Findings Of Fact Respondent HRS published ITB 590:2306 for existing rental space in the central area of Brooksville, Florida. The bid solicitation specified a bid opening time and date of 2:00 p.m. July 17, 1991. Petitioner and Intervenor timely submitted sealed bids. They were the only two bidders. Neither they nor anyone else timely filed any protest of the bid specifications, and therefore the specifications are not subject to attack in this proceeding. Petitioner received a notice of intent to award the bid for lease 590:2306 to Intervenor by letter from Respondent dated August 27, 1991 and timely filed its notice of intent to protest and formal bid protest. Petitioner accordingly has standing to bring this proceeding. Intervenor is the intended awardee and as such has standing to intervene. Petitioner submitted the property located at 7348 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida, and showed in his bid submittal form that his proposed property contained 22,500 net square feet, with future expansion of 2,100 square feet available. When Petitioner submitted his bid, it included a floor plan, site plan, and a PUR 7068 form. A PUR 7068 form is a "Public Entity Crime Certification Statement," a sworn statement under Section 287.133(a) F.S. The ITB included two separate requirements for bidders to establish that they have control over the property that they submit to HRS. HRS' purposes in requiring bidders to demonstrate control are to prevent bids based on total speculation, to establish a reasonable expectation that the bidder can meet his obligations if awarded the bid, and to establish a reasonable expectation that the property can be occupied on time. Item 1 on page 3 provides as follows: Control of property - This pertains to both the structure(s) and proposed parking areas. To submit a responsive bid, a prospective lessor must meet one of the following qualifications: a.) Be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas (submit copy of deed). b.) Be the lessee of space being proposed and present with bid, a copy of lease with documen- tation of authorization to sublease the facility and parking areas through the base lease term and all renewal option periods. c.) Submit documentation of an option to purchase the facility and/or parking areas. d.) Submit documentation of an option to lease the facility with authorization to in turn, sublease. Any lease must encompass the entire time period of the basic lease and any renewal option periods as required the state. e.) Submit form PUR. 7068 Sworn Statement of Public Entity Crimes (Attachment H). Page 12 provides, in part, as follows: In order for a bid proposal to be accepted the items 1 through 6 must be included in the bid proposal. Items 7 through 11 must be included, if applicable. [Items 11 and 13 state:] 11. Documentation showing bidder as controller of property. 13. Public Enemy [sic] Crime Certification Statement A pre-bid conference attended by Petitioner made clear that evidence of control and the PUR 7068 form were two different items. Petitioner testified that he attached the PUR 7068 form as his sole basis for evidencing control of the building and parking spaces he submitted for lease, and acknowledged that, in fact, the form did not provide any information with regard to his control of the buildings or parking spaces offered for lease. Petitioner's assertion that his name on some of his site plans, etc. constitutes evidence of control is not persuasive. Such assertion is not in line with the ITB requirements or even common sense. Petitioner Proctor owned the buildings he offered HRS in his bid submittal. Petitioner offered multiple buildings separated by parking areas and driveways. The property offered by Petitioner was to have built an awning- covered walkway between buildings but the walkway would have to be placed through the driveway area of the property. The expansion area for Petitioner's property designated in its bid submittal was composed of approximately 10 gated warehouse units which would be converted to office space. Petitioner had leased a portion of the same premises to HRS for 15 years, and HRS was still leasing that portion at the time of the bid opening. At the time of the bid opening, another portion of the property Petitioner proposed to be leased to HRS was also already rented to other tenants, including a lease to the Florida Department of Labor which was not scheduled to expire until December 31, 1991, one day prior to HRS' proposed first day of occupancy under the ITB. The space leased to the Department of Labor would require some renovation for HRS' use, at least to connect it on the interior with the rest of the building. The remainder of the second, adjacent, building to be rented under Petitioner's bid would require more extensive renovation to create office spaces to meet HRS' needs. In addition to the Department of Labor, Petitioner was also renting space in the second building to a beauty salon, a book store, an office supply store, a clothing store, and a barber at the time of bid submittal and opening and at the time of the formal hearing. These latter tenants were on month-to-month leases. In order to ensure that there would be time for necessary renovations before January 1, 1992 and further to ensure that the property would be available for occupancy on January 1, 1992, the ITB required in the following unequivocal language that all bidders file tenant acknowledgments of the bid/proposed lease with their bid submittal: Existing Tenants: If the offered space or any portion thereof (including parking areas) is at present occupied or will be covered by an active lease(s) at the stated availability date, written documentation by the tenant indicating acknowledgment of the bid and ability to vacate premises by the proposed date must be included with the bid submittal. [Emphasis added] Petitioner submitted no tenant acknowledgments from any of his tenants with his bid to HRS. Even though Petitioner failed to submit evidence of control in the form of a deed and further failed to submit the required acknowledgments from tenants occupying the premises on the bid date, HRS did not immediately disqualify Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive. Instead, HRS evaluated Petitioner's bid simultaneously with Intervenor TCC's bid. HRS relied on old leases in its files and actual knowledge that monthly rent was paid to Petitioner for its own currently leased space, and HRS ignored the absence of tenant acknowledgments with Petitioner's bid. HRS followed this course of action despite the requirement of the ITB on page 7, item 1 under EVALUATION OF BIDS which unequivocally provides: Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness. This includes submittal on bid submittal forms, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, signatures and notarization, etc. Non responsive [sic] bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. The portion of the ITB designated, Documents Required To Be Submitted With Bid Submittal For Existing Buildings on page 12, item 4. required bidders to submit "Scale Floor Plans showing present configurations with dimensions." Page 3 of 22, Item 9.(b) further required that, as a part of the bid submittal, bidders were to provide "A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" = 1'0") floor plan showing present configuration with measurements." Contrary to the ITB requirement, Petitioner submitted a floor plan scaled at 1/20" = 1', which also failed to reflect the present configurations with all measurements. Petitioner's scaled floor plan submitted with his bid was prepared prior to the present addition to one building and contained a hand- drawn configuration without accurate measurements for the northwest corner of one building. The term of the lease as shown on the ITB and Bid Submittal Form was 9 and one-half years with an option to renew for 2-5 year renewal periods. At the time of the bid opening on July 17, 1991, the bid submitted by Petitioner failed to have any proposed rental rates shown for "Renewal Options: Option II years 1 through 5." HRS permitted Petitioner to correct or supplement its bid after the bid opening (same date and place) to cover this material omission. Page 6, item 4 of the ITB provided for the property owner or other bidding entity to sign the bid submission. The pertinent part states: 4. Each bid submitted shall be signed by the owner(s) corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. ALL BID SUBMITTAL SIGNATURES MUST BE WITNESSED BY TWO PERSONS. [Emphasis appears in ITB] Petitioner Proctor signed his bid submittal in proper person. TCC's bid submittal was signed by Sharon K. Lane, "Executive Director," of TCC Number 3 Ltd. Inc., Intervenor herein. At all times material, TCC Number 3 Ltd. Inc. has been a Florida corporation. At the time of the bid opening, Ms. Lane was TCC's sole shareholder and "all officers." At the time of formal hearing, Ms. Lane remained the sole shareholder, but others had assumed some of the corporate offices. Her status at the time of the bid submittal was sufficient for her to bid on behalf of the TCC corporation and to execute the PUR 7068 form on that corporation's behalf. Intervenor TCC submitted the required PUR 7068 form, but TCC submitted as sole evidence of control an undated, unrecorded "Contract for Sale and Purchase" by and between Hernando Plaza Ltd. as Seller and Intervenor TCC as Buyer, for the property which Intervenor was offering for lease to HRS. The best date assignable to this document is April 29, 1991. It was executed on behalf of Hernando Plaza Ltd. by Edward M. Strawgate and Harold Brown representing themselves as general partners of the limited partnership. TCC's obligation to proceed to closing under the foregoing contract was contingent upon TCC's securing an anchor tenant. However, the contract requires TCC to take steps to secure an anchor tenant. By its terms, TCC may purchase the property with or without an anchor tenant, but the contract requires TCC, in seeking an anchor tenant, to set time limits for the lease arrangement with the proposed anchor tenant which do not necessarily accord with the timing of HRS' bid process. HRS accepted TCC's contract to purchase from Hernando Plaza Ltd., as evidence of TCC's control of the premises offered by TCC for lease, believing it to constitute an option to purchase and the necessary evidence of control as required by the ITB. (See, Finding of Fact 6, supra.) At the time of the bid opening, HRS had no reliable information as to what entity actually owned the property offered by TCC, and TCC had not disclosed to HRS that its contract to purchase the property was with a legal entity other than the record title owner of the property, which record title owner was and is the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation (Brown Foundation). See, infra. Up to that date, at least, Hernando Plaza Ltd. had represented itself to TCC as the owner of the property. The ITB did not require that an abstract of title be submitted with the bid, and HRS normally does not require an abstract from successful bidders, although the ITB contains provisions for future disclosure from successful bidders. (See, ITB item 5 under Requirements for Bidders to Submit Bids.) Absent some reason to "go behind" facial evidence of control, HRS attempts to protect itself by requiring successful bidders to put up an irrevocable letter of credit for one-half of one percent of the proposed lease rental obligation over the basic lease term as a penalty in the event a successful bidder cannot perform. (See, ITB page 4, item 10.) Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s certificate from the Florida Secretary of State expired December 31, 1981. That fact was advertised and the certificate cancelled July 16, 1982. At that time, Edward M. Strawgate was listed as a general partner and Harold Brown was listed as a limited partner of Hernando Plaza Ltd. Hernando Plaza Ltd. had been administratively dissolved for failure to file its annual report. Subsequent to the time that Intervenor submitted its bid proposal, but prior to formal hearing, Hernando Plaza Ltd. was reinstated by the Florida Secretary of State. Once reinstated, the limited partnership's ability to act related back and validated its prior actions. At all times material, the record title of the property offered by Intervenor TCC for lease to HRS was owned by "Harold Brown, Lillian Brown and Muriel Kahr as Trustees of the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation." This title is derived from a recorded June 30, 1967 warranty deed from Hernando Plaza Ltd., which deed was admitted in evidence at formal hearing. The warranty deed was not attached to TCC's bid submittal. Neither TCC, the corporation, nor Sharon K. Lane, individually, held any authority as agent to submit a bid to HRS on behalf of the record title owner, the Brown Foundation. There is also in evidence a recorded December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease between the Brown Foundation and City National Bank. That Amendment to Lease also was not attached to TCC's bid submittal to evidence control of the premises TCC was offering to lease to HRS. That Amendment to Lease also recites that Hernando Plaza Ltd. leased back the subject property from the Brown Foundation by a lease dated June 30, 1967. The June 30, 1967 lease was not recorded, was not part of TCC's bid submittal, and is not in evidence. The December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease goes on to recite that Hernando Plaza Ltd. has assigned its lessee interest under the June 30, 1967 lease to City National Bank by a March 14, 1978 assignment. There is also in evidence a recorded March 14, 1978 "Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease from Hernando Plaza Ltd. to City National Bank." This assignment was not part of TCC's bid submittal. The December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease goes on to further recite that the Brown Foundation has "agreed to give and grant to [Hernando Plaza Ltd.] an option to purchase the property." The remainder of the December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease details the terms or conditions of the option to purchase granted by the Brown Foundation to Hernando Plaza. For instance, in order to exercise that option to purchase the subject property from the Brown Foundation, Hernando Plaza Ltd., among