Findings Of Fact The RFP Respondent issued a request for proposals in October, 1988, entitled "Turnpike Bridge Replacement Design/Build Project, State Road 91 (Florida's Turnpike)" (the "RFP"). The RFP solicited technical and price proposals for state Project Nos. 97890-3325 and 97930-3324. The State Projects involved the design and construction of temporary detours and permanent replacement bridges over canal crossings at several locations on Florida's Turnpike. The RFP required bridges to be constructed as permanent structures at each of the project sites. Respondent advised interested parties at the scope of services meeting on October 18, 1988, that detour bridges would also be required at all of the project sites. Local permitting was a key factor in the scope of services required for the projects contemplated in the RFP. Respondent advised interested parties, including Petitioner and Intervenor, at the scope of services meeting that Respondent had done no coordinating with local agencies and that local permitting was the responsibility of each party responding to the RFP ("offeror"). The local agency with responsibility for issuing permits for a majority of the canal crossings in the RFP was the Lake Worth Drainage District ("Lake Worth"). Both Petitioner and Intervenor inquired of Lake Worth while preparing their respective technical proposals to confirm Respondent's representation that bridges would be required for both detours and permanent structures at all project sites. Lake Worth advised Petitioner that vertical clearances and hydraulics required bridges for both detours and permanent structures at all canal crossings subject to Lake Worth's jurisdiction. However, Lake Worth advised Intervenor, on or about October 26, 1988, that culverts would be acceptable for detours at three of the project sites. Kenneth Bryant was the President of DSA Group, Inc. ("DSA"). DSA is a consulting engineering firm that was retained by Intervenor to assist in the preparation of its technical and price proposals. Mr. Bryant asked Lake Worth why culverts would not be acceptable for permanent structures if culverts were acceptable for detours. Lake Worth responded that consultants for Lake Worth would look into the hydraulics of the entire system. Petitioner and Intervenor submitted their respective technical proposals on or about January 11, 1989. 2/ Intervenor used culverts in its technical proposal at those canal crossings where Lake Worth had approved the use of culverts for detours. Intervenor also included documentation of the approvals by Lake Worth. Petitioner included bridges in its technical proposal for all detours and permanent structures. The date for submitting price proposals was changed by Respondent several times. The original date was scheduled for 30 days after receipt of the technical proposals. After several delays, price proposals were timely submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor on June 21, 1989. The opening of price proposals was set for July 6, 1989, pursuant to a letter dated June 23, 1989, from Bill Deyo, Design/Build Coordinator for Respondent. The letter stated in relevant part: ... If approved by the Final Selection Committee the selected team will be posted on July 10, 1989, with the final awarding scheduled for July 14, 1989. Award and execution of this contract is contingent upon approval of budget by the Governor's office. Respondent selected Petitioner's proposal as number one and Intervenor's proposal as number two. The Final Selection Committee issued a "memo" on July 6, 1989, authorizing award of the contract. 3/ Award and execution of the contract was approved by the Governor's office. 4/ Rejection of All Proposals On July 10, 1989, Respondent sent a telegram to each offeror cancelling the posting of "bid" tabulations for that day. On August 31, 1989, the Final Selection Committee issued a memorandum rescinding its authorization to award the contract for the RFP, and requested its Contracts Administration Office to notify all "...Design/Build teams of the decision to REJECT all price proposals." On September 12, 1989, Respondent notified all offerors by certified mail of Respondent's decision to reject all "bids". No reason for Respondent's rejection of all price proposals was stated in the certified letter. At that time, offerors were not otherwise advised by Respondent of the reason for the rejection. Respondent rejected all price proposals based upon a substantial reduction in the scope of services required for the RFP. Between October, 1988, and August 31, 1989, Lake Worth determined that culverts would be acceptable instead of bridges at five of the six project sites within the jurisdiction of Lake Worth. Lake Worth's change in position substantially reduced the scope of services required in the RFP. The value of that reduction in the scope of services was approximately $3.6 million. 