. Reaves awarded ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience 150 out of 200 points. At the final hearing, Ms. Reaves admitted that she did not see this information in ArnAmy’s proposal prior to formulating her score. SEVA’S PROTEST: Seva was not awarded any of the 130 Job Titles for which it bid. Seva protests the Department’s award arguing that the RFP’s scoring formula was built on an arbitrary evaluation system and a mathematically deficient price scoring system. Consequently, the evaluation process resulted in unfair and unreliable awards that should not have excluded Seva’s proposal. Danny O'Donnell spoke on behalf of Seva. Mr. O’Donnell prepared and submitted Seva’s proposal to the RFP. In addition, at the final hearing, Mr. O’Donnell was accepted as an expert in statistics, data presentation, and pattern analysis. Mr. O’Donnell explained that he is very competent at extracting and compiling data from spreadsheets and reports and presenting that information in a form that is more easily understood. Mr. O’Donnell testified that Seva is an IT consulting and software development services firm headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida. He further represented that Seva has extensive experience providing IT staffing services to the State of Florida. Seva has provided temporary IT staff for state agencies since 2009, and has participated in a total of 120 IT staffing contracts with the state worth over $19,800,000. Further, Seva is an active vendor supporting 129 of the 130 IT jobs awarded in the 2016 state term contract. Mr. O’Donnell also commented that Seva’s 2019 proposal was substantially the same as its 2016 submission. Further, the 2019 RFP criteria was very similar to the 2016 procurement terms. In 2016, Seva received good (and winning) scores for its Management Plan. Consequently, Mr. O’Donnell was puzzled why Seva received such low scores under this RFP. To understand the reason the Department did not award Seva any Job Titles, Mr. O’Donnell culled through reams of Department data, charts, and spreadsheets. Based on his statistical analysis, Mr. O’Donnell reached two primary conclusions why the Department’s scores for the 2019 RFP are unsound. The RFP’s Price Scoring System: Initially, Mr. O’Donnell argued that the RFP’s “extremely flawed” price scoring formula set forth in RFP, section 5.2.4, produced arbitrary and unreliable scoring results. Specifically, the formula allowed vendors to propose “low-ball,” “unrealistic,” and “unsustainable” prices that are excessively below the market value for IT staffing services in order to procure higher scores for their proposals. Consequently, vendors who submitted these “unbalanced” bids received an unfair competitive advantage over vendors who presented realistic prices (i.e., ArnAmy and Seva) for their IT staffing services. Mr. O’Donnell further urged that the formula caused a very narrow “band compression of price points,” which gave rise to “price neutralization.” In other words, vendors who offered legitimately low, but realistic, prices for Job Titles received no corresponding benefit because the unbalanced bids “caused the relative value of the pricing criteria to be neutralized in value.” Concomitantly, the two subjectively scored criteria graded by the Scoring Team (Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience) took on much greater significance in determining whether a particular vendor was awarded a state term contract. A vendor could lose more points on pricing than it could earn for its Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience. As a result, vendors who tendered “unbalanced” bids (with unreasonably low prices) obtained an inequitable and unwarranted benefit. Mr. O’Donnell asserted that there is no correlation between winning vendors having the best price, and the responsible and responsive vendors who can provide the best IT staffing service to Customers. Mr. O'Donnell testified to his belief that the Department did not account for or prevent these artificially low, “unbalanced,” bids. Consequently, it was his opinion that the Scoring Team did not select vendors whose proposals will be the most advantageous to the State of Florida (i.e., Seva). Therefore, the Department’s decision not to award the IT staffing contract to Seva must be overturned. Mr. O’Donnell alleged that his extensive statistical analysis reveals that the three Evaluators used markedly different standards to review, then score, vendors’ proposals. To support his argument, Seva produced a chart showing that Ms. Reaves awarded 161 of the 374 Management Plans a top score of 300. Ms. Shoup awarded 116 Management Plans with 300 points. Ms. Roberts awarded only 66 Management Plans the maximum 300 points. Mr. O’Donnell stressed that these diverse scores indicate an arbitrariness that is outside any zone of reasonable results. Consequently, as a matter of fairness, all proposals must be reevaluated. Mr. O’Donnell further argued that the inequity is compounded by the fact that the Department limited state term contracts for each Job Title to 200 vendors (and ties). Not only is restricting the available Contractors to 200 arbitrary, but the 200 Contractor cap impacts whether legitimate vendors were awarded IT staffing contracts. In addition to Mr. O’Donnell’s analysis and conclusions, Seva presented expert testimony from Dr. Wei Wu. Dr. Wu is a professor in the Department of Statistics at Florida State University. Dr. Wu was accepted as an expert in statistics, including the chi-square correlation test, as well as the “p value” as applied to the solicitation scoring. To formulate his opinion, Dr. Wu applied basic statistical methods and tools. He explained that he conducted a “standard chi-square test” to determine whether the three Evaluators produced the same scoring distribution. Dr. Wu then analyzed the data, reviewed the intuitive results, and formulated his conclusion. He rechecked his data to ensure that it was mathematically correct. Based on his statistical analysis, Dr. Wu announced, with “very high confidence,” that the three Evaluators did not apply the same methodology when scoring Management Plans. Dr. Wu specifically opined that he was “99.99 percent confident that, of the three evaluators; they don’t have the same standard to give the score.” In other words, his research indicated that the Evaluators did not have the same, common understanding of the RFP’s scoring criteria. On the contrary, the Evaluator’s scoring distributions were arbitrarily and unreasonably different. Further, Dr. Wu expressed that the scores awarded for price were “crunched” in the final results, thereby reducing their importance in the proposals’ total scores. Dr. Wu testified that, if the Evaluators had followed the same scoring standard, the score distributions across the 374 proposals would not have been so varied. Dr. Wu acknowledged that some deviation between Evaluators is expected, but not this much. Based on Mr. O’Donnell’s analysis, as supported by Dr. Wu, Seva asserts that statistical data confirms that each Evaluator applied dissimilar grading scales, which manifested itself into erratic scoring. Each Evaluator appears to have a different understanding of what a vendors’ proposal would have to show in order to earn a top-ranked score. Despite his conclusions, however, Mr. O’Donnell conceded that he has no previous experience forming statistical inferences from procurement criteria. Neither does he feel qualified to explain the meaning of his statistical analysis of the scores. Consequently, he could not testify “why” the data shows what it shows. Similarly, Dr. Wu acknowledged that he has never researched procurement scoring formulas, scoring of requests for proposals criteria, or the scoring behavior of procurement evaluators. Nor did his opinion take into account the subjective opinions of the three Evaluators. The Scoring Team was Not Qualified to Score the Proposals: Secondly, similar to ArnAmy, Seva asserts that the wide-ranging scores show that the Department failed to select Evaluators with the requisite experience and knowledge in IT. Seva further charges that the Department neglected to effectively train the Scoring Team. The Department only provided the three Evaluators poorly defined guidelines explaining how to evaluate the vendors’ Management Plans. In addition, Seva argues that amount of time the Department allotted for scoring (eight weeks) was too short to reasonably evaluate 374 separate proposals. DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO THE TWO PROTESTS: In response to ArnAmy and Seva’s challenges, the Department asserts that it properly acted within its legal authority, as well as the RFP specifications, to award the RFP to qualified responsive and responsible vendors. The Scoring Team Selection/Qualifications: Initially, the Department rejects ArnAmy and Seva’s allegations that the Scoring Team members lacked the requisite experience and knowledge to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. To score a procurement in a request for proposals solicitation, section 287.057(16)(a)1 directed the Department to appoint: At least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought. In accordance with section 287.057(16)(a)1, the Department appointed three individuals (Ms. Reaves, Ms. Roberts, and Ms. Shoup) to serve on the Scoring Team. The three Evaluators were selected by Cliff Nilson (Deputy Director