other requirements, would have to demonstrate that all the terms of the unrecorded June 30, 1967 lease are "in good standing." One may reasonably infer that "in good standing" would at a bare minimum mean that the rents under the lease are paid current at the time the option is exercised, but what the other terms of the lease might be are subject to pure conjecture. TCC's bid submittal did not include documentation that the June 30, 1967 lease was "in good standing." There is also in evidence a recorded June 7, 1989 Trustee's Deed (quitclaim deed of the trustee's interest) from City National Bank's successor bank/trustee to Hernando Plaza Ltd. The Trustee's Deed also was not attached to TCC's bid submittal. On the date of bid submittal/opening neither TCC, the corporation, nor Sharon K. Lane, individually, held any authority as agent to submit a bid on behalf of Hernando Plaza Ltd. or City National Bank's successor. At formal hearing, TCC submitted an October 24, 1991 written hearsay statement by Harold Brown as Trustee of the Brown Foundation to the effect that Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s December 18, 1985 option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation was "in full force and effect" and that the June 30, 1967 lease back from the Brown Foundation to Hernando Plaza Ltd. was "in full force and effect and that the lessee is in good standing thereunder." Assuming these items may be considered in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.58 (1) F.S. as supplementing or explaining direct evidence, they still do not clarify in any way what all the terms of the unrecorded 1967 lease are or that those terms will remain in good standing on the date in the future that Hernando Plaza Ltd. elects to exercise its option, if it elects to exercise its option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation so that Hernando Plaza Ltd. may, in turn, convey the property to TCC, pursuant to Hernando Plaza Ltd. and TCC's April 29, 1991 contract for sale and purchase. Oddly enough, there is further explanatory hearsay that on October 24, 1991, Harold Brown was a trustee of the Brown Foundation and that he also was the sole limited partner of Hernando Plaza Ltd., although TCC's contract with Hernando Plaza for sale and purchase previously indicated Harold Brown was one of two general partners. Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation must be exercised by Hernando Plaza Ltd. before Hernando Plaza Ltd. can honor its contract to purchase/sell to TCC. Since there is no record evidence that the June 30, 1967 lease from the Brown Foundation as lessor to Hernando Plaza Ltd. as lessee will be in good standing on whatever future date Hernando Plaza Ltd. attempts to exercise its option with the Brown Foundation, one may only speculate both as to when and if TCC will be able to purchase the property from Hernando Plaza Ltd. TCC has only an option to become owner of the subject property at some unspecified date conditioned upon Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s first successfully exercising its option from the Brown Foundation and further conditioned upon all the terms of TCC's contract with Hernando Plaza Ltd. Apparently, TCC's only recourse to enforce its contract with Hernando Plaza Ltd. is a Circuit Court action for specific performance. TCC also submitted a site plan and floor plan with its bid submittal. The ITB required that offices on outside walls must provide windows. TCC's plans did not reflect windows in two sides of the building, but given HRS' retaining the right to partially design and locate its own halls and offices during the building's renovation, TCC's failure to show windows in the two outside walls is not, in and of itself, a material, disqualifying deviation from the ITB so as to unilaterally render TCC's bid nonresponsive. HRS staff member Donald J. Cerlanek prepared a bid synopsis of each bid. This involved completing a form from the HRS leasing manual which illustrates the characteristics of each of the bids. The bid requirements included evaluation criteria and a maximum amount of points which could be awarded for each criteria item. Five HRS bid evaluation committee members executed no conflict of interest forms. These were: Thomas C. Little Jr., David Thomley, Sylvia Smoot, Harvey Whitesides, and Mary Hawks. All committee members were given copies of the bid synopsis form to use in evaluating the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Some of the committee members did not obtain or review the actual bid submissions of each of the bidders, but all of them had access to the bid submissions and read the bid synopsis forms for both Petitioner's and Intervenor's bid submittals. The bid evaluation committee members, except for Mary Hawks, made site visits to the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Ms. Hawks essentially acted only as a facilitator or conduit for the evaluations of the other four evaluators as set out infra. The four site evaluators took notes regarding each location. The four site evaluators each assigned numerical weights to each item of evaluation criteria except for the rent and renewal rent portions of the evaluation criteria. Although on their site visits some committee members visiting TCC's site may have seen a color version of an artist's rendering of what TCC's project could look like after renovation was complete, a black and white version of the same artist's rendering was attached to TCC's bid submittal to which all committee members had access, and it is found that this situation in and of itself presented no false or misleading information nor constituted any prejudice to a fair bid process/evaluation. Likewise, although some evaluators discussed expansion prospects with TCC's and/or Proctor's on-site representatives, the evidence is credible and persuasive that each evaluator who visited the sites assessed the projects' respective expansion prospects substantially upon what they saw on each site and had experienced in Proctor's existing facility. The points awarded and reasons for the recommendations of each evaluator who visited the sites were reasonably based on specific needs of HRS. These specific needs of HRS were reasonably articulated by the two evaluators who made on-site inspections and who also testified at formal hearing and were reasonably set out in writing in the written notes of the two other evaluators who did not testify. Thomas C. Little, Jr., testified that he found the Intervenor's property superior as a result of the security problems at Petitioner's locations, the closer proximity of the courthouse, hospital, and health department to Intervenor's property and the superiority of a single building offered by Intervenor versus multiple buildings offered by Petitioner. Additionally, he found the esthetics of Petitioner's buildings lacking and expansion offered by Petitioner limited and was concerned that HRS would outgrow the space due to the fact that their service area is one of the most rapidly growing in Florida. His contemporaneous notes were to the same effect. Sylvia Smoot, also a member of the evaluation committee, testified that she found Intervenor's facility superior based on its proximity to the courthouse, hospitals, and other key locations, and its flexibility of design and concentration of space in one building. She further found Petitioner's location lacking as a result of the three separate buildings, its limited expansion room, and the necessity for redirecting clients between buildings, and the difficulty for elderly and handicapped clients accessing Petitioner's building. Her contemporaneous notes were to the same effect. Evaluators Whitesides and Thomley made substantially similar contemporaneous notes justifying their scoring of the two bidders. Three of the four site evaluators met as a group following the site visits and discussed the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. All four of the site evaluators made recommendations to accept the property for lease proposed by Intervenor, but they did not all confer and jointly develop a single recommendation to the facilities manager. The points assigned by each of the four site evaluators for the properties proposed by Petitioner and Intervenor were as follows: Evaluation Committee TCC Number Member's Names Proctor's Points 3's Points Thomley 75 98 Little 78 93 Whitesides 74 95 Smoot 80 91 307 377 The rent portion of the evaluation criteria was ascertained by applying present value methodology as set forth in the HRS leasing manual to the annual rents offered by the bidders. The discount factor was 8.32 percent. The present value of Proctor's bid was $1,934,038 and the present value of TCC's bid was $2,028,316. The leasing manual is considered advisory only. It advises present values be made, a determination of the difference in amounts be calculated and a comparison of the difference be made to determine a percentage. Thereafter, the percentage is applied to the maximum amount of points allocated for rent in the evaluation criteria. The lowest present value receives the maximum number of points allocated, and, thus, Proctor was awarded 35 points. TCC received 33 points, based upon the fact that its present value of rent was close to the present value submitted by Proctor. No penalty is imposed to a bidder whose rental amounts is higher than the lowest bidder. No benefit is conferred upon the lowest cost bidder over the next lowest bidder. Mary Hawks, Manager for Administrative Services, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, received each of the individual evaluation recommendations from Thomley, Little, Whitesides and Smoot. As a result of travel restrictions placed on the HRS, the four site evaluators and Ms. Hawks, who was also a fifth committee member, did not meet as a group following the site visits although three of the four site evaluators did meet collectively following the site visits. (See Finding of Fact 43-44, supra.) The committee members could have met by telephone conference call but Mary Hawks found it unnecessary to do so because there was such a clear evaluation in favor of Intervenor based on the total composite evaluation scores of 377 for Intervenor and only 307 for Petitioner, out of a total of 400 points. She assigned no points herself but approved their recommendations and forwarded a single recommendation in favor of TCC for ultimate approval by HRS management. Mary Hawks had spoken to the evaluation committee members subsequent to the evaluation and no member had expressed any reservation regarding his/her evaluation or a need to meet to discuss anything additional regarding the bid evaluation. The HRS Intent to Award to TCC subsequently issued. The evaluation process and formula for rent evaluation are not among the more commonly used methods but were reasonable and rational and fairly applied to the bids in this case. No conflict of interest in the evaluation committee members was demonstrated by Petitioner in these proceedings.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that: The bid of TCC Number 3 Ltd. is nonresponsive; The bid of Derick Proctor is nonresponsive; Declining to award the bid for Lease No. 590:2306 to either bidder. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5963BID The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Proctor's 74 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted, except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the recommended order (RO). Unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material has not been utilized: 1-3, sentence 1 of PFOF 4, 5-6, 9, 11-12, sentence 1 of PFOF 13, sentence 1 of PFOF 16, 17-26, sentence 1 of PFOF 29, 30-33, 35-36, sentences 1 and 4 of PFOF 38, 39-41, 44-54, 56-57, 60-61, 63. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute a proposed conclusion of law (PCOL) or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: sentences 2 and 3 of PFOF 4, sentence 2 of PFOF 16, 34, 43. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 10, sentence 2 of PFOF 13, 14- 15, sentence 2 of PFOF 29, sentences 2 and 3 of PFOF 38, 55, 58. PFOF 7-8 are accepted as modified because parts are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found and other parts are mere recitations of unreconciled portions of the record and legal argument. The following PFOF are accepted in part but not utilized because parts are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, and other parts are rejected as immaterial to the dispositive issues herein, although correctly quoted from the record: 68-73. The following PFOF are rejected as immaterial or not dispositive: 27-28, 37, 42, 59, 62, 65, 67, 74. The following PFOF are covered in preliminary material: 64, 66. HRS 21 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the RO. Material unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative has not been utilized: 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 16-19. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute PCOL or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: 5, 9-10, 14-15, 21. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 20. PFOF 13 is accepted as modified to correctly reflect the credible record evidence as a whole. TCC Number 3 75 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the RO. Material unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative has not been utilized: 1-31, 34-38, 42- 45, 47-48, 56, 58-60, 64-69, 71-75. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute PCOL or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: 32. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 33, 40-41, 53-55, 57, 61-63, 70. The following PFOF are rejected as immaterial or as not dispositive: 39, 46, 49, 51-52. PFOF 50 is not a sentence, but the subject matter is covered in the RO as understood. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Infantino & Berman Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, FL 32790 Ralph McMurphy, Esquire HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 B. Gray Gibbs, Esquire Sam Power, Clerk Bette B. Lehmberg, Esquire Department of Health and Suite 800 Rehabilitative Services One 4th Street North 1323 Winewood Boulevard St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute licensees under Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondents, Al and Catherine Kravchuk, respectively, hold Florida real estate licenses 0420576 and 0436106. Both licenses are sales licenses. The license of Respondent, Al Kravchuck, became inactive sometime between June 24, 1991, and October 1, 1991. From July 8, 1991, to January 4, 1993, Respondent, Catherine Kravchuck, was licensed as a salesperson with Davis Land Company, Inc. ("Davis Land Company"). From 1979 through 1993, Davis Land Company was engaged in the development of single family subdivisions in the area of Orlando, Florida. Mr. Joel C. Davis was the president of Davis Land Company. Mr. Davis was a nonlicensed owner-developer. Flamingo Lakes Subdivision in Kissimmee, Florida ("Flamingo Lakes") was one of the developments undertaken by Davis Land Company. Davis Land Company employed four sales people at Flamingo Lakes. Respondent, Catherine Kravchuck, was one of the four sales people on staff at Flamingo Lakes. When a contract for sale was generated at Flamingo Lakes, it was turned in at the regular Monday sales meeting. Mr. Davis reviewed the contract to determine the cost of the sale including "extras" and commissions. A cover sheet was attached to each contract to apprise Mr. Davis of the cost of each sale. Respondent, Al Kravchuck, was the U.S. representative for Mr. Christopher Williams and Mr. Jack Dawson. Mr. Williams and Mr. Dawson are residents of Great Britain. Respondent, Al Kravchuck, performed services for Mr. Williams and Mr. Dawson, including services in connection with the purchase of property in the United States. Respondent, Al Kravchuck, represented Mr. Williams and Mr. Dawson in connection with the purchase of Lot 45 in Flamingo Lakes. On January 13, 1992, Respondent, Catherine Kravchuck, prepared a contract between Davis Land Company and Messrs. Williams and Dawson for the sale and purchase of Lot 45. The contract was signed by the purchasers and presented to Mr. Davis at the regular Monday meeting along with the cover sheet. Respondent, Al Kravchuck, was listed on the cover sheet as the cooperating realtor and on the contract as the co-broker. The amount of the commission due the cooperating realtor under the terms of the contract was $5,477.50. Respondents disclosed to Mr. Davis that the commission due Respondent, Al Kravchuck, under the terms of the contract was intended for Mr. Williams. This arrangement was consistent with the understanding that Mr. Williams would refer other customers to Davis Land Company in exchange for the co-broker commission. The contract for the sale and purchase of Lot 45 closed on or about August 28, 1992. The closing statement disclosed that a check in the amount of $5,477.50 was to be paid at closing to Respondent, Al Kravchuck, from the funds due Davis Land Company. Mr. Davis was present at the closing and discussed the prospect of future business referrals with Mr. Williams. Mr. Davis signed the closing statement and accepted the proceeds of closing. The closing agent issued a check for $5,477.50 to Respondent, Al Kravchuck, on September 11, 1992. A memo of the check was sent to Davis Land Company. Pursuant to the agreement of Mr. Williams, Respondent, Al Kravchuck, kept a substantial portion of the $5,477.50 in payment for services rendered to Mr. Williams.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondents be found not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondent, Al Kravchuck, be found guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(a) and (e) and 475.42(1)(b) and (d), reprimanded, placed on probation for one year, and required to complete 30 hours of professional education courses within a reasonable period not less than the period of probation. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-6 Accepted in substance Accepted as to broker status but not as to employer. Compare statement of agency in proposed finding 8. Accepted in substance First two sentences rejected as recited testimony. Remainder accepted in substance Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact 4-9 Accepted in substance (The proposed findings are numbered para. 4-9) COPIES FURNISHED: Al Emil Kravchuk Catherine L. Kravchuk 3099 Bridgehampton Lane Orlando, FL 32812-5951 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street, North Tower Orlando, FL 32801-1772 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact Lamar submitted a permit application for a location 120 feet west of Hickory Avenue, in Bay County, Florida, on the south side of U.S. 98, on November 25, 1985, and resubmitted that application on December 16, 1985. On January 8, 1986, DOT denied the application solely because of spacing conflicts with permit Nos. AD089-10 and AD090-10 held by Headrick. That denial was made in a Memorandum of Returned Application. The Memorandum of Returned Application contained the following statement: PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT IF YOU BELIEVE YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN INAPPROPRIATELY DENIED, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING UNDER SECTION 120.57, FLORIDA STATUTES, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE. THE SUBMITTED HEARING REQUEST SHALL GIVE A BRIEF STATEMENT SETTING FORTH THE REASON(S) FOR REVIEW. SUCH HEARING REQUEST MUST BE FURNISHED TO: THE CLERK OF AGENCY PROCEEDINGS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 605 SUWANNEE STREET, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 Lamar requested an administrative hearing by letter dated March 13, 1986. On March 12, 1986, Headrick applied for a permit for a sign to be located on the south side of U.S. 98, 285 east of Hickory Avenue, in Bay County, Florida. By letter dated March 31, 1986, the Headrick application was returned unapproved because of a pending administrative hearing requested by Lamar concerning the location of permits AD089-10 and AD090-10. This letter did not advise Headrick of its rights to an administrative hearing. Headrick did not request a hearing for these applications. Lamar applied for a permit for a sign location on the south side of U.S. 98, 120 feet west of Hickory Avenue, in Bay County, Florida, again on March 13, 1986. A Memorandum of Returned Application, dated April 3, 1986, was sent to Lamar, denying the application because of a spacing conflict with Permits AD089-10 and AD090-10 located 100 feet westerly of Hickory Avenue on the eastbound (south) side of U.S. 98. This Memorandum contained the same language as that set forth above and, by letter dated April 18, 1986, Lamar requested an administrative hearing. This request resulted in Case No. 86-1707T herein. Another case, with DOT as Petitioner, Headrick as Respondent, and Lamar as Intervenor, Case No. 85-4165T, resulted in a Final Order dated September 2, 1986, revoking Permits AD089-10 and AD090-10. The Final Order was based upon findings that Headrick was advised on August 9, 1985, by the property owner, that the property was being sold and that Headrick had thirty (30) days to remove its sign. Further, by letter dated October 17, 1985, the property owner advised DOT that Headrick no longer had a valid lease for the signs and the signs had been removed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the December 16, 1985, application filed by Lamar Advertising company for a location on the south side of U.S 98, 120 feet west of Hickory Avenue, in Bay County, Florida, be GRANTED. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1043T The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Lamar Advertising Company Each of the following proposed findings are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(1); 3(2); 4(2); 5(2); 6(1); 7(3); 8(3); 9(1 and 3); and 10(4). Proposed finding of fact 11 is rejected as unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Transportation 1. Each of the following proposed findings are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(3); and 4(4). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Headricks Outdoor Advertising 1. Each of the following proposed findings are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 2(2); 3(2); 4(1); 5(1); and 6(4). COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara W. Palmer, Esquire Beggs & Lane 700 Blount Building Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William G. Warner, Esquire 565 Harrison Avenue Post Office Drawer 335 Panama City, Florida 32402 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanne Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On February 28, 1990, Respondent issued an invitation to bid (ITB) on a construction project referred to as Florida Atlantic University Modulars. The ITB required a base bid and bids on five alternates to the base project. Each bidder was instructed that it must bid on the base project and on each alternate for its bid proposal to be considered responsive. On March 19, 1990, Addendum 1 to the ITB was issued to all prospective bidders. This was an informational addendum and advised the date, time, and location of the posting of the award recommendation. Addendum 1 was not required to be returned by the bidder as a part of the response to the ITB. On March 21, 1990, Addendum 2 to the ITB was issued to all prospective bidders. This was also an informational addendum and advised as to a non- mandatory, pre-bid conference to be held March 27, 1990. Addendum 2 was not required to be returned by the bidder as a part of the response to the ITB. On March 30, 1990, Addendum 3 to the ITB was issued to all prospective bidders. This addendum advised that the date and time for the bid opening had been changed to April 9, 1990, at 2:00 p.m. Addendum 3 also contained modifications, explanations and corrections to the original drawings and specifications which impacted the cost and scope of the project. Immediately above the signature line on the cover page of Addendum 3 was the following: This document must be returned in it's [sic] entirety with the bid. Please sign below to verify that you have read and understand all the changes. Item 2 on page ADD-1 of Addendum 3 required each bidder to submit its per unit price structure with its response to the ITB and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: ... The unit price shall not be included in Base Bid. Submit a separate sheet with bid package. The following instructions are given in Paragraph 1(c) of the Instructions to Bidder: NO ERASURES ARE PERMITTED. If a correction is necessary, draw a single line through the entered figure and enter the corrected figure above it. Corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Any illegible entries, pencil bids or corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. The instructions are repeated in Paragraph 1 of the General Conditions of the ITB: EXECUTION OF BID: ... No erasures are permitted. If a correction is necessary, draw a single line through the entered figure and enter the corrected figure above it. Corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Any illegible entries, pencil bids, or corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. The following is contained as part of the Instructions to Bidder: Failure to complete, sign, seal and return the required documents will result in rejection of your bid. Any questions should be directed to Susan Kuzenka, (305) 761-7460, Purchasing Department, Broward Community College. (Emphasis in the original.) Paragraph 8 of the General Conditions portion of the bid package provided, in pertinent part, as follows: 8. AWARDS. As the best interest of Broward Community College may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received ... On April 9, 1990, Petitioner submitted a bid to Respondent in response to the ITB. Petitioner had received the complete bid package, including all instructions and addenda to the bid package. At the pre-bid conference held March 27, 1990, an employee of Respondent emphasized to the attendees that it was necessary for the bidders to return Addendum 3 in its entirety. Petitioner did not attend the non-mandatory, pre-bid conference. The base bid submitted by Petitioner was $1,085,790.00. The base bid of Double E Construction Co., the next low bidder and the bidder to whom Respondent intends to award the contract, was $1,113,300.00. Petitioner's bid for each of the alternates was lower than that of Double E Construction Co. Petitioner failed to return the entire Addendum 3 as instructed. On page four of the bid package Petitioner acknowledged that it had received Addendum 3, and it signed and returned the cover sheet to Addendum 3 under the language quoted in the foregoing Paragraph 4. Respondent considered this an important requirement because it wanted to prevent a bidder from later claiming that it had not received Addendum 3 or that it had received information different than that contained in Addendum 3. Petitioner made a correction to its bid for Alternate Number 3 found on page 5 of 13 of Petitioner's bid. Petitioner's bid for this alternate was $88,000. In the space for the written amount of the bid, Petitioner's president inserted by hand the words "Eighty-eight Thousand". In the space for the numerical insertion of the bid he initially wrote the sum $125,000 (which was the amount of Petitioner's bid for Alternate 4). He struck through the figure $125,000 and wrote above the stricken figure the figure $88,000. He did not initial his change. Respondent has never accepted changes to price quotations which were not initialed because it is concerned that uninitialed corrections on bids may result in challenges to the integrity of the bid process and may expose its staff to charges of collusion from a disgruntled bidder. Pioneer did not include a unit price structure in its bid as required by Addendum 3. The unit price structure is an informational item that is not separately considered by Respondent to determine the lowest bidder on this project. On April 6, 1990, Petitioner's estimator on this bid telephoned Susan Kuzenka regarding the unit price structure sheet to inquire as to the format that should be followed in submitting the unit price structure. Ms. Kuzenka is named in the Instructions to Bidder as the person in Respondent's purchasing department to whom questions about the bid process should be directed. Petitioner's estimator was told that the unit prices would be required to be submitted by the successful bidder at the pre-construction meeting after the bids were opened, but that the unit price structure need not be submitted with the bid. Petitioner's president verified this information on April 9, 1990, prior to the bid opening, during a telephone conference with the project engineer employed by Respondent for this project. In reliance on the information that was supplied by Respondent's agents, Petitioner did not submit its unit price structure sheet with its bid. Following its examination of all bids, the bid of Petitioner was disqualified on three grounds. The first reason cited by Respondent was that Petitioner failed to return the entire Addendum (3) as required. The second reason was that Petitioner did not initial a correction to a quoted price figure. The third reason was that Petitioner did not include the unit price structure as required in Addendum (3). Petitioner thereafter timely protested its disqualification and the intended award of the contract to Double E Construction Co. Petitioner contends that the reasons cited by Respondent for its disqualification are minor irregularities that should be waived by Respondent. Additionally, Petitioner contends that the third reason should not disqualify it because Petitioner acted in reliance upon the instructions of Respondent's agents in not submitting the unit price structure along with its bid package. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Broward Community College, enter a final order which denies the bid protest of Petitioner, Pioneer Contracting, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioners. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2. 6 and 7 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 10. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings in the last sentence of paragraph 4 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached because of the clear instructions contained in Addendum 3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings in the last two sentences of paragraph 5 are supported by the evidence, but are not adopted as findings of fact because they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. All proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent are adopted in material part. Copies furnished: Eric L. Dauber, Esquire Beyer & Dauber Suite 5300 2101 W. Commercial Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 James D. Camp III, Counsel Broward Community College Fort Lauderdale Center 225 East Las Olas Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Janet Rickenbacker Director of Purchasing Broward Community College Fort Lauderdale Center 225 East Las Olas Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s request for extension of deadlines relating to Certificate of Need (CON) Nos. 10176 and 10231, and Exemption No. E140013 was timely filed, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.018(3), and section 408.040(2)(c), Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency responsible for administering the CON program, and is delegated authority to regulate and monitor CONs in the State of Florida, pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-045. Delray Group, LLC, is the holder of CON Nos. 10176 and 10231, and Exemption No. E140013 On September 21, 2017, AHCA issued a letter to Delray granting their extension request submitted September 15, 2017. The letter stated that the request extended the termination date to December 1, 2017, unless another extension request was submitted to the Agency by November 16, 2017. On November 17, 2017, AHCA was hand-delivered a letter, dated November 16, 2017, requesting another extension for CON Nos. 10176 and 10231, and Exemption No. E140013. The letter stated that “this request is timely and in accordance with Subsection 408.040(2)(c), Fla. Stat. and Section 59C-1.018(3), F.A.C.” The letter bears a stamp marked “Hand Delivery, Received November 17, 2017 CON.” AHCA’s Building 1 Visitor’s Log, containing dates ranging from November 15, 2017 through November 27, 2017, shows the authorized representative for Delray, Tracy Merritt, as signing into the building on November 15, 2017, and on November 17, 2017. On November 17, 2017, AHCA responded to the request for extension by certified mail, denying the request for failure to timely file in accordance with section 408.040(2)(c), and rule 59C-1.1018(3) (2016). In a sworn affidavit, Marisol Finch, the supervisor of the CON and Commercial Managed Care Units for AHCA, testified as to the circumstances of her receipt of Delray’s request for extension. Ms. Fitch asserted that the request was denied based on her knowledge of the previous request for extension and her understanding that the new CON termination date was December 1, 2017, and the deadline for requesting another extension was November 16, 2017.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Delray’s request for extension was not timely filed and that CON Nos. 10176 and 10231, and Exemption No. E140013 are now terminated by operation of law. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 21st day of June, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent, Patricia Sue Shelley, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0454282 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was effective 3/10/92, with a home address of 2413 Euston Road, Winter Park, Florida 32789-3416. From July 9, 1990 to December 5, 1990, the Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesperson with Don Gallagher, Inc. t/a The Prudential Gallagher Properties (Petitioner's Exhibit #4). Her status was property manager. While employed as the property manager the Respondent collected $1,450 in rental funds during November and December 1990, but failed to deliver the rental funds to her employing broker. The Respondent and the broker had an ongoing commission dispute and the Respondent kept the $1,450 because she felt that the broker owed her the money. On December 7, 1990, the Respondent delivered a check from her personal account in the amount of $1,450, to the broker notated: "$ rent for Curry Ford and Dover Circle". These were properties being managed by the broker. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1). On December 8, 1990, the broker deposited the Respondent's check into escrow, but the check was returned annotated: "payment stopped do not redeposit." (Petitioner's Exhibit #2). On December 17, 1990, employing broker Don Gallagher sent the Respondent a demand letter, but the Respondent refused to deliver the trust funds to Don Gallagher. (Petitioner's Exhibit #3). Petitioner's husband recommended that she keep the rental money and get with Don Gallagher about the commission. He later recommended that she just give the money back and is not sure why she did not. She has been under a physician's care for manic depression for about 1 1/2 years. Ms. Shelley's license record includes no other alleged violations or discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that a Final Order be entered, finding Patricia Sue Shelley violated Sections 475.25(1)(e) and (k), F.S., suspending her license for two years, with the condition that the suspension be lifted anytime after 90 days, if restitution of $1,450 is made to her former employer/broker. After suspension is lifted, Respondent should be placed on probation for one year under such conditions as may be appropriate, including participation in continuing education courses regarding the handling of deposits and other funds received in trust. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 29th day of October, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Patricia Sue Shelley, pro se 2413 Euston Road Winter Park, FL 32789-3416 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded Bid No. 432-730-310-W for configurations 1, 2, and 3, Service Area 1.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The ITB for Bid No. 432-730-310-W consisted of three sections: general conditions, special conditions, and technical specifications. Bidders were evaluated on their technical and non-technical responses to the ITB. Once the Department determined the bidders to be compliant with their non-technical responses, they were ranked according to the evaluation award criteria described in Appendix F of the ITB. Once ranked, the Department forwarded the bid responses to the engineering staff of the Division of Communications for a technical review. This technical review consisted of verifying a lowest compliant bidder and a competitive compliant bidder. To complete the technical review the engineering staff considered the responses submitted on the ITB forms, technical literature provided by the bidder, and technical responses submitted to supplement other information. To the extent that an ambiguity in one response was satisfactorily explained elsewhere in the bid documentation, the bidder was given the benefit of the doubt and found to be responsive to the ITB. Prior to submitting bids, all bidders were given an opportunity to raise questions regarding the ITB at a pre-bid conference conducted by the Department. Petitioner's representative attended the conference and received a copy of the specimen bid. The ITB required specific mandatory responses. Failure to include the mandatory information resulted in the disqualification of the bid. An equipment list for the baseline system was a mandatory requirement of the ITB. Identification of the manufacturer and the part number, if any, were required to be provided. Another mandatory feature required by the ITB was a "handsfree" intercom. The ITB defined this feature as follows: Handsfree answer and talk back on intercom: Enables a station user to answer an intercom call through the station instrument's internal speaker/microphone without lifting the instruments handset. (This feature shall not be controlled by the calling party instrument intercom button.) Speed-dialing was another mandatory feature of the ITB. This feature could be provided at the station (an individual telephone) or by the system. If at the station, there was no requirement that the instrument retain memory in the event of a power outage. The central memory of the system, however, had to retain its memory in the event of a power failure. The ITB prohibited a method of programming which required access to the inside of the Key Service Unit (KSU) to make switch settings or set a switch to enter and/or leave the program mode. All mandatory operational service features of the ITB were listed on page 27, Section 3.4. Optional operational service features and equipment were listed on page 34, Section 3.16.8 of the ITB. An optional operational feature listed was "Station Message Detail and Equipment." The bidding of an SMDR or an option for an SMDR was not required. No bidder was disqualified because it failed to bid an SMDR or an SMDR option. All bidders were required to submit a spare parts price list. Any bidder failing to submit the list was disqualified. Any bidder which submitted the list automatically met the requirement. The lists were not evaluated as art of the bid criteria and no bidder was disqualified based upon the content of the information supplied on the list. Configuration 1 The Department determined Petitioner to be the seventh lowest bidder for configuration 1. Lower bidders, in order of their ranking, were Henkels & McCoy, Southern Bell Advanced, St. Joe Communications, Inter-Tel, Lanier Business, and Tel-Plus Communications. Tel Plus was considered the low compliant bidder and Inter-Tel was the competitive compliant bidder. Following a complete review of the bid responses, the parties agreed that Southern Bell Advanced, St. Joe Communications, and Lanier Business were non-compliant for configuration 1. The Henkels & McCoy bid provided a "handsfree" feature as described above in paragraph 8. The Henkels & McCoy bid did not provide an SMDR or an SMDR option. The Inter-Tel bid did not provide an SMDR or an SMDR option. The Tel Plus bid included a spare parts price list. The Tel Plus bid included an equipment list for the baseline system, however, such list did not completely and accurately describe the baseline system. The discrepancies with the equipment list were fully explained elsewhere in Tel Plus' bid response. Configuration 2 The Department determined Petitioner to be the fourth lowest bidder for configuration 2. Lower bidders, in order of their ranking, were Inter-Tel, Tel Plus Communications, and St. Joe Communications. St. Joe was determined to be non-compliant, leaving Tel Plus as the low compliant bidder and Inter-Tel as the competitive compliant bidder. The Inter-Tel bid provided a statement indicating the equipment bid would be modified to relocate a "DIP" switch to the outside of the KSU. This modification was necessary to comply with the requirement described in paragraph This modification is a minor, simple procedure done by many technicians. No documentation was provided as to how Inter-Tel intended to make the modification. The parties agreed, however, that the modification could be done. The Inter-Tel bid provided the speed-dialing feature described in paragraph 9 at the station. The findings of fact relating to configuration 1 and the Tel Plus bid are applicable to configuration 2. Configuration 3 The Department determined Petitioner to be the seventh lowest bidder for configuration 3. Lower bidders, in order of their ranking, were Business Telephone Systems, Henkels & McCoy, Marcom Telecommunications, Lanier Business, Tel Plus Communications, and Inter-Tel. Inter-Tel was determined to be the low compliant bidder with Henkel & McCoy the competitive compliant bidder. Following a complete review of the bid responses, the parties agreed that Marcom, Tel Plus and Lanier were non- compliant for configuration 3. The Business Telephone bid included a spare parts price list. The Business Telephone bid failed to include on the baseline equipment list the surge protector part number, however, such information was provided elsewhere in the bid response. The Business Telephone bid failed to include a part number for wiring, however, the part number for wiring was not required. The Henkels & McCoy bid included a spare parts price list. The Henkels & McCoy bid failed to list a console card on the baseline equipment list, however, this was to be provided with the console which was properly described elsewhere in the bid response. The findings of fact relating to configuration 2 and the Inter-Tel bid are applicable to configuration 3. Petitioner's bid for configuration 1 was $3641.08. The lowest responsive bid was $2343.00. Petitioner's bid for configuration 2 was $5407.97. The lowest responsive bid was $4723.00. Petitioner's bid for configuration 3 was $12,136.90. The lowest responsive bid was $9271.00. The parties stipulated that Petitioner timely filed its notice of intent to protest and the formal protest of bid award.