The Issue Whether or not Respondent's real estate license should be disciplined, because, as alleged, Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises and pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction; failed to place a trust deposit with her employing broker and operated as a broker while licensed as a salesman in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(b), and (k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During times material hereto, Respondent, Barbara B. Wise, was a licensed real estate salesman in Florida, having been issued license number 0484022. The last license issued Respondent was as a salesman, c/o Grover Goheen Realty, Inc., at 414 Twelfth Avenue, North, St. Petersburg, Florida. During October 1988, Respondent, while licensed and operating as a salesman in the employ of her broker, Goheen Realty, Inc., solicited and obtained a lease listing agreement from Michael Riggins. As a result of that listing, Marsha Tenny contacted Respondent and requested assistance in obtaining a seasonal lease for the period January 1989 through April 30, 1989. Ms. Tenny made Respondent aware of her needs respecting a lease property to include wheelchair access as her husband was wheelchair bound. As a result of visiting approximately three available units, Respondent secured a seasonal lease from Michael Riggins for Marsha Tenny. The lease agreement for the Tenny's was the first rental listing that Respondent had obtained and it suffices to say that she was a novice in the area of securing lease agreements. Likewise, her employing broker did very little volume in rentals as her broker was of the opinion that the net commissions were not sufficient to defray the time and effort involved for several reasons including the limited availability of rental properties. As a result, her broker was unable to provide guidance. Pursuant to the aforementioned lease agreement, Respondent named several options by which Marsha Tenny could secure the apartment to include sending a personal check to her and after negotiating it she would in turn pay the rental fees directly to the landlord. Other options included Ms. Tenny sending separate checks to the landlord for the apartment and a check for the commission fees to her employing broker or she could deal directly with the landlord and remit a separate check to her employing broker for fees. Ms. Tenny elected to send a money order in the amount of $1,500.00 to Respondent. After she negotiated the check she received from Marsha Tenny, Respondent retained her commissions and did not pay her broker the pro-rata share that the broker was entitled to. Respondent did not inform her broker of the Riggins/Tenny lease agreement when she received the deposit from the Tennys on or about October 23, 1988. Respondent negotiated the Tenny's deposit check by depositing same into her personal account and drew a check in the amount of $1,100.00 as the rental deposit and remitted it to Mr. Riggins on October 2.1, 1988. Respondent retained the $400.00 balance as her fee. Respondent tendered her employing broker its portion of the commission fees ($174.00) on February 24, 1989. During early February 1989, the Tennys expressed dissatisfaction with the apartment and demanded a refund from Respondent. Respondent wrote the Tennys a letter of apology and submitted a money order to Marsha Tenny in the amount of $50.00 on February 3, 1989. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) As stated, Respondent was inexperienced with the rental business in Pinellas County. She was at the time undergoing other family problems, including tending to a sister in Orange County, Florida, who was very ill. At the time, Respondent commuted from Pinellas County to Orange County several times per week to visit with and assist her sister. Additionally, Respondent's office was being relocated and the staff was having to relay messages to her through her husband and other salesman employed with her broker. In addition to sending the Tennys a money order in the amount of $50.00, Respondent agreed to repay the Tennys the entire remaining balance of the finders fee that she received from the Riggins/Tenny leasing agreement as soon as she was financially able to do so. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be issued a written reprimand and placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. During the probationary period, Respondent shall enroll in an approved post-licensure course and shall satisfactorily complete the same prior to termination of probation. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 4th day of April, 1990. Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Barbara B. Wise 1059 42nd Avenue, N.E. St. Petersburg, Florida 33703 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Kenneth E. Easley, Esq. Division of Real Estate Department of Prof. Reg. 400 West Robinson Street 1940 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 1900 Suite 60 Orlando, Florida 32802 Tallahassee, FL 32399
Findings Of Fact Testimony elicited during the course of the hearing established that beginning in April of 1975, Respondent Clark showed prospective tenants various condominiums that were either for sale or lease and that he received commissions for the annual rentals of the apartments in which he was successful in renting. (See for example Commission's Exhibits 8, 9 and 10, offered and received into evidence without objection). On or about May 3, 1975, John Gill, a broker that had been associated with Dale W. Johnson Realty Corporation as a broker was notified by letter that his association with Johnson Realty Corporation was terminated as of the effective date of that letter. He was further advised to return all keys etc. to the front office and that the Commission would be notified by mail on May 5, 1975, that his association was terminated. (See Commission's Exhibit #6, received into evidence). Documents received into evidence established that Respondent Clark was associated with Global Properties Inc., of North Palm Beach at least during the period of September, 1974 through March, 1976, which of course are the same periods during which he was associated with Dale W. Johnson Realty Inc. At no time did Respondent Clark notify the Commission that he was associated with Dale W. Johnson Realty Corporation as either a broker or a salesman. Edwin J. Nelson, a broker associated with the firm Global Property Sales, Inc., testified that Respondent Clark was employed by Global as a salesman and was so employed during times material to the allegations in the administrative complaint filed herein. He testified further that while there were meetings wherein brokers and salesmen advised other brokers and those in charge at Global of their brokerage activities, Respondent Clark never advised that he had any activities with Kingman Acres, which was the condominium development in which evidence reveals that Respondent Clark showed prospective tenants condominiums for lease and/or sale. He testified that while at times there are co-brokerage agreements with various realty corporations, there was never any co-brokerage agreement with Dale W. Johnson Realty, Inc. Additionally, he testified that he had no knowledge of Respondent Clark's association in any manner with Kingman Acres or Dale W. Johnson Realty, Inc. Respondent Clark testified that he was hired by Dale W. Johnson to research the feasibility of establishing a sales program to sell condominiums at Kingman Acres and that should a feasible program develop, an agreement would be entered between the parties to set up an office to sell condominium units to prospects. He testified that the study was undertaken based on the sagging sales at Kingman Acres. An examination of the notations on checks introduced into evidence revealed that Respondent Clark was paid commissions for securing options and leases from prospective purchasers who executed options to purchase and lease agreements. Respondent Clark's explanation that notations on checks issued him represented amounts that were commissions from rentals of apartments were simply bookkeeping entries is regarded as unpersuasive and his testimony in that respect is therefore discredited. Based on his admission that he showed condominiums to persons interested in the sale and lease of such, I find that the checks were payments for commissions as noted thereon. Respecting a letter dated April 1, 1975, which in essence stated that Respondent Clark was authorized by his broker Edwin J. Nelson, of Global Property Sales, Inc., to research the feasibility of establishing a sales program at Kingman Acres is disputed by Nelson's own testimony that he had no knowledge whatsoever of Respondent Clark's association with Dale W. Johnson Realty, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law I recommend: That the registration of Dale W. Johnson be suspended for one year. That the registration of Respondent Robert V. Clark be suspended for one year. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert V. Clark Dale W. Johnson Realtek Real Estate Inc. Miles Grant Realty Corporation 1620 U.S. 1 5111 Southeast Miles Grant Road Jupiter, Florida 33458 Stuart, Florida 33494 Dave Womack, Esquire Stephen C. Frasier, Esquire Post Office Box 3009 310 Denver Avenue Tequesta, Florida Post Office Box 2210 Stuart, Florida Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, An Agency of the State of Florida, Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2827 MARTIN COUNTY vs. DOAH CASE NO. 76-1584 DALE W. JOHNSON and ROBERT V. CLARK, Respondents. /
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Willis Phillips, may challenge the specifications of the invitation to bid at issue in this proceeding? Whether the Petitioner has standing to challenge the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' proposed award of lease number 590:2166 to the Intervenor, Rutherford Rentals, Inc.?
