Findings Of Fact Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. is a subcontractor in the construction of a regional juvenile detection center located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The contracting authority for this facility was the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The contract for the construction let by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was in excess of $5,000.00 and pursuant to the provisions of Section 215.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the Division of Labor established a prevailing wage to be paid different crafts and occupations in construction of this project. The prevailing wage established for plumbers on this project was $10.07 per hour. During the course of this project, Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. acknowledged by affidavit that all persons in its employ were being paid the prevailing wage as required by law. Between April 10, 1977 and October 16, 1977, Charles G. Mathis was employed by Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. as a plumber on this project and paid at the rate of $7.50 per regular time hour and $11.25 per overtime hour. Between October 16, 1977 and June 25, 1978, Mathis was employed on this project as a plumber and paid at the rate of $8.25 per regular time hour and $12.37 per overtime hour. The difference between the amount paid Petitioner for regular time hours worked and the prevailing wage is $2.50 per regular time hour during the period he was paid $7.50 an hour and $3.85 per hour for the period he was paid $11.25 for each overtime hour. The difference between the amount paid Petitioner for regular time hours and the prevailing wage was $1.75 for the period of time he was paid $8.25 for regular time hour and $2.73 for the period he was paid $12.37 for each overtime hour. The evidence conflicts concerning the number of hours the claimant worked. The Hearing Officer finds that the records of the Respondent Company, Exhibit 6, accurately reflects the number of regular and overtime hours the claimant worked on this project. Exhibit 6 reflects that the claimant worked 891.5 hours at a rate $7.50 an hour and 23 hours at the rate of $11.25 an hour, overtime. Exhibit 6 further reflects that the claimant worked 1,172 hours at a rate of $8.25 an hour and 76.5 hours at the rate of $12.37 per hour, overtime. The Petitioner was underpaid the amount of $2028.75 for regular time hours worked at the rate of $7.50 per hour; $2,051.00 for the hours worked at the rate of $8.25 an hour; $208.85 at the rate of $12.37 an hour; and underpaid $88.50 at the rate of $11.25 an hour, for a total of $4,577.10. Petitioner complied with the provisions of Section 215.19(3)(a)1 and 2 by filing an affidavit with the contracting authority stating the number of hours worked and the amount paid for said hours. Said affidavit was filed within the time prescribed by statutes. Pursuant to Section 215.19(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is presently withholding $5,844.56 from Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. while awaiting the decision in this administrative proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact anus Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Division of Labor enter its order directing the contracting authority to pay to the employee the sum of $4,577.10 and the remaining amount held by the contracting authority pursuant to this claim be paid to Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of November 1978, Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Byrd Booth, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 11089 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 Charles G. Mathis 942 Montego Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
Findings Of Fact Coflin was a permanent Career Service Employee, in Employment Office Supervisor (EOS) III Position. Coflin was "bumped" from his position by another permanent Career Service employee (Mr. Reddy), whose EOS III position was abolished by virtue of the failure of Hillsborough County to renew a contract for service with the Department of Commerce in November, 1975. Coflin was "bumped" on April 1, 1976 because pursuant to Department guidelines approved by the State Personnel Director as required by the State Personnel Rules, Coflin had fewer retention points than Reddy. Coflin, pursuant to the guidelines and rules and regulations, was in turn entitled to "bump" either the incumbent of an EOS III position who was not permanent in the position of EOS III or the employee within the State with the least retention points. This right and the positions available to him were communicated to Coflin; however, because he would have had to move to another area of the State to assume either of these positions, Coflin elected under protest to take the third alternative, demotion to another class in which he held permanent status in his immediate geographical area. Coflin appealed the resulting demotion, asserting that he had been wrongfully demoted. The demotion was solely the result of Coflin having been "bumped" in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Commerce and not because of Coflin's job performance and conduct which were above average. The Department's guidelines were not adopted as rules in the manner prescribed in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Coflin be reinstated to his position as EOS III, the personnel action taken having not been for good cause. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day September, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Division of Personnel and Retirement Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Kenneth H. Hart, Jr., Esquire 401 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Brian Duffy, Esquire Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the training and education authorized in Section 440.491, Florida Statutes,1 is required for Petitioner to return to suitable gainful employment within the meaning of Section 440.491(1)(g).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed by Intervenor as a sales associate since January, 1993. Petitioner sustained an injury on March 3, 1993, while working for Intervenor. Petitioner tore the meniscus in his left knee. Dr. Michael Smith, an orthopedic surgeon, performed a partial medial meniscectomy. On October 7, 1993, Dr. Smith performed a second surgery on the same knee. Petitioner returned to light duty work for half-days on November 15, 1993. He worked half-days until June 30, 1994, when he began working five to six hours a day. He continues to work five to six hours a day for Intervenor. Petitioner reached maximum medical improvement on April 21, 1994. Dr. Smith rated Petitioner's permanent impairment at six percent. Petitioner can not tolerate lifting more than 20 pounds occasionally or more than 10 pounds frequently. He can not tolerate repetitive squatting, stooping, and climbing. Petitioner can not tolerate standing more than six hours at a time in consecutive eight-hour days. Petitioner's current sales position requires too much standing, squatting, stooping, and climbing for Petitioner to work consecutive eight-hour days. However, Petitioner can work consecutive eight-hour days in a job that does not exceed the restrictions Petitioner can tolerate. Petitioner can work consecutive eight-hour days for Intervenor in a commercial sales position because it requires less lifting, standing, squatting, stooping, and climbing each day. However, a commercial sales position is not available. 1. The Pub In July, 1992, Petitioner began working as a bartender for the Pelican Pub (the "Pub"). He was employed by the Pub on March 3, 1993, when he was injured working for Intervenor. Before the injury, Petitioner worked approximately 57 hours a week in both jobs. Petitioner worked approximately five eight-hour or nine-hour shifts for Intervenor. He worked two eight-hour shifts at the Pub. After the injury, Petitioner returned to work at both jobs. However, he does not work 40 hours a week for Intervenor. In August, 1996, Intervenor required Petitioner to elect either full-time status, working 40 hours a week, or part- time status, working four shifts of five to six hours each. Petitioner elected part-time status. Since July, 1994, Petitioner has worked approximately 48 hours a week at both jobs. Petitioner works approximately 24 hours a week at each job in four six-hour shifts. Petitioner works no more than eight hours a day each day except Monday. Monday is a very light day for business at the Pub. Petitioner has seven hours to rest between his two jobs each Monday. At the Pub, Petitioner can sit much of the time, especially in the first three hours of each shift. While working for Intervenor, Petitioner is on his feet most of the time. Average Weekly Earnings One of the requirements of "suitable gainful employment" is that Petitioner's average weekly earnings after the injury must equal, as nearly as possible, his average weekly earnings at the time of the accident. The parties stipulated that average weekly earnings at the time of the accident ("pre- injury earnings") were approximately $360. The stipulation does not specify whether it includes earnings from the Pub. Petitioner argues that earnings from the Pub were excluded from the stipulated amount of pre-injury earnings and should also be excluded from his post-injury earnings. Respondent and Intervenor assert that earnings from the Pub should be included in Petitioner's post-injury earnings, irrespective of the stipulated amount of pre-injury earnings. Earnings from any job that qualifies as employment is properly included in post-injury earnings. It is uncontroverted that Petitioner's job with Intervenor qualifies as employment. Petitioner's employment with the Pub is employment within the meaning of Section 440.02(15)(a). The Pub is a private employer that employed four or more employees before and after the injury. Earnings from Petitioner's employment with the Pub are properly included in Petitioner's post-injury earnings. Before the injury, Petitioner earned approximately $360 a week from his employment in both jobs. He earned $289 a week from his employment with Intervenor, working 41 hours a week at $7 an hour. He earned approximately $71 a week from his employment with the Pub, including salary and tips. After the injury, Petitioner earns approximately $358 from his employment in both jobs. Petitioner earns $214 from his employment with Intervenor, working 24 hours a week at $8.90 an hour. He earns $144 from his employment with the Pub, working 24 hours a week at $6 an hour. The $214 Petitioner now earns from his employment with Intervenor is less than either the stipulated or actual wages Petitioner earned from that employment before the injury. However, the $358 Petitioner now earns from all employment in both jobs is substantially the same as both the stipulated and actual wages he earned from the same employment before the injury. Petitioner's average weekly earnings after the injury, as nearly as possible, equal his average weekly earnings at the time of the injury. Underemployment Petitioner is not underemployed within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 38F-55.0001(16).2 Petitioner's post-injury wages from his employment with Intervenor are less than 80 percent of his pre-injury wages from the same employment.3 However, Petitioner's post-injury wages from all employment, as nearly as possible, is equal to his pre-injury wages from the same employment. Training and education are not required to return Petitioner to suitable gainful employment solely with Intervenor. All that is required is job availability. Petitioner can earn average wages equal to his pre- injury wages by working five eight-hour shifts for Intervenor in commercial sales when and if such a position becomes available. Petitioner is not precluded from suitable gainful employment with Intervenor by age, education, work history, transferable skills, previous occupation, or injury. A commercial sales position is reasonably attainable in light of Petitioner's age, education, work history, transferable skills, previous occupation, and injury. It offers an opportunity to restore Petitioner as soon as practicable and as nearly as possible to his pre-injury earnings. Training And Education Benefits On January 22, 1995, Petitioner applied for training and education benefits. Respondent conducted a screening and properly determined that Petitioner should not be referred for vocational evaluation. The screening conducted by Respondent complied with the requirements of Section 440.491(6)(a) and Rule 38F-55.009. Respondent obtained Petitioner's medical file, a history of wages and earnings from Petitioner's employment with Intervenor and the Pub, and relevant background information. Respondent then scheduled an interview with Petitioner. Respondent reviewed the medical file, work history, and background information. Respondent investigated the information to determine whether Petitioner had the ability to perform the duties required by his pre-injury employment with Intervenor and the Pub. Respondent interviewed Petitioner and representatives of both employers. Respondent obtained written clarification from the treating physician regarding Petitioner's ability to perform his duties in both jobs. Respondent properly determined that Petitioner should not be referred for vocational evaluation. Petitioner had returned to suitable gainful employment, maintained such employment for at least 90 days, and had transferable skills which allowed him to work in suitable gainful employment within the meaning of Rules 38F-55.009(5) and (6). As soon as was practicable after the accident, Petitioner returned to both of the positions he held prior to the accident. Petitioner has consistently worked approximately 48 hours a week in suitable gainful employment with Intervenor and the Pub. Petitioner's current employment offers a meaningful opportunity to restore Petitioner to his average weekly earnings at the time of the injury. Petitioner's average weekly earnings before and after the injury, as nearly as possible, are equal. Training and education are not required for Petitioner to return to suitable gainful employment. Such employment is reasonably attainable in light of his age, education, work history, transferable skills, previous occupation, and injury. 5. Training And Education Goals Petitioner wishes to return to college in a program that leads to a bachelor's degree in sociology. Petitioner has previously earned 84 credit hours from Bucks Community College. Petitioner needs approximately 30 credit hours to complete the requirements for a bachelor's degree. The average annual income for entry level positions in sociology is approximately $20,000. Petitioner may be able to tolerate the duties of a position in sociology more easily than he tolerates those in his current employment if a future position in sociology requires less standing, stooping, squatting, bending, or lifting. A course of study leading to a bachelor's degree is not an education program within the meaning of Rule 38F-8.021(4). Approved education programs are limited to those in vocational and adult education, trade or business schools, and community colleges offering associate degrees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that training and education are not required for Petitioner to return to suitable gainful employment and denying Petitioner's request for training and education. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1997.