of the Division of State Purchasing), and Joel Atkinson (the Department’s Procurement Officer). Thereafter, the Evaluators were approved by the Department’s Secretary. At the final hearing, Mr. Nilson testified as the Department’s corporate representative. In his role as Deputy Director of State Purchasing, Mr. Nilson oversees the Department’s procurement process, as well as the state term contracts awarded under the RFP. Initially, Mr. Nilson discussed how the Department selected the three Evaluators. Mr. Nilson explained that the state term contract in this solicitation is fundamentally a “staffing” contract. Mr. Nilson characterized the procurement as “essentially . . . a human resource function that’s outsourced to a vendor to recruit, employ, and manage those people.” Mr. Nilson explained that the RFP’s purpose is to solicit vendors who will find, recruit, and manage IT personnel; then effectively provide those employees to Customers to use on an hourly basis to perform IT work. Vendors awarded with a state term contract are only responsible for providing “a person,” not directing or overseeing an IT project. Accordingly, the Department sought evaluators who had experience in human resources and staff management. Further, Mr. Nilson did not believe that a working knowledge of IT services was necessary for a fair and reasonable evaluation of the vendors’ proposals. Mr. Nilson relayed that, because the RFP’s purpose was to identify staffing companies, extensive knowledge of the IT tasks and responsibilities listed in the 130 Job Titles was not necessary when reviewing the vendors’ Management Plans and IT Staff Contract Experience. At the final hearing, the Department elicited testimony from Mr. Kadam (for ArnAmy) and Mr. O’Donnell (for Seva) admitting that the “deliverable” under this state term contract is people and their time and expense, not the various vendors’ IT prowess. During the hearing, both Mr. Kadam and Mr. O’Donnell acknowledged that their primary responsibilities would be to find, recruit, and place suitable IT staff with a state agency. Regarding training the Evaluators, Mr. Nilson conveyed that the Department anticipated that scoring would be fairly straightforward. Therefore, the Department did not plan a lengthy training regime for the Evaluators. Mr. Nilson further commented that the grading criteria described in the RFP did not require specific knowledge of IT services. The Evaluators were to review how each vendor proposed to hire, manage, and retain persons with IT skills. The Evaluators were not scoring the specialized knowledge of the vendors or their employees. Before starting their reviews, the Department arranged for each Evaluator to receive a copy of each proposals’ Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience section. The Evaluators also received an Evaluators Guide, as well as Instructions for the Evaluator Score Sheet. Each Evaluator also received and signed a document entitled Evaluator Instructions for Ethics, Sunshine Law, and Conflict of Interest. Finally, the Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, contacted each Evaluator separately to explain their role and answer any questions. The RFP gave the three Evaluators eight weeks to review and score every proposal. Mr. Nilson envisioned the Evaluators spending approximately 30 minutes on each proposal. Mr. Nilson recognized that the scoring would entail hard work, but he was comfortable that the Evaluators would have enough time to perform their responsibilities. The Evaluators scored Petitioners’ proposals as follows: ArnAmy: Management Plan (out of 300 points): Ms. Reaves: 100 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points Ms. Shoup: 200 points IT Staff Contract Experience (out of 200 points): Ms. Reaves: 150 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points (maximum) Ms. Shoup: 200 points (maximum) Seva: Management Plan (out of 300 points): Ms. Reaves: 100 points Ms. Roberts: 0 points Ms. Shoup: 100 points IT Staff Contract Experience (out of 200 points): Ms. Reaves: 150 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points (maximum) Ms. Shoup: 200 points (maximum) Mr. Nilson testified that he was not concerned that the Evaluators’ scores were slightly different. He commented that in his experience, a one-step difference in the scoring spread between evaluators was “not unusual at all.” At the final hearing, each of the Evaluators testified about their background and experience in state procurements and IT staffing contracts as follows: Stephanie Reaves: Ms. Reaves testified that she has worked in the field of human resources for her entire career. She has hired, managed, recruited, and trained employees. At the time Ms. Reaves was selected as an evaluator, she was employed as the Director of Human Resources for the Department of Children and Families. During the RFP process, she transferred to the Department of Environmental Protection where she works as an Employee Relations Specialist. In addition, Ms. Reaves was previously employed with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, where she reviewed and scored proposals submitted in response to requests for proposals for public contracts. Ms. Reaves also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration, as well as a Masters in Human Resource Development. Prior to this RFP, however, she has never been involved in procuring IT staff services. Ms. Reaves declared that she had a firm grasp of her responsibilities as an evaluator. Before she scored the proposals, she reviewed and understood the scoring criteria described in RFP, section 5. She also read the Evaluators Guide, as well as the score sheet instructions. She further relayed that she spoke with the Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, who provided general guidance. Ms. Reaves expressed that she felt adequately trained to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. She also believed that she had the necessary human resources experience to discern whether vendors sufficiently described their staffing abilities in their proposals. Ms. Reaves explained that, when evaluating a proposal, she read the vendor’s submission twice, as well as reviewed the applicable RFP sections. She then compared the proposal to the RFP evaluation criteria. At that point, she scored accordingly and submitted her scores electronically to the Department. Ms. Reaves spent approximately 20-30 minutes per proposal. Ms. Reaves rejected any concerns that her lack of IT knowledge affected her evaluation. She relayed that she did not find scoring difficult. She did not encounter terms in the RFP or the various vendors’ proposals that she did not understand. Ms. Reaves asserted that she worked fairly and independently. Further, she testified that she used the criteria set forth in the RFP and applied the scoring criteria consistently to each proposal. She relayed that she held vendors to the same standard and used the same method when evaluating each proposal. Finally, despite the large amount of commitment and work this evaluation required, Ms. Reaves firmly asserted that she had sufficient guidance and time to review and score each proposal. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Reaves testified that she awarded ArnAmy 100 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that, for a perfect score of 300, a proposal would have to “demonstrate exceptional ability.” This score meant that she thoroughly understood how a vendor would provide prospective IT staff to Customers, and the vendor did an excellent job in describing how it would identify potential IT staff that would respond to a Customer’s Request for Quote. ArnAmy’s Management Plan, however, only showed minimal ability to meet the RFP’s objectives. Specifically, ArnAmy did not explain “how” it intended to accomplish or implement a plan to provide IT staff to Customers. In addition, ArnAmy failed to include information regarding the experience of its Principal Personnel to manage IT staff. Regarding ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience, Ms. Reaves awarded ArnAmy 150 out of 200 points. Ms. Reaves explained that she did not find in ArnAmy’s proposal responses to two specific requests for information: 1) the total number of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders; and 2) the total combined dollar amount of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders. However, as became apparent during the final hearing, ArnAmy’s proposal did, in fact, include information on these two specific points. What appears to have happened is that Ms. Reaves missed this information because ArnAmy presented these numbers at the very end (page 14) of its IT Staff Contract Experience section (and in tiny print).13/ In RFP, section 5.2.3, the total number of IT contracts and their combined dollar amount are the first two bullet points listed in the IT Staff Contract Experience criteria section.14/ Accordingly, Ms. Reaves looked for this information in the order set forth in the RFP, i.e., at the beginning of each vendors’ response to this section. (For example, Seva inserted its contract history in the first two lines of its IT Staff Contract Experience submission.) The RFP did not contain any specific instructions on how a vendor was to format its response to this section. At the final hearing, Ms. Reaves testified that she would still have given ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience a score of 150, even if she had found the entry for total IT contracts. It does appear, however, that Ms. Reaves plainly overlooked this information when evaluating ArnAmy’s proposal. Regarding Seva, Ms. Reaves awarded it 100 points (out of 300) for its Management Plan. She explained that she did not believe Seva adequately explained “how” it was going to accomplish “what was critical” to performing the IT staffing contract. On the contrary, Seva’s proposal lacked specifics, which left Ms. Reaves questioning Seva’s ability to provide quality IT staff for potential Customers. Ms. Reaves awarded Seva 150 out of 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She testified that she could not determine the level or type of Seva’s staffing experience from its proposal. Denise Roberts: Ms. Roberts has spent her entire public service career working in the procurements field for various state agencies. When she was selected to serve as an evaluator, Ms. Roberts was employed as a Purchasing Agent for the Agency for State Technology. During her evaluation, Ms. Roberts moved to the Department of Lottery where she processed procurements, solicitations, and purchase orders. Notably, Ms. Roberts has previously procured IT staff augmentation services, as well as obtained quotes for IT staff assistance for the Agency for State Technology, the Department of Corrections, as well as the Department of Transportation. Additionally, Ms. Roberts is a Certified Public Professional Buyer and a Florida Certified Contract Manager. She does not, however, have any IT experience or training. Nor did she have knowledge of what the IT Job Titles listed in the RFP specifically entailed. Ms. Roberts testified that, before she scored the proposals, she reviewed and understood the RFP, as well as the documents she was to score. In addition, she spoke with the Department’s Procurement Officer (Mr. Atkinson) who provided general guidance on how to score the proposals. Ms. Roberts expressed that she followed the instructions the Department gave her and felt sufficiently trained to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. She also believed that she had enough experience to evaluate proposals regarding IT staffing services. Ms. Roberts explained that she generally conducted the following evaluation process: Initially, she read the vendor’s proposal, followed by a review of the RFP’s requirements. She then reviewed the proposal again to determine how the vendor complied with the RFP criteria. At that point, she scored the proposal. When scoring, Ms. Roberts handwrote all scores onto the RFP’s scoresheet. Thereafter, she input her scores online and submitted them electronically to the Department. Ms. Roberts spent about 30 to 45 minutes evaluating each proposal. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Roberts testified that she awarded ArnAmy 200 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that, for a perfect score of 300, a proposal had to meet every aspect the RFP requested in great detail, as well as describe how the vendor was going to accomplish the RFP’s tasks. ArnAmy’s Management Plan, however, was missing information and provided less detail than she expected. Specifically, Ms. Roberts did not find a response to the RFP’s requirements that ArnAmy list the “Respondent’s Principal Personnel who will make management decisions concerning staff placement for services under the contract(s),” or the “role each Principal Personnel” would have in the contract. Regarding ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience, Ms. Roberts awarded ArnAmy the maximum 200 points. She found that ArnAmy provided “quite a bit” of information regarding its prior experience. Regarding Seva, Ms. Roberts awarded it 0 points for its Management Plan. She explained that she did not believe Seva’s proposal provided the information the RFP requested. Specifically, Seva did not explain “how” it was going to accomplish “any” of the RFP’s staffing requirements. Seva simply offered general comments with no details or step-by-step processes describing how it would acquire, then manage, IT personnel for potential Customers. Neither did Seva include the role its principals would play in its Management Plan. Conversely, Ms. Roberts awarded Seva with the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that Seva provided all the information requested regarding its prior contract experience. Ms. Roberts asserted that she worked independently and did not communicate with the other Evaluators. Further, she testified that she conscientiously used the criteria set forth in the RFP and gave each proposal consistent and fair consideration. Despite the large amount of proposals, Ms. Roberts confidently voiced that she had adequate time to consider, then score, each proposal. Heather Shoup: Ms. Shoup currently serves as the Director of Human Resources for the Department. In this position, she oversees all human resource activities for the Department, including recruitment and retention, benefit administration, classifications, compensation, employee relations issues, orientation, and retirement coordination. Ms. Shoup testified that her professional experience has been primarily in the areas of financial and human resources. In addition, she has experience hiring and managing individuals who provide IT services. However, she has no prior experience in public procurements. In preparing for her evaluations, Ms. Shoup met with the RFP’s Procurement Officer (Mr. Atkinson), as well as reviewed the RFP criteria, the Evaluators Guide, and the Instructions for the Evaluator Score Sheet. Ms. Shoup expressed that she understood her responsibilities and had sufficient training and time to evaluate each proposal. When evaluating, Ms. Shoup relayed that she worked independently through each proposal and scored as best as she could. For a perfect score, she was looking for answers to all RFP criteria. She wanted to see clear, precise responses that provided all information the RFP requested. She specifically reviewed “how” the vendor intended to deliver IT staff support for Customers. Ms. Shoup testified that she spent approximately ten minutes per evaluation. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Shoup awarded ArnAmy 200 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that ArnAmy’s Management Plan was missing information regarding its Principal Personnel who would make management decisions under a potential staffing contract. On the other hand, Ms. Shoup awarded ArnAmy the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that ArnAmy’s proposal reflected extensive IT staffing experience. Regarding Seva, Ms. Shoup awarded it 100 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that Seva’s proposal was “too broad.” Specifically, Seva did not answer the “how” questions in multiple categories. Conversely, Ms. Shoup awarded Seva with the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that Seva’s proposal clearly showed its prior IT contract experience. Finally, Ms. Shoup testified that she fairly scored each proposal she evaluated. She did not have difficulties reviewing the various submissions. Ms. Shoup also expressed that she had adequate time to consider, then score, each proposal. Based on the testimony received, the Department persuasively demonstrated that the Scoring Team “collectively [had] the experience and knowledge” required to score the RFP. Each Evaluator convincingly conveyed her ability to ably participate in the Department’s solicitation process. Although, none of the Evaluators had prior experience in the IT profession, each possessed the acumen and ability to competently conduct a procurement for IT staffing services. Ms. Reaves and Ms. Shoup both had extensive experience in personnel and human resource functions, including hiring and managing employees. Further, Ms. Roberts had broad knowledge in procuring services, including IT staff augmentation services. Finally, upon reviewing their scores again at the final hearing, each Evaluator testified that they would not change their scores. They each credibly expressed that neither ArnAmy nor Seva adequately addressed some or all of the criterion set out in the RFP. Therefore, based on their various professional and educational backgrounds and vocational experience, the undersigned finds that the Scoring Team was fully capable and proficient to review and score all aspects of each of the 374 vendor proposals. The Evaluators were adequately knowledgeable of, and sufficiently experienced for, their task of understanding and evaluating the vendors’ IT staffing plans. Conversely, neither ArnAmy nor Seva established that the Department’s appointment of a Scoring Team consisting of Stephanie Reaves, Denise Roberts, and Heather Shoup was contrary to the governing authority in section 287.057(16)(a)1. The RFP was not Contrary to the Department’s Governing Statutes, Rules, Policies, or the Solicitation Specifications: In addition to describing the Evaluator selection process, Mr. Nilson explained why the RFP limited the number of awards to 200 Contractors per Job Title (plus ties).15/ Initially, Mr. Nilson conveyed that the Department desired that vendors continue to compete to provide staffing services. Two hundred potential Contractors for each Job Title would maintain active competition when Customers requested price quotes. This arrangement would help ensure