Findings Of Fact The Department issued an Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities, lease number 590:2166 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"), seeking to rent office space in Madison, Florida. Responses to the ITB were to be filed with the Department by 2:00 p.m., March 6, 1990. Included as part of the ITB was a map of the City of Madison (hereinafter referred to as the "Map"). Joint Exhibit 1. On page 1, paragraph 3, of the Bid Submittal Form which was included as part of the ITB it was indicated that "[s]pace to be located in Madison, Florida within boundaries depicted in the attached map (Attachment B.) Bidder to mark location of site on map Attachment B." The ITB referred to the Map as a "Map showing bid zone boundaries." See page 4 of the ITB. The Map was labeled as "Attachment B" and included the following language at the bottom of the Map: "WITHIN CITY LIMITS WITH EXCEPTIONS OF UNDESIRABLE LOCATIONS AS INDICATED." The Map included two areas within the City of Madison which were cross- hatched. At the bottom of the Map the word "UNDESIRABLE" had been written in black. This word only appears below the larger of the two cross-hatched areas. The Department intended to exclude any office space located within both of the cross-hatched areas on the Map. The Petitioner spoke by telephone with Robert Smith, a Facilities Services Managers Assistant for the Department, prior to submitting a response to the ITB. The Petitioner initiated the conversation. Based upon this conversation, the Petitioner was aware that property located within either of the cross-hatched areas on the Map was excluded from consideration under the ITB. The property which the Petitioner intended to offer to the Department in response to the ITB is located in the smallest of the two cross-hatched areas on the Map. The Petitioner was informed by Mr. Smith that the property located within the smaller cross-hatched area was excluded as undesirable. Mr. Smith informed the Petitioner that he could not submit a response to the ITB offering to rent property located in the small cross-hatched area. The exclusion from consideration of property located in the areas within the City of Madison which were located in the two cross-hatched areas of the Map could have been more clearly designated. The Department's designation of the excluded areas, however, was not ambiguous. It was clear that the Petitioner's property was located in an excluded portion of the City of Madison and that the Petitioner was aware of the exclusion of his property. Despite the Petitioner's knowledged that his property was located within an excluded area, the Petitioner submitted a response dated March 6, 1990, to the ITB proposing property located in the smaller cross-hatched area. In the Petitioner's response to the ITB he did not indicate the location of his property on the Map. Instead, the Petitioner submitted a different map of a portion of the City of Madison which included his property. Rules 10-13.006 and 10-13.007, Florida Administrative Code, require that protests of the bid specifications of the Department must be filed within 72 hours of receipt of notice of the bid specifications. The ITB did not indicate that persons adversely affected by the ITB could challenge the specifications of the ITB or that any such challenge had to be filed within 72 hours of receipt of notice of the ITB. The following statement appears of the last page of the Bid Submittal Form included with the ITB and submitted by the Petitioner: I hereby certify as owner, officer, or authorized agent that I have read the Invitation to Bid Package and all its attachments, and agree to abide by all requirements and conditions contained therein. . . . This certification was signed by the Petitioner. The Department decided to award the lease to the Intervenor. The Department determined that the Petitioner's bid should be rejected because the proposed property was located in an excluded area. The Petitioner filed a Formal Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on April 23, 1990, with the Department. The Petitioner challenged the Department's proposed award of the lease to the Intervenor and asserted that he was the lowest and best bidder. The Petitioner did not challenge the specifications of the ITB. The Department filed a Motion to Dismiss on Mazy 4, 1990. The Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition and an Amended Formal Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on May 14, 1990. For the first time, the Petitioner challenged the specifications of the ITB.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting the Department's Motion to Dismiss and dismissing with prejudice the Formal Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 12th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX The Petitioner and the Department have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-2 See 9. 3-5 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 6 6-7. 7 and 11 Not relevant. 8-10 and 12-15 These proposed findings are consistent with Ms. Goodman's testimony. Ms. Goodman's opinions, however, are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although this proposed finding of fact is generally true, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Petitioner was not aware that both cross-hatched areas were excluded areas. See 9. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2 and hereby accepted. 3 5-8. 4 7. 5 6. 6 12. 7 9. 8 13 and 17. 9 4. 10 12. 11 17. 12 15. 13 16. 14 18 and hereby accepted. 15 20. 21 and hereby accepted. 22 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Cumulative. Hereby accepted. Copies Furnished To: John C. Pelham, Esquire Gary Walker, Esquire Post Office Box 13527 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3527 John L. Pearce, Esquire District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-2949 Clay A. Schnitker, Esquire Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32340 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether the Respondents are guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust, in a business transaction in violation of subsections 475.25(1)(b),(d) and (k), Florida Statutes, by virtue of the sale of the Wal-Mar Motel by Montver, Inc., to Derek and Lucy Lea.
Findings Of Fact At times material hereto, Respondents were the holders of the following Florida real estate license numbers: John H. McCain (McCain), license number 0192076; J. H. Miller license number 364090 and Dynamic Realty, Dynamic Commercial Group, license number 0044285. The licenses issued to Respondents McCain, Miller and Dynamic Realty were as broker, salesman and corporate broker, respectively. Prior to December, 1983, Derek and Lucy Lea, who are married, were residents of England. During the summer of 1983, they became interested in purchasing property in the United States and determined that in order to immigrate they would need to purchase and become owners of an American business. In keeping with their interests, they came to Florida (Pinellas County) during October, 1983 to inquire about the purchase of a motel listed by Respondent McCain. The Leas were assisted in their search by Dynamic Realty and J. Miller as selling brokers, acting as co-broker with Edna Stokes of Great Britain. The Leas learned of properties for sale in the States through advertisements, and decided that they were interested in purchasing a motel. Their preference was to own a business on the west coast of Florida because of the residence of Mrs. Lea's relatives in the Tampa area. The Leas responded to an advertisement of Edna Stokes who offered them information pertaining to Florida properties. The Leas advised Stokes of their special requirements, including a preference for the west coast of Florida, a motel business which offered a single story residence to accommodate the physical needs of Mrs. Lea's mother and a business situated off the major thoroughfares such that they could house their numerous pets and permit them to roam freely. Edna Stokes provided information on several motels in Florida including two in the Ft. Lauderdale area. Three were noted in the Clearwater/Dunedin area, one of which was under contract to another party and therefore not available. Of the remaining two, only one had the special locale and elevation requirements requested by the Leas, the Wal-Mar Motel located in Dunedin. The Leas had no prior experience in the motel business. During 1983, Mr. Lea was unemployed and his prior experience had been as a messenger in a bookmaking establishment. The major source of family support came from Mrs. Lea's employment as a computer operator. During October, 1983, the Leas began negotiations to purchase the Wal- Mar after they inspected the property late one evening. Respondent Miller made an arrangement for Mrs. Lea to revisit the Wal-Mar the next day. The Wal-Mar was listed for sale by Respondent McCain. Mrs. Lea, in the company of Respondents Miller, McCain and Kathy McCain, the daughter of Respondent McCain and the then manager of the hotel, inspected the Wal-Mar. Mrs. Lea concluded her inspection the following day. During the evening when Mrs. Lea inspected the Wal- Mar, she spoke to her husband by phone and they then decided to make an offer to purchase. Respondent Miller prepared an offer in accordance with Mrs. Lea's instructions and as a safeguard, included provisions in the purchase offer to protect the Leas' interest by allowing a suitable time for inspection and verification of both the physical condition of the premises and the financial books and records. The Leas' offer was accepted and Mrs. Lea returned to England. Respondent Miller later assembled financial data furnished by the owner and forwarded it to the Leas for their personal review. In addition to the written information passed on by Kathy McCain, Respondent Miller included an independent summary of survey results compiled by him of similar area motels respecting comparable rates. The Leas reviewed the information provided by Respondent Miller and confirmed their approval and satisfaction of the data by returning a telegram to Respondents Miller and Dynamic stating that the pertinent condition of the contract (paragraph 17E) was approved. 1/ The Leas returned to the United States and closed the transaction on December 17, 1983. They operated the Wal-Mar Motel through approximately January, 1985. The Leas enjoyed marginal success during the winter season of 1984 and made agreed mortgage payments to the seller for three months. Thereafter, they made no further payments although they continued to live and operate the motel and collected income for approximately ten additional months. They were eventually foreclosed and the property was returned to the seller. The Leas filed a civil suit and obtained a judgement against Respondent Dynamic. Dynamic did not appeal the judgement in favor of the Leas. However, the effect of that judgement is not dispositive of the issues relating to Respondent Dynamic's alleged wrongdoings herein based on, inter alia, different standards of proof in the two forums and Respondent counsel's stated position that Dynamic chose not to seek appellate review based solely on financial considerations. When the Leas contracted to purchase the motel, there was a general expectation within the tourist industry in the Tampa Bay area that the upcoming winter season would be a banner season. One factor leading to this expectation was the scheduling of the Super Bowl which was played in Tampa during 1984 and which was expected to bring a large influx of additional visitors. However, the expected increase in tourism did not occur and the area suffered a remarkably and unusually cold winter which led to a marked drop in tourism. Kathy McCain, who had agreed to assist the Leas in operating the motel and to assure a smooth transition, was unexpectedly told by the Leas that she should prepare to leave within days following the Leas purchase of the Wal-Mar. Ms. McCain inquired of the Leas whether they wanted to review certain files she maintained of past visitors such that the Leas could canvas them to determine whether or not they could generate some business through that medium and the Leas declined her offer. Kathy McCain thereafter disposed of the motel registration cards based on the Leas' wishes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint filed herein in its entirety. Recommended this 24th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints related to the real estate profession pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent Valyne Batchelor is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0311190 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent Batchelor was in care of Adventure Properties, Inc., 10800 N. Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410. Respondent Adventure Properties, Inc. was at all times pertinent to this proceeding a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0238654 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent Adventure Properties, Inc., was at the address of 10800 N. Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent Batchelor was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer of Respondent Adventure Properties, Inc. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent Batchelor was a one-half owner of Dream Home Builders of Royal Palm Beach, Inc. (Dream Home). Joel B. Wingate was in the land clearing business and had done work prior to September 1988 for Dream Home and Dream Home's subsidiary, Redi Concrete. On September 18, 1988, Dream Home, the owner of a house located at 5510 Royal Palm Beach Boulevard, Royal Palm Beach, Florida, entered into a contract to sell that house to Joel B. Wingate, his wife, Eva C. Wingate, and his mother, Sarah F. Wingate. The contract reflected that the purchase price of the property was $87,400. The contract reflected that the sum of $4,400 was received by Adventure Properties as a deposit. The balance of the purchase price was to be paid by a first mortgage in the amount of $69,900 to be obtained by the Buyers from a lending institution and by a second mortgage in favor of Seller in the amount of $13,100 that was to be amortized over a period of 30 years with a balloon payment at the end of 5 years. Respondent Batchelor executed the contract on behalf of Adventure Properties and on behalf of Dream Home. In addition, Respondent Batchelor signed a statement on the face of the contract which acknowledged receipt of the deposit that was to have been held in escrow. The sum of $4,400 was not paid over to Respondent Adventure Properties or to Respondent Batchelor by the Wingates at the time the contract was executed and there never was a deposit made into the escrow account of Adventure Properties. Instead, Mr. Wingate agreed to pay the sum of $4,400.00 prior to the closing from sums he would earn from work he was performing for Redi Concrete. All parties pertinent to this transaction, including the bank that financed the first mortgage, knew that the Wingates had not paid that sum. The Wingates applied for financing with Security First Federal for financing of the first mortgage. The application for the loan was in the name of Sarah F. Wingate because of Joel Wingate's poor credit. On September 17, 1988, a "Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Charges" was prepared by Security First Federal which estimated that the settlement charges that would be due from the Wingates at closing would equal $4,328.30. On September 19, 1988, the Wingates, as buyer, and Dream Home, as seller, executed an addendum to the contract which provided that the Seller would pay up to $4,400 in closing costs and that the amount of the second mortgage would be increased from the sum of $13,100 to the sum of $17,500. The addendum provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Seller to pay up to $4,400 in closing costs. Buyer agrees to give seller a second mortgage in the amount of $17,500. Said Mortgage to be for a term of one year from date of contract and is to be paid as follows: Buyer agrees to do work for Redi Concrete, Inc. consisting of clearing, digging of necessary fill, building and compact ion of house pads according to Palm Beach County Building Codes, all grading and trash removal at contract price of $2,450 per lot. Of this amount $1,250 is to be applied to second mortgage until mortgage is paid in full. Additionally, any unused portion of the $4,400 allowance for closing costs not used for that purpose is to be applied to the second mortgage of $17,500. If any portion of this agreement is not kept, Redi Concrete, Inc. reserves the option to impose interest at the rate of 10% per annum against any unpaid amount of second mortgage. The fact that the amount of closing costs Dream Homes agreed to pay on behalf of the Wingates ($4,400) was identical to the amount that the Wingates were supposed to pay as a deposit ($4,400) was coincidence. Respondent Batchelor executed the addendum to the contract in her capacity as an officer of Dream Home. There was no attempt on the part of Respondents to deceive the Wingates, who had agreed to this method of financing the purchase. On October 24, 1990, the transaction closed. The buyers executed the first mortgage in favor of Security First Federal Savings and Loan Association in the principal amount of $69,900, and a second purchase money mortgage in favor of Dream Home in the principal amount of $13,100. (There was no explanation as to why the second mortgage that was executed at the closing was for $13,100 instead of for $17,500. Dream Home's letter of October 27, 1988, to the Wingates, signed by Ms. Batchelor, refers to a revised second mortgage that should be executed by the Wingates and recorded. There was no evidence that the revised second mortgage was, in fact, delivered to the Wingates or executed by them.) The second mortgage note required monthly payments commencing November 24, 1988, with a balloon payment of $12,965.22 due on October 24, 1991. The Wingates were aware of the manner in which their purchase of this property was financed. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondents dealt with the Wingates in anything other than an honest, straightforward manner. The unusual owner financing involved in this transaction was an attempt to accommodate the buyers. There was no intent by Respondents to deceive the Wingates, Dream Home, Security First Federal, or any other party pertinent to these proceedings. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the Wingates, Dream Home, Security First Federal, or any other party pertinent to these proceedings was, in fact, deceived or tricked by any act of Respondents. The Wingates moved into the premises prior to the closing of the transaction. Ms. Batchelor did not give the Wingates permission to move into the house prior to closing and she did not personally inform the Wingates that they would have to pay rent if they moved in prior to closing. Ms. Batchelor had been told by her business associate, Mr. Vander Meer, that the Wingates would pay a per diem rental fee until the closing. On October 27, 1990, Ms. Batchelor, on behalf of Dream Home, advised the Wingates that they were being charged a rental fee of $27.54 per day that they had occupancy prior to the closing. For the 36 days the Wingates were in the house prior to closing, the total rental claimed came to $920.52. The Wingates disputed the amount claimed for rent and had not, as of the date of the formal hearing, paid that amount. There was no evidence that Respondents were attempting to deceive, trick, or defraud the Wingates in any manner by claiming rent for the period between the time the Wingates moved in to the house and the time of the closing. By letter dated September 20, 1989, Ms. Batchelor, on behalf of Dream Home, notified the Wingates that the second mortgage balloon payment was $12,795.52 and that, according to her records, would become due on May 1, 1990. Although this statement of the due date is inconsistent with the instrument executed by the Wingates, there was no evidence that this statement was anything other than a mistake. The Wingates have defaulted on the first and the second mortgages. When Petitioner's investigator, Sharon Thayer, conducted an office inspection and escrow audit of Respondents' offices on March 13, 1990, Respondents did not have an enclosed room within which negotiations and closings of real estate transactions could be conducted and carried on with privacy. The negotiations between the buyers and sellers in the Wingate transaction were, however, conducted in private. Buyers were prompted to file a complaint against Respondents approximately one year after the closing when an unidentified bank officer told them they may have committed a fraud. Without knowledge or complicity of Respondents, Sarah F. Wingate falsified her loan application with Security First Federal Savings and Loan Association. Respondents received no commission in regard to the Wingate transaction. Respondents moved their offices and have corrected the deficiency related to the absence of an enclosed, private area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Rule 21V-10.002, Florida Administrative Code, and consequently, Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, which finds that Respondents violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and which provides for the issuance of a letter of reprimand to said Respondents for such violations and the assessment of an administrative fine against Respondents in the amount of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 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 3rd day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3587 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-15 and 19-22 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The entry on line 501 of the copy of the closing statement introduced as Petitioner's Exhibit 8 is too faint to read. However, the copy of the closing statement included as part of Joint Exhibit 1 reflects that the entry on line 501 is the figure $4,400 and not the figure of $4,100 reflected in Petitioner's proposed finding. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 17 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 18 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although the proposed findings correctly reflect Ms. Batchelor's statement to Petitioner's investigator, that statement was made several months after the transaction and before Ms. Batchelor had had the opportunity to review her files. Other evidence regarding the addendum is found to be more credible as reflected by the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-21 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 22 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Senior Attorney Florida Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Lawrence Maxwell Fuchs, Esquire Fuchs and Jones, P.A. 590 Royal Palm Beach Boulevard Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue On September 22, 1994, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Bureau of Timeshare issued a notice to show cause to Erni Hirsch alleging that Ms. Hirsch violated various provisions of Chapter 721, Florida Statutes, regarding vacation and timeshare plans. Specifically, the agency charged that Ms. Hirsch sold multiple timeshare periods as a "successor developer" or "concurrent developer" without providing required notices and filings. The issue is whether the violations occurred and, if so, what penalties and remedial action are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Erni Hirsch resides in Hollywood, Florida. She has a bachelor's degree in elementary education and a master's degree in public administration, and she has completed a doctorate program in public administration. Prior to 1973, Ms. Hirsch was an elementary school teacher and worked on curriculum for Dade County public schools. From 1973 through 1993, she worked for the Seminole Tribe of Florida setting up adult schools on the reservations, doing grant development and then acting as business manager for the tribe. She was employed full-time by the tribe and worked sometimes sixty to seventy hours a week. She now considers herself retired. Ms. Hirsch is married and has three grown children. The family used to go camping, but in the mid-1980's Ms. Hirsch began purchasing timeshare periods for the family's vacations. She initially purchased a timeshare period in the Hollywood Beach Tower, where she lives, and used it for a beach club and to trade for timeshare periods elsewhere. Ms. Hirsch continued purchasing timeshare periods, upgrading them into better exchange groups. She purchased timeshare periods in other plans, in other cities in Florida and sold them or she traded them in exchange clubs for her personal use and that of her family and friends. While she initially sold timeshares to family and friends, she eventually started advertising timeshare periods in the newspaper, giving her name and home telephone number to contact. In response to inquiries, she sent lists of the various timeshare periods she owned; she also sent letters or information sheets explaining the concept of timesharing and the exchange programs. When she had purchasers, she suggested they get representation by an attorney or title company. She did not receive escrow deposits and did not maintain an escrow account. Any escrow money was held by the attorney or title company. In some cases when purchasers changed their minds before closing, Ms. Hirsch let them have their money back. She never received complaints from purchasers and does not know whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (agency) received complaints. As stipulated by Ms. Hirsch, she owned and transferred title from herself to others in thirty-eight timeshare periods in twenty-one timeshare