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, the Petitioner Fox was employed by the Department of Labor and Employment Security in Position Number 02076, class title, Unemployment Executive II. Petitioner's latest appointment to the Career Service was prior to July 1, 1972. Under the terms of the Governor's Recommendations for Implementation of the 1985-86 Fiscal Year Performance Incentive Increase, Petitioner's anniversary date was adjusted from October 30, 1985 to July 1, 1985. On July 25, 1985, the Petitioner was evaluated by his supervisors as "Exceeds Performance Standards." Petitioner qualified for and received a Performance Incentive Pay Increase, which advanced his base pay rate from $2,950.79 to $3,043.26 per month, the maximum for his class. The percentage increase equaled .03133737 of Petitioner's base salary. Petitioner received this increase without protest. No administrative, legal, or grievance action was filed by Petitioner challenging the propriety of his agency's calculation of the Performance Incentive Increase. On January 1, 1986, all Career Service pay ranges were increased pursuant to the Fiscal Year 1985-86 General Appropriations Act. This had the effect of increasing the maximum rate which could be paid to members of the Career Service System. As a result of the increase, Petitioner was once again below the maximum of the pay range. Petitioner's supervisor submitted an additional personnel action form, which sought an amount which would bring Petitioner's total performance incentive increase to five percent of his June 30, 1986, base salary. That increase equaled $55.07 per month for the months of January, 1986, through June, 1986. Plaintiff is, therefore, seeking a total additional salary increase of $330.42. At the time Petitioner received his July, 1985, pay increase, he was informed by certain Department of Labor and Employment Security officials that an additional performance incentive increase could be granted if the pay grade was subsequently adjusted and the maximum pay allowed for the class was increased. The Petitioner's supervisor within his agency apparently based this assumption on oral information which had been received from an unidentified individual within the Department of Administration. At the same time, the Bureau Chief of Classification and Pay within the Department informed agency personnel offices that such an increase was not authorized. By letter dated February 3, 1986, Don Bradley, Chief, Classification and Pay for the Department of Administration, officially advised the Department of Labor and Employment Security that the requested additional performance incentive increases could not be approved. Final Department of Administration action was taken by letter from Secretary Lambert to Secretary Wallace Orr dated June 20, 1986, which denied a special pay increase request in order to maintain fairness among all the departments. In anticipation of the adjustment to the maximum pay ranges, certain personnel officers within the agencies elected to postpone granting employee pay raises until after January 1, 1986. By doing so, they avoided running afoul of the Governor's Recommendation which states that "no employee shall be eligible to receive more than one merit salary advance during fiscal year 1985-1986."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's request for an A additional $330.42 salary increase be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1-9 have been accepted as modified. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact have been accepted, with the exception of those portions of the unnumbered paragraphs rejected as not being germane to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregg L. Fox 2509 Killarney Way Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from April 29, 1979 until she was terminated on November 8, 1983. From approximately December 1982 to the time of her termination, Petitioner was a deli clerk. No evidence was presented of her job classification or duties from April 29, 1979 to December, 1982. On October 23, 1979 Petitioner was injured on the job while working for Respondent. She missed three weeks of work due to this injury. Petitioner sustained a second accident on the job on September 14, 1982 when she tripped over a protruding metal bar and fell, injuring her back, hip, arm and neck. Although she did not immediately miss any work following this second accident, she was out of work from early February 1983 until late April, 1983 while she was under a doctor's care for her injuries. She was released by her doctor to return to work on or about April 21, 1983. On September 29, 1983 Petitioner received a written warning from her supervisor for poor performance on the job, and violation of store procedures. Specifically, she was spending too much time with some customers while leaving other customers waiting, and was not properly making sandwiches pursuant to store procedures. Petitioner received no raises or promotions during the time material hereto, and other employees were hired after her for the same job at a higher rate of pay. Other employees did receive pay raises during this time. October 27, 1983 was Petitioner's last day of work. She went for a myelogram on the next day, her day off, and thereafter was told by the deli manager to take the rest of the week off. When she returned to work on November 7, 1983 she was told she had been replaced. On November 8, 1983 her supervisor met with her and officially terminated her. Petitioner testified the reason she was given for her termination was she "was not doing her work" and her supervisor "could no longer have her around" the store. Petitioner disputes these reasons for her termination. As a result of her injuries, Petitioner had to wear a back brace on the job, and she was in pain. However, she testified she always did her job, carried out all assigned tasks, including cleaning an 8 foot oven, assisted her co-workers in their jobs, and was always courteous and attentive to customers. Seven former co-workers called by Petitioner testified on her behalf and confirmed her testimony. Arnold Banals found no fault with Petitioner as a co- worker and tried unsuccessfully to get her a raise; Pam Meers had no problem working with Petitioner, and stated she was always on the job and courteous to customers; Betty Barrett described Petitioner as a hard worker and dependable; Mark Frierson considered Petitioner one of the best employees in the store who went cut of her way to help customers and co-workers; Mark Bradstock testified that Petitioner never took breaks and never complained about her back pain; Christina Dahl confirmed that Petitioner was a good worker and testified she cleaned the 8 foot oven spotless; and Sherrie Myers, Petitioner's daughter, Mark Frierson and Christina Dahl all confirmed they were making more than Petitioner and received raises, although Petitioner was employed by Respondent longer than them. Respondent admitted, through the testimony of Marshall Glass, that Petitioner was a conscientious worker who was good to some customers and co- workers. However, Glass testified Petitioner's injuries did adversely affect her job performance, and therefore, he stated that the termination was due solely to Petitioner's inability to do her job. A medical statement from Lawrence S. Cohen, M.D., dated November 28, 1983, which was approximately three weeks after her termination, states she had been cut of work for a month with shingles and a sprained ankle, and further, required brace immobilization. It indicates she would be returning to work in two days, but would require re-evaluation in 6 weeks. This statement contradicts Petitioner's position that she was able to work in early November, 1983. In fact, she had to have a myelogram, was suffering from shingles and a sprained ankle, and was immobilized with a back brace at that time. By November 30, 1984 Petitioner's back and hip condition associated with her injuries had deteriorated to the extent that Tomas E. Delgado, M.D., expressed the opinion that she had reached maximum medical improvement but could still not bend, lift more than 15 pounds, or stand for more than one hour at a time nor more than a total of four hours in a day. In September, 1985 C. Jin Whang, M.D., found Petitioner had reached maximum medical benefit. He advised her not to lift anything over 40 pounds and to avoid excessive lower back and neck movement. The medical diagnosis, nature and extent of her injuries is unclear since the medical statements submitted in evidence conflict in certain respects. Nevertheless, it is clear that from at least early November, 1983, Petitioner has been unable to stand for extended periods, lift, or perform movements associated with her former position of deli clerk. At the time of her termination in November, 1983, the evidence establishes that Petitioner was carrying out her job responsibilities in a satisfactory manner as far as her co- workers were concerned. However, medical statements confirm Respondent's testimony that her condition had deteriorated, and she could not perform her job in a manner that was satisfactory to her employer. Petitioner was 52 years of age at the time of her termination. There is no competent substantial evidence that she was terminated due to unlawful discrimination based on age. Other than the injuries discussed above, there is no competent substantial evidence of any handicap, nor of any unlawful discrimination based on a handicap. Regarding Petitioner's charge that Respondent unlawfully discriminated against her due to her injuries, and resulting disability sustained while on the job, Petitioner has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. Respondent has articulated a nondiscriminatory reason for the termination of Petitioner on November 8, 1983. The evidence does establish that Petitioner was unable to perform her job duties at the time of her termination, and therefore Respondent had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her. Petitioner has not shown that she could have continued to perform her job duties during and after November, 1983, and therefore has not established that her termination at that time was pretextual. Petitioner has received workers' compensation benefits for lost wages from November 9, 1983 to the present. On the basis of this, Glass asserted, as Respondent's Comptroller, that Petitioner has sustained no economic loss even if unlawful discrimination occurred. Petitioner offered absolutely no evidence regarding her rate of pay with Respondent, the extent of her workers' compensation benefits and any economic loss she has sustained. She did not refute or in any way contest Glass' assertion, and admitted she has received workers' compensation benefits for all lost wages. Therefore, there is no basis for any finding of economic loss. Respondent does not contest that it is an "employer" with the meaning of Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 30th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Effie C. Tew 1902 Meridel Avenue Tampa, Fl 33612 Marshall R. Glass Post Office Box 1808 Tampa, Fl 33601 Regina McGriff, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1925
The Issue Whether or not Respondent has committed an unlawful employment practice by terminating Petitioner due to the "handicap" of manic depression and/or bipolar disorder.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner suffers from bipolar disorder, a psychiatric disorder manifested by mood swings from elation to depression. When experiencing an episode of mania, the Petitioner is incapable of attending to a task for any length of time. She is also overly excited and exercises poor judgment. Dependent upon how expert medical physicians characterize this condition at various stages, it is either a type of manic depression or a psychiatric condition very similar in symptomatology to classic manic depression. Petitioner began working for Respondent Mark III on March 20, 1985 as a seamstress. Her primary job function was running an industrial grade sewing machine for van conversions. She was a very good employee except for the occasions when she suffered bouts of mania. She was never subject to discipline, and during the periods of mania she experienced, her work-related problems were treated by the employer as a disability. The first episode of mania occurred in April 1986. Prior to her hospitalization for mania, the Petitioner was drinking excessively and staying out from work. She was hospitalized in Monroe Regional Hospital from April 22, 1986 to April 29, 1986. Thereafter, she returned to work, but again began to experience problems and had to be hospitalized again from June 7, 1986 to June 13, 1986. After she came-out of the hospital, Respondent employer permitted her to work part-time (that is, fewer hours) for a period of several months until she was able to resume full-time responsibilities. The employer's providing Petitioner part-time employment in 1986 was prompted by several factors. First, Petitioner was accorded the same accommodation any of Respondent's employees would receive under Respondent's general policy of allowing persons who have left for medical reasons to return to work if work is available. Second, this was also done personally and specifically for Petitioner at this time to accommodate her individual situation at that time. Third, the cyclical nature of Respondent's business of van conversions is such that June and July are a wind-down period toward the month of August when Respondent either closes down or lays off personnel for one to three weeks' duration. Fourth, Petitioner's team position had not been filled because "many girls," in the words of Respondent's representative Joe Krim, "float regularly." Respondent's method of payment of seamstresses in Petitioner's category bears some discussion because it does not equate in every respect with the street definition of "full-time" and "part-time" labor. Petitioner worked as part of a group or team on production work. Teams are paid when each van is completed, and payment for each van is then divided among the whole sewing room, based upon hours individually worked. The entire team is needed to construct each vehicle and in Petitioner's absence, if they did not replace her, the rest of the team had to pick up her slack. Petitioner's rate of pay was determined on a weekly basis depending upon the amount of work produced by the team/group she worked with. During her period of full-time employment just prior to November 1987, Petitioner's weekly net pay, if averaged, would be $534.74. Pursuant to the foregoing arrangement, Petitioner received no pay during any of the periods that she was out of work. The Respondent provided no sick leave or disability benefits and did not have a formal procedure for requesting a leave of absence. After the manic episode(s) in 1986, the Petitioner returned to work full-time on or about July 1986 and experienced no problems for over a year. In November 1987, Petitioner again experienced an episode of mania. She began staying away from her job and disrupting her coworkers with overt sexual solicitation and lewd remarks when she was present. Her immediate supervisor, Jon Lanning, requested a meeting with her sometime shortly before December 1, 1987. Petitioner's friend, Mark Wagner, accompanied her to that meeting. At that meeting, Mr. Lanning urged Petitioner to seek hospital treatment for her psychiatric problems. Mr. Lanning was unavailable to testify at formal hearing, having left Respondent's employment in October 1988. Petitioner's impression of Mr. Lanning's representations on behalf of Respondent were that her job would be held for her if she would seek medical help. Mr. Wagner's impression of this so-called "admission" on behalf of Respondent by its agent Lanning was that Lanning was saying Petitioner was a good worker and would be welcome to come back to work when she was able to work. It was obvious to Wagner from this meeting that "if [Petitioner] did not get the situation under control, they would have to let her go." Petitioner was hospitalized from December 1, 1987 to December 6, 1987 at Charter Springs Hospital. Upon her discharge, she continued to take Loxitane, a prescription medication which can cause drowsiness if taken in excess, at the wrong times of day, or with alcohol. The use of alcohol is contraindicated in the presence of Loxitane. Although Respondent established alcohol and drug mixing by Petitioner back in 1986, the uncorroborated hearsay and inconclusive