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of General Services enter a Final Order dismissing the formal protest of the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted in part. The information requested on the spare parts price list was for planning purposes only. Response of hourly rate etc. was not required to comply with the ITB. Paragraph 4 is accepted; see Finding of Fact paragraph 13. Paragraph 5 is accepted. 6 With regard to paragraphs 6-8, to the extent such paragraphs track the language of the ITB they are accepted; however, the SMDR or SMDR option was not a mandatory item of the bid. It was indicated as an optional operational feature. To the extent paragraph 9 sets forth optional operational features (as described in Section 3.16.8 of the ITB) it is accepted; however this specific proposed Finding is irrelevant and unnecessary to the conclusion of issues raised in this proceeding. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected. The SMDR or SMDR option was an optional operational feature. No bidder was disqualified because it did not have the SMDR or an SMDR option. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraph 17 is accepted. With regard to paragraphs 18-20, to the extent such paragraphs track the information on p.23 of ITB they are accepted; however, the listing of the printed circuit card may not be required when bid as a component of the console which is properly described in the bid response. Paragraphs 21-23 are accepted, however, speed dialing may be provided at the station which does not require memory retention. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraphs 25-26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27-29 are accepted. Paragraphs 30-33 are rejected. Each paragraph makes a conclusion contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraph 34 is accepted. Paragraph 35 is rejected as unnecessary. For the reasons explained in the conclusions of law, whether Petitioner was or was not compliant is not material. Assuming, arguendo, Petitioner was compliant, it still lacked sufficient standing to challenge the awards. Paragraph 36-38 are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraphs 39-40 are accepted. Paragraphs 41-44 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Findings of Fact submitted by the Department. Paragraphs 1-7 are accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted to the extent it rephrases the definition found in the ITB. Paragraphs 9-11 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 12, the system was required to retain memory. Accordingly, that reference is accepted, however, the station was not required to retained memory. Paragraphs 13-15 are accepted. Paragraphs 16-18 are accepted. Paragraphs 19-21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is accepted in part as it correctly restates the ranking of the bidders; the rest of the paragraph is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 23 is accepted in part as it correctly states the ranking of the bidders and disqualifications; however the rest is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 24 is accepted in part as it correctly states the ranking of the bidders, however, the rest is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 25 is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 26 is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward W. Dougherty, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 11127 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3127 Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of General Services 453 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services Room 133, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a telephone salesperson license should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department), is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing Chapter 501, Part IV, Florida Statutes, the Florida Telemarketing Act. On or about November 29, 1999, Petitioner, Gary A. Pappas (Petitioner), applied for licensure as a telephone salesperson. By letter dated February 10, 2000, the Department issued a letter denying Petitioner's application for licensure. According to the letter, the basis for denial of the license was Petitioner's felony conviction and his failure to disclose information relative to the felony conviction on his licensure application. As a part of the Department's application review process, a background investigation is conducted on each applicant. In this case, the Department had such an investigation done on Petitioner. The results of the background investigation of Petitioner revealed that he had been charged and convicted of a felony offense. According to the background investigation report, on October 17, 1988, in Pinellas County, Florida, Petitioner was convicted of a felony offense, constructive possession of an illegal substance. The report further indicated that adjudication was withheld. The Department's application form for licensure as a telephone salesperson contained Question 3 which requested information concerning the applicant's criminal history. In pertinent part, the question is as follows: 3. Please complete this section if you: a. Have previously been arrested for, convicted of or are under indictment or information for a felony and, if so, the nature of the felony. Conviction includes a finding of guilt where adjudication has been withheld. * * * If you have not been subject to any charge set forth above and are not subject to any current or restrictive order, then mark your initials in the [preceding] box. Your true name at the time of the action: Court or administrative agency rendering the decision, judgement [sic] or order: Date of conviction, judgement [sic] or order: / / Docket# Name of governmental agency which brought the action: Nature of conviction, judgement [sic], order or action: In response to Question 3, Petitioner initialed the box next to the statement, "If you have not been subject to any charge set forth above and are not subject to any current or restrictive order, then mark your initials in the box. The term "charge set forth above" referred to the offenses described in subsections a, b, c, d, and/or e of Question 3. In this case, only subsection a of Question 3 is relevant. By initialing the box mentioned in paragraph 7 above, Petitioner was indicating that he had never been convicted of a felony. On November 29, 1999, Petitioner signed his completed application for licensure as a telephone salesperson. On the application, immediately above the applicant signature line, the following statement was printed in bold letters: I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN QUESTIONS 1-3, AND IN THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED HERETO, IS TRUE AND CORRECT. At the formal hearing, Petitioner admitted that in 1988, he had been convicted of a felony and adjudication had been withheld. He also testified that the conviction was for the sale and possession of marijuana. Although Petitioner had been convicted of a felony, he failed to disclose the conviction on his application for licensure as a telephone salesperson. Petitioner testified that he was misinformed and had misread and misinterpreted Question 3. Petitioner also testified that because the incident occurred more than ten years ago and adjudication was withheld, he thought the conviction did not have to be disclosed on the application. Petitioner's stated justification for failing to disclose his 1988 felony conviction lacks credibility given the clear wording of Question 3 on the application for licensure. Notwithstanding Petitioner's statements to the contrary, his testimony established that he was capable of reading and interpreting the questions on the application, including Question 3. Petitioner has had no felony convictions since the aforementioned conviction in 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for licensure as a telephone salesperson. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 13th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 508 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 William N. Graham, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 515 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Gary A. Pappas 2555 Oak Trail North, Number 114 Clearwater, Florida 33764
Findings Of Fact Findings regarding the RFP and all Petitioners On September 3, 1991, the Department issued RFP 92-005-LOT-TEN-P by which it sought proposals for the provision of advertising and related services to the Florida Lottery. During the following two weeks, the Department received written questions from would-be vendors. On October 3, 1991, the Department circulated Addendum 3 to the RFP which included numerous changes to the RFP and which provided written answers to the questions which were submitted to the Department prior to September 17. The Department of the Lottery had issued an earlier RFP to obtain substantially the same advertising and related services. The earlier procurement effort ended in a rejection of all bids and the initiation of the instant procurement effort. The timetable set forth in the RFP indicated that on a date certain the Department would make determinations of non-responsiveness in accordance with Section 3.2 and post a Notice of Non-responsive Technical Proposals. Only after responsiveness had been determined would responsive technical proposals be presented to an evaluation committee for scoring in accordance with the criteria set forth in the RFP. (RFP Section 2.6) In addition, Section 6 of the RFP provides that the evaluation committee shall complete an evaluation of all responsive proposals. All Petitioners timely submitted a proposal in response to RFP #92-005- LOT/TEN/P. The issuing officer for RFP #92-005-LOT/TEN/P is Mr. Russ Rothman, CPPO, Office of Purchasing, Florida Lottery, 250 Marriott Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. As issuing officer, Mr. Russ Rothman served as agent of the Florida Department of the Lottery with respect to RFP #92-005-LOT/TEN/P, even though Mr. Rothman's regular employment is with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The person most directly responsible for preparing the RFP #92-005- LOT/TEN/P was Mr. Russ Rothman. The person most directly responsible for initially determining whether each proposal was responsive or non-responsive was Mr. Russ Rothman. Respondent deemed the proposals of each Petitioner to be non-responsive for the reasons set forth in a Notice Of Non-Responsive Technical Proposal And/Or Non-Responsible Respondent, which notice was posted on October 28, 1991. (Respondent's Exhibit 10) The specific reasons stated in that notice are as follows: Respondent Determination Lintas Non-responsive. Failed to submit a TV commercial storyboard required by Section 5.9.6,B.6. Failed to complete Disclosure Affidavit question 7.b. The Ad Team Non-responsive. Failed to submit TV commercial storyboard (5.9.6,B.6) and 3 product or package designs (5.9.5,3.f). Absence of certification re: lack of audited financial statements (5.9.3,F). Ogilvy & Mather Non-responsive. Failed to submit all resumes and/or selection criteria (5.9.5,2) and 30 second radio spot (5.9.6,B.3). Proposal bond late (3.26). Apparent non- compliance with 3.8, "Conflict of Interest and Disclosure." Failed to complete Disclosure Affidavit, question 7. Beber Silverstein Non-responsive. Failed to present complete financial statements as required by Section 5.9.3,F). Footnotes were not included in any of the three years' statements; disclaimer of opinion on 1989 Statements of Operations and Cash Flows; absence of certification for lack of audited statements (1990 & 1988). Section 2.2 of the subject RFP contains the following definition of the terms "Responsive Proposal" and "Responsible Respondent." Responsive Proposal - A timely submitted proposal which conforms in all material respects to the RFP and which contains, in the manner required by this RFP, all documentation, drawings, information, plans, materials, certifications, affirmations, and documentation of qualifications and other matters required by the RFP. Responsible Respondent - A firm judged by the Lottery to be fully capable of providing the services required, considering security, integrity and financial condition. Section 2.6 of the subject RFP contains the following regarding the timetable for the procurement: October 15, 1991: Separately sealed technical and price proposals must be received at the Lottery's Headquarters, Purchasing Office, 250 Marriott Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, no later than 2:00 p.m. Proposals must be addressed to the Issuing Officer as specified in Section 2.3. All technical proposals will be opened by Lottery employees starting at or after 2:01 p.m. at the Lottery Headquarters. The public may attend the opening but may not review any proposals submitted. The names of respondents will be read aloud, and the names of firms submitting "no proposal" responses will be read. Section 3.1 of the subject RFP contains the following provisions regarding "Mandatory Requirements:" The Lottery has established certain mandatory requirements which must be included as part of any proposal. The use of the terms "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicate a mandatory requirement or condition. The words "should" or "may" in this RFP indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature will not by itself cause rejection of a proposal. Section 3.2 of the subject RFP contains the following relevant provisions regarding "Non-Responsive Proposals:" Proposals which do not meet all material requirements of this RFP or which fail to provide all required information, documents, or materials will be rejected as non- responsive. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth as mandatory, or without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is impossible, or those which affect the competitiveness of proposals or the cost to the State. The Lottery reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP. Respondents which in the Lottery's judgment, after the investigations required by Section 24.111, Florida Statutes, fail to demonstrate sufficient financial responsibility, security and integrity, shall be rejected as non-responsible. Section 3.5 of the subject RFP includes the following provisions regarding an opportunity to ask questions about the RFP: Questions concerning conditions and specifications of this RFP, and/or requests for changes to conditions and specifications must be in writing, addressed to the Issuing Officer, and received no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 17, 1991. The Lottery will prepare tentative responses to all questions and/or requests for changes, timely received, for discussion at a pre-proposal conference to be held at 2:00 p.m., September 24, 1991. Copies of questions and final answers, along with any changes to the RFP resulting from or following discussion at the pre-proposal conference, will be mailed to all firms who were furnished a copy of this RFP by the Lottery, in the form of a written addendum, as soon as reasonably practicable. Respondents submitting a proposal must submit by the proposal deadline written acknowledgment of any addendum. In response to a vendor inquiry as to the meaning of the term "minor irregularity," the Department responded in the last addendum to the RFP by citing and quoting Rule 13A-1.001(32), Florida Administrative Code, which reads: Minor Irregularity - A variation from the invitation to bid/request for proposal terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid/proposal, or give the bidder or offeror an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or offerors, or does not adversely impact the interests of the agency. Sections 3.7 and 3.8 of the subject RFP contain the following provisions regarding required disclosures.: Vendor Information and Disclosure. Respondents must provide information and disclosures required by Section 24.111, Florida Statutes. Copies of the Lottery's Vendor Information Addendum and Disclosure Affidavit Forms to be completed are attached hereto as Attachments "A" and "B." These forms must be properly completed, executed and submitted with Respondent's technical proposal. Conflict of Interest and Disclosure. The award hereunder is subject to the provisions of Chapters 24 and 112, Florida Statutes. Respondents must disclose with their proposals whether any officer, director, employee or agent is also an officer or an employee of the Lottery, the State of Florida, or any of its agencies. All firms must disclose the name of any state officer or employee who owns, directly or indirectly, an interest of five percent (5%) or more in the Respondent's firm or any of its branches or affiliates. All Respondents must also disclose the name of any employee, agent, lobbyist, previous employee of the Lottery, or other person, who has received or will receive compensation of any kind, or who has registered or is required to register under Section 112.3215, Florida Statutes, in seeking to influence the actions of the Lottery in connection with this procurement. Section 3.26 of the subject RFP contains the following provisions regarding the required proposal bond: Each Respondent is required to accompany its technical proposal with a certified or cashier's check or bid bond in the amount of $125,000 or have on file with the Department of Lottery an annual bid bond of at least $125,000. The check or bid bond shall be payable to the Department of Lottery. This check/bond is to insure against withdrawal from competition subsequent to submitting of the proposal and to guarantee performance when the Contract is awarded. This check/bond will be returned to all unsuccessful Respondents immediately upon the execution of the Contract. Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 of the subject RFP include the following requirements regarding the preparation and submission of proposals: Proposal Labeling. Respondent's technical proposal MUST be in a separate sealed envelope or other container and MUST be identified as the Respondent's technical proposal. The face of the envelope or other container shall contain the following information: Request for Proposal for Advertising and Related Services 2:00 p.m. October 15, 1991 Technical Proposal Name of Respondent Each Respondent's price proposal MUST be in a separate sealed envelope and MUST be identified as the Respondent's price proposal. The face of the envelope shall contain the following information: Request for Proposal for Advertising and Related Services 2:00 p.m. October 15, 1991 Price Proposal Name of Respondent Copies of Proposals. Respondents shall deliver an ORIGINAL AND SIX COPIES OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND ONE COPY OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL AND CREATIVE SAMPLES to the Lottery no later than the date and time in which all proposals must be timely submitted. Information and materials submitted in response to a previous RFP will not be considered in connection with this RFP #92-005-LOT/TEN/P. This is not intended to preclude a respondent from submitting information or materials previously submitted provided they conform to the requirements of this RFP. Proposal Submission. It is the Respondent's responsibility to ensure that its proposal is delivered by the proper time at the place of the proposal opening. Proposals which for any reason are not timely received will not be considered. Late proposals will be declared non- responsive, and will not be scored. Unsealed and/or unsigned proposals by telegram, telephone, or facsimile transmission or other means are not acceptable, and will be declared non-responsive, and will not be scored. A proposal may not be altered after opening. Section 5.9.3 of the subject RFP describes as follows the documentation which must be submitted to demonstrate vendor responsibility: The proposing firm must submit the following documentation to establish that it is a responsible respondent: Vendor Information Addendum (Attachment A) Disclosure Affidavit (Attachment B) Sworn Statement on Public Entity Crimes (Attachment C) Statement of Agreement to Abide by the Lottery's Code of Ethics, Rule 53ER88- 79(3), Florida Administrative Code (Attachment D) Proposal Bond required by Section 3.26, in the amount of $125,000. Certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years if they are completed, including an auditor's report. Certified financial statements must be the result of an audit of the Respondent's records in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by a certified public accountant (CPA). If certified financial statements including an auditor's report were not prepared for one or more of the last three fiscal years respondent shall certify that fact, and shall submit in lieu thereof review reports of financial statements prepared by a CPA for the same period of time. The Lottery will not accept, in lieu thereof, financial statements prepared in whole or in part by an accountant as a result of a compilation engagement. If the parent company of Respondent intends to financially guarantee Respondent's performance of contractual obligations, then Respondent may, to satisfy this requirement, submit such financial statements of the parent company in lieu of its own plus a binding letter from the parent company expressing its commitment to financially guarantee the Respondent. In such event, the parent company shall be required to sign the Contract as Guarantor and shall be held accountable for all terms and conditions of the Contract. The language in Section 5.9.3,F which conditions the use of review reports on the submission of a certificate that there are no audited financial statements was for the purpose of minimizing the possibility that a vendor who had received an adverse audited opinion might conceal the adverse opinion from the Department by obtaining and submitting a favorable review report which did not disclose the adverse opinion. Section 5.9.4 of the subject RFP addresses the subject of "Firm Qualifications." The opening sentence of Section 5.9.4 reads as follows: "At minimum, each Respondent must provide the following information which demonstrates the Respondent's ability to provide the services requested." Section 5.9.5 of the subject RFP includes the following provisions regarding personnel qualifications: Provide the following information: Address the firm's plans for staffing the Lottery account. Include position titles, numbers, duties and responsibilities, and names of incumbents proposed to work on the Lottery account. Include both agency and subcontractor personnel. Resumes not to exceed one page each in length of all agency and subcontractor personnel who would be compensated in accordance with section 5.11.1 of this RFP, with a statement identifying the percentage of time, calculated annually, of each person who will work on the Lottery account. If recruitment of personnel to fill a position will be required, indicate firm's criteria for selection including, as appropriate, education, experience, knowledge, skills and abilities, etc. Creative samples (one copy of each) previously produced for the Respondent with the participation of key members of the proposed Lottery creative team and equal to the quality of the products proposed in your marketing plan, to include: * * * f) Three examples of product design or package design. Section 5.9.6 of the subject RFP contains the following provisions requiring a "Plan of Service:" Each Respondent shall provide a written statement of the firm's understanding of the services requested herein as well as a detailed written plan outlining how the firm proposes to go about providing the services. It is the intent of the Lottery that the Plan of Service be based on the premise that all products and product attributes remain as they are now. The plan of service shall consist of the following information and materials: A proposed advertising approach for the Florida Lottery which addresses the following items: A two-year summary outline advertising plan. Respondents shall include recommendations for advertising and promotions, and shall provide a plan for progress reporting, and ongoing evaluation and monitoring. A proposed one-year timetable for advertising, showing development of creative, production, approval, placement and run-time. Plan, Script and Comprehensive artistic representations (comps) of the following: A detailed media plan for an eight (8) week Florida Lottery Instant Game which has a $1,250,000 budget; A name, ticket design and prize structure for the Instant Game; A 30-second radio spot for the Instant Game; A print ad for newspaper or magazine placement for the Instant Game; A point-of-sale example for the Instant Game; A television commercial storyboard. All exhibits must be permanently marked or labeled, with identification of the proposing firm, and the specific section(s) of the RFP to which they respond. The requirement for submission of a television commercial storyboard was elaborated upon by responses which the Department made to two distinct questions submitted by the firms, Bozell, Inc., and West & Company. West & Company asked if proposers were prohibited from submitting fully executed television commercials and the Department responded that proposers were prohibited from submitting fully executed television commercials in complying with the RFP requirement for a television commercial storyboard. Bozell submitted a much more elaborate question in two parts. First, Bozell asked if a proposer could submit a television commercial in a more finished form using an animatic form as an example of a more finished form. The Department respondent in the negative. Second, Bozell asked if a proposer could submit such other more finished forms of television commercials in addition to the storyboard. Again, the Department answered in the negative. In responding thusly, the Department clearly indicated that it desired only traditional two-dimensional storyboards and would not accept more finished forms of television commercial concepts such as animatics. Also, the Lottery indicated that it did not wish to receive television commercial concepts in any form other than the traditional two-dimensional storyboard. The term "television commercial storyboard " is not defined in the RFP, but no definition is really necessary because the term has a clearly understood meaning in the advertising industry. It means a two-dimensional illustration of an advertising concept, presented on stiff cardboard or some similar material, and containing art work (illustrations or still photographs) to demonstrate the visual concept, and containing written words to demonstrate the text and/or describe any special effects. Television commercial storyboards have been in common use since the first days of television advertising and continue to be in common use today. Much more recently, especially since the advent of video cameras, alternative ways of presenting advertising concepts have come into popular use. These newer alternatives include video presentations, one type of which is known in the trade as "animatics," and another type of which is referred to as "stealamatics" or "ripamatics." An "animatic" is, in essence, a series of artistic drawings which is recorded on video. The drawings are developed specifically for a given "animatic" and are presented on the video in a manner which conveys the scenes and sequences in a proposed commercial. An "animatic" typically looks very much like a rough moving cartoon. More often than not an animatic will also include a sound track with a rough version of the words or music for the proposed commercial. An "animatic" is a more finished product than a two-dimensional storyboard because it more nearly resembles the format of the final version of the proposed concept. A "stealamatic" or a "ripamatic" is a video recording typically constructed from a variety of existing film footage and voice and music recordings. The film and sound used in a "stealamatic" or "ripamatic" frequently belong to people other than those who are creating the video, hence the name. "Stealamatics" and "ripamatics" are, in essence, a collage of second- hand images and sounds created for other purposes which are roughly edited together to demonstrate the creative concept of a proposed commercial. The video footage and sound track of a typical "stealamatic" or "ripamatic" is not of television commercial air quality and is not a finished product that can