plans, as follows: HOLLYWOOD BEACH HOTEL AND TOWER Project No. PRXI000584: M. Racoma and Helen T. Racoma, No. 305, Wk 25, Deed Recorded 10/11/91 Rolando V. and Concepcion Barcenilla, No. 305, Wk 26, Deed Recorded 10/11/91 HOLLYWOOD BEACH HOTEL Project No. PRXI000186 Jack Sweetser and Virginia Sweetser, No. 604, Wk 22, Deed Recorded 10/4/91 Michael Mikola, No. 603, Wk 27, Deed Recorded 10/23/91 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE I Project No. PRTI000603 Gregory M. Makozy and Maria Makozy, No. B-04, Wk 45, Deed Recorded 9/21/93 Danielle Hirsch, No. A-08, Wk 24, Deed Recorded 2/23/94 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE III Project No. PRTI000608 Paul A. Pritchard and Faith M. Pritchard, No. L9, Wk 13, Deed Recorded 7/23/93 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE IV Project No. PRTI000609 Leonard A. and Louise E. Bussiere, No. K-09, Wk 6, Deed Recorded 4/7/92 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE V Project No. PRTI000610 Sanford Hirsch, No. J-09, Wk 36, Deed Recorded 4/13/94 Ronald T. and Helen D. Reichenbaum, No. G-06, Wk 51, Deed Recorded 11/19/92 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE VII Project No. PRTI000612 Roger L. Deskins, No. P-05, Wk 7, Deed Recorded 4/22/93 Anthony B. and Valerie A. Leatheart, No. X-10, Wk 52, Deed Recorded 2/13/92 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE IX Project No. PRTI000565 Richard D. Penner and Lorna R. Penner, No. U-10, Wk 21, Deed Recorded 3/25/93 Danielle Hirsch, No. V-05, Wk 31, Deed Recorded 2/23/94 Leo and Moreen T. Blanchette, No. T-08, Wk 39, Deed Recorded 9/24/92 WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, PHASE XI Project No. PRTI000651 Richard and Eileen Wells, No. Q-11, Wk 22, Deed Recorded 1/22/92 RESORT WORLD OF ORLANDO, PHASE I Project No. PRXMI00376 Mitchel Vogel and Bonnie Vogel, No. B-105, Wk 45, Deed Recorded 1/8/93 Delores Miller, No. 212, Wk 46, Deed Recorded 12/23/92 R. P. and M. O. Gardiner, No. B-107, Wk 44, Deed Recorded 7/27/92 R. P. and M. O. Gardiner, No. A-115, Wk 43, Deed Recorded 7/27/92 Annette Carmona, No. C-211, Wk 33, Deed Recorded 9/23/92 Philip J. and Shelagh M. Price, No. 214, Wk 14, Deed Recorded 9/23/92 RESORT WORLD OF ORLANDO, PHASE II Project No. PRXMI00620 Phase II (A) Peter J. and Madeline A. Nolan, No. A-217, Wk 29, Deed Recorded 9/22/92 Phase II (B) George P. and Karen L. Wong, Trustees, No. E-222, Wk 52, Deed Recorded 7/92 Phase II (C) Gregory P. and Carol Gordon, No. C-234, Wk 23, Deed Recorded 8/7/91 Phase II (G) Lillie R. Long, No. 274, Wk 41, Deed Recorded 11/5/92 THE OAKS AT RESORT WORLD, PHASE IV Anthony M. and Debra A. Kozar, No. 425, Wk 15, Deed Recorded 12/2/92 THE SPAS AT RESORT WORLD, PHASE V Mark J. Wilma, Anna E. Wilma, William K. Zelenc and Nicolett J. Zelenc, No. 527, Wk 11, Deed Recorded 6/24/93 CLUB SEVILLA Horace Curry and Sandra E. Curry, No. 321, Wk 44, Deed Recorded 9/20/91 HIGH POINT WORLD RESORT, PHASE I Marc Van Hove, No. 105, Wk 41, Deed Recorded 3/12/92 VISTANA FALLS CONDOMINIUM Robert L. and Hein T. Hopkins, No. 220, Wk 24, Deed Recorded 11/11/93 John T. and Deborah L. Ryan, No. 208, Wk 36, Deed Recorded 7/13/93 VISTANA CONDOMINIUM Project No. PRXPI00605 Prabhas and Madulika Kejriwal, No A-12, Wk 27, Deed Recorded 5/21/93 ORANGE LAKE COUNTRY CLUB VILLAS Project No. PRXPI00325 James O. and Hildegard J.L. Buss, No. 225, Wk 51, Deed Recorded 9/7/93 CLUB ORLANDO VACATION RESORT I Project No. PRTI000652 Mitchel and Bonnie Vogel, No. 144, Wk 18 (even years), Deed Recorded 1/8/93 SAND AND SURF, A CONDOMINIUM Project No. PRXMI00398 Clearwater Properties, Inc., No. 255, Wks 51/52, Deed Recorded 8/3/90 SEVEN SEAS, A CONDOMINIUM Project No. PRXI000431 Bing S. Laj, No. 310, Wk 51, Deed Recorded 10/6/89 Barbara Uzmack, No. 108, Wk 32, Deed Recorded 8/29/88 Each of the timeshare plans is located in the State of Florida. Except for the two grantees named Hirsch, there is no evidence of kinship between Ms. Hirsch and the purchasers. At all times material to the allegations of the order to show cause, each of the timeshare plans was comprised of more than seven timeshare periods over a period of at least three years. The initial purchase price was $1,000 or more in thirty-four of the timeshare periods sold by Ms. Hirsch; in four periods the purchase price was less than $1,000. For each timeshare period the purchaser from Ms. Hirsch was contractually and statutorily obligated to pay a recurring maintenance fee. Ms. Hirsch's income from her sales of timeshare periods was: YEAR TIMESHARE GROSS INCOME TIMESHARE NET INCOME 1995 $ 7,000 ($2,000) 1994 $ 70,000 ($3,000) 1993 $ 75,000 $3,893.02 1992 $109,000 $5,981.12 1991 $ 25,000 $ 500.00 Ms. Hirsch stipulates that, as charged in the notice to show cause with respect to the timeshare periods she offered and sold, she: did not file any public offering statements with the Petitioner for review and approval with respect to the timeshare periods and timeshare plans prior to offering them to the public; did not provide her timeshare purchasers with a public offering statement that had been approved by the Petitioner with respect to the timeshare periods and timeshare plans prior to closing on sales; did not establish an escrow account with an approved escrow agent as to each timeshare plan; did not at any time place all funds or other property received from or on behalf of purchasers into an escrow account with respect to the timeshare plans; closed on sales of the timeshare periods prior to providing her timeshare purchasers with an approved public offering statement; and did not provide Petitioner with the names and addresses of the persons to whom she had sold timeshare periods. During the relevant period Ms. Hirsch did not incorporate as a business, maintain an office outside of her home, maintain a business telephone, or otherwise operate in other than her own individual capacity. Where she lives she is not permitted to operate an office out of her home. The agency began investigating Ms. Hirsch's timeshare sales activities upon complaint from Michael Lucas of American Timeshare Resales, in the Orlando/Kissimmee area. Sometime in 1993, Ms. Hirsch received a notice of the agency's investigation. After being informed of the agency's concern, Ms. Hirsch contacted someone in Orlando with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Division of Real Estate. From that contact she understood that she was not subject to regulation as long as she was selling timeshare periods that she owned herself. She also contacted an attorney whom she understood specialized in condominium and timeshare law. She received an opinion letter from another attorney in the same firm, Becker and Poliakoff, P.A. The letter stated that arguably she was not a successor or concurrent developer because she purchased her timeshare periods from individuals who were not themselves developers. The letter concluded there were no cases directly on point and the agency might claim that her sales in the ordinary course of business qualified her as a developer. (Respondent's exhibit no. 2) When the agency did, indeed, pursue its administrative enforcement action, Ms. Hirsch ceased buying and selling timeshare periods. At the time of hearing she had two left, which she used, and she disavowed any further interest in acquiring more. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is evident that what started as a family vacation program developed into a business pursuit. It is impossible to ignore the volume of the timeshare periods being sold, the active advertising campaign and the gross income being generated (over $100,000 in one year, 1992). The fact that there were net losses or very small net gains only establishes that large sums were being spent in the enterprise. The evidence belies any claim that all of the timeshare periods were acquired by Ms. Hirsch for her own occupancy, even if the trades for other periods in other plans are considered. Ms. Hirsch did not intend to commit any violations and she did not intend to deprive her purchasers of their statutory rights. As a layperson, albeit well-educated and experienced in financial matters, she obviously never considered herself a "developer" of any sort; she relied on advice of counsel in that regard as well. It is evident that Ms. Hirsch unwittingly slipped within the regulatory reach of timeshare law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Ms. Hirsch violated Sections 721.07, 721.08 and 721.10, Florida Statutes, and ordering that she cease and desist. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1996, in 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 21st day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0951 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. 4.-5. Adopted in paragraph 6. 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. 7.-10. Adopted in paragraph 8. Accepted as a conclusion of law. Adopted in paragraph 9. Accepted, but unnecessary. The figures speak for themselves. 14.-16. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 5 and 15. 17.-18. Rejected as argument, but incorporated in part in conclusions of law. Rejected. Respondent's testimony is credited, but only to show that she made some attempts to determine her legal obligations. It is accepted that the Division of Real Estate does not regulate timeshares; it does, however, regulate persons who sell or offer to sell real property. Adopted in paragraph 13. 21.-23. Adopted in part in paragraph 13; otherwise rejected as argument or unnecessary. 24. Adopted in substance in paragraph 15. 25.-26. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 5. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Rejected as unsubstantiated by the evidence (as to whether she contacted any agency prior to reselling any timeshare period). Accepted that she understood that to be the agency's response. See paragraph 13. 6.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. 11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 11. 12.-14. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12, except that she received notice sometime in 1993. 18.-19. Adopted in part in paragraph 13. The opinion letter was more equivocal than characterized in this proposed finding. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Respondent did not contact counsel until after she was contacted by the agency. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The purchase price, only, was less than $1,000. 22.-23. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 24.-25. Addressed in conclusion of law no. 26. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura L. Glenn, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tracy Hirsch, Esquire John Militana, Esquire Militana, Militana and Militana, P.A. 8801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 101 Miami Shores, Florida 33138 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 W. James Norred, Acting Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Pursuant to chapter 287, Florida Statutes, and section 255.25, Florida Statutes,1/ the Department of Management Services (DMS) released an Invitation to Negotiate for a contract to provide tenant broker and real estate consulting services to the State of Florida under Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-12/13-007 (ITN). After evaluating the replies, negotiating with five vendors, and holding public meetings, DMS posted a notice of intent to award a contract to CBRE, Inc. (CBRE) and Vertical Integration, Inc. (Vertical). At issue in this proceeding is whether DMS’s intended decision to award a contract for tenant broker and real estate consulting services to CBRE and Vertical is contrary to DMS’s governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the ITN’s specifications, or was otherwise clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Background5/ DMS released Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-12/13-007 on March 18, 2013, and released a revised version of the ITN on May 14, 2013, for the selection of a company to provide tenant broker and real estate consulting services to the State of Florida. Thirteen vendors responded to the ITN. The replies were evaluated by five people: Bryan Bradner, Deputy Director of REDM of DMS; Beth Sparkman, Bureau Chief of Leasing of DMS; Rosalyn (“Roz”) Ingram, Chief of Procurement, Land and Leasing of the Department of Corrections; Clark Rogers, Purchasing and Facilities Manager of the Department of Revenue; and Janice Ellison, Section Lead in the Land Asset Management Section of the Department of Environmental Protection. Five vendors advanced to the negotiation stage: Cushman (score of 87), JLL (score of 87), CBRE (score of 87), Vertical (score of 89), and DTZ (score of 86). DTZ is not a party to this proceeding. The negotiation team consisted of Beth Sparkman, Bryan Bradner, and Roz Ingram. Janice Ellison participated as a subject matter expert. DMS held a first round of