5/ Respondent knew or should have known from the technical proposal submitted by Intervenor on January 11, 1989, that the scope of services required in the original; RFP had been reduced to the extent Lake Worth had approved the use of culverts instead of bridges for the detours at some of the project sites. Respondent did not investigate the potential reduction in the scope of services until after the opening of price proposals on July 6, 1989. The parties stipulated at the formal hearing that Respondent's rejection of all price proposals was not at issue. Therefore, the question of whether Respondent's rejection of all proposals was arbitrary, capricious, or beyond the scope of Respondent's discretion as a state agency is not at issue in this proceeding. 6/ Respondent's Existing Rule The legislature required Respondent to adopt by rule procedures for administering combined design/build contracts. Section 337.11(5)(b), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, Respondent adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 91.006 on March 13, 1988 ("Rule 14-91.006"). 17. Rule 14-91.006(5) provided: The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technical Policy and Engineering Services, jointly with the Deputy Assistant Secretary representing the District in which the project is located, may determine it is in the best interest of the state to provide funds to firms selected for preparation of technical and price proposals in response to the Design Criteria Package. Each firm selected shall receive identical fixed fees for this work. Specific Authority 334.044(2) 337.11(5)(b) F.S. Law implemented 337.11(5) F.S. History-New 3-13-88. (emphasis added) Rule 14-91.006(5) was adopted to facilitate competitive responses to a request for proposals by paying fixed fees to firms selected by Respondent to prepare technical and price proposals. Rule 14-91.006(5) was also adopted so that Respondent could compensate offerors, retain their technical proposals, and use the design concepts on similar projects. Rule 14-91.006 was amended on June 13, 1990, in relevant part, by repealing Rule 14-91.006(5). The repeal of Rule 14-91.006(5) occurred approximately 33 days after the date of the formal hearing but before the entry of a final order in this proceeding. 7/ Request for Payment After Respondent notified offerors of the rejection of all price proposals, Petitioner and Intervenor requested Respondent to make a determination of whether it was in the best interest of the state to provide funds to Petitioner and Intervenor for the preparation of their respective technical and price proposals in accordance with Rule 14-91.006(5). Petitioner and Intervenor requested on several occasions that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technical Policy and Engineering Services jointly with the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Turnpike convene a meeting to make the determination authorized in Rule 14-91.006(5) Informal conferences with Respondent's representatives were requested on at least four occasions to discuss the issue of Petitioner's compensation for its technical and price proposals. Respondent's representatives met with Petitioner a few days before the formal hearing on May 10, 1990. Respondent stated that it had no statutory authority to compensate Petitioner for Petitioner's technical and price proposals in the absence of a contract. Respondent neither contracted with Petitioner and Intervenor to pay for their technical and price proposals nor offered to enter into such a contract. Petitioner offered to enter into such a contract and also offered to provide computer tapes containing plans and specifications required in the RFP if Respondent would agree to compensate Petitioner. Repeal of Respondent's Existing Rule Sometime between March 13, 1988, and October, 1988, Respondent considered the payment of funds pursuant to Rule 14-91.006(5) in a design/build project that preceded the RFP. 8/ Respondent requested funds from the comptroller but was advised by the comptroller that no funds could be provided pursuant to Rule 14-91.006(5) in the absence of a contract. Respondent's general counsel confirmed that there was no statutory authority to provide funds pursuant to Rule 14-91.006(5) in the absence of a contract. Respondent took no public action to repeal Rule 14- 91.006(5) until March 16, 1990, approximately two years after the earliest date Respondent could have received the directives from its comptroller and general counsel advising Respondent that Rule 14-91.006(5) exceeded its statutory authority. Instead of formally repealing Rule 14-91.006(5), Respondent followed the comptroller's recommendation to obtain legislative authority to pay funds pursuant to Rule 14- 91.006(5). Respondent unsuccessfully proposed such legislation to the House Transportation Committee during the 1989 legislative session. In November, 1989, Respondent drafted an amendment to Rule 14-91.006 which, in relevant part, repealed Rule 14-91.006(5). Notice of the proposed formal repeal of Rule 14- 91.006(5) was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 16, 1990. The amendment to Rule 14-91.006 was adopted and Rule 14-91.006(5) was formally repealed through appropriate rulemaking procedures on June 13, 1990. During 12 design/build projects, Respondent never paid funds to any firm for technical and price proposals when the firm had not been awarded a contract pursuant to a request for proposals. Respondent never adopted standards for determining the proper timing for payment of funds