and uncredible repetition by witnesses of so-called "admissions" by Petitioner do not permit or support a finding that Petitioner was abusing alcohol or mixing alcohol with prescription medications in 1987- 1988. Dr. Fred Miley, Petitioner's psychiatrist, signed a release permitting the Respondent to return to work on December 21, 1987. Petitioner returned to work on December 22, 1987 but exhibited signs of drowsiness around the heavy sewing machinery she had to operate and was told by a superior to go home. At formal hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that she "did not need to be on the machine" in that condition. Petitioner stated that after her December 22, 1987 work attempt she had decided that the decision to go back to work was one, "I and I alone would have to make." Petitioner did not report the problem of drowsiness to her psychiatrist at the time she had the Loxitane prescription renewed by him December 30, 1987 or at the time of her next office visit to him on January 12, 1988 except that she did complain to him on that date of being drowsy in the mornings. At formal hearing, Dr. Miley opined that there was really no reason physically or psychiatrically why Petitioner could not have returned to work for Respondent on January 12, 1988; he merely felt pressured by the patient to defer her return-to-work date since she did not want to go back to work then and therefore he felt she could not return to work successfully. Dr. Miley did not know prior to formal hearing in this case that Petitioner's inability to work precluded an award to her of unemployment compensation benefits. On January 12, 1988, Petitioner advised Dr. Miley she wanted to draw unemployment compensation and would receive it until June 1988; that Petitioner did not want to return to work at that time because Respondent had only part- time employment; and that Petitioner was working for herself, sewing free lance. In fact, Petitioner had filed an application for unemployment benefits on December 15, 1987, effective December 13, 1987. She had been denied unemployment benefits on January 4, 1988 because she was deemed by the unemployment compensation reviewer to be unable to work. "Unavailability for work" precludes the award of unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Chapter 443 F.S. On January 15, 1988, Dr. Miley filled out an unemployment compensation form stating that Petitioner had been unable to work from December 1, 1987 to January 15, 1988 and with the equivocal statement that Petitioner "may possibly be able to return to work in early February 1988" and it should be halftime (20 hours). Petitioner took the January 15 statement by Miley to Jon Lanning because Lanning had advised her he could not hold her job without a statement from her doctor. Sometime in January 1988 Petitioner approached Joe Krim, Mr. Lanning's superior, for help with Mr. Lanning about "getting on up." At some time between the December 1987 hospitalization and February 3, 1988, Petitioner sent her employer a note asking to work night shift instead of day shift. On February 3, 1988, the Petitioner initiated a meeting with Mr. Lanning for the purpose of inquiring whether she could return to work halftime. Mr. Lanning responded that she had been terminated the day before, February 2, 1988. Petitioner had received no prior notice of her impending termination, and Barbara Boos' and Joe Krim's direct testimony confirm Petitioner's understanding that her team position had not yet been filled as of February 3, 1988. At Petitioner's specific request, motivated by her intent at that time to pursue a social security disability claim, Mr. Lanning supplied her with a document dated February 3, 1988 stating: Due to health reasons, [Petitioner] was unable to perform her duties and has not returned to work since late November 1987. Petitioner later abandoned the social security appeal plan. According to Mr. Krim's testimony, Petitioner was actually not rehired because she had not returned to work between November 1987 and February 1988. He was apparently unaware at the time of her termination by Mr. Lanning on February 3, 1988 that she had tried to work for a few hours on December 22, 1987. Nonetheless, he emphasized that although December and January are not heavy production months, February is the month the Respondent must "gear up" for its heaviest production of the season and that he had to "get production up" at that time for that reason. Further, the purpose of Respondent's recent move to new quarters had been partly to eliminate a night shift which in 1986 had done little real production work and did mostly clean up and preparation for the day sewing teams. In February 1988, he had put all teams on full-time day work. He did not, therefore, have available part-time work (fewer hours) with which to accommodate Petitioner as he had in 1986. Respondent had full-time work available for Petitioner in January and February of 1988. By February of 1988, the new "season" had commenced, Respondent had moved into a new plant, and Respondent could no longer accommodate halftime or part-time work arrangements. On March 15, 1988 Dr. Miley completed an additional form stating that the Petitioner had been unable to work from December 1, 1987 to February 14, 1988. Petitioner admitted that in February 1988, she wanted to go back to work only part-time but that Respondent had not established a part-time crew, as such. Petitioner also admitted not knowing if there were any part-time work available then. In light of her several conflicting representations under the circumstances related supra., the undersigned is not persuaded by Petitioner's representations at the formal hearing in the instant case that if she had been told by Mr. Banning directly that part-time employment was unavailable, she would have agreed to full-time employment on February 3, 1988. Petitioner eventually received unemployment compensation from approximately March 1988 until September 1988. In November 1988, Petitioner secured employment very similar to that she previously held with Respondent, which employment she has continuously held with no further episodes of mania requiring psychiatric treatment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-0985 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are accepted. 4 is accepted with the exception of the last sentence, which rejected as not supported by the record. See FOF 7. 11 is rejected. This is legal argument which mischaracterizes both the burden to go forward and the burden of proof in this type of case. Except for sentence 1 of 12 which is rejected as not supported by the record for the reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Thaw, 12 and 13 are accepted as modified to more clearly reflect the record evidence as a whole. Respondent' s PFOF: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are accepted. 3 and 9 are rejected as stated as not supported by the record as a whole. 7 is immaterial. See FOF 8. 12 and 13 are subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Amatea Attorney at Law 500 Northeast Eighth Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670 Carla Franklin Attorney at Law Post Office Box 694 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
Findings Of Fact In early 1979, the Department of Administration, Division of Personnel, prepared for the Governor a document entitled Recommended Salaries and Benefits for Career Service Employees for the Biennium July 1, 1979, to June 30, 1981. The purpose of this document was to assist the Governor in making recommendations to the 1979 Legislature regarding salaries and benefits for the State's Career Service employees. Approximately one month after publication of its initial recommendations, the Department of Administration published a supplement to those recommendations to reflect the results of collective bargaining negotiations with various bargaining units and to clarify certain points. With respect to merit salary increases, it was recommended that all funds not distributed as guaranteed merit increases in accordance with specific collective bargaining agreements be "distributed at the discretion of management" to employees with six months satisfactory service as of September 1, 1980. For the supervisory bargaining unit of which all Petitioners are members, all merit funds were to be distributed at the discretion of management. The Governor's recommendations contained in the document prepared by the Department of Administration were furnished to legislators and all State agencies prior to adoption of the Appropriations Act. In 1979, in the Appropriations Act for the Biennium 1979-81, as supplemented in 1980 by the 1980 Supplemental General Appropriations Act, the Legislature appropriated certain funds to be used for merit salary increases for Career Service employees. These raises were to become effective September 1, 1980. Funds were allocated in a total dollar amount for each collective bargaining unit within each state agency. The Legislature, in appropriating funds for salary increases and benefits for Career Service employees, specifically provided that such funds were to be distributed in accordance with the Governor's recommendations. Ch. 79-212, Sec. 21, Laws of Florida. The Department of Environmental Regulation received merit increase monies for its Career Service employees within the following bargaining units: supervisory-professional, professional, administrative clerical, operational services, and managerial/confidential. Petitioners Leslee A. Williams, Sylvia E. Sakamoto, and Rosemary Bottcher are Career Service employees employed in the Bureau of Water Analysis, Division of Environmental Programs. Leslee Williams is a Microbiologist III. Sylvia Sakamoto and Rosemary Bottcher are Chemist III's. Petitioners are employees within the Supervsory/professional collective bargaining unit. On July 31, 1980, the Secretary of the Department of Administration sent a memorandum to all Department heads with attached instructions for implementation of salary increases for employees in all affected bargaining units, including the supervisory unit. The instructions for distribution of merit salary increases to employees in the supervisory unit provided that the distribution of funds to eligible employees was discretionary with management, subject only to a cap on the maximum amount any employee could receive. This cap of 10, 7.5, or 5 percent of an employee's salary is determined by the employee's official performance evaluation rating. With regard to "discretionary merit salary advancements", the instructions noted that: These increases are provided to reward current employees based upon their performance. These increases are intended to allow employees to progress within the salary range in recognition of their increased worth to the State as an employee. The proper implementation of merit salary advancements is critical to the State's ability to reward tie most competent, qualified and productive employees. While the funds are discretionary as to the actual amount any one employee may receive, management has no discretion as to whether the Funds may or may not be distributed. These instructions were received by DER in early August of 1980, and DER immediately began taking steps necessary to implement the salary increases in time for inclusion in employees' September paychecks. In August, 1980, the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation authorized each of the directors of the three principal divisions within the Department (the Divisions of Environmental Programs, Environmental Permitting, and Administrative Services), as well as the offices of General Counsel and the Secretary, individually, to establish or determine the methods, standards for determining employee merit and employee performance and performance to be used within each division or office for identification of those Career Service employees eligible to receive a merit salary increase. By memorandum dated August 2, 1980 the Director of the Division of Environmental Programs requested that all Bureau Chiefs in his division and certain supervisors meet with him to establish a ranking of employees within the division to be used in determining the amount of merit salary increase each eligible employee would receive. This memorandum provided, in part, as follows: . . . We have available a certain amount of "discretionary" money which can be given as merit raises. This will be over and above those pay increases through pay adjustments or cost of living increases, which are mandated by the Legislature. The discretionary amounts are small; but they are significant enough that we should make every effort to insure fairness recognition of outstanding service and encouragement of those whom the Department needs to keep. The final decision on all increases will be mine alone, but the preliminary ranking and classification of the various persons will be done in collaboration with all of you. We will begin with the personnel evaluations. However, since grading standards for the evaluations differ among various supervisors, we will attempt to bring all evaluation ratings to comparable scales. We will then try to emphasize those qualities, both within the ratings and those not included in the particular categories, which most contribute to the mission of the Department. We must all try to eliminate our personal biases in this process and the biases inherent in the evaluation system. If we succeed, the raises will be both fair and perceived as fair and will be a help to Division and Department morale. I ask your complete cooperation in this process. (Emphasis added) On September 2, 1980, the Director of the Division of Environmental Programs sent a memorandum to all employees of the division explaining the process used in computing merit salary increases for division employees. The September 2, 1980, memorandum contained the following provisions: The raises were awarded based on relative scores given to each employee. This scoring was done by the Director, Deputy Director and Bureau Chiefs (together with independent office heads for those classes which contained their subordinates) in joint session. First, each employee's evaluation was considered and then related to that of ether employees in the class. The employee's other attributes and contribution to his program and the Department was then discussed. His immediate supervisor's rating tendencies were considered (and we, incidentally, gained a very good idea of how different were the different scoring scales used) and the supervisor was called and consulted if there was difficulty in reaching a consensus. In almost every case one or more of the Bureau Chiefs, other than the employee's own, had experience and opinions on that employee to share. We repeatedly examined each other on the possibility of bias and favoritism. Finally, the employee was given a weighted percentage score. Although some discussions were more protracted than others, complete consensus was reached in every case. The Director and Deputy Director then translated the relative scores into both the base salary and the dollars available within the class. Some small further subjective judgements were necessary because of rounding and some inexactness in the formula but they were extremely minor - no more than $1.00 per person and usually much less. The raises given reflect very closely the relative scores from the joint sessions. There is considerable agreement between the curve of the merit raises and the curve of the evaluations. They are far from congruent, however. Some employees with relatively high evaluations got no merit raises; others relatively low got substantial ones. In each case the discussions were very extensive and the decision was made only after all were convinced that an injustice would otherwise result. Such inflated and deflated evaluations will be the subject of much additional scrutiny in the coming year. Merit salary increases for all 192 Career Service employees within the Division of Environmental Programs were determined