that Customers would continue to receive fair and reasonable prices in response to a Request for Quote. Secondly, restricting the number of Contractors to 200 would enable the Department to more easily monitor the large pool of vendors. Finally, the Department hoped to keep the Request for Quote process as simple and straightforward as possible for the Customers. When seeking IT staff services, Customers would have a definite and finite list of prospective Contractors. Further, Mr. Nilson added that market research indicated that only about 90 vendors actually participated in the prior/currently existing state term contract. Consequently, the Department determined that economical and fair competition for IT staff services would reasonably end at approximately 200 Contractors. Finally, the Department called Kimberly Stiver to discuss the possibility that an error occurred in the MarketPlace online system that impeded ArnAmy’s attempt to submit the final version of its Management Plan to the Department. MarketPlace is operated by Accenture. Ms. Stiver is Accenture’s Program Manager for MarketPlace. Ms. Stiver testified that, after learning of ArnAmy’s allegations, she and her staff investigated the MarketPlace system to uncover any evidence that would justify ArnAmy’s claim. Ms. Stiver reviewed event logs, the attachment history log, and the system logs to determine whether an error took place within MarketPlace related to the uploading, saving, or transmitting of ArnAmy’s Management Plan. Initially, Ms. Stiver explained that responding to a solicitation takes two steps. First, the vendor uploads the document. Then, the vendor “submits” the document to the agency. After uploading the document, but prior to submitting it, MarketPlace allows vendors to replace, revise, or upload additional documents. After a vendor has “submitted” the document, the agency then accesses the last uploaded and successfully saved version of the document in MarketPlace. At the final hearing, Ms. Stiver declared that, following her detailed inquiry, she found no indication within MarketPlace that ArnAmy was not able to, was prevented from, or encountered any difficulties in properly submitting its Management Plan to the Department. Expanding on her assertion, Ms. Stiver explained that each procurement in MarketPlace is a unique and distinct “event” that tracks key activity from the vendor community. ArnAmy’s activity on MarketPlace relating to this RFP shows that ArnAmy submitted a Management Plan at approximately 1:41 p.m. on March 18, 2019. Based on the event log, Ms. Stiver stated that ArnAmy logged onto MarketPlace only one time on March 18, 2019, and that ArnAmy only uploaded one document identified as its Management Plan at that time. The event log does not support Mr. Kadam’s suggestion that he uploaded multiple versions of a Management Plan which may have resulted in an earlier version being submitted to the Department instead of ArnAmy’s final intended version. The attachment history log also shows that ArnAmy logged into MarketPlace only one time on March 18, 2019, to upload, save, and submit documents. Ms. Stiver testified that, like the event log, the attachment history log does not support Mr. Kadam’s assertion that he saved at least three versions of ArnAmy’s Management Plan in MarketPlace. If Mr. Kadam had uploaded and saved, but not submitted, multiple versions of a Management Plan, Ms. Stiver asserted that the attachment history log would document the entries as “not submitted.” The attachment history log for ArnAmy, however, records no entries or messages with a status of “not submitted.” Finally, Ms. Stiver reviewed ArnAmy’s system log for the period of March 12 through 19, 2019, the time period during which MarketPlace was open to receive vendors’ proposals. The system log shows no system errors occurred at any time while ArnAmy was logged into MarketPlace from March 12 through 19, 2019. Based on her comprehensive explanation, Ms. Stiver persuasively testified that no errors or inconsistencies occurred in the MarketPlace online system that caused an earlier (incomplete) version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to be submitted to the Department or prevented ArnAmy from effectively and timely uploading its Management Plan in response to the RFP. The logical conclusion is that the discrepancy between the version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan that the Evaluators eventually scored and the final version that Mr. Kadam claims he submitted in MarketPlace was the result of ArnAmy’s unfortunate oversight. The Possibility of “Unbalanced” Bids: Regarding Seva’s (and ArnAmy’s) complaint that the Department failed to identify and reject “unbalanced bids,” Mr. Nilson expressed that the RFP did not prevent vendors from presenting “unbalanced” proposals. Moreover, no statute, rule, or solicitation specification required the Department to reject a vendor’s proposal simply because the hourly rate quoted might be lower than market value for a certain Job Title or Scope Variant. Further, nothing in the RFP directed the Department to conduct a statistical analysis of vendor prices prior to awarding the state term contract.16/ The RFP clearly informed all vendors of the scoring criteria the Department would apply for price. Every vendor was free to submit a hourly rate for each Job Title for which it would agree to abide. The Department uniformly applied the RFP’s price formula to every Job Title from every proposal. Finally, while Seva asserts that the price formula could have led to unfair and/or misleading scoring results, the RFP allowed all vendors (including ArnAmy and Seva) to present “low-ball” prices in their proposals. Further, even if certain vendors did include unrealistic prices for their IT staffing services, the RFP protects Customers by binding a Contractor to the maximum price per Job Title or Scope Variant listed in its proposal. (In fact, a Contractor could offer even lower prices for its IT staff services in response to a Request for Quote.) Finally, regarding Seva’s complaint that its proposal was substantially similar to its previous proposal (which received a higher score), Mr. Nilson commented that Seva’s 2019 proposal was materially different from its 2016 proposal. Seva presented fewer Principal Personnel in 2019 (two versus four individuals). Mr. Nilson surmised this factor may have reduced the amount of IT experience Seva represented. In addition, Mr. Nilson believed that Seva’s prior proposal presented a clearer description of how it intended to recruit, and then place, prospective IT personnel for Customers. In that regard, Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that Seva’s 2019 proposal contained several substantive differences from its 2016 proposal. To summarize the findings in this matter, neither ArnAmy nor Seva established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department’s decision to award only 21 of 130 Job Titles to ArnAmy and 0 of 130 Job Titles to Seva was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evidence does not demonstrate that either ArnAmy or Seva were placed at a competitive disadvantage in this solicitation. Neither is there evidence that the Department conducted this procurement in a manner that was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of the RFP. Regarding ArnAmy and Seva’s complaint that the Department did not assemble a qualified Scoring Team, the evidence establishes the contrary. Testimony at the final hearing demonstrated that the individuals the Department assigned to score the vendors’ proposals possessed the “experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which [the] contractual services [were] sought” as required by section 287.057(16)(a)1. The Evaluators’ scores for ArnAmy and Seva’s proposals were logical, reasonable, and based on a sound understanding of the criteria requested in the RFP.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order dismissing the protests of ArnAmy and Seva, except that the Department should rescore ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience. Otherwise, the Department should award state term contracts under Request for Proposals for Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services – 3rd Bid, RFP 15-8010H07- SA-D as set forth in the Revised Notice of Intent to Award the RFP issued on June 24, 2019. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2020.