pursuant to Rule 14-91.006(5). Respondent never adopted standards for determining when it would be in the best interest of the state to provide funds pursuant to Rule 14- 91.006(5). Respondent refused to apply Rule 14-91.006(5) and refused to determine if it would be in the best interest of the state to provide funds to Petitioner and Intervenor for their respective technical and price proposals. The sole reason given by Respondent for its refusal to apply Rule 14-91.006(5) was the lack of statutory authority to provide funds to firms selected for preparation of technical and price proposals in the absence of a contract. Respondent's representatives never considered applying Rule 14- 91.006(5). When Respondent's representatives met with Petitioner shortly before May 10, 1990, they stated that they would like to provide the requested funds and that such funds should be provided, but that no statutory authority existed for providing such funds in the absence of a contract. The signatories to the memorandum from the Final Selection Committee, dated August 31, 1989, never met until after the meeting that took place shortly before May 10, 1990, to discuss payment for the technical and price proposals submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. When they did meet, it was determined that no statutory authority existed to provide funds pursuant to Rule 14-91.006(5) in the absence of a contract. Respondent never intended to compensate either Petitioner or Respondent for their respective technical and price proposals in the absence of a contract. Respondent never conducted any review of the technical and price proposals prepared and submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor for the purposes described in Rule 14-91.006(5). Two significant factors to be considered in making such a determination, however, would have been the benefit derived by Respondent from the technical and price proposals submitted and the effect that the provision of such funds would have on competition. Best Interest of the State Payment of funds to Petitioner and Intervenor would have been in the best interest of the state within, the meaning of Rule 14-91.006(5). 9/ Respondent derived substantial benefit from the technical and price proposals submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor including a reduction in the cost of State Project Nos. 97890-3325 and 97930-3324 in the approximate amount of $3.6 million. The fair market value of the proposals submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor was between $500,000.00 and $700,000.00 for each of the two proposals. All of the plan sheets and drawings were completed. The plans were prepared in accordance with Respondent's criteria for plan preparation. Every detail was followed and a complete maintenance of traffic plan was included. Where bridges were designed, the bridge calculations were included. Very little work was left to be done. In order to price out a project of the magnitude and scope required in the RFP, the technical proposals had to be very close to final design. Petitioner's technical proposal for both projects contemplated in the RFP was recorded on magnetic media in Petitioner's computer automated drawing machine. The magnetic media files could be easily transferred to Respondent. Petitioner at all times was ready, willing, and able to make such a transfer if Respondent had agreed to provide funds to Petitioner pursuant to Rule 14- 91.006(5). A great deal of valuable information was contained in the technical proposals prepared and submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Eighty to 90 percent of the engineering decisions were made and depicted either on the preliminary drawings or within the calculations included in the technical proposals. Information gathering and coordination with local permitting agencies, including Lake Worth, was a major component of designing and building the projects described in the RFP. Those kinds of activities required a good deal of time from higher level personnel in each organization. Respondent derived benefit from the technical proposals prepared by Petitioner and Intervenor irrespective of whether bridges or culverts are ultimately used at the canal crossings in the RFP. The only change that would be required would be to erase the bridges and insert details for a culvert crossing. Respondent derived benefit from the technical proposals prepared by Petitioner and Intervenor with respect to the projects contemplated in the RFP and similar projects in the future. Respondent can "relet" the project in the future and intends to do so. 10/ Respondent has retained the technical and price proposals submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor pending the outcome of this proceeding. Respondent's unwritten policy is to either return technical and price proposals to their offerors or destroy such proposals upon the concurrence of the, appropriate offeror. After this proceeding is concluded, Respondent intends to either return or dispose of the technical and price proposals submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor in a manner consistent with its unwritten policy. Reliance On Respondent's Existing Rule Petitioner and Intervenor were aware of Rule 14-91.006(5) in preparing and submitting their respective technical and price proposals. Neither Petitioner nor Intervenor, however, presented evidence of the extent to which they may have relied on Rule 14-91.006(5). Petitioner and Intervenor did not demonstrate that they were induced by Rule 14-91.006(5) to respond to the RFP or that Rule 14-91.006(5) was even a material or significant consideration to them. Payment of funds pursuant to Rule 14-91.006 (5) was neither addressed in the RFP nor discussed by the parties prior to Respondent's rejection of all price proposals. The record leaves open to speculation whether Petitioner and Intervenor would not have responded to the RFP in the absence of Rule 14- 91.006(5).