Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, respondent, Benjamin R. Newbold, Jr., held registered electrical contractor license number ER 0001170 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board. He was granted registration in September, 1974 after evidencing competency in Metropolitan Dade County. His present address is Route 3, Box 839, Silver Springs, Florida. He also holds a registered electrical contractor's license with the City of Ocala and, as such, is authorized to pull permits and perform electrical work within that city. At all times relevant thereto, respondent, Edward I. Hammond, held registered electrical contractor license number ER 0003860 issued by petitioner. Hammond was granted registration in September, 1975 after evidencing competency in Marion County, Florida. However, Hammond is not qualified to perform electrical work within the City of Ocala since he had not obtained the required certificate of competency. His present address is 2529 Northeast 6th Street, Ocala, Florida. Section 2.63 of the Ocala City Code provides in part that "no person shall engage in said businesses or occupations (of a contractor) in the city until such person shall have first stood a satisfactory examination before the examining board as to his qualifications and fitness to engage in such occupation or business." On or about March 22, 1983, Drake Contracting Company, a construction firm in Oca1a, Florida, entered into a contract with H & H Electrical Contractor Company (H & H), an electrical firm in Silver Springs, Florida, wherein H & H would perform the electrical work on a construction project for Caviness Buick, 2060 Southwest College Road, Ocala, Florida. The agreed-upon price was $42,113. Hammond was the owner of H & H. In order to perform the work required in the above contract, it was necessary that the person doing the work be certified by the City of Ocala. On April 7, 1983, Newbold filed an application for an electrical permit with the City of Ocala to perform the work on the Caviness Buick project. The application did not reflect that H & H was associated in any respect with the job. Thereafter, on April 13, the City code enforcement officer learned through a telephonic complaint that H & H had no certificate of competency. On April 19, the officer contacted Hammond on the job site to advise him that H & H was in violation of the City code and that he could not perform the job. After being told their endeavors were illegal, respondents entered into a written "joint venture" on April 21, 1983, and agreed to work jointly on the Caviness Buick project and split the profits, if any. Newbold was to be in charge of supervising the employees on the job. Newbold had qualified for a certificate of competency with the City in 1978. Using that certificate, he filed an application for contractor's certificate with the City on May 4, 1983 seeking to qualify H & H. This application was apparently granted by the City shortly thereafter. From that point on, H & H was qualified to contract electrical work within the City. Respondents contended that an informal agreement between the two existed prior to obtaining the contract to do the job and that it was formalized in writing after the City made its complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent Newbold be found guilty of violating Subsections 489.533(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and that a $100 fine be imposed for such conduct, the fine to be paid within thirty (30) days from date of final order in this cause. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent Hammond be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.513(4), Florida Statutes, and that a $200 fine be imposed for such conduct, the fine to be paid within thirty (30) days from date of final order in this cause. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Benjamin R. Newbold, Jr. Route 3, Box 830 Silver Springs, Florida 32688 Mr. Edward I. Hammond 2529 Northeast 6th Street Ocala, Florida 32670 Mr. Alan R. Smith Executive Director Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the charged violations of Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what if any penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 11, 2006, the Respondent entered into a contract with Ms. Carolyn H. Wilson for remodeling work, at Ms. Wilson's home in St. Petersburg, Florida. The scope of the work included in the Respondent's "Quotation" or their agreement, involved structural work, plumbing, and electrical work. The Respondent presented himself as being properly licensed for the work which he contracted to perform at Ms. Wilson's property. The Respondent had dictated the terms of the agreement or contract to Mr. Caleb Alfred who wrote the terms required by the Respondent into the "Quotation" form provided by the Respondent. Mr. Alfred was paid a $200.00 commission for referring Ms. Wilson and her job to the Respondent. Mr. Alfred is not affiliated in any way with the Respondent, however, and was a coworker at a local school with Ms. Wilson, who was the Assistant Principal. Ms. Wilson understood that she was contracting for work to be done by the Respondent and not by Mr. Alfred. The Respondent and Ms. Wilson signed the "Quotation" form as the contract for the project. The Respondent was never licensed to engage in any category of contracting in the State of Florida at any time material to the facts in this case and to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. On December 11, 2006, the Respondent was paid $7,000.00, by Ms. Wilson's check no. 1022, the day the agreement was entered into. Thereafter he was paid $11,000.00 on December 19, 2006, by check no. 1024 issued by Ms. Wilson. He was paid on December 21, 2006, $1,400.00 by check no. 1025 and another $3,000.00 on December 22, 2006, by Ms. Wilson's check no. 1026. The Respondent also incurred some additional charges on Ms. Wilson's Home Depot and Lowes accounts for certain tools and items which he kept after he left the job. The Respondent maintains that he kept those tools as a remedy for work that he had performed for which Ms. Wilson had not paid him. The work the Respondent contracted to do required a permit. No permit of any kind for the referenced project was ever obtained. The