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Examination or the Practical Examination Retest for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. To be certified as a firefighter, a candidate is required to successfully complete the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination (Practical Examination). A candidate is able to take the certification test twice. If a candidate fails the first time, the candidate is automatically afforded an opportunity for a retest. On October 15, 2012, Petitioner initially took the Practical Examination at Daytona State Fire College in Daytona, Florida. The Practical Examination consists of four parts, or evolutions: self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills. To successfully complete the Practical Examination, a candidate is required to receive a minimum of 70 points on each evolution and to complete all mandatory steps. Petitioner received more than a minimum of 70 points on the SCBA and hose evolutions, but did not achieve a passing score on either the ladder evolution or the fireground skills evolution. The maximum time allowed on the ladder evolution is four minutes and 30 seconds. Exceeding the maximum time allowed is an automatic failure of the ladder evolution. Petitioner’s time on the ladder evolution was four minutes and 50 seconds, which was 20 seconds more than the maximum time allowed. Petitioner admitted that he exceeded the maximum time allowed to complete the ladder evolution. He blames that failure on the testing instructor, Mr. Johnson, for not being located where Petitioner could hand off a halligan to him in order to complete the test. A halligan is a tool used by firefighters to sound the floor of a burning building for safety. During the ladder evolution, a candidate is required to pick up the halligan prior to ascending a pre-positioned 24-foot extension ladder, sound the floor with the halligan, enter the second floor, descend a set of stairs to the first floor, locate a mannequin, and execute a “rescue” by dragging or carrying the mannequin out of a doorway. When a candidate clears the doorway threshold with the mannequin, the ladder evolution is complete. During testing, Petitioner understood he would be handing the halligan off to Mr. Johnson. However, Mr. Johnson was not there, and, as Petitioner explained, “I had my halligan in my hand and I was looking around for him, but he was nowhere to be found. . . . Well, the time that it took me to look for my instructor, which I am not supposed to do, he was supposed to be there, my time went over –- my time went over.” Because of his failure to pass the ladder evolution and fireground skills evolution, Petitioner failed to successfully complete the Practical Examination. On November 6, 2012, Petitioner took a Practical Examination Retest (Retest) at Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. The Retest consisted of the same four evolutions. He was required to receive a minimum of 70 points on each evolution and to complete all mandatory steps in order to successfully complete the Retest. On the Retest, Petitioner received a perfect score of 100 points on the SCBA and hose evolutions. He received 90 points on the fireground skills evolution, but received no points on the ladder evolution. Petitioner exceeded the maximum time allowed on the ladder evolution. As on the original examination, the maximum time allowed is four minutes and 30 seconds and exceeding the maximum time allowed is an automatic failure of the ladder evolution. Petitioner’s time was four minutes and 38 seconds, which is 8 seconds more than the maximum time allowed. He received zero points on the ladder evolution for exceeding the maximum time allowed. As a result of his failing to pass the ladder evolution, Petitioner failed to successfully complete the Retest. Because Petitioner failed the Retest, the Department denied his certification as a firefighter. In support of his challenge to the Department's determination that he exceeded the maximum time allowed on the ladder evolution, Petitioner testified that his wife was present at the Retest and recorded his time on the ladder evolution as four minutes and 17 seconds, 13 seconds faster than the maximum time allowed. Petitioner explained that his wife was positioned in an automobile at the grounds with a “straight-shot” view of the ground skills course, then drove to the other side of the course to observe and time the ladder evolution. Petitioner introduced into evidence a photocopy of a sheet of notebook paper on which was written “Ricky’s time 3:58” on one line and “4:17” on the next line. Petitioner’s wife neither testified to overcome the hearsay nature of the evidence, nor did she authenticate the evidence. Further, Petitioner admitted that the time his wife recorded was likely not exact, but rather gave him a “ballpark figure of not going over the four minutes and 30 seconds that I had.” Petitioner stated his wife’s recorded time would not be the same as the field representative’s because the field representative started the stopwatch when Petitioner touched the ladder, as per protocol. Petitioner’s wife started her clock when Petitioner gave her the “thumbs up.” Dennis Hackett, Interim Standards Supervisor, testified that it would be impossible for a third party to accurately time a candidate during the ladder evolution at Florida State Fire College. Mr. Hackett explained: There’s just too many obstructions. If they were –- the tower, where the ladder evolution starts, is on the opposite side of where [third party observers] have to stay. Or they could go to another roadway that they could see the ladder evolution started, but there’s a burn building in the way to see the ascension of the ladder to the second floor. You can’t see that. They would have to be a marathon runner to get from where they could see to the second portion where they would come out of the building. [T.53:18 through T.54:2] The time of four minutes and 17 seconds recorded by Petitioner’s wife for Petitioner’s completion of the ladder evolution is not accepted as competent substantial evidence of the actual time in which Petitioner completed the ladder evolution on the Retest. Tuffy Dixon is the Department’s field representative who administered the Retest to Petitioner in Ocala. Petitioner argues that Mr. Dixon may have failed to reset the stopwatch to zero prior to Petitioner beginning the ladder evolution. Petitioner testified that he had been told by unnamed instructors at Daytona State Fire College that mistakes like that had been made. Petitioner failed to present any evidence as to the inaccuracy of the stopwatch used to time the ladder evolution or as to the inaccuracy of the Mr.Dixon’s use of the stopwatch at the Retest. He presented only assumptions or speculation as to the inaccuracy of Mr. Dixon’s use of the stopwatch. Mr. Dixon has administered approximately 500 practical examinations in the two years he has served the Department. He testified that he is certain his stopwatch was functioning correctly on the day of Petitioner’s Retest and that he reset the stopwatch to zero prior to Petitioner beginning the ladder evolution. Mr. Dixon’s testimony is accepted as credible. In further support of his arguments, Petitioner also testified that he never exceeded the maximum time allowed for the ladder evolution during practice runs at the facility. He maintained that the course in Daytona is longer than the course in Ocala, so it does not make sense that he would not complete the ladder evolution within the maximum time allowed. Despite the fact that Petitioner submitted with his petition in this case a list of names and telephone numbers of Daytona State Fire College classmates who could attest to his time on practice runs of the ladder evolution, Petitioner did not present the testimony of any of those candidates. Nor did he introduce any other evidence to corroborate his testimony that he never exceeded the maximum time allowed for the ladder evolution during practice. Further, no evidence was offered as to the comparable length of the two courses. The evidence fails to demonstrate that the amount of time in which Petitioner completed the ladder evolution, as determined by the Department, was incorrect or inaccurate. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner failed to successfully complete the ladder evolution within the maximum time allowed. Hence, the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner failed the Retest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order: Finding that Ricardo Francois failed to successfully complete the Practical Examination Firefighter Retest; and Denying Ricardo Francois’ application for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Linje E. Rivers, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ricardo Francois 778 Jimmy Ann Drive, No. 1011 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a certified building contractor should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Leroy A. Decker, Jr., held certified building contractor license number CB CO40724 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). When the events herein occurred, respondent was doing business as Aladdin Homes, Inc. (Aladdin) located at 921 S.EA. 15th Avenue, Cape Coral, Florida, and was its registered qualifying agent. In 1987 respondent, acting as qualifying agent for Aladdin, began a business relationship with Designers Showcase of Cape Coral, Inc. (DSCC), a firm specializing in the sale and installation of furniture, carpeting and draperies. Under that relationship, DSCC acted as a subcontractor and installed various floor coverings in new homes constructed by respondent. Under a typical contract for the construction of a new home, the builder agrees to include within the sales price an allowance for floor coverings such as carpet. If a home buyer decides to purchase floor coverings that exceed the allowance, the buyer is responsible for any overage. Under this arrangement, the contractor normally pays the supplier for the amount of allowance prescribed in the contract while the buyer pays the supplier for any overage. From the outset of respondent's relationship with DSCC until it ended, the specifications in respondent's contracts, with certain exceptions, generally called for a floor covering allowance in the range of $1,500. Beginning in March 1988 several of respondent's new home