negotiations and then held a public meeting on July 16, 2013. DMS held a second round of negotiations and then held a second public meeting on August 1, 2013. A recording of this meeting is not available, but minutes were taken. Also on August 1, 2013, DMS posted Addendum 8, the Request for Best and Final Offers. This Addendum contained the notice that “Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3) . . . shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes.” The vendors each submitted a BAFO. DMS held a final public meeting on August 14, 2013, at which the negotiation team discussed the recommendation of award. All three members of the negotiation team recommended Vertical as one of the two vendors to receive the award. For the second company, two of the three negotiation team members recommended CBRE and one negotiation team member recommended JLL. DMS prepared a memorandum, dated August 14, 2013, describing the negotiation team’s recommendation of award. The memorandum comprises the following sections: Introduction; The Services; Procurement Process (subsections for Evaluations and Negotiations); Best value (subsections for Selection Criteria, Technical Analysis, Price Analysis, and Negotiation Team’s Recommendation); and Conclusion. Attached to the memorandum as Attachment A was a memorandum dated April 30, 2013, appointing the evaluation and negotiation committees, and attached as Attachment B was a spreadsheet comparing the vendors’ BAFOs. DMS posted the Notice of Intent to Award to CBRE and Vertical on August 16, 2013. Cushman and JLL timely filed notices of intent to protest the Intent to Award. On August 29, 2013, JLL timely filed a formal protest to the Intent to Award. On August 30, 2013, Cushman timely filed a formal protest to the Intent to Award. An opportunity to resolve the protests was held on September 9, 2013, and an impasse was eventually reached. On October 10, 2013, DMS forwarded the formal protest petitions to DOAH. An Order consolidating JLL’s protest and Cushman’s protest was entered on October 15, 2013. Scope of Real Estate Services in the ITN Prior to the statutory authority of DMS to procure real estate brokerage services, agencies used their own staff to negotiate private property leases. Section 255.25(h), Florida Statutes, arose out of the legislature’s desire for trained real estate professionals to assist the State of Florida with its private leasing needs. The statutorily mandated use of tenant brokers by agencies has saved the state an estimated $46 million dollars. The primary purpose of the ITN was to re-procure the expiring tenant broker contracts to assist state agencies in private sector leasing transactions. Once under contract, the selected vendors compete with each other for the opportunity to act on behalf of individual agencies as their tenant broker, but there is no guarantee particular vendors will get any business. The core of the services sought in the ITN was lease transactions. The ITN also sought to provide a contract vehicle to allow vendors to provide real estate consulting services, including strategies for long and short-term leases, space planning, and space management as part of the negotiation for private leases. As part of providing real estate consulting services, vendors would also perform independent market analyses (IMAs) and broker opinions of value (BOVs) or broker price opinions (BPOs). In almost all instances, this would be provided at no charge as part of the other work performed for a commissionable transaction under the resulting contract. However, the resulting contract was designed to allow agencies to ask for an IMA or BOV to be performed independently from a commissionable transaction. In addition to the primary leasing transactions, the contract would also allow state agencies to use the vendors for other services such as the acquisition and disposition of land and/or buildings. These services would be performed according to a Scope of Work prepared by the individual agency, with compensation at either the hourly rates (set as ceiling rates in the ITN), set fees for the service/project, or at the percentage commission rate negotiated between the vendor and the individual agency. However, these services were ancillary to the main purpose of the contract, which was private leasing. In Florida, most state agencies are not authorized to hold title to land. However, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) serves as staff for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“Board”), which holds title to land owned by the State of Florida. In that capacity, DEP buys and sells land and other properties on behalf of the Board. DEP recently began using the current DMS tenant broker contract for acquisitions and dispositions. The process was cumbersome under the current contract, so DEP asked to participate in the ITN in order to make the contract more suitable for their purposes. The ITN was revised to include DEP’s proposed changes, and DMS had Ms. Ellison serve first as an evaluator and later as a subject matter expert. At hearing, Ms. Ellison testified that she was able to participate fully, that her input was taken seriously, and that the proposed contract adequately addressed DEP’s concerns. While DEP anticipated that under the proposed contract it would use more BOVs than it had previously, there was no guarantee that DEP would use the proposed contract. DEP is not obligated to use the contract and maintains the ability to procure its own tenant brokers. Additionally, administration and leadership changes may cause a switch of using in-house agency employees instead of tenant brokers to perform real estate acquisition and disposition services. Specifics of the ITN The ITN directed vendors to submit a reply with the following sections: a cover letter; completed attachments; pass/fail requirements; Reply Evaluation Criteria; and a price sheet. The Reply Evaluation Criteria included Part A (Qualifications) and Part B (Business Plan). Qualifications were worth 40 points, the Business Plan was worth 50 points, and the proposed pricing was worth 10 points. For the Business Plan, the ITN requested a detailed narrative description of how the vendors planned to meet DMS’s needs as set forth in section 3.01, Scope of Work. The ITN requested that vendors describe and identify the current and planned resources and employees to be assigned to the project and how the resources would be deployed. Section 3.01, Scope of Work, states that the primary objective of the ITN is to “identify brokers to assist and represent the Department and other state agencies in private sector leasing transactions.” The ITN states that the contractor will provide state agencies and other eligible users with real estate transaction and management services, which include “document creation and management, lease negotiation and renegotiation, facility planning, construction oversight, and lease closeout, agency real estate business strategies, pricing models related to relocation services, project management services, acquisition services, and strategic consulting.” Id. The ITN also specifies: Other real estate consulting services such as property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding or property, property auctions and direct sales or those identified in the reply or negotiation process and made part of the Contract (e.g., financial services, facilities management services, lease v. buy analyses). The ITN lists the following duties the contractor will perform: Act as the state’s tenant broker, to competitively solicit, negotiate and develop private sector lease agreements; Monitor landlord build-out on behalf of state agencies; Provide space management services, using required space utilization standards; Provide tenant representation services for state agencies and other eligible users during the term of a lease; Identify and evaluate as directed strategic opportunities for reducing occupancy costs through consolidation, relocation, reconfiguration, capital investment, selling and/or the building or acquisition of space; Assist with property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding property, property auctions and direct sales; and Provide requested related real estate consulting services. The ITN set the commission percentage for new leases at 4 percent for years 1-10 and 2 percent for each year over 10 years; 2 percent for lease renewals, extensions, or modifications; and 2 percent for warehouse or storage space leases. Id. For “other services,” the ITN states: With respect to all other services (e.g., space management services, general real estate consulting services, property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding or property, property auctions and direct sales), compensation will be as outlined in an agency prepared Scope of Work and will be quoted based on hourly rates (set as ceiling rates in this ITN), set fees for the service/project or by percentage commission rate as offered and negotiated by the broker and the using agency. The ITN also required that vendors specify the number of credit hours to be given annually to DMS. Each vendor gives a certain number of credit hours at the start of each year under the contract. The state earns additional credit hours as the vendors perform transactions. DMS manages the pool of accumulated credit hours and gives them to individual agencies to use on a case-by-case basis as payment for individual projects. These credit hours are commonly allocated to pay for IMAs and BOVs that are not part of commissionable transactions. With the exception of one legislatively mandated project, DMS has never exhausted its pool of credit hours. The ITN further specified that IMAs and BOVs must be offered at no cost when performed as part of a commissionable transaction. Historically, most IMAs and BOVs are performed as part of a commissionable transaction. They have only been performed separately from a commissionable transaction a handful of times under the current contract, and many of these were still provided at no cost through the allocation of free credit hours available to the agencies. Therefore, most IMAs and BOVs to be performed under the proposed contract will likely be at no cost. The ITN states that points to be awarded under the price criterion will be awarded based on the number of annual credit hours offered and the commission rate paid per transaction per hour of commission received. The ITN further provides that DMS will evaluate and rank replies in order to establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible to award, and then the team will proceed to negotiations. Regarding negotiations, the ITN states: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria and the requirements of this solicitation. The selection criteria include, but are not limited to, the Respondent’s demonstrated ability to effectively provide the services, technical proposal and price. The Department reserves the right to utilize subject matter experts, subject matter advisors and multi-agency or legislative advisors to assist the negotiation team with finalizing the section criteria. The negotiation process will also include negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contract. The ITN also states: At the conclusion of negotiations, the Department will issue a written request for best and final offer(s) (BAFOs) to one or more of the Respondents with which the negotiation team has conducted negotiations. At a minimum, based upon the negotiation process, the BAFOs must contain: A revised Statement of Work; All negotiated terms and conditions to be included in Contract; and A final cost offer. The Respondent’s BAFO will be delivered to the negotiation team for review. Thereafter, the negotiation team will meet in a public meeting to determine which offer constitutes the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria. The Department does not anticipate reopening negotiations after receiving BAFOs, but reserves the right to do so if it believes doing so will be in the best interests of the State. The ITN and draft contract permit subcontractors to perform under the contract and provide an avenue for a contractor to add subcontractors by submitting a written request to DMS’s contract manager with particular information. Best and Final Offers After the conclusion of negotiations, the negotiation team requested each vendor to submit a BAFO, to be filled out in accordance with the RBAFO format. The RBAFO noted that each vendor would get a set percentage commission for leasing transactions, but asked vendors to submit their prices for IMAs, BOVs, and BPOs performed outside a commissionable transaction and to submit the number of annual credit hours vendors would give DMS at the start of the new contract. In an effort to increase potential savings to the state, DMS lowered the percentage rates of the commissions for lease transactions in the RBAFO below the rates initially