electrical work to be performed by the Respondent included the installing of 10 recessed lights and two outlets. The lights to be installed, some of which were installed by the Respondent, were plug-in lights. The outlets installed by the Respondent involved merely screwing existing wires into the new outlets. They did not involve the addition of any wiring to the project or the home. The dishwasher to be installed by the Respondent did not actually involve plumbing. The plumbing work was already done and was existing at the site. The Respondent merely had to screw the plumbing outlet on the dishwasher to the standing plumbing or pipe. The installation of the flooring and the installation of the wall in the residence accomplished by the Respondent was structural work and constituted contracting. The wall was installed and was attached to the trusses of the structure. The flooring portion of the project involved installation of the hardwood flooring and the pad beneath, the charge for which totaled approximately $15,400.00 itself. The Respondent is a native of Trinidad. While residing in Trinidad he built houses. He therefore is quite experienced in construction. He has a "handyman" license from the City of Sanford. That handyman license prohibits electrical repair or replacement of any type, roof repair, installation of exterior doors and windows, and any work that requires a permit. The Respondent apparently was of the belief that he was authorized to do the type of work at issue, based on the strength of holding handyman license. Additionally, the handyman exemption from licensure which is provided in Section 489.103(9), Florida Statutes, references contracts under $1,000.00 dollars. It also requires, for an exemption, that the work involved not require any permitting. Neither is the case here, the work involved much more than $1,000.00 and did require permitting, at least in part. The Respondent apparently finished most of the job at issue. It is debatable whether he finished the dishwasher installation which merely involved placing it and screwing it into the already existing plumbing outlet. There is apparently a dispute over whether he was to install cabinets. The Respondent maintains that Ms. Wilson was to purchase and have installed the cabinets. It is therefore debatable, and not clear from the evidence of record, whether the Respondent is indeed still owed money by Ms. Wilson, or whether he charged more money for his work during the course of the project than they had agreed to and therefore owes her a refund. In any event, the monetary dispute is not of direct relevance to the question of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint. The Department adduced testimony of its investigator concerning investigative costs. She thus testified that she had no recollection of how many hours or how much time she had expended in investigating the case culminating in the Administrative Complaint. She testified that she relied on a computer time-tracking program of the Department. But no such record was offered into evidence, nor the custodian of such record to testify. Consequently, the cost figure asserted by the Department as investigative cost for this proceeding of $520.18 has not been proven by persuasive, competent evidence.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding that the Respondent violated Sections 489.127(1)(7) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative penalty in the amount of $2,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 29th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Sorin Ardelean, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barry Rigby, Esquire Law Offices of Barry Rigby, P.A. 924 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 319 Orlando, Florida 32803 G.W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Floyd E. Williams be DISMISSED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1983.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent for violating section 489.533(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by violating section 455.227(1)(j), which prohibits "[a]iding, assisting, procuring, employing, or advising any unlicensed person or entity to practice a profession contrary to this chapter, the chapter regulating the profession, or the rules of the department or the board."
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Michael Ellis, is licensed in Florida as an electrical contractor and holds licenses EC0000680 and EC13003559. He has been licensed in Florida since 1986 and has not been disciplined prior to this case. In the summer and fall of 2013, the Respondent was the primary qualifying agent of M. Ellis Electrical, Inc. (Ellis Electrical). In the summer and fall of 2013, Clark Huls was not licensed as an electrical contractor in Florida. In August 2013, Ellis Electrical had a subcontract with Powerhouse, Inc. (Powerhouse), which had a contract with 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven), for the installation of hot food cabinets at several different 7-Eleven retail locations in Florida. The installation required electrical work (including subpanels, new circuits, outlets, and breakers) and had to be done by a licensed electrical contractor. Someone at Powerhouse referred Huls to the Respondent, and the Respondent hired him to do the installations for $1,400 for each of nine different 7-Eleven jobsites. It was the Respondent's initial intent to hire Huls as a subcontractor. The evidence is disputed and not clear as to exactly what Huls represented to the Respondent about his license status when the Respondent hired him. The evidence is clear that Huls did not provide him with licensure and insurance information at that time and was supposed to provide this information to the Respondent at the first jobsite. The Respondent did not initially check DBPR's website to verify Huls' license status, which was the prudent and appropriate thing for him to have done. The first work performed by Huls for the Respondent was on August 21, 2013. The Respondent was there to supervise and direct the work. Huls did not provide license and insurance information. By this time, the Respondent clearly knew or should have known that Huls was not licensed. At the third installation Huls performed, on August 