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's written formal protest should be DENIED; Respondent should return the respective technical and price proposals to Petitioner and Intervenor; Respondent should not provide funds to either Petitioner or Intervenor pursuant to former Rule 14-91.006(5). DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of January, 1991. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk, of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed on November 8, 1991. The Petition was filed by Ervin James Horton. In the Petition Rule 2-1.007, Florida Administrative Code and "[a]ny and (all) State Attorney memorandums, statements, policy, rules, directive, consistent to this practice" were challenged. The Challenged Rule deals with the issuance of Attorney General opinions. The Petition is, to say the least, confusing. This confusion is caused by the Petitioners frequent use of legal terms and phrases with little in the way of factual explanation. The confusion is also caused by the failure of the Petitioner to actually be challenging the Challenged Rule. Although the Petitioner contains some "legalese", it does not, read alone or in conjunction with all of the Petitioner's pleadings, adequately put the Respondent on notice as to what the Petitioner is challenging or the basis for his challenge. Apparently, the Petitioner is complaining of the alleged failure of the State Attorney of the Eighth Judicial Circuit to take action against employees of the Department of Corrections and the failure of the Attorney General of the State of Florida to do anything about it. The Petitioner has also attempted to raise constitutional arguments to support his challenge to the Challenged Rule. The statements concerning constitutional issues consist of mere statements that constitutional rights are being violated without any facts to support an argument that the Challenged Rule is unconstitutional. Insufficient alleged facts concerning why it is believed that the Challenged Rule is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petition. On December 4, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend and Cancelling Formal Hearing was entered. On December 23, 1991, an Amended Petition was filed by the Petitioner. The Amended Petition consolidated the Petitioner's challenges in this case and case number 90-7189R. The Amended Petition is very similar to the Petition and suffers from the same deficiencies. Additionally, the Petitioner includes the Department of Corrections, the Respondent in case number 91-7189R, as a Respondent and addresses his challenge to other rules, internal operating procedures and directives of the Department of Corrections. The Amended Petition is devoid of a sufficient statement of the alleged facts pertinent to the issues raised in the Petition or the Amended Petition which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rule or the other materials challenged in the Amended Petition are invalid under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. On January 14, 1992, an Order Concerning Amended Petition was entered dismissing the Amended Petition and giving the parties an opportunity to file proposed final orders.
Findings Of Fact Rule 23-21.03(9)(b) , Florida Administrative Code, the rule under challenge, contains a list of forms to be used by the Commission in parole grant-and-rescind types of proceedings. The particular form which is challenged is PCG-4.4, entitled "Special Commission Action." The Commission on September 7, 1983, extended petitioner's presumptive parole release date (PPRD) by utilizing form PCG-4.4. Petitioner and the Commission agree that invalidation of the challenged rule will not affect petitioner's PPRD. Petitioner does not challenge the method by which Rule 23-21.03(9)(b) , Florida Administrative Code, was promulgated.