be used for actual advertising. The typical "stealamatic" or "ripamatic" is, in essence, a rough draft of a television commercial designed to demonstrate the primary ingredients of an advertising concept. Although rough, the typical "stealamatic" or "ripamatic" is a more finished product than an "animatic" in the sense that it more closely resembles the finished product than does an "animatic." If the concept of a proposed commercial involves critical timing, special effects, humor, or emotion, a "stealamatic" video is the most effective way, and often the only practical way, to present such a concept. "Animatics" and "stealamatics/ripamatics" are now commonly used in the presentation of advertising concepts in lieu of the old-fashioned, but still often useful, two-dimensional storyboards; they are frequent substitutes for two-dimensional storyboards. But "animatics" and "stealamatics/ripamatics" have not become storyboards and the term "television commercial storyboard" still means a two-dimensional presentation on a board-like material. Section 6.1 of the subject RFP contains the following provisions with regard to the allocation of points during the evaluation of the technical proposals: Firm Qualifications. - (Maximum 31 points) Size and Resources - Maximum 5 points Advertising Experience - Maximum 16 points Example of a Complete Campaign - Maximum 10 points Personnel Qualifications. - (Maximum 18 points) Staffing (numbers, levels, roles) - Maximum 5 points Resumes - Maximum 5 points Creative Samples - Maximum 8 points 6.1.3. Plan of Service - (Maximum 16 points) Advertising Plan and Timetable - Maximum 8 points Plan, Script and Artistic - Maximum 8 points Representations 6.1.4. Certified Minority Business Enterprise Participation. - (Maximum 10 points) Authorized Expenses - Maximum 5 points (1 point for each 2/10 percent (.2%) of participation) Agency Compensation - Maximum 5 points (Respondent's price) (1 point for each 3 percent (3%) of participation) Section 5.9.3 of the subject RFP requires that the proposing firm must, among other things, submit a "Disclosure Affidavit." The Disclosure Affidavit is attached to the RFP and is designated as Attachment B. All proposing firms who were corporations were required to answer Question 7 on Attachment B. Question 7 on Attachment B reads as follows: 7. Please complete either 7a or 7b, whichever is appropriate. RESPONDENT is not a publicly traded corporation. The names and addresses of the shareholders of RESPONDENT are as follows: The above-named persons constitute all of the shareholders of RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT is a publicly traded corporation. The names and addresses of the shareholders of RESPONDENT which own 5% or more of the corporate stock are as follows: The above-named persons constitute all of the shareholders of RESPONDENT which own 5% or more of the corporate stock. Findings regarding the Ad Team of Florida, Inc. Paragraph 5.9.6,B,6 of the RFP (as amended by Addendum 3) requires the submission of a television commercial storyboard. The Ad Team attempted to comply with this provision by submitting a video cassette which contained two short video presentations illustrating proposed advertising concepts. One of these presentations, titled The Fortune Teller, is what is known in the advertising business as an "animatic;" a rough cartoon with some animation and a sound track. The other of these presentations, titled Stars and Stripes, is what is known in the advertising business as a "stealamatic" or "ripamatic." Neither of the presentations on the video cassette submitted by the Ad Team is a television commercial storyboard. Section 5.9.5,3,F requires that a bidder provide three examples of product design or package design that, (1) were previously produced by the bidder, and (2) that were produced with the participation of key members of the proposed Lottery creative team. At the time of submission of its proposal, the Ad Team did not have three examples of product or package design that had earlier been produced with the participation of key members of the proposed Lottery team. Therefore, the Ad Team could not and did not submit three examples of product design or package design that had previously been produced with the participation of key members of the Lottery team. The Ad Team's failure to submit three examples of package or product design did not change the pricing of the proposal submitted to the Department by the Ad Team. The Ad Team did not gain a competitive advantage by virtue of its failure to submit three examples of product or package design. The Ad Team submitted complete review reports of financial statements for the last three years. The Ad Team did not submit any document certifying that no audited financial statements had been prepared for the Ad Team for the past three fiscal years. The Ad Team did not gain a competitive advantage by virtue of its failure to submit the certification that it had no audited financial statements for the past three years. The failure to submit the subject certification leaves the Department with no basis in the proposal materials for having confidence that no adverse audited statements are being concealed, and to that extent diminishes the extent to which it is prudent for the Department to rely on the financial statements submitted. Findings regarding Beber Silverstein & Partners Advertising, Inc. The only issue regarding the proposal submitted by Beber Silverstein relates to its efforts to comply with the requirements of Section 5.9.3,F of the RFP. In response to the requirements of that section of the RFP, Beber Silverstein supplied financial statements for the years 1988, 1989, and 1990. However, the footnotes to all of these financial statements were inadvertently omitted from Beber Silverstein's proposal. The footnotes were prepared by Beber Silversmith's accountants at the time the financial statements were prepared and were in Beber Silverstein's possession. The footnotes were simply inadvertently omitted during the preparation of Beber Silverstein's proposal. The Department of the Lottery knew at the time it reviewed Beber Silverstein's proposal for responsiveness that the vendor possessed the footnotes to the financial statements. In fact, the Department had previously reviewed these footnotes in Beber Silverstein's response to the first Request for Proposal earlier during 1991 when Beber Silverstein's proposal in the earlier RFP was evaluated by the Department. Beber Silverstein could have supplied the Department with the subject footnotes immediately after the omission was brought to Beber Silverstein's attention. The omission of the footnotes did not affect the cost or price of Beber Silverstein's proposal. The footnotes to financial statements do not change the figures presented on the face of the financial statements, but the footnotes are an integral part of any financial statement. The vast majority of the information necessary to conduct a meaningful review of a company's financial responsibility is contained in the footnotes to the financial statements. It is not possible to determine a company's financial responsibility from a review of financial statements without footnotes. In direct response to a request from its bank, Beber Silverstein had its balance sheet audited for the year 1989. However, it did not request its accountants to audit the statements of operations and cash flows for the year 1989 since the bank did not request it. Beber Silverstein provided the Department with all financial statements (except the footnotes) that were available on the company for the year 1989. The accountants' opinion for the 1989 statements clearly acknowledges that they were not engaged to audit the statements of operations and cash flows and, accordingly, no accountants' opinion was expressed on them. However the accountants' opinion for the 1989 statements does not explain why they were not engaged to audit the statements of operations and cash flows. Even though the accountants' opinion for Beber Silverstein's 1989 financial statement does not contain any opinion regarding the statements of operations and cash flows, the level of analysis actually performed by the accountants on the 1989 statements of operations and cash flows met the minimum standards for a review report. This was clarified in a letter dated May 1, 1991, which was submitted in conjunction with Beber Silverstein's prior proposal, but which letter was not included as part of Beber Silverstein's current proposal.2/ Beber Silverstein failed to include in its proposal the certification required by Section 5.9.3,F of the RFP to the effect that it did not have any audited financial statements for 1988 or 1990. The omission of the certificate was inadvertent. The absence of the certificate did not affect the price of Beber Silverstein's bid. Beber Silverstein supplied the Department with all financial statements (except for inadvertently omitted footnotes) that it had available. Although Beber Silverstein failed to provide a certificate, Beber Silverstein, in fact, did not have any audited financial statements (other than the 1989 balance sheet which was submitted). Findings regarding Benito Advertising, Inc. Benito Advertising, Inc., d/b/a Fahlgren Martin Benito, was founded in Tampa in 1954. It has offices in Tampa, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, and Jacksonville. It employs approximately 70 people and its 1991 billings will be approximately $45 million. Benito Advertising, Inc., was acquired in 1989 by the Interpublic Group of Companies. Interpublic is one of the largest publicly-held advertising agency holding companies in the world with billings of $13 billion a year. Benito was subsequently assigned to Lintas:Worldwide, an operating unit of Interpublic. Benito and Lintas:Worldwide are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Interpublic. Attachment B to the RFP elicits the disclosure of ownership information (officers, directors, major shareholders, etc.) from vendors as required by Section 24.111, Florida Statutes. Question 7 thereof requires a corporate respondent to provide the names and addresses of its shareholders if the corporation is not publicly traded. A publicly traded corporation is required to state the names and addresses of those shareholders which own five percent or more of the corporate stock. The form which comprises Attachment B was never promulgated as a rule although it is intended for general use by the Lottery. Benito submitted five separate Disclosure Affidavits - one for Benito itself, one for Lintas:Worldwide, one for Interpublic Group, one for its Hispanic minority contractor, and one for its other minority partner. Benito responded "not applicable" to question 7-A on its affidavit as well as on the affidavit for Lintas:Worldwide on the bases that neither are publicly traded corporations because both are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Interpublic. The balance of the information on the five affidavits concerning officers, directors, shareholders, etc., was provided and is correct. Information concerning Benito's corporate status is alluded to throughout its proposal. More importantly, the corporate relationships as between Benito, Lintas, and Interpublic are explicitly stated in the Interpublic Annual Report which is a mandatory supplement to the proposal. Joan Schoubert, the Department accounting manager responsible for reviewing the annual reports and other financial statements, noted these corporate relationships in conjunction with her review and included the following statement on her reviewing document: Benito Advertising, Inc., d/b/a Fahlgren Martin Benito is a wholly - owned subsidiary of Lintas:Worldwide. Lintas:Worldwide is one of three operating subsidiaries of Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (guarantor of Respondents performance- bindings letter present) In the review of other proposals submitted in response to the subject RFP, the Department has overlooked an omission of information in response to a specific question if that information was otherwise available elsewhere in the proposal. An example of this is shown by the following notations on the Department's checklist concerning another proposal: Transmittal letter did not list subcontractors but they are revealed elsewhere, minor irregularity. Billings by media shown in percentages but can be interpreted in connection with Number 8. Paragraph 5.9.6,B,6 of the RFP (as amended by Addendum 3) requires the submission of a television commercial storyboard. Benito attempted to comply with this provision by submitting a so-called "video storyboard" which was recorded on a video cassette. This was submitted along with the balance of the proposal. Benito clearly stated in the text of the proposal that its "storyboard" was in video form. Benito's so-called "video storyboard" was in a format also referred to in the advertising business as a "stealamatic" or "ripamatic." Benito chose to utilize a "stealamatic" to convey its concept which, in essence, is nature photography with human voices inputed to the animals. This is very difficult to express in a two-dimensional format in that the concept does not have an actor carrying a story line. Furthermore, Benito knew that it was not going to be able to present the concept in person and thus could not explain it to the people who were to evaluate it. Given the reliance of the Benito message on animals, another medium would not have been as effective. Findings regarding Ogilvy & Mather Advertising At the time it submitted its proposal, Ogilvy Group, Inc., d/b/a Ogilvy & Mather, failed to submit all resumes and/or selection criteria required in Section 5.9.5,2 of the RFP. Further, it failed to submit a 30-second radio spot as required by Section 5.9.6,B,3 of the RFP and it failed to submit with its proposal the appropriate proposal bond required by Section 3.26 of the RFP. It further failed to comply with Section 3.8 of the RFP by failing to disclose the name of any employee, agent, lobbyist, previous employee of the Lottery, or other person who has received compensation of any kind or who has registered under Section 112.3215, Florida Statutes, in seeking to influence the actions of the Lottery in connection with this procurement. Finally, Ogilvy Group, Inc., failed to complete question 7 of the Disclosure Affidavit required by Section 3.7 of the RFP. With regard to the failure of Ogilvy