24, 2013, the Respondent had an employee named Jason Ippolito deliver an employment package to Huls. Huls refused to complete and sign the employment paperwork because it would change the terms of his agreement with the Respondent to be paid $1,400 per jobsite. The Respondent allowed Huls to continue to work on installations while trying to resolve the subcontract/employment issue. In all, Huls completed nine installations between August 21 and September 3, 2013. When Huls asked to be paid $1,400 per jobsite, as originally agreed, the Respondent refused to pay because Huls was not licensed as a subcontractor and refused to complete the paperwork to be paid as an employee. Huls then placed liens on all nine 7-Eleven properties and contacted Powerhouse to be paid. In order to save its relationship with 7-Eleven, Powerhouse paid Huls $5,806 and deducted that amount from what it owed Ellis Electrical. On October 12, 2013, the Respondent filed a DBPR complaint against Huls for subcontracting without a license. DBPR filed an Administrative Complaint against Huls for unlicensed activity. Criminal prosecutions of Huls also were filed and were pending at the time of the final hearing in this case. In mitigation, in addition to his clean record as a long-time licensee, the Respondent presented that he was dealing with his wife's serious health issues during the summer and fall of 2013, which affected his ability to manage his jobsites. In addition, no consumer or member of the public suffered financial harm. Ultimately, the financial harm was borne by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board find the Respondent, Michael Ellis, guilty as charged, fine him $1,000, require him to pay reasonable investigative costs, and take two additional hours of continuing education with an emphasis on laws and rules. Jurisdiction is retained for 30 days after the final order to determine reasonable investigative costs if the parties cannot reach an agreement. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 13th day of March, 2015.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the charged violations of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), and Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of contracting and the licensure of those engaged in the practice of contracting of all types, in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent engages in re-modeling and other construction-related work both as his own business and employment by a certified general contractor. This case arose upon a Complaint filed with the Petitioner Agency by Mr. Kenneth Hatin. The Complaint asserted his belief that the Respondent had engaged in a contract to construct an addition on his home, and after being paid substantial sums of money, had wrongfully left the job and never finished it. The residence in question is co-owned by Mr. Hatin and his fiancée, Ms. Beverly White. Ms. White's first cousin is Ms. Julie Crawley. Ms. Crawley is the Respondent's fiancée. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent were introduced by Ms. Crawley and Ms. White. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent thus met socially and as they got to know each other discussed Mr. Hatin's desire to have an addition placed on his home. The addition consisted of a pool enclosure to be constructed on his property located at 33 Botany Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. Mr. Hatin expressed the desire to have the Respondent assist him in constructing the pool enclosure. The Respondent agreed to do so. The Respondent is employed by his brother, who is a Florida-Licensed General Contractor, but neither the Respondent nor his business, JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., are licensed or certified to engage in contracting or electrical contracting. In accordance with his agreement with Mr. Hatin, the Respondent provided labor and assistance with the renovation project, including digging ditches, picking-up supplies and being present at the work site. In addition to the Respondent, other friends and family members of the protagonists assisted with the project, including the Respondent's son, Ms. Crawley's son, Mr. Hatin's employer, Ms. White's brother-in-law, and Mr. Hatin himself. This was, in essence, a joint family/friends cooperative construction project. Over the course of approximately five months during the construction effort, Mr. Hatin wrote checks to the Respondent in the total amount of $30,800.00. All contractors or workmen on the job were paid and no liens were placed on Mr. Hatin's property. The checks written were for the materials purchased and labor performed by tradesmen or sub-contractors engaged by the Respondent and Mr. Hatin for various aspects of the job such as roofing, tile or block laying, etc. The Respondent received no fee or profit in addition to the amounts paid to the material suppliers, contractors, and laborers on the job. It is not entirely clear from the record who prepared the contract in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four, or the document that the parties treated as a contract. It is not entirely clear who actually signed it, but the document was drafted relating to the work to be done on Mr. Hatin's home (the contract). Mr. Hatin maintained that the Respondent prepared and signed the contract. Ms. Crawley testified that the contract was actually prepared by herself and Ms. White (for "tax purposes"). It is inferred that this means that the contract was prepared to provide some written evidence of the amount expended on the addition to the home, probably in order to raise the cost basis in the home to reduce capital gains tax liability potential at such time as the home might be sold. The term "tax purposes" might mean other issues or consequences not of record in this case, although it has not been proven that the contract was prepared for a fraudulent purpose. Ms. Crawley testified that the Respondent did not actually sign the document himself but that she signed it for him. What was undisputed was that there were hand-written changes made to the contract so as to include exhaust fans, ceiling fans, sun tunnels, a bathroom door and outside electrical lighting. Although there was a change to the contract for this additional scope of