pursuant to the methods, standards for determining employee merit and employee performance, and procedures contained in the memoranda of August 25, 1980, and September 2, 1980. The three Division directors, the General Counsel, and the Secretary of DER each used different methods to award merit salary increases to employees in their respective offices. The method used by the Director of the Division of Environmental Programs to award merit salary increases for 1980 was different from the various methods used by DER in the past to distribute similar appropriations. Since at least 1975, DER has made a separate determination each year that funds appropriated for merit increases of the manner in which those funds would be distributed. A decision made one year was not prospectively applicable to future appropriations. Since at least 1975, the Department of Environmental Regulation has evaluated the job performance of its Career Service employees on an annual basis pursuant to procedures applicable to the entire Department. Currently, the Department follows the employee performance evaluation procedures contained in Section 3.2, Department of Environmental Regulation, Administrative Services Internal Management Policies and Procedures Manual ("ASIMPP") including exhibits attached thereto. These procedures and criteria were adopted by the Department pursuant to Rule 22A-9.02(1), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 110.201, Florida Statutes, but have never been adopted as "rules" through Section 120.54, Florida Statutes rulemaking proceedings. The policy of the Department, as stated in the ASIMPP, is to use performance evaluations ". . . to award or deny salary increases . . ." In 1976, 1977 and 1978, merit salary increases were awarded to career service employees in the Department based solely upon performance evaluations. In each of those years, the "merit" of employees was determined by the annual performance evaluations, but a differing method of computing the dollar amount was used for each year. However, within categories of employees having the same performance evaluation rating, the method of calculating the dollar amount was uniformly applied. These standards and procedures for awarding merit salary increases in 1976, 1977, and 1978 were in written form, were established by the Secretary of the Department, and were communicated to all employees. There were no merit raises in 1979. Since at least June 19, 1978, the Department of Environmental Regulation has also had in effect a written policy statement which provides in part: The personnel Rules and Regulations provide that merit/anniversary increases be based on performance evaluations Petitioners were given performance evaluations in the summer of 1980 pursuant to the procedures in Sec. 3.2, ASIMPP and each Petitioner was rated "above satisfactory." Petitioners each had at least six months continuous and satisfactory service on September 1, 1980, and were otherwise eligible to receive a merit salary increase on September 1, 1980, but were denied such a salary increase. Neither of the methods and procedures used by the Division of Environmental Programs to distribute merit salary increases to division employees for 1980, as outlined in the memoranda of August 25, 1980 and September 2, 1980, nor the methods used by the other two divisions and the General Counsel and Secretary were adopted through formal rulemaking in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. In each case, the procedures used applied only to Career Service employees within that division or office who were eligible for a merit increase and were used only to determine the distribution of those funds appropriated by the Legislature for the biennium 1979-81. Counsel for Petitioners and Respondent stipulated that the methods used by the Division of Environmental Programs to determine merit salary increases affect the private interests of Petitioners, and further, that Petitioners have standing to bring this petition pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Counsel for both Petitioners and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such findings of fact are not adopted in this order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner abandoned her position in accordance with the terms of Rule 22A-7.010(2) F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner was employed as an FSDB groundskeeper. Robert "Curly" Schopmann, the Grounds Supervisor and Petitioner's immediate supervisor, considered her to be "a very good employee" during her two years of employment prior to June 19, 1990. Petitioner's performance ratings confirmed Mr. Schopmann's assessment that Petitioner's quantity and quality of work was excellent during that period of time. Petitioner suffered an on-the-job accident on March 20, 1990 for which the employer and the Department of Insurance, Division of Risk Management accepted responsibility under Chapter 440 F.S., "The Florida Workers' Compensation Law." In June, 1990, Petitioner requested that the employer provide further medical treatment by an orthopedic physician, which further medical treatment was approved and provided. As a consequence thereof, Petitioner was off work from June 19 to mid-October 1990. Dr. Charles, Petitioner's authorized treating orthopedic physician, prepared a list of "job limitations" dated October 3, 1990 (Heilmann Exhibit 2). There is no evidence Petitioner was provided with a copy of this until after her termination. Sometime between October 1 and October 5, 1990, a rehabilitation consultant/specialist and registered nurse also prepared another, slightly more stringent list of limitations (DOE Exhibit B) which was not "verified" (approved) by Dr. Charles until October 29, 1990. Since Dr. Charles did not sign this second, more restrictive list until October 29, 1990, it must be assumed that neither Risk Management nor FSDB personnel saw it until after that date. Petitioner testified that she did not see it until after her termination. Effective October 13, 1990, Dr. Charles formally released Petitioner to do light work. The day before, Petitioner received notification concerning her release for light work from Risk Management (DOE Exhibit A). In that October 12, 1990 letter, Risk Management notified Petitioner that she was to either return to her old job and do light work while receiving temporary partial disability payments under the workers' compensation law or she was to make a good faith job search among other employers as also contemplated by that law. An abbreviated list of physical limitations based on Dr. Charles' October 3, 1990 list was also given by Risk Management to the Petitioner in its October 12, 1990 letter. By mutual agreement with the FSDB personnel office, Petitioner reported for light duty work at FSDB on Thursday, October 18, 1990. Mr. Schopmann first suggested that Petitioner work at her own speed outside but acceded to Petitioner's rejection of the use of a scooter to get around and do outdoors groundskeeping when she told him the scooter was "too bumpy" for her injured back. Either of Dr. Charles' job restrictions/physical limitations lists would have permitted Petitioner to work with hand-sized garden tools, a scooter, a riding mower, or a rolling seat for 80% of her day outside with only 20% of her day inside, provided she moved around and rested as needed with no lifting over 15 pounds and no squatting, crawling, bending, twisting, rotating, kneeling, or climbing inside or outside. When she said she could not ride the scooter, Mr. Schopmann told Petitioner to pot plants and trim the plants in the pots inside the greenhouse and that when she got tired, she should sit down and answer phones in the office before returning to pot more plants in the greenhouse. This instruction was in accord with the limitations for light work placed on Petitioner by her doctor in his October 3, 1990 list of limitations. It also was within the parameters of the abbreviated list relayed to Petitioner in Risk Management's letter of October 12 and those of the more stringent list the doctor later approved on October 29, 1990. At formal hearing, Petitioner admitted that she had understood that the supervisor's instructions included answering phones in the office and that she was otherwise assigned to the greenhouse. On Thursday, October 18 and Friday, October 19 and on October 22-24, she went to the greenhouse and office but did not restrict herself to just the jobs assigned by Mr. Schopmann. Instead, she tried to do all the usual work that is required of full-time, unimpaired greenhouse personnel. This additional work was considerably in excess of the limitations placed on her by her treating physician in either his October 3 or October 29 lists of limitations and was never directly assigned by her supervisor. The Petitioner asserted that she did this additional work because she was relying on the information provided in the October 12 Risk Management letter and in a telephone conversation she had had with Ms. Battle of FSDB's personnel office prior to October 18, and because she personally had never seen either of Dr. Charles' lists of limitations. On Wednesday, October 24, 1990, Petitioner left work at noon saying that she had a doctor's appointment, which she in fact did not have. Instead, she went home to rest. On Thursday, October 25, 1990, she called in sick and, as it turned out, she did not return to work after that date. The Petitioner testified that she did not return to work after October 24 because it was too painful for her to continue the work she had attempted. On October 26, 1990, a letter was sent from FSDB by Ms. Stephanie Battle notifying Petitioner that she was expected to come to work unless she had received a doctor's statement and that she was expected to return to work no later than Tuesday, October 30, 1990. Because October 26, 1990 was a Friday, it was Ms. Battle's intention that Petitioner would receive the letter on Saturday, October 27 or on Monday, October 29, and would then be able to obtain a doctor's certificate before the employer's October 30 deadline, if, in fact, Petitioner were eligible to receive a doctor's certificate at all. The October 26, 1990 letter sent by Ms. Battle provided in pertinent part: You are required to return to your job with the approved restrictions immediately. If you cannot return to work, you must provide this office with a letter from your attending physician saying why you are unable to perform your job, what the inclusive dates are that you cannot work and the approximate date of your return. At the present time you are in an unapproved leave without pay status. I expect to hear from you no later than Tuesday morning, October 30, 1990. On October 29, 1990, petitioner telephoned Stephanie Battle and informed her that she had received Ms. Battle's October 26, 1990 letter, that she could not work, but that Dr. Charles would not give her a "no work disability slip." At that time, Ms. Battle told Petitioner that she must return to work and asked if Petitioner had told her supervisor that she could not physically do the work assigned. Petitioner admitted to Ms. Battle that she had not yet discussed the problem with her supervisor. Later on October 29, Petitioner spoke on the telephone with Mr. Schopmann. Mr. Schopmann told Petitioner that she had to come back to work on October 30 or bring a doctor's certificate saying that she could not work at all. At that time, Petitioner indicated to Mr. Schopmann that she was aware that if she did not come back to work or provide some doctor's certificate she would lose her job. Whether Petitioner was consciously aware of the abandonment rule or merely thought she would be fired for not coming to work is not clear from the record. Petitioner asserted that she called Mr. Schopmann a second time on November 1, still seeking to retain her job; Mr. Schopmann denies that such a telephone call ever took place. It does not appear that Petitioner and Mr. Schopmann ever had a meeting of the minds that Petitioner was attempting to do more strenuous work than Mr. Schopmann thought he had assigned her to do, but at no time did Mr. Schopmann urge Petitioner to work harder. In her testimony, Petitioner blamed the employer far not making her fully aware of the limitations placed on her by her doctor. Petitioner also asserted that Ms. Battle had telephoned Dr. Charles on October 24, 1990 to see if the Petitioner's job assignments in the greenhouse and office exceeded his prescribed limitations for Petitioner and, further, that in so doing, Ms. Battle had misrepresented to the doctor the tasks that Petitioner was, in fact, doing and that Petitioner believed that it was due to Ms. Battle's misrepresentations that Dr. Charles would not give Petitioner a certificate of "no work." Ms. Battle confirmed that she had called Dr. Charles at some point and represented to him the type of light work that she understood from Mr. Schopmann that Petitioner was doing in the greenhouse and the office. However, at the time she telephoned Dr. Charles, Ms. Battle also did not know that Petitioner had physically attempted more than she had been assigned to do by Mr. Schopmann. At the time of her phone call, whenever it may have been, Dr. Charles told Ms. Battle [admissible hearsay pursuant to Section 120.58(1) F.S.] that Petitioner could do the light work described by her and assigned by Mr. Schopmann. Petitioner admitted that she did not consult her doctor in his office on October 24-25, that she never spoke personally with Dr. Charles during this period of time or tried to get a "no work certificate" from him personally prior to October 30, 1990, and that she dealt with him solely through his receptionist. However, the doctor's October 29, 1990 list of limitations and Petitioner's recitation of what the receptionist told her [admissible hearsay pursuant to Section 120.58(1) F.S.] supports a finding of fact that at all times material, Dr. Charles felt Petitioner could continue to do the light work actually assigned by Mr. Schopmann, a description of which had been related to him by Ms. Battle, and that the doctor also felt that the Petitioner could do all the light work which the doctor later listed on his October 29, 1990 list. Petitioner never presented a medical certificate to her employer. There was no evidence at formal hearing of whether or not the Petitioner had any accrued annual or sick leave that she could draw on, but it is clear that she never applied for authorized leave. The Petitioner never returned to work. On November 1, 1990, Mr. Schopmann notified the FSDB personnel office that Petitioner had not returned to work for three consecutive days, that he considered her to have abandoned her position, and that he recommended her dismissal on that basis. (DOE Exhibit D) In a letter dated November 2, 1990, Mr. Sam Visconti, FSDB Personnel Director, notified Petitioner that she was deemed to have abandoned her position due to her absence on October 29, 30, 31, and November 1 (sic, see Findings of Fact 12- 13), and that she was dismissed based on Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), F.A.C. That letter reads in pertinent part: You failed to report or call in to work for four (4) consecutive work days on October 29, 30, 31, and November 1, 1990. In accordance with Chapter 22A-7.010(2), of the Florida Administrative Code, State Personnel Rules and Regulations, you have abandoned your position. Abandonment of position is considered and treated as a resignation from your job. Your resignation is effective 12:01 a.m., November 2, 1990. Petitioner had been on unauthorized leave without pay since October 24, 1990. However, due to the terms of Ms. Battle's October 26, 1990 letter, the only three days which could be legitimately counted against Petitioner under the abandonment rule were October 30 and 31, and November 1, 1990. Petitioner is angry about the on-the-job accident and how it occurred. She testified that as of the date of formal hearing she continues to see Dr. Charles professionally and that she would not do so if she were not in pain and really injured, but she produced no medical evidence that she was physically unable to report for work at all on October 30 and 31, and on November 1, 1990 or that she was unable on those dates to do the jobs contained in Dr. Charles' October 29, 1990 list of limitations.