set in the ITN. By selecting only two vendors instead of three, the additional potential volume for each vendor on the contract could support the lower commission rates being requested of tenant brokers. The state would ultimately save money due to the impact of the reduced commissions on the overall economic structure of each lease. Beth Sparkman, Bureau Chief of Leasing of DMS, expounded on the rationale for reducing the number of vendors under the new contract to two: The Court: To me, it’s counterintuitive that having fewer vendors would result in more favorable pricing for the state of Florida; and yet you said that was the anticipated result of reducing the number of vendors from three to two – The Witness: Correct. The Court: -- for the new contract. I’m unclear. Tell me the basis for the team’s anticipation that having fewer vendors would result in better pricing. The Witness: When the original ITN was released, it had the same percentages in there that are under the current contract. And I’ll talk, for context, new leases, which right now is at 4 percent. So the discussion was – and 4 percent is typical of the industry. That’s typical for what the industry pays across the board. So the desire was to reduce the commission, to reduce those commission amounts to drive that percentage down. So we went out with the first BAFO that had a range that said for leases that cost between zero – and I can’t remember – zero and a half million, what would your percentage be? Thinking that when we had a tiered arrangement, those percentages would come down. They really didn’t. So when we sat down as a team and discussed: Well, why didn’t they – and you know, because typical is 4 percent. So we came back and said: Well, if we reduce the percentage on new leases to 3.25 but restrict the reward to two vendors, each vendor has the potential to make as much money as they would have made at 4 percent, but the savings would be rolled back into the state. Each of the five vendors invited to negotiate submitted a BAFO, agreeing as part of their submissions to comply with the terms and conditions of the draft of the proposed contract and agreeing to the lowered set percentage commission rates in the RBAFO. The RBAFO listed selection criteria by which the vendors would be chosen, to further refine the broad criteria listed in the ITN. The RBAFO listed the following nine items as selection criteria: performance measures (if necessary), sliding scale/cap, IMA set fee, broker’s opinion of value, balance of line (can be quoted per hour or lump sum), contract concerns, credit hours (both annual and per deal hour), hourly rates, and vendor experience and capability. CBRE’s BAFO submission followed the format indicated in the RBAFO, but CBRE included an additional section giving its proposed commission rates for acquisitions and dispositions of land. These rates were also submitted by other vendors at other parts of the procurement process, but CBRE was the only vendor to include such rates as part of its BAFO submission. DMS considered this addition a minor irregularity that it waived. In its BAFO submission, Cushman offered a three-tiered approach to its pricing for IMAs and BOVs. For the first tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs for free as part of a commissionable transaction. This is redundant, as the ITN required all vendors to perform IMAs and BOVs at no cost when part of a commissionable transaction. For the second tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs at no cost when the user agency has previously hired Cushman on tenant representative work. Ms. Sparkman testified that this provision was unclear, as Cushman did not define the scope of this provision or what amount of work qualified the agency for free services. For the third tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs for $240 when not part of a commissionable transaction for an agency with which it had never done business. Best Value Determination The five BAFOs were sent to the negotiation team for review on August 8, 2013, and on August 14, 2013, the team met in a public meeting to discuss the BAFOs, consider the selection criteria, discuss the team’s award recommendation, and draft a written award recommendation memorandum. During the August 14, 2013, meeting the team determined that CBRE and Vertical represented the best value to the state, by a majority vote for CBRE and by a unanimous vote for Vertical. Ms. Sparkman stated at the meeting that, from her perspective, CBRE and Vertical represented a better value than the other vendors because they were more forward thinking in their long term business strategies for managing Florida’s portfolio. Also at this meeting, Ms. Sparkman noted that CBRE’s prices for IMAs and BOVs were somewhat high but that she would attempt to convince CBRE to lower its prices during the contract execution phase. This was part of an attempt to equalize costs to ensure user agencies selected vendors based on individual needs rather than cost. However, CBRE represented the best value to the state regardless of whether its pricing changed. At hearing, Ms. Sparkman testified that if CBRE had refused to lower its pricing, DMS would still have signed a contract with them based on the pricing submitted in its BAFO. Ms. Sparkman also stated at the public meeting that if she were unable to come to contract with both CBRE and Vertical, she would arrange for another public meeting to select a third vendor with whom to proceed to the contract execution phase. This statement did not refer to DMS selecting a third vendor to replace CBRE should CBRE refuse to lower its price, but rather reflected the possibility that during the contract execution phase, DMS and either one of the vendors could potentially be unable to sign a contract because the vendor was unwilling to execute the written terms and conditions. The “contract negotiations” referenced during the public meeting are the remaining processes to be worked out during the contract execution phase and are distinct and separate from the negotiation phase. At hearing, Ms. Sparkman testified that in the past, vendors have refused to sign a contract because their legal counsel was unwilling to sign off on what the business representatives agreed to. Thus, if either CBRE or Vertical refused to sign the contract altogether, DMS would potentially have selected a third-place vendor in order to have a second vendor on the contract, according to Ms. Sparkman. International experience weighed in favor of CBRE and Vertical, according to team member comments made at the public meeting. Although the phrase “international experience” was not specifically listed in the selection criteria of the ITN or RBAFO, many vendors highlighted their international experience as part of the general category of vendor experience. Vendor experience and capability is specified in both the ITN and RBAFO as part of the selection criteria. Ms. Sparkman testified that international experience is indicative of high quality general vendor experience because international real estate market trends change more rapidly than domestic market trends. None of the negotiation team members recommended Cushman for a contract award, and in fact, Cushman's name was not even discussed at the award meeting. The Award Memorandum Also during the August 14, 2013, public meeting the negotiation team prepared a memorandum setting forth the negotiation team’s best value recommendation of CBRE and Vertical, and many of its reasons for the recommendation. There was no requirement that the memorandum list every single reason that went into the decision. For example, the memorandum did not state that the team found CBRE and Vertical’s focus on long term strategies more impressive than Cushman’s focus on past performance under the current contract. The award memorandum included a “Selection Criteria” section which simply repeated the nine selection criteria that had been previously identified in the RBAFO. The memorandum then went on to include a section labeled “B. Technical Analysis” that stated: Analysis of pricing is provided in section C below. As to the remaining selection criteria items, the Team identified the following key elements for the service to be provided: Long term strategies Key performance indicators Management of the portfolio Top ranked vendors had comprehensive business plans Pricing on the BOV and IMAs. The selection criteria provided above were used by the Team to make its best value recommendation. Ms. Sparkman testified that while the choice of wording may have been imprecise, the items listed in the Technical Analysis section were simply elaborations of the selection criteria in the ITN and RBAFO, and not new criteria. The first four are subsumed within vendor experience and capability, and the fifth was specifically listed in the RBAFO. Indeed, Cushman’s Senior Managing Director testified at hearing that Cushman had addressed the first four items in their presentation to DMS during the negotiation phase to demonstrate why Cushman should be chosen for the contract. The memorandum failed to note that CBRE had included non-solicited information in its BAFO regarding proposed rates for the acquisition and disposition of land. However, the negotiation team considered CBRE’s inclusion of these proposed rates a minor irregularity that could be waived in accordance with the ITN and addressed in the contract execution phase, since those rates were for ancillary services, and there was no guaranteed work to be done for DEP under that fee structure. The memorandum included a chart, identified as Attachment B, that compared the proposed number of credit hours and some of the pricing for IMAs and BOVs submitted by the vendors in their BAFOs. The chart listed Cushman’s price for IMAs and BOVs as $240 and failed to include all the information regarding the three-tiered approach to IMAs and BOVs Cushman listed in its BAFO. However, Ms. Sparkman testified that the chart was meant to be a side-by-side basic summary that compared similar information, not an exhaustive listing. The Cushman Protest Negotiations After Award of the Contract Cushman alleges that DMS’s selection of CBRE violates the ITN specifications because DMS selected CBRE with the intent of conducting further negotiations regarding price, which provided CBRE with an unfair advantage. Cushman further argues that the procedure of awarding to one vendor and then possibly adding another vendor if contract negotiations fail violates Florida’s statutes and the ITN. Amended Pet. ¶¶ 23, 28 & 31. Section 2.14 of the ITN specifically reserved DMS's right to reopen negotiations after receipt of BAFOs if it believed such was in the best interests of the state. Specifically, section 2.14 A. provides: The highest ranked Respondent(s) will be invited to negotiate a Contract. Respondents are cautioned to propose their best possible offers in their initial Reply as failing to do so may result in not being selected to proceed to negotiations. If necessary, the Department will request revisions to the approach submitted by the top-rated Respondent(s) until it is satisfied that the contract model will serve the state’s needs and is determined to provide the best value to the state. The statements made by Ms. Sparkman at the August 14, 2013, public meeting and in the award memorandum, that DMS would attempt to reduce CBRE's prices for ancillary services during the contract execution process were not contrary to the ITN or unfair to the other vendors. Both Ms. Sparkman and Mr. Bradner, the two negotiation team members who voted to award to CBRE, testified that they recommended CBRE as providing the best value even considering its arguably higher prices for ancillary services. Ms. Sparkman further confirmed that even if CBRE refused to lower its prices during the contract execution phase, DMS would still sign the contract, as CBRE's proposal would still represent the best value to the state. The anticipated efforts to obtain lower prices from CBRE were simply an attempt to obtain an even better best value for the state. Ms. Sparkman also testified that section 2.14 F. allowed continued negotiations, even though it was silent as to timeframe. Paragraph F states: In submitting a Reply a Respondent agrees to be bound to the terms of Section 5 – General Contract Conditions (PUR 1000) and Section 4 – Special Contract Conditions. Respondents should assume those terms will apply to the final contract, but the Department reserves the right to negotiate different terms and related price adjustments if the Department determines that it provides the best value to the state. Ms. Sparkman also cited section 2.14 I. as authority for reopening negotiations following receipt of the BAFO’s. That section provides: The Department does not anticipate reopening negotiations after receiving the BAFOs, but reserves the right to do so if it believes doing so will be in the best interests of the state. Ms. Sparkman’s