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a corporation with its principal office 3981 North W Street, Unit 36, Pensacola, Florida 32505. At all relevant time periods, Respondent has been engaged in business as a contractor in the construction industry. On March 28, 2012, after receiving a public referral regarding alleged uninsured construction activity at 2544 North D Street in Pensacola, Florida (the Site), Department Compliance Investigator Angelia Brown visited the Site. Upon Ms. Brown's arrival, there were plumbers and a siding company at the Site. According to Ms. Brown, she also saw an individual attaching u- shaped metal clips between the inside beams and the roof and soffits of the house that was being constructed at the Site. The plumbers had a workers' compensation policy and the siding workers had exemptions from workers' compensation requirements. Ms. Brown spoke to the man who appeared to be attaching the metal clips. Based upon that conversation, Ms. Brown concluded that the man was a subcontractor and Respondent's employee. The evidence, however, does not support that conclusion. The man, whose name is apparently Robert Madron, was not called as a witness at the final hearing. According to Ms. Brown, Mr. Madron told her he had his own company. Ms. Brown, however, was unable to obtain information verifying that assertion. Further, while Mr. Howard had paid Mr. Madron prior to Ms. Brown's visit for unsolicited work Mr. Madron had performed for Mr. Howard, consisting of picking up trash and repairing some equipment owned by Mr. Howard, Mr. Howard denied that Respondent ever employed Mr. Madron. Rather than showing that Mr. Madron was a subcontractor with his own business or an employee of Respondent, the evidence adduced at the final hearing indicated that Mr. Madron, who was known as "Gomer" by Mr. Howard, was an unemployed, homeless person, living in nearby woods. Mr. Madron would often come to the Site and surrounding neighborhood looking for work and food. Mr. Howard was surprised that Ms. Brown had taken Mr. Madron seriously, because Mr. Howard believes that Mr. Madron's facial expressions and unbalanced, awkward gait are obvious indicators that Mr. Madron is unstable and has mental problems. Ms. Brown issued a Stop-Work Order to Mr. Madron the day of her first visit at the Site, March 28, 2012. The evidence presented at the final hearing, however, failed to show that Mr. Madron was ever employed by Respondent. The next day, March 29, 2012, Ms. Brown returned and observed four other individuals working at the Site. The individuals included Robert Jones, Charles Lyons, Martin Shaughnessy, and Allen Weeden. While Ms. Brown concluded that these individuals were Respondent's employees on March 29, 2012, the evidence shows that they were paid for the work that day by Pacesetter Personnel, an employee-leasing company. Aside from alleging that Respondent employed Mr. Madron, the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is based upon Respondent's alleged employment and failure to provide workers' compensation coverage for Mr. Jones, Mr. Lyons, Mr. Shaughnessy, and Mr. Weeden. In addition, the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment alleges that Respondent employed its officer, Mr. Howard, during a lapse in Mr. Howard's exemption from workers' compensation. There was no testimony from Robert Jones, Charles Lyons, Martin Shaughnessy, or Allen Weeden offered at the final hearing and the evidence is otherwise insufficient to show that those individuals were employed by Respondent on March 29, 2012. The Department's investigator, Ms. Brown, further concluded that Pacesetter Personnel had not provided worker's compensation coverage for those four men on March 29, 2012. Her conclusion, however, was based on a conversation she said she had with Pacesetter Personnel. The Department did not offer the testimony from anyone at Pacesetter, nor did it offer any non- hearsay evidence to support Ms. Brown's conclusion that Pacesetter Personnel was not providing workers' compensation to those four individuals. Further, the only evidence that the Department offered to prove that Messrs. Jones, Lyons, Shaughnessy, and Weeden were ever employed by Respondent, or to support the Third Amended Penalty Assessment, consists of Mr. Howard's cancelled checks to those individuals. The Third Amended Penalty Assessment seeks an assessment for Robert Jones from January 1 to March 28, 2012. At the final hearing, Mr. Howard testified that Mr. Jones is a relative, and the payment to Mr. Jones was a loan to help Mr. Jones with moving expenses. There is no contrary evidence. The Third Amended Penalty Assessment provides an assessment for Charles Lyons for the periods from July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, and from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. The assessment is based upon one check to Mr. Lyons in the amount to $480. Mr. Howard testified that Mr. Lyons had an exemption from workers' compensation. The Department presented no contradictory evidence. The Third Amended Penalty Assessment seeks an assessment for Martin Shaughnessy for several time periods based upon several checks from Mr. Howard. Mr. Howard testified that Mr. Shaughnessy had an exemption and the Department presented no contrary evidence. The Third Amended Penalty assessment also seeks an assessment for James Howard, individually, from July 17 to August 11, 2011, during which time there was a lapse in his certificate of exemption from workers' compensation. The evidence showed that, other than that 26-day lapse, Mr. Howard has maintained his exemption since 2003. The Department presented no evidence that Mr. Howard provided services to, or was paid by, Respondent during the time that his exemption had lapsed. The only evidence presented was a check from Respondent's checking account showing a payment to Mr. Howard's mother during the lapse period. Mr. Howard testified that the check was to reimburse his mother for the use of her American Express card to purchase materials and supplies. The Department presented no countervailing evidence. In sum, the evidence presented at the final hearing was insufficient to support the Stop Work Order or Third Amended Penalty Assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order dismissing the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 28th day of June, 2013.