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner abandoned her position by unreasonable absence on October 30 and 31 and November 1, 1990. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1991.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional reemployment services from the Bureau of Rehabilitation and Medical Services. 1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by UPS from July 1987 until her employment was suspended on February 10, 1997, for cause unrelated to the job-related injuries at issue in this proceeding. Following an investigation of the unrelated matter, UPS terminated Petitioner’s employment on February 19, 1997. At the time of her discharge, she was working a 40-hour week, was receiving full benefits, and was being paid at the rate of $19.97 per hour. Petitioner’s duties with UPS required her to drive a truck, load and unload trucks, and deliver packages. On January 13, 1997, Petitioner sustained certain injuries on the job when she fell between a truck and a loading dock. Petitioner received medical treatment for her work-related injuries beginning February 12, 1997. Dr. Bruce M. Berkowitz is an orthopedic specialist who treated Petitioner. On May 19, 1997, Dr. Berkowitz observed that Petitioner had multiple areas of discomfort that did not fit into specific orthopedic problems that he could treat. He discharged Petitioner from orthopedic care with a 3% whole person impairment rating based on painful organic syndrome as outlined by the Florida Impairment Rating Guide. Dr. Berkowitz recommended that Petitioner’s care be continued by a physiatrist (a doctor who specializes in physical medicine or physical therapy). Dr. Berkowitz also recommended that Petitioner not lift, carry, push, or pull objects weighing over 30 pounds, and that she not bend from the waist. Dr. Berkowitz saw Petitioner again on August 1, 1997, but he merely reiterated the findings and recommendations from May 19, 1997. After Dr. Berkowitz discharged her, Petitioner received treatment from Dr. Scott D. Tannenbaum, a physiatrist. At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to experience chronic pain, which she attributed to the injuries she sustained January 13, 1997. At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner’s limitations as described by Dr. Berkowitz in May and August 1997 had not improved. Because of her physical limitations, Petitioner is unable to perform her former duties with UPS. At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner was 47 years old. She has no formal education beyond high school other than a computer-training course. She has no special training and no special marketable skills. Petitioner was unemployed between February 19, 1997, and March 1998. Since March 19, 1998, Petitioner has been employed by the DBPR in an OPS 2/ clerical position that has no fringe benefits. In April 2000, Petitioner was earning $11.09 per hour. At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner was paid at the rate of $11.29 per hour. In the fall of 1999, Petitioner applied to Respondent for reemployment services. The goal of this program is to return eligible injured workers to suitable gainful employment as soon as possible. The reemployment services program is a return-to- work program, not a retraining program. The program is voluntary, and must be initiated by the injured worker or by the worker's compensation carrier. Section 440.491, Florida Statutes, defines suitable gainful employment to be: . . . employment or self-employment that is reasonably attainable in light of the employee’s age, education, work history, transferable skills, previous occupation and injury, and which offers an opportunity to restore the individual as soon as practicable and as nearly as possible to his or her average weekly earning at the time of injury. In December 1999, Petitioner attended an orientation program and a training workshop pertaining to employability skills. She completed a formal application for services from Respondent, which included releases for medical and employment history. A rehabilitation nurse reviewed Petitioner’s medical records and determined that Petitioner was able to return to work. Thereafter, Eva-Lyn Facey, a vocational rehabilitation counselor employed by Respondent, was assigned Petitioner’s file to make sure that all needed information was provided. Respondent typically explores three options for injured workers seeking reemployment services in the following descending order of preference. The first, and preferred option, is to place the injured worker with his or her former employer. If that option is not available, the next preferred option is on- the-job training for the injured worker. The last option is for full-time classroom re-training of the worker. The preferred option was not available because Petitioner’s prior employment had been terminated for cause and because Petitioner was no longer physically able to perform her former job. On April 6, 2000, Petitioner met with Ms. Facey. After that meeting, Petitioner’s application was complete and she had provided all information required by Respondent to determine whether option two or option three should be pursued. After the application file was complete, Ms. Facey turned the file over to her supervisor 3/ who reviewed the file with Angel Ivan Miranda, a vocational consultant. The supervisor and Mr. Miranda determined that Petitioner's employment with DBPR constituted "suitable gainful employment" as defined by Section 440.491(1)(g), Florida Statutes. They further determined that Petitioner was not entitled to further reemployment services pursuant to Rule 38F-55.009(5)(c), Florida Administrative Code, which provides as follows: (5) Following a Division screening the Division shall not provide any additional reemployment services or refer the injured employee for a vocational evaluation: * * * (c) if the injured employee has returned to and maintained suitable gainful employment for at least 90 days. In attempting to comply with the provisions of Section 440.491, Florida Statutes, Respondent attempts to determine what employment is reasonably attainable for the injured worker. Mr. Miranda determined that Petitioner's employment with DBPR constitutes suitable gainful employment despite the considerable disparity between Petitioner's pre- injury average weekly wage and her post-injury average weekly wage because better employment for Petitioner is not reasonably attainable. In making that determination, Mr. Miranda considered Petitioner's age, education, work history, transferable skills, and physical restrictions. It is unlikely that Petitioner will be able to find employment that pays as well as her former employment with UPS. Petitioner wants to be retrained in order to be able to work with computers. Mr. Miranda testified that it was likely that an independent evaluator would find that such retraining to be the most appropriate for Petitioner. Mr. Miranda also determined that after such retraining, Petitioner would likely start employment as a computer technician at a lower hourly rate than she was earning at DBPR. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's employment with DBPR constitutes suitable gainful employment within the meaning of Section 440.491(1)(g), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner further reemployment services. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___ CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2001.
The Issue The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether the Department’s intended award of state term contracts for information technology staff augmentation services was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for procuring state term contracts. See §§ 287.012(28), 287.042(2)(a), 287.056-057, Fla. Stat. A “state term contract” is a term contract that is competitively procured by the Department. § 287.012(28), Fla. Stat. A “term contract” means an indefinite quantity contract to furnish commodities or contractual services during a defined period. § 287.012(29), Fla. Stat. The Department initiated this competitive procurement to establish a state term contract for information technology (“IT”) staff augmentation services. The procurement’s objective is to enable state agencies and other eligible users (“Customers”) to supplement their IT staff. The solicitation at the center of these protests is Request for Proposals for Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services – 3rd Bid, RFP 15- 80101507-SA-D (the “RFP”). The RFP is intended to replace an existing state term contract for IT staff augmentation services. The current contract has an estimated annual spending volume of approximately $66,800,000. As described in the RFP, the Department intends to award up to approximately 200 vendors with the ability to provide (temporary) IT staff services per specific position. Thereafter, a Customer who desires IT staff assistance will issue a Request for Quote, which is available for review by all vendors awarded with the state term contract (the “Contractors”). A Contractor who desires to fulfill the request responds to the Customer’s Request for Quote agreeing to provide IT staff who possess the technical skills needed. A Request for Quote also allows Customers to obtain pricing and service information from interested Contractors. See § 287.056(2), Fla. Stat. If selected, the Contractor will then charge the Customer for the assigned personnel on an hourly basis.6/ In other words, the Department will competitively procure IT staffing services from multiple vendors/Contractors. A vendor who is awarded a contract under the RFP is not given an actual IT job, but rather is included on a list of Contractors as a potential source to fill an IT position in the future. Thereafter, Customers may obtain IT staff assistance, through a Request for Quote, without having to conduct a separate, independent solicitation. The Department issued the RFP on February 5, 2019.7/ On February 11, 2019, the Department posted Addendum No. 1 to the RFP. Addendum No. 1 notified vendors that the RFP was a “new solicitation,” and that the previous solicitation had been cancelled and rebid. The Department subsequently posted Addendum No. 2 to the RFP revising and clarifying the bid specifications. The Department posted Addendum No. 3 to the RFP on May 20, 2019.8/ Addendum No. 3 instructed vendors that all proposals were due by March 19, 2019. On or before March 19, 2019, the Department received proposals from 378 vendors,9/ including ArnAmy and Seva. Under the RFP’s evaluation methodology, vendors’ proposals were scored in four Evaluation Criteria, as follows: Evaluation Criteria Maximum Possible Points IT Experience Certification (Attachment B) 100 Staffing Resource Management Plan 300 IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience 200 Price (Attachment C) 400 per Job Title Total Score Possible Per Job Title 1000 Regarding the IT Experience Certification criteria, vendors submitted information on an IT Experience Certification Form which was included in the RFP. The form was scored based on the number of years the vendor had been in the IT business. The Procurement Officer identified in the RFP, Joel Atkinson, scored this criteria. (Both ArnAmy and Seva received the maximum 100 points in this category.) Regarding the Staffing Resource Management Plan (the “Management Plan”) and the IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience (“IT Staff Contract Experience”) categories, the Department appointed three individuals (the “Evaluators”) to independently score these sections of each proposal. (The three Evaluators are referred to as the “Scoring Team”.) The Scoring Team consisted of Stephanie Reaves, Denise Roberts, and Heather Shoup. For the Management Plans, the Evaluators were to assign point values based on whether the vendors demonstrated “exceptional ability” (300 points); “intermediate ability” (200 points); “minimal ability” (100 points); or “fails to demonstrate ability” (0 points). For the IT Staff Contract Experience category, the Evaluators were to assess a point value based on whether the vendor demonstrated “extensive” experience (200 points); “intermediate” experience (150 points); “minimal” experience (100 points); or “fails to demonstrate experience” (0 points). Regarding the Price criteria, each vendor was required to complete a price sheet wherein the vendor quoted an hourly rate for each specific IT staff service for which the vendor desired to contract. The price sheet divided each staff service into “Job Families.” Within each Job Family, the RFP listed multiple “Job Titles.” The RFP included a total of 130 different Job Titles for which vendors could submit proposals. In addition, the price sheet further divided the majority of Job Titles into “Scope Variants,” which are degrees of experience within an individual Job Title (typically up to three Scope Variants per Job Title). For example, in the Job Family of Applications Development, the Job Title of Systems Analyst was broken out into Scope Variant levels of Entry, Intermediate, and Advanced.10/ Further, the RFP attached a “Ceiling Rate” to each Scope Variant. The RFP explained that the Department would not consider or evaluate a vendor’s proposal for a particular Job Title if the hourly rate the vendor quoted was higher than the Ceiling Rate. Finally, the price per hour the vendor quoted for the Job Title was considered a “not to exceed” price. In other words, after the state term contract was awarded, when a Contractor received a Request for Quote from a Customer, the Contractor could not charge a higher hourly rate than the price listed in its proposal. However, the RFP permitted Contractors to respond with a (competitively) lower hourly rate for the IT staffing services it would agree to provide. RFP, section 5.2.4 set forth a formula to calculate the score for the prices the vendors quoted for the specific Job Titles. The Department designed the formula to establish a base line with which to compare proposals. Using the formula, the vendor with the lowest price per Job Title or Scope Variant11/ was awarded 400 points (the maximum). Thereafter, every other vendor received points for price per Job Title using the following calculation: (X) x 400 = Z (N) Where: X = lowest price of all Proposals submitted per Job Title N = Respondent's submitted total price per Job Title Z = points awarded The Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, (not the Scoring Team) calculated and assigned the points for price. The Vendors’ scores for IT Experience Certification and Price (from the Procurement Officer) were added to the Evaluators’ scores for the Management Plan and Staff Contract Experience for a total score for each proposal. Upon winning a contract, Contractors are only permitted to provide services for the specific IT positions awarded through the solicitation. As explained in RFP, Exhibit A, STATEMENT OF WORK, the Contractors agree to provide IT staffing services described in a document entitled “Job Families Descriptions.” The Contractors will be responsible for the following activities: The Contractor shall possess the professional and technical staff necessary to allocate, outsource, and manage qualified information technology staff to perform the services requested by the Customer. The Contractor shall provide Customers with staff who must have sufficient skill and experience to perform the services assigned to them. All of the information technology staff augmentation services to be furnished by the Contractor under the Contract shall meet the professional standards and quality that prevails among information technology professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout Florida under the same or similar