statement that if DMS failed, for any reason, to successfully contract with either of the two vendors selected, it would consider pulling in another vendor, is not inconsistent with the clear language of the ITN. Selection Criteria Cushman alleges that DMS used criteria to determine the awards that were not listed in the ITN or the RBAFO. Amended Pet. ¶ 25. Section 2.14 E of the ITN established broad selection criteria, stating: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria and the requirements of this solicitation. The selection criteria include, but are not limited to, the Respondent's demonstrated ability to effectively provide the services, technical proposal and price. The Department reserves the right to utilize subject matter experts, subject matter advisors and multi-agency or legislative advisors to assist the negotiation team with finalizing the selection criteria. The negotiation process will also include negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contract. (emphasis added). Following the negotiations, and with the assistance of its subject matter expert, the negotiation team provided in the RBAFO additional clarity as to the selection criteria, and identified the "Basis of Award/Selection Criteria" as follows: Performance Measures (if necessary) Sliding scale/cap IMA set fee Broker's opinion of value Balance of line (can be quoted per hour or lump sum) Contract concerns Credit hours (both annual and per deal hour) Hourly rates Vendor experience and capability The foregoing selection criteria, as well as the selection criteria stated initially in the ITN, make clear that pricing was only one of the criteria upon which the award was to be made. Indeed, Cushman's representative, Larry Richey, acknowledged during his testimony that criteria such as "Performance Measures," "Contract Concerns," and "Vendor Experience and Capability" did not refer to pricing, but rather to the expected quality of the vendor's performance if awarded the contract. As the principal draftsman of the ITN and DMS's lead negotiator, Ms. Sparkman explained that the RBAFO's statement of the selection criteria was intended to provide greater detail to the broad selection criteria identified in the ITN, and was used by the negotiation team in making its best value determination. Ms. Sparkman further testified that the best value determination resulted from the negotiation team's lengthy and extensive evaluation of the vendors' initial written replies to the ITN, review of the vendors' qualifications and comprehensive business plans, participation in approximately two and a half hours of oral presentations by each vendor (including a question and answer session with regard to the proposed implementation and management of the contracts), and a review of the vendors' BAFOs. Applying the selection criteria contained in the ITN and the RBAFO, the negotiation team selected Vertical for several reasons, including its performance indicators, employees with ADA certification, computer programs and employee training not offered by other vendors, its presence in Florida, and the strength of its business plan and presentation. Similarly, the negotiation team selected CBRE for an award based on the strength of its ITN Reply, its broad look at long-term strategies, its key performance indicators, the experience and knowledge of its staff, the comprehensiveness of its proposal and business plan, size of its firm, and creative ideas such as use of a scorecard in transactions. Ms. Sparkman observed that both Vertical and CBRE specifically identified the CBRE staff who would manage the state's business and daily transactions, while it was not clear from Cushman's ITN reply and related submissions who would actually be working on the account. Cushman likewise did not discuss out-of-state leases and how such leases were going to be handled, which was a significant concern because DMS considered out-of-state leases to be particularly complex. Ms. Sparkman also noted that with respect to the vendors' business plans, both Vertical and CBRE focused primarily on strategic realignment and plans for the future, whereas Cushman discussed their current transactions at length, but did not demonstrate forward thinking to the negotiation team. Cushman's reply to the ITN also included various discrepancies noted at the final hearing. While Cushman's ITN reply identifies a Tallahassee office, Cushman does not in fact have a Tallahassee office, but instead listed its subcontractor’s office.6/ Additionally, two of the business references presented in Cushman's ITN Reply appear not in fact to be for Cushman, but instead for its subcontractor, Daniel Wagnon, as Cushman's name was clearly typed in above Mr. Wagnon's name after the references were written. Finally, Cushman failed to provide in its ITN Reply the required subcontractor disclosure information for at least one of its "Project Management Partners," Ajax Construction. Based on all of the above, DMS's decision to award contracts to Vertical and CBRE as providing the best value to the state was not arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or contrary to competition. Simply stated, and as the negotiation team determined, the submissions by Vertical and CBRE were more comprehensive and reasonably found to offer better value to the state than Cushman's submission. Indeed the negotiation team did not even mention Cushman as a potential contract awardee, but instead identified only Vertical, CBRE and JLL in their deliberations as to best value. Cushman's argument that DMS award memorandum improperly relies on the following as "key elements" related to services does not alter this analysis: Long term strategies Key performance indicators Management of the portfolio Top ranked vendors had comprehensive business plans Pricing on the BOV and IMAs. While Ms. Sparkman acknowledged that the choice of language in the memorandum could have been better, it is clear that the foregoing are indeed "elements" of the selection criteria stated in the ITN and RBAFO, as the first four elements plainly relate to the vendors' ability to effectively provide the services, their technical proposal, performance measures, and vendor experience and capability, while the last element relates to the pricing portion of the criteria. Cushman also argues that the award memorandum failed to inform the final decision-maker that Cushman offered IMAs and BOVs at no charge when Cushman was engaged in a commissionable transaction or was performing other work for an agency under the contract. As a result, Cushman asserts, the Deputy Secretary was provided with inaccurate information relating to price. Cushman's argument that the award process was flawed because the pricing chart attached to the award memorandum did not accurately reflect Cushman's proposed pricing is without merit. As Ms. Sparkman testified, the chart was prepared by the negotiation team to provide for the decision-maker an apples-to- apples broad summary comparison of the vendor's proposed pricing for the proposed ancillary services. The chart was not intended to identify all variations or conditions for potential different pricing as proposed by Cushman.7/ Best Value Determination Cushman contends that the negotiation team’s decision to award a contract to CBRE did not result in the best value to the state. Amended Pet. ¶¶ 26, 28 & 29. Cushman further argues that DMS did not meaningfully consider differences in proposed pricing. The failure to consider price for potential ancillary services, Cushman argues, was contrary to competition as it gave an unfair advantage to CBRE whose prices were higher than Cushman’s prices in all but one category. Although pricing for the potential ancillary services was relevant, the ITN's initial scoring criteria made clear that DMS was primarily focused on evaluating the experience and capability of the vendors to provide the proposed services. For this reason, the ITN's initial scoring criteria awarded 90 percent of the points based upon the qualifications and business plan of the vendors, and only 10 percent of the points based on the pricing for potential ancillary services. The negotiation team members testified that this same focus on qualifications and the vendors' business plan continued during the negotiation phase and award decision, although without reliance on the mathematical scoring process utilized during the initial evaluation phase. Nothing in the ITN specifications altered this focus, and the negotiations were directed to gaining a greater understanding of the vendors' proposed services, the qualifications and bios of individuals who would actually do the work, vendors' approach to the work and parameters the vendors would use to evaluate their performance. Pricing remained of relatively minor significance primarily because the RBAFO established a uniform lease commission rate for all vendors, effectively removing pricing as a means to differentiate between the vendors. As a result, vendors were required to quote pricing only for certain potential ancillary services, including IMAs and BOVs, and the number of free credit hours to be provided to the state. Pricing for these potential ancillary services was not considered particularly important, since historically these services were seldom used, and the ITN required all vendors to provide IMAs and BOVs free of charge when related to a commissionable transaction (thereby greatly reducing the impact of any "free" IMA or BOV services). For these reasons, the negotiation team considered the potential ancillary services and pricing for these services not to be significant in the award decision and only incidental to the core purpose and mission of the intended contract, to wit, leasing and leasing commissions. As a result, the negotiation team referred to these potential ancillary services as "balance of line" items which were nominal and added little value to the contract. Notwithstanding Cushman's argument that it should have been awarded the contract because it offered the lowest pricing for these ancillary services, its prices were not in fact the lowest offered by the vendors. Indeed JLL offered to provide all IMA and BOV services (with no preconditions) at no cost. Cushman's pricing for the ancillary services also was not materially different than CBRE's pricing. CBRE's consulting services rates are comparable, if not lower, than Cushman's rates, and the difference between Cushman's and CBRE's proposed charges for IMAs and BOVs is only a few hundred dollars. When considered in terms of the anticipated number of times the ancillary services will be requested (rarely, based on the prior contract), the total "extra" amount to be spent for CBRE's services would be at most a few thousand dollars. The negotiation team reasonably considered this to be insignificant in comparison to the multimillion dollar leasing work which was the core purpose of the intended contract.8/ Because pricing for the potential ancillary services was of lesser significance to DMS's award decision, Cushman's position that DMS should have awarded Cushman a contract based upon its pricing for ancillary services is not consistent with the ITN and does not render DMS's intended awards to Vertical and CBRE arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous or contrary to competition. To the contrary, DMS articulated a rational, reasonable and logical explanation for the award. CBRE’s Proposal Non-Responsive to ITN and RBAFO? Cushman alleges that CBRE’s BAFO was not responsive to the ITN and the RBAFO because CBRE included a set rate for acquisitions and dispositions in its proposal. Amended Pet. 30. Since CBRE's BAFO materially deviated from the ITN's specifications, CBRE’s proposal should have been deemed non- responsive and therefore rejected, Cushman argues. The ITN originally requested pricing related only to credit hours as the ITN set the rates for leases. The ITN stated that “other services” would be determined on a case-by- case basis as negotiated by the agencies. However, as part of the ITN process, DMS discussed with the vendors the potential for them to assist the state in the sale and acquisition of property, and what commission rates might be charged for this work. For this reason, CBRE included proposed commission rates for acquisition and disposition services in its BAFO. DMS considered the inclusion of potential rates for acquisitions and dispositions to be a minor irregularity which did not render CBRE's BAFO non-responsive. This determination is consistent with the terms of the ITN, which at section 2.14(g) states "[t]he Department reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in replies." The form PUR 1001 incorporated by reference into the ITN likewise reserves to DMS the right to waive minor irregularities and states: 16. Minor Irregularities/Right to Reject. The Buyer reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Buyer determines that doing so will serve the