work, there was no increase in the amounts to be paid by Mr. Hatin for such work. After the project was commenced and the addition was partially built, Mr. Hatin and Ms. White were involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Work was stopped on the project for a period of approximately seven weeks, with Mr. Hatin's acquiescence, while Ms. White convalesced. The Respondent, during this time, dedicated all of his time to his regular job and other work commitments. It was apparently his understanding, expressed in Ms. Crawley's testimony, that, due to injuries he received in the accident and more particularly the more serious injuries received by his fiancée, that Mr. Hatin was not focused on the project at that time, but let it lapse until the medical emergency was past. After approximately seven weeks of inactivity Mr. Hatin contacted the Respondent requesting that he begin work on the project again. A meeting was set up between Mr. Hatin and the Respondent. The Respondent however, was unable to attend the meeting with Mr. Hatin that day, tried to re-schedule and a dispute arose between the two. Additionally, family disputes over money and interpersonal relationships were on- going at this time leading to a lack of communication and a further dispute between Mr. Hatin, Ms. White, the Respondent, and Ms. Crawley. A threat of physical harm was directed at the Respondent by Mr. Hatin (he threatened to put out the Respondent's "one good eye" if he came on the subject property again). Because of this, the Respondent elected not to return to the project. Inferentially, at that point the process of filing the subject complaint soon ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Garvin B. Bowden, Esquire Gardner, Wadsworth, Duggar, Bist & Wiener, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of professions pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The ECLB is charged with regulating the practice of electrical contracting pursuant to Section 489.507, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Rule 61G6-4.006, Florida Administrative Code, the ECLB has established a Probable Cause Panel to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that a violation of governing statutes has occurred. Mr. Borota is, and was at all times material to this matter, licensed as a Registered Electrical Specialty Contractor, having been issued license numbers ET 0000218 and ES 0000213. Mr. Borota is, and was at all times material to this matter, the licensed qualifier for his wholly owned Florida corporation, Communication Installation and Service Co., Inc. Subsection 489.517(3)(a), Florida Statutes, requires a licensee to provide proof of completing at least 14 classroom hours of continuing education courses during each biennium following issuance of the license. Rule 61G6-9.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, defines "course" as "any course, seminar or other program of instruction which has been approved by the board for the purpose of complying with the continuing education requirements for electrical and alarm contractors." Rule 61G6-9.004(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires that licensees provide proof of completion of at least 14 classroom hours of continuing education courses "approved by the board." Rule 61G6-9.005(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires course sponsors to register with the ECLB prior to submitting their courses to the board for approval. Rule 61G6- 9.005, Florida Administrative Code, provides that accredited universities and colleges which offer courses in the contracting areas specified in Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, are deemed admitted as course sponsors. Rule 61G6-9.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, allows a registered course sponsor to submit to the ECLB an application for approval of a continuing education course, and provides that relevant courses offered by accredited universities and colleges are deemed approved. The ECLB regularly publishes a list of approved continuing education courses. Rule 61G6-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth criteria for continuing education. The following sets forth the relevant portions of the rule as it read during the period relevant to this case: The following programs of continuing education may be used to satisfy the continuing education requirement provided that the licensee complies with the terms set forth herein: Courses for credit which are business, technical or safety courses relevant to the electrical contracting industry and which require a passing grade taken at an accredited college, university, or community college. The licensee must furnish an official transcript and a notarized statement affirming classroom hours attended and the receipt of a passing grade. Noncredited courses conducted by an accredited institution of higher learning, official governmental agency, the military, or recognized national or state trade or civil organization provided the following conditions are met: the course must be business, technical or safety course relevant to the electrical contracting industry. the course must follow a written text, which must be submitted to the Board for approval on request. the instructor of the course must be a professional educator, certified electrical contractor or a similar authority in the field. The licensee must submit a notarized statement affirming the following: Number of classroom hours attended Sponsor of the course Location of the course Date of the course Name of the instructor and his credentials Benefit received from the course George Ayrish, program administrator for the ECLB, testified that Rule 61G6-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, allows a licensee to obtain credit for courses that are not on the approved list, provided the substantive criteria for continuing education courses are met and the notarized statement is filed. The ECLB conducts random audits of its licensees every two years. On January 27, 1997, the ECLB sent Mr. Borota a written notice that his license was undergoing such an audit for the period September 1, 1994, through August 31, 1996. The notice requested that Mr. Borota provide, among other items not relevant to this proceeding, certification