customers became dissatisfied with the quality of floor furnishings provided by DSCC. Because of this, some buyers refused to pay respondent for the value of the floor furnishings provided by that subcontractor. This In turn engendered a dispute between respondent and DSCC and culminated in respondent, with a few exceptions, refusing to pay any moneys owed to DSCC after March 1988. In early 1988 respondent entered into a contract with one Joseph Cernlglia to construct a new home for Cerniglia in Cape Coral, Florida. Pursuant to the contract specifications, respondent gave Cerniglia a $1,500 allowance for floor coverings. Cerniglia opted to use DSCC as the carpet vendor and was well satisfied with the quality of DSCC's workmanship and materials. After the carpet was installed, respondent requested that Cerniglia sign an affidavit (letter of acceptance) so that respondent could receive his final draw from the bank. However, respondent did not advise Cerniglia that DSCC had not yet been paid for its services. Shortly thereafter, respondent signed an affidavit swearing that all suppliers on the Cerniglia project had been paid. Cerniglia later discovered that a $1,500 lien had been filed against his property by DSCC on June 30, 1988. The lien still remains outstanding. In early 1988 respondent entered into a contract to construct a new home for Buddy H. Dennis in Cape Coral, Florida. The contract specifications called for a $2,500 allowance for floor coverings. Before DSCC would install the floor coverings, it demanded payment from respondent for what it believed was the normal $1,500 builder's allowance. After this amount was paid, DSCC furnished, pursuant to the owner's request, $2,500 worth of labor and materials. DSCC attempted to collect the other $1,000 from Dennis but learned that the contract allowance was $2,500 rather than $1,500. Although DSCC invoiced respondent for the additional $1,000, and made numerous oral and written requests for payment to respondent, the remaining $1,000 was never paid. On September 12, 1988, a lien was placed on the property by DSCC. Prior to the lien being recorded, respondent executed a final affidavit and release of lien on August 22, 1988 in which he swore that all subcontractors had been paid. Dennis eventually paid the $1,000 himself in order to obtain clear title to his property. In addition to the Dennis and Cerniglia properties, respondent still owes DSCC $11,654.14 (without interest) for goods and services rendered on other projects. These bills were incurred for goods and services provided after March 1988, when the dispute between respondent and DSCC arose. Whether respondent executed affidavits in connection with those debts is not of record. Because of those and the two above debts, DSCC filed with the Board a complaint against respondent. Respondent justified his actions on the ground he was advised to do so by his attorney and not pay DSCC any money while his complaints regarding poor quality and workmanship were unresolved. As to the Cerniglia property, respondent contends that, just prior to completing the home, he determined that it was necessary to add (a) a stem wall and (b) extra fill dirt to raise the septic tank drainfield. According to respondent, these two items cost around $1,500. Because the dispute with DSCC was then ongoing, respondent did not pay DSCC the $1,500 owed as an allowance and instead, based upon his attorney's advice, decided to use that amount as leverage in his dispute with DSCC. However, respondent did not advise Cerniglia that $1,500 was added to the contract price and that it was Cerniglia's responsibility to pay DSCC for the builder's allowance still owed. Moreover, Cerniglia denied that the additions were ever satisfactorily completed or that their value equated to $1,500. As to the Dennis property, respondent contended, without corroboration, that the real estate office which sold the home increased the builder's allowance on the specifications from $1,500 to $2,500 without advising him. Even if this was true, respondent refused to pay the additional $1,000 after he learned of his increased allowance responsibility under the specifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(1) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987) and that he be fined $3,000, to be paid within thirty days after the Board enters its final order. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 20th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-1710 Petitioner: 1-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Partially adopted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially used, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Jurand, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Mr. Leroy A. Decker, Jr. 618 S.W. 57th Street Cape Coral, FL 33914 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue Whether Petitioner should have received a passing score on the SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) section of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training's Minimum Standards Practical Examination re-test administered on March 1, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On November 15, 2000, after completing a training course at the Broward Fire Academy (where Lawrence Burns was his lead instructor), Petitioner took the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training's Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examinations. He received a passing score on the Written Examination and all sections of the Practical Examination, except for the SCBA section. On March 1, 2001, Petitioner re-took the SCBA section of the Practical Examination. The re-test was administered at the State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Ralph Chase, a field representative with the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, was Petitioner's examiner. Mr. Chase has been employed as a field representative with the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training for five years. Prior to coming to work for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, he was a firefighter with the City of Titusville for 21 years. He was a suppression lieutenant at the time he left the city's employ. Petitioner borrowed from the Broward Fire Academy the equipment that he needed for the re-test: two air tanks, a regulator, a harness, and a PASS device. A PASS device is a safety device worn by firefighters entering a hostile environment. When the device is activated in the automatic mode, it will emit a continuous, piercing sound if the firefighter is immobilized for longer than 30 seconds. To place the device in the automatic mode, a plastic switch must be moved into the appropriate position. When properly positioned in the automatic mode, the device makes a brief, chirping sound. It was emphasized to Petitioner during his training at the Broward Fire Academy that it was the responsibility of the student, before leaving the Academy with borrowed equipment, to inspect the equipment to make sure that the equipment was in good working order. Before leaving the Academy with the equipment that he borrowed for the re-test, Petitioner twice inspected the equipment and ascertained that it was in good working order. At the re-testing site, he re-inspected the borrowed equipment. The re-inspection revealed that all of the equipment was in good working order, except for the regulator. Petitioner obtained another regulator, along with a harness, at the re-testing site. He attached the PASS device that he had borrowed from the Broward Fire Academy to the harness and ascertained that "[e]verything was working properly." Before the re-test began, Mr. Chase advised Petitioner that "exceeding the maximum allotted time and/or failure to wear and activate the PASS device in the automatic mode w[ould] constitute an automatic failure for the SCBA evaluation." He further advised Petitioner to "speak loudly and clearly" if Petitioner wanted to tell Mr. Chase "anything during the testing." After Petitioner indicated that he was ready, the re- test began. Throughout the re-test, Mr. Chase stood "only a few feet" in front of Petitioner and watched him intently, focusing upon his hands. Petitioner signaled that he was "done" by clapping his hand. He finished the re-test in one minute and 16 seconds, well within the allotted time. At no time during the re-test, however, did Petitioner make an effort to place the PASS device in the automatic mode. Because he had neither seen Petitioner make such an effort, nor heard the chirping sound that is made when a PASS device is activated in the automatic mode, Mr. Chase walked up to Petitioner after Petitioner had signaled that he was "done" and confirmed that the PASS device switch was in the "off" position. Mr. Chase did not say anything to Petitioner about it. He simply told Petitioner to take off his mask. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner walked up to Mr. Chase and stated, "You know I turned my alert, my PASS alert off." Mr. Chase responded that he did not know what Petitioner meant, to which Petitioner replied, "I wanted you to know that I turned it . . . on and then I turned it off again." After telling Petitioner that he could not discuss the matter with him, Mr. Chase walked away. Petitioner did not at any time during the re-test tell Mr. Chase that he had placed the PASS device in the automatic mode. At no time at the re-testing site, either before, during, or after the re-test, did Petitioner tell Mr. Chase that there was any problem with the PASS device. Petitioner justifiably received a failing score of zero on the re-test because he had not make any effort to place the PASS device in the automatic mode. Petitioner did not report that there was any problem with the PASS device when he returned it to the Broward Fire Academy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) section of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training's Minimum Standards Practical Examination re-test he took on March 1, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 25th day of September, 2001.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the contract administration portion of the October 2000 General Contractor Examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner sat for the contract administration portion of the Florida certification examination for general contractors administered in October 2000 (Contract Administration Examination). The Contract Administration Examination consisted of 60 multiple-choice questions of equal value, worth a total of 100 points. To attain a passing score on the Contract Administration Examination, candidates needed to receive a total of 70 points. Of the 378 candidates who took the Contract Administration Examination, 156 received passing scores. Petitioner was not among this group of successful candidates. He received a failing score of 66.67 on the examination. Question 2 of the Contract Administration Examination was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that required the candidate to determine, based upon the information given, on what workday (not calendar day) the pouring of concrete footings for a residential construction project would begin. There was only one correct answer to this question. Approximately 50 percent of the candidates chose this correct response. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect because it represented the calendar day (not the workday) on which the pouring would begin. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Question 9 of the Contract Administration Examination was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that fairly tested the candidate's knowledge of the requirements of Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: A contractor shall subcontract all electrical, mechanical, plumbing, roofing, sheet metal, swimming pool, and air- conditioning work, unless such contractor holds a state certificate or registration in the respective trade category, however: A general, building, or residential contractor, except as otherwise provided in this part, shall be responsible for any construction or alteration of a structural component of a building or structure, and any certified general contractor or certified underground utility and excavation contractor may perform clearing and grubbing, grading, excavation, and other site work for any construction project in the state. Any certified building contractor or certified residential contractor may perform clearing and grubbing, grading, excavation, and other site work for any construction project in this state, limited to the lot on which any specific building is located. A general, building, or residential contractor shall not be required to subcontract the installation, or repair made under warranty, of wood shingles, wood shakes, or asphalt or fiberglass shingle roofing materials on a new building of his or her own construction. A general contractor shall not be required to subcontract structural swimming pool work. A general contractor, on new site development work, site redevelopment work, mobile home parks, and commercial properties, shall not be required to subcontract the construction of the main sanitary sewer collection system, the storm collection system, and the water distribution system, not including the continuation of utility lines from the mains to the buildings. A general contractor shall not be required to subcontract the continuation of utility lines from the mains in mobile home parks, and such continuations are to be considered a part of the main sewer collection and main water distribution systems. A solar contractor shall not be required to subcontract minor, as defined by board rule, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, or roofing work so long as that work is within the scope of the license held by the solar contractor and where such work exclusively pertains to the installation of residential solar energy equipment as defined by rules of the board adopted in conjunction with the Electrical Contracting Licensing Board. No general, building, or residential contractor certified after 1973 shall act as, hold himself or herself out to be, or advertise himself or herself to be a roofing contractor unless he or she is certified or registered as a roofing contractor. There was only one correct answer to this question. Approximately 65 percent of the candidates chose this correct response. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect inasmuch as a newly licensed general contractor is not free, pursuant to Section 489.113(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to install or repair wood shake roofs on existing buildings constructed by other contractors. Petitioner therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Question 29 of the Contract Administration Examination was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that fairly tested the candidate's ability to calculate, based upon the information given, the cost of delivering 28,000 lineal feet of #5 bars of reinforcing steel. There was only one correct answer to this question . Approximately 67 percent of the candidates chose this correct response. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Question 38 of the Contract Administration Examination was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that fairly tested the candidate's ability to distinguish between unit price contracts and other types of contracts, including lump sum contracts. Approximately 82 percent of the candidates chose this correct response. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the contract administration portion of the October 2000 certification examination for general contractors. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 11th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Richards 3802 Lakewood Road Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. In or around 2008, Petitioner achieved his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification, which was valid for three years. To maintain his certification, it was necessary for Petitioner to either: maintain employment as a firefighter (or serve as a volunteer firefighter) for at least six consecutive months during the three-year period subsequent to his certification; or successfully complete the retention examination, which is identical to the practical examination given to new applicants.1/ Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's first attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on May 20, 2011, and included four components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills. To pass the retention examination, an examinee must earn scores of at least 70 on each section. Each portion of the retention examination has certain evaluative components that are graded. For instance, the ladder operation consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder at all times, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee must complete within the maximum time of four minutes and 30 seconds. A failure to finish the tasks within the allotted time results in an automatic failure and a score of zero, even if the examinee performs each of the 15 skills successfully.2/ Although Petitioner achieved perfect scores of 100 on the ladder operation and fireground skills components, he was unable to achieve scores of 70 or higher on the SCBA or hose portions of the practical examination. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.3/ Petitioner's retest was administered on September 22, 2011, at the Ocala Fire College. On that occasion, Petitioner passed the SCBA and hose portions——the sections that he failed during his previous attempt——with scores of 85. Interestingly, however, the Department's field notes indicate that Petitioner exceeded the ladder evaluation's maximum permitted time by 32 seconds, a performance 58 seconds slower than his recorded time just four months earlier, when he achieved a perfect score. The field notes further reflect that Petitioner committed no errors in connection with the 15 ladder skills and that his failing score was entirely attributable to the examiner's conclusion that the time limit had been exceeded. During the final hearing, Respondent called Thomas Johnson, the field representative for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training that administered Petitioner's retest, who testified that he timed the ladder examination with a stopwatch, and that Petitioner did not complete the evaluation within the prescribed time period. Significantly, however, the Department elicited no detail from Mr. Thomas with respect to the causes——e.g., loss of ladder control, tripping, fumbling, etc.