circumstances. The Contractor shall provide, at its own expense, training necessary for keeping Contractor's staff abreast of industry advances and for maintaining proficiency in equipment and systems that are available on the commercial market. The Contractor shall be responsible for the administration and maintenance of all employment and payroll records, payroll processing, remittance of payroll and taxes, and all administrative tasks required by state and federal law associated with payment of staff. The Contractor shall, at its own expense, be responsible for adhering to the Contract background screening requirements, testing, evaluations, advertising, recruitment, and disciplinary actions of Contractor’s information technology staff. The Contractor shall maintain during the term of the Contract all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the information technology staff augmentation services. In short, the Contractors are responsible for finding, hiring, and recruiting qualified IT personnel. Thereafter, the Contractors must provide and manage their IT staff pursuant to the terms of the Request for Quote. Awards under the RFP were made by Job Title. RFP, section 5.3, explained the Basis for Award as follows: The Department intends to make multiple awards from this solicitation and anticipates awarding 200 contracts per Job Title. Contracts will be awarded to the responsible and responsive Vendors that are determined to be the most advantageous to the state based on, per Job Title, the highest total evaluation criteria scores, which includes price, IT Experience Certification, Staffing Resource Management Plan, and IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience scores. The maximum possible total score per Job Title is 1000. * * * For those Job Titles where, in determining the 200th awarded Vendor, there are multiple responsible and responsive Respondents with the same numeric score, the Department reserves the right to award more than 200 contracts per Job Title to those responsive and responsible Respondents who are tied for the 200th contract award. Awards will be made per Job Title. A vendor was not required to submit a response for every Job Title. Instead, vendors were free to bid for only those Job Titles for which they desired to provide IT Staffing services. However, if a vendor did respond to a specific Job Title, the vendor was required to provide a price per hour for every Scope Variant within that Job Title. On June 5, 2019, the Department held a public meeting during which the three Evaluators, as well as the Procurement Officer, confirmed their scores. On June 24, 2019, the Department posted its Revised Notice to the Vendor Bid System listing all vendors to whom the Department intended to award IT staffing contracts. The Department awarded contracts to the top 200 vendors (plus ties) for each of the 130 Job Titles. ArnAmy bid for all 130 Job Titles. The Department awarded ArnAmy 21 out of 130 Job Titles. In other words, ArnAmy finished in the top 200 for 21 of 130 Job Titles. Seva bid for all 130 Job Titles. The Department did not award Seva any Job Titles. In other words, Seva did not finish in the top 200 for any of the Job Titles. ARNAMY’S PROTEST: ArnAmy protests the Department’s decision to award it a state term contract for only 21 of 130 Job Titles offered through the RFP. Mr. Datta Kadam testified on behalf of ArnAmy. Mr. Kadam is the founder and chief executive officer of ArnAmy. Mr. Kadam prepared and submitted ArnAmy’s response to the RFP. Mr. Kadam initially relayed that ArnAmy was formed in 2007 as an IT consulting and software development company. He further expressed that ArnAmy has extensive experience under the current (2016) state term contract, for which it is authorized to support all 130 IT staff positions. Approximately 85-90 percent of ArnAmy’s IT consulting practice is dedicated to providing IT staff augmentation services through contracts such as the Department’s state term contract. ArnAmy also services staffing contracts for Maryland and Texas. ArnAmy (through Mr. Kadam) presented three primary arguments protesting the Department’s award. The Scoring Team Failed to Evaluate ArnAmy’s Final Management Plan: ArnAmy argues that the Scoring Team was not provided with the final version of its Management Plan. Instead, the three Evaluators scored an incomplete, preliminary draft. Mr. Kadam believes ArnAmy would have received higher scores for Job Titles had the Evaluators scored the correct version of its Management Plan. ArnAmy attributes this mistake to a possible error in the MyFloridaMarketPlace (“MarketPlace”) program that interfered with or prevented Mr. Kadam from uploading, saving, and/or submitting the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan for scoring. MarketPlace is the State of Florida online procurement system. MarketPlace served as the “web portal” for vendors to access the Department’s procurement documents, as well as a guide to assist them through the purchase process. The RFP required vendors to submit proposals through MarketPlace. The main software component of MarketPlace is a program called “Ariba,” which is a suite of programs or tools. MarketPlace (through Ariba) allowed vendors to electronically submit their responses to the RFP. A vendor may take three distinct actions within MarketPlace/Ariba: (1) upload documents; (2) save documents; and (3) submit documents to the Department. Mr. Kadam maintained that the version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan that the Evaluators scored was an “intermediate working copy” that he had saved “locally” to MarketPlace. Mr. Kadam testified that he uploaded and saved at least three versions of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to MarketPlace. He intended the Department to score the last version of the Management Plan that he saved and submitted on March 18, 2019. Mr. Kadam explained that he was not aware that the Department did not score the appropriate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan until after the Department posted its Revised Notice on July 24, 2019. Upon learning that ArnAmy was only awarded 21 Job Titles, Mr. Kadam conducted a “root cause analysis” to determine the reason. He initially reviewed the scores of several other proposals “to obtain a baseline of comparison.” He soon discovered that the Management Plan the Evaluators scored for ArnAmy was not the last (and correct) version he believes he uploaded to MarketPlace. Mr. Kadam suggests that a glitch occurred within the MarketPlace program that replaced or substituted an earlier version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan for the final version. At the final hearing, Mr. Kadam relayed that he did not find any error at the “front” or “user’s” (ArnAmy’s) end of the system. Nor did he receive any error messages after submitting ArnAmy’s Management Plan. He did, however, offer several possible, “logical” causes for the inconsistency. His theories included “deadlock,” or a situation that occurs on the system when one document is in use on the server that prevents another document (i.e., ArnAmy’s Management Plan) from being properly uploaded. Mr. Kadam explained that the difference between the early version and the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan was significant. RFP, section 5.2.2, instructed vendors to recite how they proposed to recruit, staff, and manage requests for IT services. The intermediate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan did not include the information referenced in RFP, section 5.2.2.B, which specifically directed vendors to identify and describe the roles and expertise of their Principal Personnel.12/ Mr. Kadam represented that the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan did contain this information. ArnAmy argues that if the MarketPlace error had not occurred, its proposal would have received a much more favorable score. Mr. Kadam specifically pointed to the score from one Evaluator, Stephanie Reaves, who only awarded ArnAmy’s Management Plan 100 out of 300 points. Mr. Kadam contends that if Ms. Reaves had just increased her score to the next level (200), ArnAmy would have been awarded most, if not all, of the 130 Job Titles. As more fully discussed below, despite Mr. Kadam’s detailed analytical investigation into the MarketPlace program, ArnAmy did not produce conclusive or direct evidence to support his theory that an error within MarketPlace was responsible for the submission of an intermediate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to the Department, instead of Mr. Kadam’s final version. During his testimony, Mr. Kadam stated that “a lot could have happened” to the documents he uploaded. However, he conceded that he did not know exactly what that might have been. The Scoring Team was Not Qualified to Score the Proposals: ArnAmy also charges that the Department failed to properly train the three Evaluators or provide them adequate guidance on how to effectively score the vendors’ proposals. Specifically, ArnAmy asserts that the Department failed to select Evaluators with the requisite background, experience, and knowledge in the subject matter of the RFP, i.e., information technology. Consequently, the Evaluators could not have conducted a comprehensive or sound review of the IT staffing services listed in the RFP. In other words, the Department could not have competently or fairly decided that ArnAmy should not be awarded an IT staff augmentation contract because the Evaluators did not know how to properly score its proposal. To support its argument, ArnAmy points out that not a single Evaluator possessed IT experience. ArnAmy contends that the technical details involved in evaluating proposals for IT staff services require direct experience in the IT field or in acquiring and/or utilizing IT staffing services. Because the Evaluators were unqualified, as well as the fact that the Evaluators were under time pressure to evaluate all 374 proposals, ArnAmy alleges that they inconsistently applied the RFP’s evaluation criteria, and, in some cases, failed to apply it altogether. As discussed below, the facts adduced at the final hearing support a finding that the Evaluators were suitably qualified to score the vendors’ proposals. Therefore, the undersigned finds this argument insufficient to reverse the Department’s award. Evaluator Stephanie Reaves Incorrectly Scored ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience: Finally, as a direct result of the Scoring Team’s inexperience, ArnAmy asserts that one of the three Evaluators, Stephanie Reaves, failed to properly score its IT Staff Contract Experience. ArnAmy specifically alleges that, in her haste to review ArnAmy’s proposal, Ms. Reaves overlooked key information included in its IT Staff Contract Experience submission. RFP, section 5.2.3, advised that a vendor “will be scored” based on “the best representation of its experience in providing IT Staff Augmentation.” Section 5.2.3 specifically asked vendors to include information regarding: Total number of IT Staff Augmentation contract/purchase orders. Total combined dollar amount of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders. At page 19 of its response to section 5.2.3, ArnAmy reported on its IT Staff Contract Experience document that ArnAmy had 11 years of IT staffing experience with the State of Florida involving 147 total contracts worth over $19,600,000. As discussed in paragraphs 93, 146, and 147 below, ArnAmy’s argument on this point has merit. Ms. Reaves awarded ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience 150 out of 200 points. At the final hearing, Ms. Reaves admitted that she did not see this information in ArnAmy’s proposal prior to formulating her score. SEVA’S PROTEST: Seva was not awarded any of the 130 Job Titles for which it bid. Seva protests the Department’s award arguing that the RFP’s scoring formula was built on an arbitrary evaluation system and a mathematically deficient price scoring system. Consequently, the evaluation process resulted in unfair and unreliable awards that should not have excluded Seva’s proposal. Danny O'Donnell spoke on behalf of Seva. Mr. O’Donnell prepared and submitted Seva’s proposal to the RFP. In addition, at the final hearing, Mr. O’Donnell was accepted as an expert in statistics, data presentation, and pattern analysis. Mr. O’Donnell explained that he is very competent at extracting and compiling data from spreadsheets and reports and presenting that information in a form that is more easily understood. Mr. O’Donnell testified that Seva is an IT consulting and software development services firm headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida. He further represented that Seva has extensive experience providing IT staffing services to the State of Florida. Seva has provided temporary IT staff for state agencies since 2009, and has participated in a total of 120 IT staffing contracts with the state worth over $19,800,000. Further, Seva is an active vendor supporting 129 of the 130 IT jobs awarded in the 2016 state term contract. Mr. O’Donnell also commented that Seva’s 2019 proposal was substantially the same as its 2016 submission. Further, the 2019 RFP criteria was very similar to the 2016 procurement terms. In 2016, Seva received good (and winning) scores for its Management Plan. Consequently, Mr. O’Donnell was puzzled why Seva received such low scores under this RFP. To understand the reason the Department did not award Seva any Job Titles, Mr. O’Donnell culled through reams of Department data, charts, and spreadsheets. Based on his statistical analysis, Mr. O’Donnell reached two primary conclusions why the Department’s scores for the 2019 RFP are unsound. The RFP’s Price Scoring System: Initially, Mr. O’Donnell argued that the RFP’s “extremely flawed” price scoring formula set forth in RFP, section 5.2.4, produced arbitrary and unreliable scoring results. Specifically, the formula allowed vendors to propose “low-ball,” “unrealistic,” and “unsustainable” prices that are excessively below the market value for IT staffing services in order to procure higher scores for their proposals. Consequently, vendors who submitted these “unbalanced” bids received an unfair competitive advantage over vendors who presented realistic prices (i.e., ArnAmy and Seva) for their IT staffing services. Mr. O’Donnell further urged that the formula caused a very narrow “band compression of price points,” which gave rise to “price neutralization.” In other words, vendors who offered legitimately low, but realistic, prices for Job Titles received no corresponding benefit because the unbalanced bids “caused the relative value of the pricing criteria to be neutralized in value.” Concomitantly, the two subjectively scored criteria graded by the Scoring Team (Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience) took on much greater significance in determining whether a particular vendor was awarded a state term contract. A vendor could lose more points on pricing than it could earn for its Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience. As a result, vendors who tendered “unbalanced” bids (with unreasonably low prices) obtained an inequitable and unwarranted benefit. Mr. O’Donnell asserted that there is no correlation between winning vendors having the best price, and the responsible and responsive vendors who can provide the best IT staffing service to Customers. Mr. O'Donnell testified to his belief that the Department did not account for or prevent these artificially low, “unbalanced,” bids. Consequently, it was his opinion that the Scoring Team did not select vendors whose proposals will be the most advantageous to the State of Florida (i.e., Seva). Therefore, the Department’s decision not to award the IT staffing contract to Seva must be overturned. Mr. O’Donnell alleged that his extensive statistical analysis reveals that the three Evaluators used markedly different standards to review, then score, vendors’ proposals. To support his argument, Seva produced a chart showing that