that he had completed the required continuing education hours. Mr. Borota responded with certificates of attendance at three separate technical electrical contracting courses presented by equipment vendors: a "3M Hot Melt Fiber Optics Connectors" course offered by 3M Telecom Systems Division on June 25, 1995; a "Category 5" cabling installation course offered by The Siemon Company on December 5, 1995; and an "Installation Certification Program" offered by Ortronics Open System Architecture Networking Products on June 19, 1995. None of these courses were included in the ECLB’s list of approved continuing education courses. By letter dated March 18, 1997, the ECLB informed Mr. Borota that the courses submitted as evidence of continuing education must be "Board approved" and "completed within the audit period." Mr. Borota responded with a certificate indicating that he had completed "product application training" and was thus a certified installer for Superior Modular Products, Inc. The certificate was dated July 31, 1995. This course was not included in the ECLB’s list of approved continuing education courses. On August 18, 1997, Mr. Ayrish filed a Uniform Complaint Form alleging that Mr. Borota did not provide proof of continuing education as required by Rule 61G6-9.004(1), Florida Administrative Code. The complaint was forwarded to Kathy MacNeill, a senior consumer complaint analyst for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. By letter dated October 9, 1997, Ms. MacNeill advised Mr. Borota that a complaint had been filed against him. She enclosed a copy of Mr. Ayrish’s complaint. The letter requested that Mr. Borota submit a written response within 20 days. By letter dated October 13, 1997, Mr. Borota responded to Ms. MacNeill’s request. He wrote, in relevant part, that: Regarding the continuing education for ET 0000218 I did send the certificates of classes that I had taken during the audit time in question. All of the classes that I had taken covered communications cabling which is what our company does. Most of the classes that are held by the contractors schools that are recommended for low voltage systems licensing cover information on security systems cabling and we do not do that kind of work. Please advise if I need to send any additional information or what I will need to do to close this case. No further direct communication occurred between Mr. Borota and Ms. MacNeill. Mr. Borota testified that he attempted to phone the Department a few times after the exchange of letters, but that he never spoke to anyone. Ms. MacNeill prepared a written Investigative Report, dated November 6, 1997, stating an alleged violation of failure to provide proof of continuing education and forwarding the matter to the Department’s legal counsel "for whatever action is deemed appropriate." The Complaint and the audit file were placed on the docket for consideration by the Probable Cause Panel of the ECLB at a telephonic conference on March 20, 1998. On the same date, a Memorandum Of Finding was signed by the chairperson of the Probable Cause Panel, indicating probable cause was found. The Department issued an Administrative Complaint on March 23, 1998, alleging that Mr. Borota failed to submit proof in response to the audit of having complied with the continuing education requirements of Subsection 489.517(3), Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Mr. Borota was served with the Administrative Complaint on March 30, 1998. On April 21, 1998, Mr. Borota timely filed his written Election Of Rights disputing the material facts set forth in the Complaint and demanding an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On the same date, Mr. Borota also submitted an affidavit, substantially complying with Rule 61G6-9.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, attesting that he had attended 30 additional hours of continuing education courses during the audit period. These courses were professional seminars provided at the annual winter meeting of Building Industry Consulting Service International, Inc. (“BICSI”), a non-profit telecommunications technical association. The materials for the BICSI conferences show that the University of South Florida was a co-sponsor of the event. The BICSI seminars were not on the ECLB’s list of approved continuing education courses. On August 6, 1998, counsel for the Department filed a Motion For Final Order, arguing that there were no disputed issues of material fact in the case because none of the courses submitted by Mr. Borota were on the ECLB’s approved list of continuing education courses. The ECLB denied the Department’s motion and agreed to refer the Administrative Complaint to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") for the conduct of a formal administrative hearing. The case was never forwarded to DOAH. The record does not disclose why the case remained at the ECLB for nearly two years following the ECLB’s denial of the Motion for Final Order. The Administrative Complaint was again considered by the Probable Cause Panel of the ECLB on May 23, 2000. On the same date, a Memorandum Of Finding was signed by the chairperson of the Probable Cause Panel that determined no probable cause was found and that the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. Both meetings of the Probable Cause Panel were tape recorded. The tapes were of such poor quality that a certified transcript of the meetings could not be prepared by either an independent court reporter or the Department. Redacted tape copies and an uncertified transcript of the meetings were admitted into evidence by agreement of the parties. The transcript is sufficient to show that the March 20, 1998, Probable Cause Panel treated Mr. Borota’s case in a pro forma fashion, without discussion of the particulars of the investigation, prior to making a finding of probable cause to proceed against Mr. Borota. At the hearing in the instant case, the Department admitted that Mr. Borota was the prevailing party in the disciplinary proceeding because the Administrative Complaint was dismissed upon a finding of "no probable cause" at the May 23, 2000, Probable Cause Panel meeting. Mr. Borota testified that he was the sole owner and qualifying licensee of the corporation through which he practiced as a licensed electrical contractor, that his net worth was less than $2 million, and that he and the corporation employed fewer than 25 workers. The Department offered no evidence to dispute Mr. Borota’s testimony on these points.