Conclusions WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the Department rejects all bids for Invitation to Negotiate 2011-38, and the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Hearing is dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 1g day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Cynthia S. Tunnicliff Brian A. Newman Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2"? Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (850) 222-3533 Clerk Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399 Commissioner of Education Donna E. Blanton Lisa Caroline Scoles Radey, Thomas, Yon, and Clark 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (850) 245-6654 James H. Peterson, Ill Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 NOTICE OF RIGHTS a Any party to this’ proceeding has the right:to seek judicial review of this Order under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by the filing of a notice of appeal under Rules 9.110 and 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Agency Clerk and by filing a copy of the notice of appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate district court of appeal. The notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after this order is filed with the clerk of the Department. Failure to make a timely appeal will result in waiver of the right of judicial review in this matter. CERTIFICATE OF THE AGENCY CLERK | HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy has been furnished via U.S. Mail to the below, this __( g day of January, 2012. Cynthia S. Tunnicliff Donna E. Blanton Brian A. Newman Lisa Caroline Scoles Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Radey, Thomas, Yon, and Clark Dunbar, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 215 South Monroe Street, 2"¢ Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (850) 245-6654 (850) 222-3533 | : LYNN ABBOTT Agency Clerk
Findings Of Fact On June 19, 1991, the Petitioner, Lemuel L. Cole, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing. The Petitioner challenged a proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.004, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner's challenge was instituted pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The notice of the proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.004, Florida Administrative Code, was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 17, Number 21, page 2318, on May 24, 1991. The Petitioner's Petition challenging proposed amendment to Rule 33- 3.004, Florida Administrative Code, was filed twenty-six days after notice of the proposed amendment to the challenged rule was filed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a contractor engaged in highway construction and holds a certificate of qualification with Respondent. Action pending in DOAH Case No. 84-2538 could result in the suspension of Petitioner's certificate if an alleged contract delinquency is proven. Section 337.16, F.S., delegates to Respondent the authority to revoke or suspend a certificate when contract delinquency is demonstrated. This statute provides: No contractor shall be qualified to bid when an investigation by the highway engineer discloses that such contractor is delinquent on a previously awarded contract, and in such case his certificate of qualification shall be suspended or revoked. The department may suspend, for a specified period of time, or revoke for good cause any certificate of qualification. The purpose of the above statute is to enforce timely completion of construction work and to prevent a contractor from taking on new work which might require diversion of resources from the delinquent job, thus lessening the contractor's ability to catch up. Rule 14-23.01, F.A.C. was promulgated by Respondent to implement its authority to suspend or revoke contractor certificates for job delinquency. Because contractors charged with delinquency frequently catch-up or cure the delinquency during the pendency of administrative proceedings, 1/ Respondent's statutory authority to enforce construction schedules was easily thwarted. To "put teeth" in its ability to deter job delays, Respondent amended its delinquency rule in 1982 to provide after- the-fact certificate suspension where a contractor was proven to have been delinquent in its progress on a construction project. This provision, which is challenged here, states as follows: (b) REINSTATEMENT. Any contractor disqualified under the above provisions shall be disqualified from further bidding and shall be disapproved as a contractor until the delinquency is cured. Where a contractor cures the alleged delinquency during the course of administrative proceedings, the Department may suspend the qualification to bid and disapprove as a subcontractor for the number of days the contractor is administratively determined to be delinquent. Specifically, Petitioner challenges the last sentence which it contends amounts to unauthorized punishment since the deficiency sought to be corrected by the statute no longer exists. However, the provision would arguably have some deterrent force since contractors would recognize that suspension could not be avoided merely by requesting formal proceedings 2/ and counting on administrative delay to render the delinquency issue moot.