——of Petitioner's purported failure to complete the evaluation within the allotted time.4/ In contrast, Petitioner testified that although he was not permitted to bring a timekeeping device to the examination (the Department forbids examinees from doing so), he is confident that he completed the ladder retest within the prescribed time limit: Mr. Saintilmond: All right. On the date of the retest, I was taking the ladder examination. I've gone through the evolution. I did not fumble around. I did not take any time. I went through the exam as trained. No fumbling around, no waiting, no nothing. And I believe that I completed the evolution on time. And I passed the examination before. I've done it several times. But on this particular day, on my retake, I know I went through this evolution and I passed it with no fumbling around. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 12. Notwithstanding the anecdotal nature of Petitioner's evidence, his description of the evaluation, which was credible and adequately detailed, carries significant persuasive force in light of his perfect completion of the same ladder examination—— with 26 seconds to spare——just four months before the retest. The undersigned therefore accepts Petitioner's version of the events and finds that he did not exceed the maximum time limit of four minutes and 30 seconds during the September 22, 2011, retention examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter an order granting Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2012.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should receive additional credit for his answers to questions 121 and/or 222 on the civil/sanitary engineer examination administered on April 18 and 19, 1997.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of professional engineers in this state and for the regulation of the engineering profession. Petitioner graduated from the University of South Florida in December 1990, with a degree in geo-technical engineering, a sub-specialty of civil engineering. He is not, nor does he claim to be, a structural engineer. He has practiced in the field of geo-technical engineering since his graduation and has taught soil mechanics at the master’s level at the university. He sat for the professional engineer’s examination administered by the Respondent in April 1997. Thereafter, by grade report dated July 29, 1997, the Department’s Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner that he had earned a score of 69.00 on the examination he had taken. Since a passing score for the examination which Petitioner took is 70.00, Petitioner failed the examination. Petitioner requested a formal hearing to challenge the grading of examination questions numbers 121 and 222, on each of which he earned a score of four. The maximum obtainable score on each question is ten. On question 121, the candidate is given a situation involving a sheet-pile wall section, and is asked to (a) sketch and dimension the earth pressure diagram acting on the wall after the proposed dredging has been completed; and (b) determine the factor of safety against the kick-out after the dredging. Scoring of the Petitioner’s examination was done by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (Council). The Council determined that, with regard to requirement (a), Petitioner’s pressure distribution was of the correct form, but the labeling of the distribution had a major error. Petitioner assumed an incorrect factor which was deemed to be a major error calling for, under the approved scoring plan, a minimum four-point deduction. With regard to requirement (b), Petitioner chose not to solve for the factor of safety as he was required to do. This resulted in a minimum reduction of two additional points. This evaluation was concurred by Mr. Adams, the Board’s expert witness, in his testimony at hearing. Mr. Adams noted that where, as here, the engineer is dealing with soil mechanics, the at-rest conditions are one thing. The active and passive (A and P) conditions are the more dynamic, and here, where the problem calls for removal of soil from in front of a retaining wall, A and P pressures should have been used instead of at-rest pressures. Adams also concluded that Petitioner’s cited authority was not valid in this case. This authority used the at-rest pressure coefficient when all the authorities Mr. Adams could find used the A and P pressure coefficient. Petitioner admits that the coefficients utilized in determining earth pressures are A, P and at-rest (O). In this case, the whole problem must be considered. A tie-back system is presented, and in that case the sheet pile and the tie-back are assumed to hold the soil behind the wall in an at-rest condition so long as the sheet-pile wall does not move or deflect. Petitioner contends that Mr. Adams’ determination that removing the soil would destroy stasis and cause the wall to move is erroneous. In fact, he contends, the sheet-pile wall and the anchor system must move before the Board’s argument holds. He cites an authority in support of his position which was also cited to the Council scorer who, at Petitioner’s request, rescored his answer. The Council official who rescored Petitioner’s answer did not have access to Petitioner’s cited authority but rejected the citation as either incorrectly cited or incorrect in itself. Petitioner’s error called for a four-point reduction in score as to (a). Further, as to requirement (b), Petitioner, though asked to solve for the factor of safety against rotation, chose not to do so. This calls for an additional two-point reduction. Independent review of Petitioner’s answer, including an evaluation of his cited authority, and consideration of the other evidence pertinent to this issue, including his testimony, that of his witness, and the rescoring results by the Council, does not satisfy the undersigned that Petitioner’s answer merits additional credit. The score of four, as awarded, is appropriate. Question 222 deals with a cantilevered retaining wall with a wide foundation and piling in two rows, some in front and some in back, to support it. The candidate is required to determine the total lateral thrust per linear foot acting on the wall in issue; to determine the vertical load on a front row pile; and to explain possible ways that the pile foundation can resist the lateral thrust. According to Mr. Adams, Petitioner incorrectly calculated the lateral load by omitting the proper depth of the wall. With regard to the vertical loading, the Petitioner did not get to the proper vertical load on the front pile but received partial credit for other calculations he performed. As for the last requirement, one part of Petitioner’s answer was incorrect in that he did not explain passive pressures properly. What Petitioner mentioned was incorrect, and he did not mention battering of the piles, which was expected to be noted. According to Mr. Adams, Petitioner got two parts of the question correct, each of which is worth two points. Therefore, he received a score of four points. Petitioner contends that the Board and the Council are being too restrictive in their approach to the problem and not taking into account the whole problem. He claims that though he arrived at the wrong figure in calculating the lateral load, that does not justify his receiving no credit for that segment since the method he used for calculating the thrust was correct. He admits to having erroneously neglected the weight of the soil, but contends that his method of determining the solutions to resist lateral thrust is as good as that of the Board and the Council. Petitioner was given only partial credit for his use of the correct equation to calculate the lateral thrust because he used the wrong depth. His answer to the second part was wrong in that he completely neglected the weight of the soil and calculating the pile load, even though he used the correct figure to multiply the load per foot of the wall. His answer to the third requirement, dealing with lateral resistance of the pile, was insufficient to warrant a full award. Taken together, his answer, in the opinion of the Council’s scorer, merited only an award of four points. Petitioner did not show sufficient basis for increasing this award. The evidence presented by the Board clearly established that both questions in issue provided enough information to allow the candidate to answer them correctly, and both are questions that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The scoring plan for these questions was not shown to be inappropriate, and there is no evidence that it was not properly utilized.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order in this matter denying Petitioner additional credit for his answers to Questions 121 and 222 on the April 1997 Civil Engineer Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri V. Jean 3273 Tanglewood Trail Palm Harbor, Florida 34685 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's apparent failure to achieve a passing score on the written portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standards retest resulted from improper administration or grading of the examination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Cruz's petition and denying his application for certification as a Florida firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Hipolito Cruz, Jr. 1214 Southwest 46 Avenue Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 James Morrison, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