The Issue What if any, disciplinary action may be taken against Respondent based on alleged violations of Florida Statutes Section 489.531(1) (practicing electrical contracting or advertising one's self or business organization as available to engage in electrical or alarm system contracting without being certified or registered), and Section 455.227(1)(q) (engaging in the practice of unlicensed electrical contracting after previously being issued an Order to Cease and Desist from the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting.)
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed nor had he ever been licensed to engage in electrical contracting in the State of Florida. Mr. George Hammond lives in Inverness, Florida in a single family dwelling with a detached garage. The house is serviced with a water well and electrical pump. On July 25, 2006, Mr. Hammond notified a long-time friend, Dennis Himmel that he had problems with his well and could not get water into his home. Mr. Himmel temporarily ran a wire between the well and garage so Mr. Hammond could get water, and suggested Mr. Hammond hire an electrician to do the permanent work. A few days later, Mr. Hammond told his friend, Craig Zeedick, that his well had been hit by lightening and someone was fixing it. Mr. Zeedick went to Mr. Hammond's house and observed Respondent kneeling down and making an electrical connection with the junction box. Respondent had stripped off the wire connections and made the wire nut connection. A boy was with Respondent, and the boy was burying an electrical cable to the well. The cable in the ground had no tubing or protection around it. At Mr. Hammond's request, Mr. Zeedick counted out approximately $947.00 in cash to Respondent for the electrical work. Sometime in August 2006, Mr. Himmel observed the work done at Mr. Hammond's home. He phoned Respondent to complain because the wire from the garage to the well was buried only four inches underground with no conduit (protective covering) over the wire into the garage. Respondent returned and covered the wire with conduit but then the pump did not work. Later, Respondent corrected the wire box connection, blaming the problems on Mr. Himmel. At some point in these machinations, Respondent succeeded in flooding Mr. Hammond's garage with water. Amy Becker, a license inspector with the Citrus County Building Division performed an investigation of the electrical contracting work done by Respondent at Mr. Hammond's residence, and took photographs. At that time, Mr. Hammond pointed out electrical wiring running from the well to the garage, and Ms. Becker observed there was a conduit and some plastic tubing. Ms. Becker then checked Respondent's licensing status, and found him to be unlicensed as an electrical contractor by either the State or Citrus County. She notified Petitioner, as the State licensing agency. On December 13, 2006, Ms. Becker cited Respondent for unlicensed contracting in wiring the water well pump at Mr. Hammond's residence. Respondent appeared before the County Board on December 13, 2006, and signed the citation signifying he wanted an administrative hearing. On January 24, 2007, Respondent, represented by counsel, was present for testimony before the Board, and the Board upheld the citation against Respondent. Respondent paid the citation on May 29, 2007. Respondent admitted to Petitioner's Investigator, Sharon Philman, during a telephone interview, that he had run wire from Mr. Hammond's garage to the well pump, for which work he charged approximately $940.00. On or about February 13, 2007, Petitioner issued a Cease and Desist Order against Respondent. The instant complaint/case followed. Petitioner put on no evidence concerning a prior 2005 case against Respondent.1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes, on one occasion, and assessing Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00 therefor, as permitted by Section 455.228(2), Florida Statutes. Finding Respondent not guilty of having violated Section 455.227(1)(q) as pled in Count II of the Administrative Complaint herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. 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 19th day of September, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent (“Ricky Lee Diemer”) offered to engage in unlicensed contracting as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, matters subject to official recognition, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and chapters 455 and 489, part I, Florida Statutes. The Department initiated an undercover operation by gaining access to a house needing numerous repairs. The Department employees then utilized websites, such as Craigslist and HomeAdvisor, to identify people offering unlicensed contracting services. The Department employees found an advertisement posted by “RLD Handyman Services” on December 26, 2017, offering to perform multiple types of contracting work. This advertisement caught the Department’s attention because it did not list a contracting license number. Section 489.119(5)(b), requires every advertisement for contracting services to list such a number.2/ The advertisement listed a phone number, and the Department utilized the Accurint phone system to ascertain that the aforementioned phone number belonged to Mr. Diemer. The Department examined its records and ascertained that Mr. Diemer was not licensed to perform construction or electrical contracting in Florida. The Department contacted Mr. Diemer and approximately 12 other people offering contracting services and scheduled appointments for those people to discuss contracting work with an undercover Department employee at the house mentioned above. An undercover Department employee told Mr. Diemer and the other prospective contractors that he had recently bought the house and was hoping to sell it for a profit after making some quick repairs. An undercover Department employee met Mr. Diemer at the house and described their resulting conversation as follows: A: We looked at remodeling a deck