state's best interests. The Buyer may reject any response not submitted in the manner specified by the solicitation documents. Consistent with the above-cited provisions, the negotiation team noted at its August 14, 2013, meeting that CBRE's inclusion of the proposed rates was not material, and that during the contract execution process, DMS would either exclude the proposed rates from the contract, or possibly include such as a cap for these services. Both of these alternatives were available to DMS given CBRE's commitment to follow the terms of the draft contract, which specifically stated that fees for acquisitions and dispositions would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Finally, CBRE's inclusion of proposed commission rates for acquisitions and dispositions did not give CBRE an advantage over the other vendors, or impair the competition, because Cushman and JLL also submitted, as part of their ITN responses, proposed commission rates for the acquisition and disposition of property. Do the ITN Specifications Violate Section 255.25? Cushman's final argument is that the ITN specifications, and the proposed contract, violate section 255.25(3)(h)5., Florida Statutes, which states that "[a]ll terms relating to the compensation of the real estate consultant or tenant broker shall be specified in the term contract and may not be supplemented or modified by the state agency using the contract." Cushman's argument has two components. First, Cushman argues that the specifications included at Tab 5, page 13 of the ITN violate the statute by providing: "With respect to all other [ancillary] services, . . . , compensation shall be as outlined in an agency prepared Scope of Work and will be quoted based on an hourly rate (set as ceiling rates in this ITN), set fees for the service/project or by a percentage commission rate as offered and negotiated by the using agency.” Cushman also argues that the language in the award memorandum stating that the BOV rates are "caps" and "may be negotiated down by agencies prior to individual transactions," violates the statute. This latter reference to "caps" correlates to the "ceiling rates" stated in the above quoted ITN specification. Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires vendors to file a protest to an ITN’s terms, conditions, or specifications within 72 hours of the release of the ITN or amendment; failure to protest constitutes a waiver of such arguments. DMS included this language with the release of the ITN and each amendment, so Cushman was on notice of its protest rights. Cushman's challenge to the ITN specifications as violating section 255.25 is untimely and has been waived. Having been fully informed of this specification since May 14, 2013, when the revised ITN was published, Cushman could not wait until the ITN process was completed some four months later, and then argue that the ITN specifications do not comply with section 255.25 and must be changed. Such argument plainly constitutes a specifications challenge, and such a challenge is now time-barred. Even were Cushman’s challenge not time-barred, it would still fail. Section 255.25 requires only that "[a]ll terms relating to the compensation of the real estate consultant or tenant broker shall be specified in the term contract," and not that all terms identifying the compensation be specified. The challenged ITN specification, actually added via Addendum 2 at the request of DEP and its subject matter expert, does specify the approved methods by which the state could compensate the vendor, which DMS determined would best be determined on a case-by-case basis. By stating the approved methods which can be used by the state agencies, the ITN specifications and term contract did specify the terms "relating to" the compensation of the vendor, i.e., an hourly rate (set as ceiling rates in the ITN), set fees for the service/project, or a percentage commission rate. DMS established these terms because the exact compensation would best be determined by the state agency on a case-by-case basis in a Statement of Work utilizing one of the specified compensation methods.9/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the petition of Cushman & Wakefield of Florida, Inc., and affirming the Notice of Intent to Award to CBRE, Inc., and Vertical Integration, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2014, 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 24th day of January, 2014.
The Issue Whether Abbey Lane is guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Abbey Lane is a registered real estate salesman. Abbey Lane worked for International Land Services Chartered, Inc., from January to March, 1976. He earned $25 per day while working Saturdays and Sundays and earned $20 to $30 when a person who he had contacted subscribed to services of International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Lane described his duties as a "fronter", or a person whose job it was to establish initial contact with a prospect. His job was not to sell the services of International Land Services Chartered, Inc., but to determine whether the individual who he contacted was interested in those services. He gave the names of those from whom he received a positive response to Sam Lerner, a manager in the office during the weekends. These prospects were then contacted by individuals working during the week called "closers". Lane left International Land Services Chartered, Inc. when he read about the problems with advance fees in the newspapers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no actions against the registration of Abbey Lane as a registered real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Abbey Lane 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Apt. 1004 Hollywood, Florida 33019
Findings Of Fact By Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities, Lease Number 730:0181 (ITB), Respondent invited interested persons to submit bids for the lease of office space in Naples. The ITB requires the bidder to submit various documentation with the bid. The ITB states: "In order for a bid to be accepted, the items 1 through 8 must be included in the bid proposal." Items 4 demands: "Floor Plan showing present layout with dimensions. See paragraph 9b of Bid Submittal Form." Item 5 requires "Square footage calculations. See paragraph 9c of Bid Submittal Form." The ITB adds: "Items 9 through 17 must be included, if applicable." Item 12 is "Authorization for corporation to conduct business in Florida." Item 13 is a "Certification Letter from an HVAC maintenance contractor on age and condition of system." The ITB includes a Bid Submittal Form in blank, which each bidder was to complete in order to submit a bid. Paragraph 1 of the Bid Submittal Form states: Net square footage required: 6,442+ 3 percent, (acceptable range 6,442 to 6,635 square feet) measured in accordance with the Standard Method of Space Measurement (Attachment A). Note: Rest rooms and mechanical rooms are not included in calculating net rentable square footage. BIDDER RESPONSE: Net square feet proposed . (Space offered must be within the 3+ percent required.) Paragraphs 9b and 9c of the Bid Submittal Form provide: As part of the bid submittal, bidders are to provide: b) A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" = 1'0" preliminary floor plan showing present configurations with measurements. The final floor plan will be as described in the specifications. c) A scaled site layout showing present location of building(s), location, configura- tion and number of parking spaces assigned to the Department, access and egress routes and proposed changes. This is to be drawn to scale. Final site layout will be a joint effort between the Department and Lessor, so as to best meet the needs of the Department. In response to the ITB Petitioner timely submitted a bid for 6635 net rentable square feet. Petitioner's bid contained all required scaled plans. In response to Item 13 Petitioner's bid stated that all air conditioning units would be replaced with specified units, thus rendering Item 13 inapplicable. Respondent determined that Petitioner's bid was responsive and conceded the same at the hearing. Respondent correctly characterized as a minor irregularity the omission of documentation of Petitioner's corporate status because the omission gave Petitioner absolutely no competitive advantage. The only other bid submitted in response to the ITB was from Gulf Atlantic, which was for office space in the vicinity of the office space bid by Petitioner. Respondent also determined the timely submitted Gulf Atlantic bid to be responsive. Although charging more rent than the rent charged in Petitioner's bid, the Gulf Atlantic bid narrowly defeated Petitioner's bid in the evaluation process by 10.5 points out of a total of 377.5 points. Accepting the recommendation of the evaluators, Respondent published its notice of intent to award the bid to Gulf Atlantic, and Petitioner timely filed its notice of intent to protest and written protest. The Gulf Atlantic bid was for "+/-6,442" square feet. The attached floor plans are not correctly scaled. Careful analysis of the floor plans reveals that the actual square footage of the bid space is well under 6442 square feet. As confirmed by Gulf Atlantic's representative on the morning of the hearing, the Gulf Atlantic bid is for 5757.6 net rentable square feet. The Gulf Atlantic bid also lacks the required HVAC certification. The shortage of nearly 700 square feet of office space and the absence of an HVAC certification letter are material variances from the ITB. Both items confer upon Gulf Atlantic substantial competitive advantages by allowing it to bid substantially less office space than required of other bidders and allowing it to ignore the requirement of a representation as to the working condition of the HVAC system. These material variances render the Gulf Atlantic bid unresponsive.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order rejecting the bid of Gulf Atlantic as nonresponsive and awarding the lease contract to Petitioner based on its bid. ENTERED on December 20, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 1: (remainder): rejected as irrelevant. 2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as irrelevant. 4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: adopted or adopted in substance, except as to dishonest. 6 (first two and fourth sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 6 (third sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence as to intentional disregard of the minus sign. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-16: rejected as subordinate. 17: adopted or adopted in substance with a further reduction for mechanical space. 18: rejected as subordinate. 19-20: adopted or adopted in substance, except as to dishonest and with the addition of illegal. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-26: rejected as unnecessary. 27-32: adopted or adopted in substance. 33-45: rejected as unnecessary. 46: rejected as repetitious. 47: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 1 (remainder): rejected as irrelevant. 2-6 (first sentence): rejected as unnecessary. 6 (second sentence)-9: adopted or adopted in substance. 10(a): adopted or adopted in substance as to Petitioner; rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence as to Gulf Atlantic. 10(b) (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance as to Gulf Atlantic; rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence as to Petitioner. 10(b) (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence; the determination that the Gulf Atlantic bid was responsive was illegal. 11(a) (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance as to Gulf Atlantic; rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence as to Petitioner. The same ruling applies to the third sentence insofar as it applies to Gulf Atlantic; the omission of an HVAC certification from the Gulf Atlantic bid was not a minor irregularity. 11(a) (remainder except for third sentence as to Gulf Atlantic): adopted or adopted in substance. 11(b): adopted or adopted in substance as to Gulf Atlantic; rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence as to Petitioner. 12-13 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13 (remainder)-14: rejected as unnecessary. The only determination by Respondent of the Gulf Atlantic bid that is crucial to this recommended order is the illegal determination that the Gulf Atlantic bid was responsive. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Rebecca A. O'Hara G. Steven Pfeiffer Apgar, Pelham & Pfeiffer 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tom Barnhart Assistant General Counsel Office of General Counsel P.O. Box 6668 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6668
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 =================================================================