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for attorney's fees and costs should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In these cases, Petitioner, Couch Construction, L.P., seeks to impose sanctions against Respondents, Darel Holland (Holland) and Diane Lowery (Lowery), on the ground that they allegedly filed petitions for an improper purpose challenging the issuance of a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In responsive papers filed by Respondents, both deny that the actions were initiated for an improper purpose. The facts in the underlying DEP case involving Holland (OGC Case No. 98-3015) show that on October 30, 1998, Petitioner published a copy of DEP's Notice of Intent to Issue Permit to Petitioner authorizing the construction of a hot mix asphalt concrete plant at 2780 North Highway 95-A, Cantonment, Florida, with potential emissions of up to 29 tons per year of particulate matter. After learning of the proposed action, various citizens in the Cantonment area signed a petition opposing the project. In addition, a local attorney, John T. Reading, Jr., Esquire (Reading), offered to provide them with pro bono assistance as a "community service." Among other things, Reading prepared a form petition challenging the issuance of the permit and requesting a formal hearing. That form was apparently made available to the local citizens so that they could sign and file it, if they chose to do so. Holland says that he did, and it is fair to infer that this form was the source of Lowery's petition as well. Holland lives only 9 blocks from the proposed plant and suffers from a lung disease which has left him with only 58 percent of his lung capacity. Because of his legitimate concerns about the projected amount of particulate emissions and their potential effect on his respiratory system, on November 12, 1998, he filed in proper person a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the proposed issuance of the permit. Holland's petition alleged that he was a property owner in the area where the plant would be constructed; that "due to respiratory problems," he would be "substantially affected by the permitted 29 tons of particulate emissions"; that his property "may be substantially reduced in value and peaceful enjoyment" as a result of the permit being issued; and that the petition was not "being interposed merely for the purposes of delay, or any other improper purpose as listed in F.S. 120.57(1)(b)(5)." There was no showing that the petition was filed for an improper purpose or that Holland's concerns were not genuine. Holland's petition also requested an extension of time "to determine which rules or statutes require reversal or modification of the Department's action" and "to obtain counsel" to assist him in his action. On December 21, 1998, DEP entered an order dismissing Holland's petition on the ground that he failed to allege the information required by Rule 28-106.201(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. It also determined that no good cause had been shown to warrant an extension of time for Holland to determine if any rules or statutes supported his position. He was, however, granted leave to file an amended petition within 15 days from the date of service of DEP's dismissal order (December 23, 1998). This meant that an amended petition had to be filed with DEP no later than January 7, 1999. After learning that his petition had been dismissed, Holland had a brief conversation with Reading about the dismissal and was left with a somewhat vague understanding that Reading "would get an extension" from DEP. Thereafter, on January 12, 1999, or 5 days after the due date, Reading filed with DEP an Amended Petition of Darel Holland for Administrative Hearing. The petition was signed by Reading, and it represented that a copy of the petition had been served on Petitioner's counsel on January 5, 1999. On January 14, 1999, Reading also filed with DEP on behalf of Holland a paper styled Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time in which Reading claimed that "due to circumstances not known," the amended petition had not been timely filed. Reading accordingly requested that DEP authorize the untimely filing. By order dated January 28, 1999, DEP denied the Motion to Enlarge Time and dismissed the amended petition, with prejudice, as being untimely. No appeal from that final agency action was taken. Lowery did not attend the final hearing. However, according to Holland, Lowery lives only 500 feet from the proposed cement plant. She boards horses on her