Ms. Reaves awarded 161 of the 374 Management Plans a top score of 300. Ms. Shoup awarded 116 Management Plans with 300 points. Ms. Roberts awarded only 66 Management Plans the maximum 300 points. Mr. O’Donnell stressed that these diverse scores indicate an arbitrariness that is outside any zone of reasonable results. Consequently, as a matter of fairness, all proposals must be reevaluated. Mr. O’Donnell further argued that the inequity is compounded by the fact that the Department limited state term contracts for each Job Title to 200 vendors (and ties). Not only is restricting the available Contractors to 200 arbitrary, but the 200 Contractor cap impacts whether legitimate vendors were awarded IT staffing contracts. In addition to Mr. O’Donnell’s analysis and conclusions, Seva presented expert testimony from Dr. Wei Wu. Dr. Wu is a professor in the Department of Statistics at Florida State University. Dr. Wu was accepted as an expert in statistics, including the chi-square correlation test, as well as the “p value” as applied to the solicitation scoring. To formulate his opinion, Dr. Wu applied basic statistical methods and tools. He explained that he conducted a “standard chi-square test” to determine whether the three Evaluators produced the same scoring distribution. Dr. Wu then analyzed the data, reviewed the intuitive results, and formulated his conclusion. He rechecked his data to ensure that it was mathematically correct. Based on his statistical analysis, Dr. Wu announced, with “very high confidence,” that the three Evaluators did not apply the same methodology when scoring Management Plans. Dr. Wu specifically opined that he was “99.99 percent confident that, of the three evaluators; they don’t have the same standard to give the score.” In other words, his research indicated that the Evaluators did not have the same, common understanding of the RFP’s scoring criteria. On the contrary, the Evaluator’s scoring distributions were arbitrarily and unreasonably different. Further, Dr. Wu expressed that the scores awarded for price were “crunched” in the final results, thereby reducing their importance in the proposals’ total scores. Dr. Wu testified that, if the Evaluators had followed the same scoring standard, the score distributions across the 374 proposals would not have been so varied. Dr. Wu acknowledged that some deviation between Evaluators is expected, but not this much. Based on Mr. O’Donnell’s analysis, as supported by Dr. Wu, Seva asserts that statistical data confirms that each Evaluator applied dissimilar grading scales, which manifested itself into erratic scoring. Each Evaluator appears to have a different understanding of what a vendors’ proposal would have to show in order to earn a top-ranked score. Despite his conclusions, however, Mr. O’Donnell conceded that he has no previous experience forming statistical inferences from procurement criteria. Neither does he feel qualified to explain the meaning of his statistical analysis of the scores. Consequently, he could not testify “why” the data shows what it shows. Similarly, Dr. Wu acknowledged that he has never researched procurement scoring formulas, scoring of requests for proposals criteria, or the scoring behavior of procurement evaluators. Nor did his opinion take into account the subjective opinions of the three Evaluators. The Scoring Team was Not Qualified to Score the Proposals: Secondly, similar to ArnAmy, Seva asserts that the wide-ranging scores show that the Department failed to select Evaluators with the requisite experience and knowledge in IT. Seva further charges that the Department neglected to effectively train the Scoring Team. The Department only provided the three Evaluators poorly defined guidelines explaining how to evaluate the vendors’ Management Plans. In addition, Seva argues that amount of time the Department allotted for scoring (eight weeks) was too short to reasonably evaluate 374 separate proposals. DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO THE TWO PROTESTS: In response to ArnAmy and Seva’s challenges, the Department asserts that it properly acted within its legal authority, as well as the RFP specifications, to award the RFP to qualified responsive and responsible vendors. The Scoring Team Selection/Qualifications: Initially, the Department rejects ArnAmy and Seva’s allegations that the Scoring Team members lacked the requisite experience and knowledge to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. To score a procurement in a request for proposals solicitation, section 287.057(16)(a)1 directed the Department to appoint: At least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought. In accordance with section 287.057(16)(a)1, the Department appointed three individuals (Ms. Reaves, Ms. Roberts, and Ms. Shoup) to serve on the Scoring Team. The three Evaluators were selected by Cliff Nilson (Deputy Director of the Division of State Purchasing), and Joel Atkinson (the Department’s Procurement Officer). Thereafter, the Evaluators were approved by the Department’s Secretary. At the final hearing, Mr. Nilson testified as the Department’s corporate representative. In his role as Deputy Director of State Purchasing, Mr. Nilson oversees the Department’s procurement process, as well as the state term contracts awarded under the RFP. Initially, Mr. Nilson discussed how the Department selected the three Evaluators. Mr. Nilson explained that the state term contract in this solicitation is fundamentally a “staffing” contract. Mr. Nilson characterized the procurement as “essentially . . . a human resource function that’s outsourced to a vendor to recruit, employ, and manage those people.” Mr. Nilson explained that the RFP’s purpose is to solicit vendors who will find, recruit, and manage IT personnel; then effectively provide those employees to Customers to use on an hourly basis to perform IT work. Vendors awarded with a state term contract are only responsible for providing “a person,” not directing or overseeing an IT project. Accordingly, the Department sought evaluators who had experience in human resources and staff management. Further, Mr. Nilson did not believe that a working knowledge of IT services was necessary for a fair and reasonable evaluation of the vendors’ proposals. Mr. Nilson relayed that, because the RFP’s purpose was to identify staffing companies, extensive knowledge of the IT tasks and responsibilities listed in the 130 Job Titles was not necessary when reviewing the vendors’ Management Plans and IT Staff Contract Experience. At the final hearing, the Department elicited testimony from Mr. Kadam (for ArnAmy) and Mr. O’Donnell (for Seva) admitting that the “deliverable” under this state term contract is people and their time and expense, not the various vendors’ IT prowess. During the hearing, both Mr. Kadam and Mr. O’Donnell acknowledged that their primary responsibilities would be to find, recruit, and place suitable IT staff with a state agency. Regarding training the Evaluators, Mr. Nilson conveyed that the Department anticipated that scoring would be fairly straightforward. Therefore, the Department did not plan a lengthy training regime for the Evaluators. Mr. Nilson further commented that the grading criteria described in the RFP did not require specific knowledge of IT services. The Evaluators were to review how each vendor proposed to hire, manage, and retain persons with IT skills. The Evaluators were not scoring the specialized knowledge of the vendors or their employees. Before starting their reviews, the Department arranged for each Evaluator to receive a copy of each proposals’ Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience section. The Evaluators also received an Evaluators Guide, as well as Instructions for the Evaluator Score Sheet. Each Evaluator also received and signed a document entitled Evaluator Instructions for Ethics, Sunshine Law, and Conflict of Interest. Finally, the Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, contacted each Evaluator separately to explain their role and answer any questions. The RFP gave the three Evaluators eight weeks to review and score every proposal. Mr. Nilson envisioned the Evaluators spending approximately 30 minutes on each proposal. Mr. Nilson recognized that the scoring would entail hard work, but he was comfortable that the Evaluators would have enough time to perform their responsibilities. The Evaluators scored Petitioners’ proposals as follows: ArnAmy: Management Plan (out of 300 points): Ms. Reaves: 100 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points Ms. Shoup: 200 points IT Staff Contract Experience (out of 200 points): Ms. Reaves: 150 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points (maximum) Ms. Shoup: 200 points (maximum) Seva: Management Plan (out of 300 points): Ms. Reaves: 100 points Ms. Roberts: 0 points Ms. Shoup: 100 points IT Staff Contract Experience (out of 200 points): Ms. Reaves: 150 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points (maximum) Ms. Shoup: 200 points (maximum) Mr. Nilson testified that he was not concerned that the Evaluators’ scores were slightly different. He commented that in his experience, a one-step difference in the scoring spread between evaluators was “not unusual at all.” At the final hearing, each of the Evaluators testified about their background and experience in state procurements and IT staffing contracts as follows: Stephanie Reaves: Ms. Reaves testified that she has worked in the field of human resources for her entire career. She has hired, managed, recruited, and trained employees. At the time Ms. Reaves was selected as an evaluator, she was employed as the Director of Human Resources for the Department of Children and Families. During the RFP process, she transferred to the Department of Environmental Protection where she works as an Employee Relations Specialist. In addition, Ms. Reaves was previously employed with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, where she reviewed and scored proposals submitted in response to requests for proposals for public contracts. Ms. Reaves also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration, as well as a Masters in Human Resource Development. Prior to this RFP, however, she has never been involved in procuring IT staff services. Ms. Reaves declared that she had a firm grasp of her responsibilities as an evaluator. Before she scored the proposals, she reviewed and understood the scoring criteria described in RFP, section 5. She also read the Evaluators Guide, as well as the score sheet instructions. She further relayed that she spoke with the Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, who provided general guidance. Ms. Reaves expressed that she felt adequately trained to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. She also believed that she had the necessary human resources experience to discern whether vendors sufficiently described their staffing abilities in their proposals. Ms. Reaves explained that, when evaluating a proposal, she read the vendor’s submission twice, as well as reviewed the applicable RFP sections. She then compared the proposal to the RFP evaluation criteria. At that point, she scored accordingly and submitted her scores electronically to the Department. Ms. Reaves spent approximately 20-30 minutes per proposal. Ms. Reaves rejected any concerns that her lack of IT knowledge affected her evaluation. She relayed that she did not find scoring difficult. She did not encounter terms in the RFP or the various vendors’ proposals that she did not understand. Ms. Reaves asserted that she worked fairly and independently. Further, she testified that she used the criteria set forth in the RFP and applied the scoring criteria consistently to each proposal. She relayed that she held vendors to the same standard and used the same method when evaluating each proposal. Finally, despite the large amount of commitment and work this evaluation required, Ms. Reaves firmly asserted that she had sufficient guidance and time to review and score each proposal. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Reaves testified that she awarded ArnAmy 100 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that, for a perfect score of 300, a proposal would have to “demonstrate exceptional ability.” This score meant that she thoroughly understood how a vendor would provide prospective IT staff to Customers, and the vendor did an excellent job in describing how it would identify potential IT staff that would respond to a Customer’s Request for Quote. ArnAmy’s Management Plan, however, only showed minimal ability to meet the RFP’s objectives. Specifically, ArnAmy did not explain “how” it intended to accomplish or implement a plan to provide IT staff to Customers. In addition, ArnAmy failed to include information regarding the experience of its Principal Personnel to manage IT staff. Regarding ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience, Ms. Reaves awarded ArnAmy 150 out of 200 points. Ms. Reaves explained that she did not find in ArnAmy’s proposal responses to two specific requests for information: 1) the total number of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders; and 2) the total combined dollar amount of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders. However, as became apparent during the final hearing, ArnAmy’s proposal did, in fact, include information on these two specific points. What appears to have happened is that Ms. Reaves missed this information because ArnAmy presented these numbers at the very end (page 14) of its IT Staff Contract Experience section (and in tiny print).13/ In RFP, section 5.2.3, the total number of IT contracts and their combined dollar amount are the first two bullet points listed in the IT Staff Contract Experience criteria section.14/ Accordingly, Ms. Reaves looked for this information in the order set forth in the RFP, i.e., at the beginning of each vendors’ response to this section. (For example, Seva inserted its contract history in the first two lines of its IT Staff Contract Experience submission.) The RFP did not contain any specific instructions on how a vendor was to format its response to this section. At the final hearing, Ms. Reaves testified that she would still have given ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience a score of 150, even if she had found the entry for total IT contracts. It does appear, however, that Ms. Reaves plainly overlooked this information when evaluating ArnAmy’s proposal. Regarding Seva, Ms. Reaves awarded it 100 points (out of 300) for its Management Plan. She explained that she did not believe Seva adequately explained “how” it was going to accomplish “what was critical” to performing the IT staffing contract. On the contrary, Seva’s proposal lacked specifics, which left Ms. Reaves questioning Seva’s ability to provide quality IT staff for potential Customers. Ms. Reaves awarded Seva 150 out of 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She testified that she could not determine the level or type of Seva’s staffing experience from its proposal. Denise Roberts: Ms. Roberts has spent her entire public service career working in the procurements field for various state agencies. When she was selected to serve as an evaluator, Ms. Roberts was employed as a Purchasing Agent for the Agency for State Technology. During her evaluation, Ms. Roberts moved to the Department of Lottery where she processed procurements, solicitations, and purchase orders. Notably, Ms. Roberts has previously procured IT staff augmentation services, as well as obtained quotes for IT staff assistance for the Agency for State Technology, the Department of Corrections, as well as the Department of Transportation. Additionally, Ms. Roberts is a Certified Public Professional Buyer and a Florida Certified Contract Manager. She does not, however, have any IT experience or training. Nor did she have knowledge of what the IT Job Titles listed in the RFP specifically entailed. Ms. Roberts testified that, before she scored the proposals, she reviewed and understood the RFP, as well as the documents she was to score. In addition, she spoke with the Department’s Procurement Officer (Mr. Atkinson) who provided general guidance on how to score the proposals. Ms. Roberts expressed that she followed the instructions the Department gave her and felt sufficiently trained to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. She also believed that she had enough experience to evaluate proposals regarding IT staffing services. Ms. Roberts explained that she generally conducted the following evaluation process: Initially, she read the vendor’s proposal, followed by a review of the RFP’s requirements. She then reviewed the proposal again to determine how the vendor complied with the RFP criteria. At that point, she scored the proposal. When scoring, Ms. Roberts handwrote all scores onto the RFP’s scoresheet. Thereafter, she input her scores online and submitted them electronically to the Department. Ms. Roberts spent about 30 to 45 minutes evaluating each proposal. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Roberts testified that she awarded ArnAmy 200 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that, for a perfect score of 300, a proposal had to meet every aspect the RFP requested in great detail, as well as describe how the vendor was going to accomplish the RFP’s tasks. ArnAmy’s Management Plan, however, was missing information and provided less detail than she expected. Specifically, Ms. Roberts did not find a response to the RFP’s requirements that ArnAmy list the “Respondent’s Principal Personnel who will make management decisions concerning staff placement for services under the contract(s),” or the “role each Principal Personnel” would have in the contract. Regarding ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience, Ms. Roberts awarded ArnAmy the maximum 200 points. She found that ArnAmy provided “quite a bit” of information regarding its prior experience. Regarding Seva, Ms. Roberts awarded it 0 points for its Management Plan. She explained that she did not believe Seva’s proposal provided the information the RFP requested. Specifically, Seva did not explain “how” it was going to accomplish “any” of the RFP’s staffing requirements. Seva simply offered general comments with no details or step-by-step processes describing how it would acquire, then manage, IT personnel for potential Customers. Neither did Seva include the role its principals would play in its Management Plan. Conversely, Ms. Roberts awarded Seva with the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that Seva provided all the information requested regarding its prior contract experience. Ms. Roberts asserted that she worked independently and did not communicate with the other Evaluators. Further, she testified that she conscientiously used the criteria set forth in the RFP and gave each proposal consistent and fair consideration. Despite the large amount of proposals, Ms. Roberts confidently voiced that she had adequate time to consider, then score, each proposal. Heather Shoup: Ms. Shoup currently serves as the Director of Human Resources for the Department. In this position, she oversees all human resource activities for the Department, including recruitment and retention, benefit administration, classifications, compensation, employee relations issues, orientation, and retirement coordination. Ms. Shoup testified that her professional experience has been primarily in the areas of financial and human resources. In addition, she has experience hiring and managing individuals who provide IT services. However, she has no prior experience in public procurements. In preparing for her evaluations, Ms. Shoup met with the RFP’s Procurement Officer (Mr. Atkinson), as well as reviewed the RFP criteria, the Evaluators Guide, and the Instructions for the Evaluator Score Sheet. Ms. Shoup expressed that she understood her responsibilities and had sufficient training and time to evaluate each proposal. When evaluating, Ms. Shoup relayed that she worked independently through each proposal and scored as best as she could. For a perfect score, she was looking for answers to all RFP criteria. She wanted to see clear, precise responses that provided all information the RFP requested. She specifically reviewed “how” the vendor intended to deliver IT staff support for Customers. Ms. Shoup testified that she spent approximately ten minutes per evaluation. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Shoup awarded ArnAmy 200 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that ArnAmy’s Management Plan was missing information regarding its Principal Personnel who would make management decisions under a potential staffing contract. On the other hand, Ms. Shoup awarded ArnAmy the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that ArnAmy’s proposal reflected extensive IT staffing experience. Regarding Seva, Ms. Shoup awarded it 100 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that Seva’s proposal was “too broad.” Specifically, Seva did not answer the “how” questions in multiple categories. Conversely, Ms. Shoup awarded Seva with the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that Seva’s proposal clearly showed its prior IT contract experience. Finally, Ms. Shoup testified that she fairly scored each proposal she evaluated. She did not have difficulties reviewing the various submissions. Ms. Shoup also expressed that she had adequate time to consider, then score, each proposal. Based on the testimony received, the Department persuasively demonstrated that the Scoring Team “collectively [had] the experience and knowledge” required to score the RFP. Each Evaluator convincingly conveyed her ability to ably participate in the Department’s solicitation process. Although, none of the Evaluators had prior experience in the IT profession, each possessed the acumen and ability to competently conduct a procurement for IT staffing services. Ms. Reaves and Ms. Shoup both had extensive experience in personnel and human resource functions, including hiring and managing employees. Further, Ms. Roberts had broad knowledge in procuring services, including IT staff augmentation services. Finally, upon reviewing their scores again at the final hearing, each Evaluator testified that they would not change their scores. They each credibly expressed that neither ArnAmy nor Seva adequately addressed some or all of the criterion set out in the RFP. Therefore, based on their various professional and educational backgrounds and vocational experience, the undersigned finds that the Scoring Team was fully capable and proficient to review and score all aspects of each of the 374 vendor proposals. The Evaluators were adequately knowledgeable of, and sufficiently experienced for, their task of understanding and evaluating the vendors’ IT staffing plans. Conversely, neither ArnAmy nor Seva established that the Department’s appointment of a Scoring Team consisting of Stephanie Reaves, Denise Roberts, and Heather Shoup was contrary to the governing authority in section 287.057(16)(a)1. The RFP was not Contrary to the Department’s Governing Statutes, Rules, Policies, or the Solicitation Specifications: In addition to describing the Evaluator selection process, Mr. Nilson explained why the RFP limited the number of awards to 200 Contractors per Job Title (plus ties).15/ Initially, Mr. Nilson conveyed that the Department desired that vendors continue to compete to provide staffing services. Two hundred potential Contractors for each Job Title would maintain active competition when Customers requested price quotes. This arrangement would help ensure that Customers would continue to receive fair and reasonable prices in response to a Request for Quote. Secondly, restricting the number of Contractors to 200 would enable the Department to more easily monitor the large pool of vendors. Finally, the Department hoped to keep the Request for Quote process as simple and straightforward as possible for the Customers. When seeking IT staff services, Customers would have a definite and finite list of prospective Contractors. Further, Mr. Nilson added that market research indicated that only about 90 vendors actually participated in the prior/currently existing state term contract. Consequently, the Department determined that economical and fair competition for IT staff services would reasonably end at approximately 200 Contractors. Finally, the Department called Kimberly Stiver to discuss the possibility that an error occurred in the MarketPlace online system that impeded ArnAmy’s attempt to submit the final version of its Management Plan to the Department. MarketPlace is operated by Accenture. Ms. Stiver is Accenture’s Program Manager for MarketPlace. Ms. Stiver testified that, after learning of ArnAmy’s allegations, she and her staff investigated the MarketPlace system to uncover any evidence that would justify ArnAmy’s claim. Ms. Stiver reviewed event logs, the attachment history log, and the system logs to determine whether an error took place within MarketPlace related to the uploading, saving, or transmitting of ArnAmy’s Management Plan. Initially, Ms. Stiver explained that responding to a solicitation takes two steps. First, the vendor uploads the document. Then, the vendor “submits” the document to the agency. After uploading the document, but prior to submitting it, MarketPlace allows vendors to replace, revise, or upload additional documents. After a vendor has “submitted” the document, the agency then accesses the last uploaded and successfully saved version of the document in MarketPlace. At the final hearing, Ms. Stiver declared that, following her detailed inquiry, she found no indication within MarketPlace that ArnAmy was not able to, was prevented from, or encountered any difficulties in properly submitting its Management Plan to the Department. Expanding on her assertion, Ms. Stiver explained that each procurement in MarketPlace is a unique and distinct “event” that tracks key activity from the vendor community. ArnAmy’s activity on MarketPlace relating to this RFP shows that ArnAmy submitted a Management Plan at approximately 1:41 p.m. on March 18, 2019. Based on the event log, Ms. Stiver stated that ArnAmy logged onto MarketPlace only one time on March 18, 2019, and that ArnAmy only uploaded one document identified as its Management Plan at that time. The event log does not support Mr. Kadam’s suggestion that he uploaded multiple versions of a Management Plan which may have resulted in an earlier version being submitted to the Department instead of ArnAmy’s final intended version. The attachment history log also shows that ArnAmy logged into MarketPlace only one time on March 18, 2019, to upload, save, and submit documents. Ms. Stiver testified that, like the event log, the attachment history log does not support Mr. Kadam’s assertion that he saved at least three versions of ArnAmy’s Management Plan in MarketPlace. If Mr. Kadam had uploaded and saved, but not submitted, multiple versions of a Management Plan, Ms. Stiver asserted that the attachment history log would document the entries as “not submitted.” The attachment history log for ArnAmy, however, records no entries or messages with a status of “not submitted.” Finally, Ms. Stiver reviewed ArnAmy’s system log for the period of March 12 through 19, 2019, the time period during which MarketPlace was open to receive vendors’ proposals. The system log shows no system errors occurred at any time while ArnAmy was logged into MarketPlace from March 12 through 19, 2019. Based on her comprehensive explanation, Ms. Stiver persuasively testified that no errors or inconsistencies occurred in the MarketPlace online system that caused an earlier (incomplete) version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to be submitted to the Department or prevented ArnAmy from effectively and timely uploading its Management Plan in response to the RFP. The logical conclusion is that the discrepancy between the version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan that the Evaluators eventually scored and the final version that Mr. Kadam claims he submitted in MarketPlace was the result of ArnAmy’s unfortunate oversight. The Possibility of “Unbalanced” Bids: Regarding Seva’s (and ArnAmy’s) complaint that the Department failed to identify and reject “unbalanced bids,” Mr. Nilson expressed that the RFP did not prevent vendors from presenting “unbalanced” proposals. Moreover, no statute, rule, or solicitation specification required the Department to reject a vendor’s proposal simply because the hourly rate quoted might be lower than market value for a certain Job Title or Scope Variant. Further, nothing in the RFP directed the Department to conduct a statistical analysis of vendor prices prior to awarding the state term contract.16/ The RFP clearly informed all vendors of the scoring criteria the Department would apply for price. Every vendor was free to submit a hourly rate for each Job Title for which it would agree to abide. The Department uniformly applied the RFP’s price formula to every Job Title from every proposal. Finally, while Seva asserts that the price formula could have led to unfair and/or misleading scoring results, the RFP allowed all vendors (including ArnAmy and Seva) to present “low-ball” prices in their proposals. Further, even if certain vendors did include unrealistic prices for their IT staffing services, the RFP protects Customers by binding a Contractor to the maximum price per Job Title or Scope Variant listed in its proposal. (In fact, a Contractor could offer even lower prices for its IT staff services in response to a Request for Quote.) Finally, regarding Seva’s complaint that its proposal was substantially similar to its previous proposal (which received a higher score), Mr. Nilson commented that Seva’s 2019 proposal was materially different from its 2016 proposal. Seva presented fewer Principal Personnel in 2019 (two versus four individuals). Mr. Nilson surmised this factor may have reduced the amount of IT experience Seva represented. In addition, Mr. Nilson believed that Seva’s prior proposal presented a clearer description of how it intended to recruit, and then place, prospective IT personnel for Customers. In that regard, Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that Seva’s 2019 proposal contained several substantive differences from its 2016 proposal. To summarize the findings in this matter, neither ArnAmy nor Seva established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department’s decision to award only 21 of 130 Job Titles to ArnAmy and 0 of 130 Job Titles to Seva was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evidence does not demonstrate that either ArnAmy or Seva were placed at a competitive disadvantage in this solicitation. Neither is there evidence that the Department conducted this procurement in a manner that was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of the RFP. Regarding ArnAmy and Seva’s complaint that the Department did not assemble a qualified Scoring Team, the evidence establishes the contrary. Testimony at the final hearing demonstrated that the individuals the Department assigned to score the vendors’ proposals possessed the “experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which [the] contractual services [were] sought” as required by section 287.057(16)(a)1. The Evaluators’ scores for ArnAmy and Seva’s proposals were logical, reasonable, and based on a sound understanding of the criteria requested in the RFP.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order dismissing the protests of ArnAmy and Seva, except that the Department should rescore ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience. Otherwise, the Department should award state term contracts under Request for Proposals for Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services – 3rd Bid, RFP 15-8010H07- SA-D as set forth in the Revised Notice of Intent to Award the RFP issued on June 24, 2019. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2020.