Group, Inc., to submit all resumes and/or selection criteria required by Section 5.9.5,2 of the RFP, its submission in this regard was missing 17 resumes and 6 descriptions of selection criteria. The 6 missing descriptions covered 13 positions. Three of the missing resumes were found to be located in other portions of the Ogilvy Group, Inc., proposal, but 14 resumes are nowhere to be found in the proposal. Without the information of the missing resumes and in the missing descriptions of selection criteria, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Department to perform an adequate analysis and comparison of the Ogilvy Group, Inc., proposal with other proposals. The Ogilvy Group, Inc., also failed to submit a 30-second radio spot. Instead it submitted two 60-second radio spots because of its belief that 30- second radio spots are not economically feasible. With regard to the late submission of Ogilvy Group's, Inc., proposal bond, its attorney and lobbyist, James J. Cooney, Esquire, delivered its bid package (which included the original and six copies of its technical proposal) to the offices of the Department of the Lottery sometime shortly after 1:00 p.m. on October 21, 1991. The original technical proposal and each copy of the technical proposal contained a photocopy of the Ogilvy Group, Inc., proposal bond, which was in the form of a certified check in the amount of $125,000.00. The original certified check was in Mr. Cooney's pocket. The Ogilvy Group, Inc., proposal materials (minus the original certified check, which remained in Mr. Cooney's pocket) were logged-in and officially received by the Department of the Lottery at 1:39 p.m. that afternoon. Mr. Cooney then physically accompanied the dolly on which the Ogilvy & Mather proposal materials had been placed, up the elevator and into the room designated for the bid opening. After Mr. Cooney had accompanied the proposal materials to the room where the bid opening was to occur, Mr. Cooney handed the $125,000.00 certified check to Russ Rothman. The delivery of the check to Mr. Rothman occurred shortly after 2:00 p.m., but shortly before any of the proposals were opened. The deadline for submitting bids was 2:00 p.m. Ogilvy Group, Inc., has retained the services of James J. Cooney, Esquire, as a registered lobbyist and attorney. Mr. Cooney is registered as a lobbyist for Ogilvy Group, Inc., pursuant to Section 112.3215, Florida Statutes. During the period between the issuance of the subject RFP and the submission of the subject proposals, Mr. Cooney on several occasions contacted functionaries of the Department of the Lottery, including the Issuing Officer, Mr. Rothman, in attempts to influence the Department's decision with respect to using previously submitted materials as part of the Ogilvy Group, Inc., proposal in the instant RFP. Such communications by Mr. Cooney were efforts to influence the actions of the Department of the Lottery in connection with the instant procurement. Officials of Ogilvy Group, Inc., were aware of Mr. Cooney's efforts in this regard. Ogilvy Group, Inc., is a corporation that does business under the fictitious name of Ogilvy & Mather. Ogilvy Group, Inc., was the proposing entity on its proposal. As proposing entity, it executed a Disclosure Affidavit (Attachment B to the RFP). Corporations submitting a Disclosure Affidavit were required to answer either Question 7a or 7b. The Ogilvy Group, Inc., did not provide any answer to either Question 7a or 7b. This was because the Chief Financial Officer of the Ogilvy Group, Inc., did not believe that Question 7a was applicable and did not believe that any answer to 7b was required because there was no one who owned five percent or more of the stock of WPP Group, plc, the parent company of which Ogilvy Group, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary. Even though Ogilvy Group, Inc., failed to answer either Question 7a or 7b on the Disclosure Affidavit, information concerning its corporate status and its relationship to WPP Group, plc, is contained in other portions of its proposal. Joan Schoubert, the Department accounting manager responsible for reviewing the annual reports and other financial statements, was able to determine from the information in other portions of the proposal that Ogilvy Group, Inc., was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide, which was in turn a wholly-owned subsidiary of WPP Group, plc.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Lottery issue a final order in these consolidated cases concluding that, on the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, all four of the proposals submitted by all four of the Petitioners are not responsive to RFP #92-005-LOT/TEN/P. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of January 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January 1992.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s license to practice contracting, license number CGC 060878, based on violations of Subsection 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (2005)1, as charged in the three-count Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding. Whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes (Count I) by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer; Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (Count II) by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor, and Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Count III) by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. And, if so, what discipline should be imposed, pursuant to Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are determined: At all times material, Respondent was a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CGC 060878 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). At all times material, Respondent was the qualifier of Epic Building and Development Corporation, a Florida Corporation, with its principal place of business in the Fort Myers area. On February 22, 2005, Respondent entered into a contract with Edward Dueboay to rebuild a house owned by Dueboay and his wife, located at 22299 Laramorre Avenue, Port Charlotte, Florida, which had been distroyed some months earlier by Hurricane Charlie. The price of the contract was $150,000.00. On or about March 24, 2005, Dueboay gave Respondent a check in the amount of $3,500 payable to Contractors Marketing America, Inc. (CMA, Inc.), for the engineering plans. On May 6, 2005, Dueboay paid Respondent $5,000, as an advance on the contract. Respondent did not obtain the building permit from the Charlotte County Building Department until December 12, 2005, and work on the project did not start until January 2006. Because of the enormous damage caused by the hurricane, contractors in the area were flooded with jobs, and significant shortages in building materials also occurred. On January 13, 2006, Respondent billed Dueboay $11,000.00 for land clearing and filling, $750.00 for permit fees, and $3,200.00 for a temporary electric pole. The bill gave credit for the $5,000.00 Dueboay paid on May 6, 2005, and showed a balance due of $10,000.00. On January 20, 2006, Dueboay paid the above-mentioned invoice, by check to Respondent, in the amount of $10,000.00. Respondent paid $4,600.00 to the sub-contractor who performed the lot clearing and filling, but billed Dueboay $11,000.00. However, the contract provided for a $2,500.00 allowance for clearing and filling, and a $750.00 allowance for permit fees. Section 11.c of the contract also provided that Respondent shall provide and pay for all materials and utilities and all other facilities and services necessary for the proper completion of the work on the project in accordance with the contract documents. To pay for the remainder of the contract, Dueboay negotiated and obtained a loan in the total amount of $153,000.00 from Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union (Credit Union). On March 21, 2006, Dueboay and the Credit Union signed the construction loan agreement. On March 21, 2006, Respondent was paid $18,235.00 by the Credit Union for the pre-cast walls used in the erection of the structure. On May 11, 2006, Respondent finished Phase I of the project. On May 15, 2006, Respondent received $11,350.00 as the first draw by the Credit Union. On June 20, 2006, Respondent finished Phase II of the project. On June 20, 2006, Respondent was paid $26,335.00 as the second draw by the Credit Union. From June 2006 to November 2006, Respondent performed no work on the house under the Dueboay contract. Because the roof was not completed, mold appeared on and in the house. On August 21, 2006, Dueboay paid $109.95 to America’s Best Cleaning and Restoration, Inc., for mold removal. On or before September 13, 2006, Dueboay hired an attorney to clarify billing charges related to lot filling, permit fees and the temporary electric pole, and to prompt Respondent to resume work abandoned since June 2006. Under the Credit Union Loan Agreement, after several extensions, the completion of the Dueboay home should have taken place on or before October 17, 2006. On October 18, 2006, the Loan Agreement extension expired, and Dueboay was required to pay mortgage and interest on the loan, even though construction of the house was not completed. On November 10, 2006, Dueboay’s attorney sent Respondent a third letter advising him that the project was stagnating; that after eighteen months since the signing of the contract, the roof of the house was not yet completed; and that, under the contract, Respondent was obligated to substantially complete all work in a reasonable time after construction had started. On or about December 1, 2006, the building permit expired and had to be renewed. At some point after November 10, 2006, Respondent resumed work and finished Phase III on March 8, 2007, with the exception that some doors were not installed, including the garage door. Respondent submitted a sworn Contractor’s Affidavit stating that all subcontractors had been paid, and that there are no liens against Dueboay’s property. However, Dueboay had to pay Charlotte County Utilities $224.93 on October 29, 2007, and $240.00 to Pest Bear, Inc., on May 7, 2008, to avoid two liens being recorded against his property. From March 8, 2007, until July 2007, Respondent performed no work under the contract. David Allgood, another general contractor, was hired by Respondent to complete some of Respondent’s projects in the Port Charlotte area, including the Dueboay house. However, Dueboay was not informed of this arrangement. There was no contract directly between Dueboay and Allgood. On September 4, 2007, relying on advice from his attorney, Dueboay changed the locks to the house, with the intent to keep Respondent and his employees off his property. Shortly thereafter, employees of general contractor David Allgood broke the front lock and entered the property in September 2007, without Dueboay’s permission. Dueboay, again, following advice from this attorney, called law enforcement to eject Allgood’s employees from his property. Allgood attempted to invoice Dueboay for installing some doors on the house that Respondent had previously paid for, and which Respondent should have installed. However, following advice from his attorney, Dueboay resisted Allgood’s request to pay him for the doors. Respondent was paid a total of $122,246.03 for the Dueboay project, before the contract was cancelled. Respondent did not complete work from Phases IV and V, with the following exceptions: he did some work on the driveway, painted the interior, did some cabinet work, exterior trim and soffit, siding, stucco, and some interior trim. Therefore, Respondent completed, at best, three out of seven operations from Phase IV (interior and exterior paint, interior trim and doors, and exterior trim and soffits) and worked on, but did not complete, stucco and some cabinets. From Phase V, Respondent only worked on the driveway and sidewalks, which had to subsequently be repaired. Dueboay hired Storybook Homes, Inc. (Storybook), to complete work abandoned by Respondent from Phases IV and V. Storybook was hired to complete work as follows: install cabinets and vanities, install ceramic tiles, repair stucco, install custom tub, all electrical and plumbing per code, complete exterior paint, install hardware, sinks and faucets in the baths and showers, complete floors, install all appliances, complete air conditioning and heat, and obtain the certificate of occupancy. The amount of $122,246.03 paid to Respondent at the time when Respondent abandoned the Dueboay project represents 81 percent of the total contract price of $150,000.00. Respondent completed, at best, 75 percent of the job by completing only three out of seven operations of Phase IV and working on some additional operations that needed to be redone, like the driveway, sidewalks and stucco. Due to Respondent’s failure to perform work on time, Dueboay incurred $5,116.42 in additional expenses, as follows: $109.95 on August 21, 2006 (mold removal), $360.00 on November 23, 2006 (legal fees), $175.00 on June 4, 2007 (legal fees), $375.00 on September 4, 2007 (legal fees), $224.93 on October 29, 2007 (to satisfy lien), $668.34 on November 3, 2007 (legal fees), $200.00 on April 4, 2008 (legal fees), $1,151.05 on May 7, 2008 (to correct work performed deficiently by Respondent), $390.00 on May 7, 2008 (to repair driveway), $240.00 on May 7, 2008 (to avoid lien), and $412.00 on May 12, 2008 (to install safe room door that Respondent failed to install). The total investigative costs of this case to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, for Petitioner’s case no. 2005-028129 was $276.18.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board render a Final Order as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. Respondent’s license to practice contracting (CGC 060878) be suspended for a period of three months, followed by a period of probation for two years, upon such conditions as the Board may impose, including the payment of costs and restitution. Requiring Respondent to pay financial restitution to the consumer, Edward Dueboay, in the amount of $5,116.42 for consumer harm suffered due to payment of additional expenses. Requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner’s costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time, in the amount of $276.18. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 21st day of July, 2009.