property and frequently has children visit the property to ride their horses. The papers filed in her underlying case (OGC Case No. 98-2932) reflect that the facts in that case are essentially the same as those involving Holland. On November 12, 1998, Lowery filed in proper person a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing which was virtually identical to the petition filed by Holland. As an additional ground, however, she alleged that the October 30, 1998, notice published by Petitioner was defective, and she requested that DEP require Petitioner to re-advertise the matter. There was no evidence that this petition was filed for an improper purpose or that Lowery's concerns were not genuine. On December 21, 1998, Lowery's petition was dismissed by DEP because she had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 28-106.201(4), Florida Administrative Code. Like Holland, she was given until January 5, 1999, in which to file an amended petition. In papers filed by Lowery after this sanction proceeding arose, she denies that she had any knowledge that any further papers in the permit case would be filed on her behalf after the DEP dismissal order was entered. In any event, on January 12, 1999, or five days after the due date, Reading filed on Lowery's behalf with DEP an Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing which was identical to that filed on behalf of Holland. Also, on January 14, 1999, Reading filed a Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time seeking to excuse his tardiness in filing the amended petition. Both papers were served on Petitioner's counsel. On January 28, 1999, DEP entered its Final Order Denying Motion to Enlarge Time and dismissing Lowery's amended petition, with prejudice. No appeal from that final order was taken. Because no appeal was taken by either Respondent, DEP's intent to issue a permit became final, and it is fair to infer that a permit has been issued to Petitioner. On January 7, 1999, or prior to DEP's final order of dismissal, Petitioner's counsel noticed both Respondents for a deposition in Pensacola, Florida, on January 14, 1999. Because Reading had signed the amended petitions, Petitioner's counsel logically served the notices by Federal Express on Reading. However, Reading failed to notify Respondents, and neither he nor Respondents appeared at the deposition or advised counsel prior to the depositions that they would not appear. As a result, Petitioner incurred the costs and fees for having its counsel travel to Pensacola. In addition, Petitioner presumably incurred the cost of a court reporter's appearance fee. Assuming that Petitioner's claim is meritorious, those costs would be the responsibility of Reading, and not Respondents. At the hearing, it was represented that Reading is no longer a member of the Florida Bar. This is because in an unpublished order dated January 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court revoked his license to practice law effective 30 days thereafter, or on February 7, 1999. His current address is unknown. Petitioner has asserted that in defending against Respondents' petitions, "the bulk" of its costs and fees are related to the deposition and that a few other undisclosed fees and costs have been incurred. At the final hearing, Petitioner did not specify the amount of fees and costs that it seeks or provide any breakdown of those amounts; rather, it opted to provide an affidavit detailing those costs after this final order is rendered, assuming it prevails in this action.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to exemption from disqualification by law with regard to working in a position of special trust and responsibility related to children, disabled adults, and elderly persons?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is disqualified from working in a position of special trust because of: a 1991 conviction of grand theft auto; a 1980 conviction of battery; two counts in 1993 of uttering a forged instrument, one count of petty theft and one count of trespassing after warning. Respondent's testimony was direct, candid, and creditable. He previously engaged in a life-style that is no longer compatible with his present involvement with church and community. His testimony was well corroborated by the testimony of eight other witnesses and numerous exhibits. As established by clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing, Respondent is rehabilitated and unlikely again to engage in criminal conduct or present a threat to children, disabled adults, or elderly persons, if employed in a position of special trust. The various criminal offenses for which Petitioner has been convicted, were all committed more than three years prior to his disqualification notice from Respondent for which Petitioner now seeks exemption. Section 435.07, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification to work with children in positions of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 10th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Karlier Robinson 1018 Martin Street Blountstown, Florida 32424 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Suite 252-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