on the back, the southern portion of the home. We looked at cabinets, flooring and painting that are nonregulated in nature, but also plumbing and general contracting services such as exterior doors that needed to be replaced, and the electrical, some appliances and light fixtures. Q: All right. So was there any follow-up communication from Mr. Diemer after your discussion at the house? A: Yes. We walked around the house. He looked at the renovations that we were asking. He took some mental notes as I recall. He didn’t make any written notes as some of the others had done. He did it all in his head, said that he was working on another project in the Southwood area at the time and just left his work crew there to come and visit with me and was rushed for time. So he was in and out of there in 10 to 15 minutes. It was pretty quick. Q: Okay. A: But he took the mental notes and said that he would go back and write something up and send me a proposal through our Gmail. . . . On February 7, 2018, Mr. Diemer transmitted an e-mail to the Department’s fictitious Gmail account offering to perform multiple types of work that require a contracting license: kitchen sink installation, bathroom remodeling, construction of an elevated deck and walkway, installation of light fixtures, and installation of front and back doors.3/ Mr. Diemer proposed to perform the aforementioned tasks for $13,200.00.4/ The work described in Mr. Diemer’s e-mail poses a danger to the public if done incorrectly or by unlicensed personnel.5/ The Department incurred costs of $118.55 for DOAH Case No. 18-6578 and $91.45 for DOAH Case No. 18-6579. The Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Diemer advertised or offered to practice construction contracting without holding the requisite license. The Department also proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Diemer practiced construction and electrical contracting when he transmitted the February 7, 2018, e-mail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issue a final order requiring Ricky Lee Diemer to pay a $9,000.00 administrative fine and costs of $210.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 1st day of April, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent's, Florida Department of Transportation ("the Department"), decision to award a contract to Intervenor, DBi Services, Inc. ("DBi" or "Intervenor"), pursuant to the Bid Solicitation Notice and the Specifications Package (jointly referred to as "Solicitation") for Contract No. E5X18 (highway lighting maintenance in District Five), was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether the award was contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is an executive agency of the state of Florida responsible for coordinating the planning of a safe, viable, and balanced state transportation system, serving all regions of Florida. § 334.044(1), Fla. Stat. The Department is tasked with providing a statewide transportation system that ensures the mobility of people and goods, enhances economic prosperity, and preserves the quality of Florida's environment and communities. § 334.046(2), Fla. Stat. To that end, the Department has authority to enter into contracts for the construction and maintenance of all roads under its jurisdiction. § 337.11(1), Fla. Stat. DBi is a transportation infrastructure asset operations and maintenance contractor that provides services primarily to owners of highway infrastructure, such as the Department, across the country. Most of the contracts DBi enters are performance-based contracts. DBi has performed more than 20 maintenance contracts for the Department. ALS is a certified electrical contractor specializing in highway lighting maintenance, roadway lighting, and traffic signalization, which previously performed work for the Department through DBi as its subcontractor on multiple occasions. The Solicitation On February 23, 2021, the Department issued a Solicitation for the performance of highway lighting maintenance work in District Five. District Five comprises Brevard, Flagler, Lake, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Sumter, and Volusia counties. The Solicitation provided that "[t]he work under this Contract consists of maintaining the highway lighting system, including overhead, underdeck and sign lighting, at various locations throughout District Five." The Solicitation included two documents: (a) a Bid Solicitation Notice and (b) a Specifications Package containing Special Provisions that are specific to Contract No. E5X18. By its own terms, the Specifications Package replaced or added to specifications contained in the Department's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, January 2021 edition. To the extent not modified by the Specifications Package, the definitions supplied in the Standard Specifications apply to terms used in the Specifications Package. The January 2021 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction define "bidder" as an individual, firm, or corporation submitting a proposal for the proposed work. It also separately defines "contractor" as the individual, firm, joint venture, or company contracting with the Department to perform the work. These definitions applied to the procurement of Contract No. E5X18. The Solicitation described the contract as a lump-sum "performance" contract or performance-based contract. This means that the Department will pay the winning contractor a fixed monthly price for maintaining certain performance levels. The goal of a performance contract is to achieve an ultimate result: to maintain a level of service as defined within the specifications and scope of the contract—here, the Department's highway lighting system throughout District Five. If the contractor satisfies its contractual obligations—whether by self-performing the work or by subcontracting the work—the contractor is paid on a lump-sum basis. With a performance contract, the Department does not know whether any of the work is subcontracted or whether the contractor self-performs the work. With a performance maintenance contract, the Department's Special Provisions typically do not require bidders to submit proof of licensure with their bids. It is up to the contractor, after contract execution, to conduct field assessments, to determine work needs, to determine what activities need to be performed, and whether any licensure is required to perform those activities. Performance contracts are distinguished from "task" or "work- directed" contracts, in which the Department, itself, identifies the work needs and issues work orders, or task orders, directing the contractor to furnish specific quantities for specific locations. With the Department's work-directed contracts, the Special Provisions generally require proof of licensure at bid time. The Bid Solicitation Notice contained the following requirement(s): EXPERTISE REQUIRED: For this Contract, the Contractor is required to have at least three years of experience in the performance of Highway Lighting, or the Project Superintendent must have at least three years of like experience as a Superintendent. A Contractor that presently has a certificate of prequalification with the Department in both "Underground Utilities (Electric)" and Traffic Signal" will suffice to meet the above requirements. The Solicitation included a form titled "Experience in Highway Lighting" ("Experience Form"), by which a bidder could demonstrate compliance with the Solicitation's expertise requirement. The Experience Form contained blank spaces in which a bidder was to list qualifying projects, as well as a space a bidder could mark with an "X" to indicate that it is prequalified with the Department in both Underground Utilities (Electric) and Traffic Signal, depending on how the bidder elected to meet the Solicitation's expertise requirement. To be eligible to bid on Contract No. E5X18, bidders were required to have either three years' experience in highway lighting or possess a certificate of prequalification with the Department in both Underground Utilities (Electric) and Traffic Signal. The Solicitation left it up to the bidder which method would be used. One of the special provisions in the Specifications Package, under the heading "Contractor Responsibility," was a modification of Article 715-2.1 of the Standard Specifications, which was deleted and replaced with the following: A license to do business as a certified or registered electrical contractor pursuant to Chapter 489, Part II, Florida Statutes is required. Provide a journeyman electrician possessing a valid journeyman electrician's license to supervise all work, Provide copies of all licenses, certificates, and registrations to document compliance with this Article upon request by the Engineer. The Specifications Package also provided in Article 8-1, titled "Subletting or Assigning of Contracts," that the "Contractor" may "sublet," or subcontract, the contract work. Article 8-1 provided that to subcontract any work, the Contractor must submit a written request to the Department's Engineer. This provision further stated that such a request is approved by default unless the Engineer notifies the Contractor within five business days of receipt of the request that the Department does not consent to the request. The Solicitation further stated that the Department's Proposal Budget Estimate for the contract was $476,000.00. No timely challenge to the Solicitation specifications was ever filed. The Parties' Submissions and the Intended Award On or before the March 25, 2021, due date, DBi and ALS submitted bids to the Department in response to the Solicitation. DBi's bid total was $547,308.00. DBi attested to having the requisite experience, listing three Department highway lighting contracts on which it served as prime contractor, spanning from July 2014 to June 2020. DBi also indicated that it was prequalified with the Department in both Underground Utilities (Electric) and Traffic Signal. Jeffrey Schechtman, DBi's Chief Operating Officer, testified that this indication of being prequalified was made in error, but that DBi nonetheless provided the information in the experience section which met the expertise requirement. ALS' bid total was $799,200.00. ALS also attested to having the requisite experience, claiming prequalification with the Department in both Underground Utilities (Electric) and Traffic Signal. Although it is undisputed that ALS has many years of experience in highway lighting, ALS chose not to list any qualifying projects, and instead relied solely on its prequalification for its bid proposal. On March 25, 2021, the Department issued the Vendor Ranking for the Solicitation, which indicated that DBi was responsive and had submitted the lowest bid, and the Technical Review Committee recommended the Department award Contract No. E5X18 to DBi. On April 1, 2021, the Contract Awards Committee indicated an intent to award Contract No. E5X18 to DBi. On April 6, 2021, ALS filed, with the Department, its notice of intent to protest and, on April 14, its Petition. ALS filed an Amended Petition on June 11, 2021. The Protest ALS contends that both the Solicitation and section 489, part II, Florida Statutes, required each bidder to hold an electrical contracting license, issued by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, at the time of bid submission. According to ALS, because DBi lacks such a license, DBi is nonresponsive and nonresponsible, and the Department's intended award to DBi is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Additionally, ALS contends that DBi does not have the highway lighting expertise required by the Solicitation. DBi and the Department Responses DBi admits that it did not have an electrical contractor license at the time of bid submission and does not have a certificate of prequalification. However, both DBi and the Department assert that neither the Solicitation nor chapter 489, part II, require it. Rather, the license requirement is not for the bidder, but for the contractor (the entity that is successfully awarded the project) and can be satisfied by using the services of a licensed subcontractor. Further, DBi asserts that it properly listed three highway lighting projects which it supervised, thereby demonstrating the requisite experience. Both DBi and the Department question ALS' standing to bring this protest because, although ALS indicated it holds prequalification in both Underground Utilities (Electric) and Traffic Signal, ALS does not possess prequalification for Underground Utilities. To the extent ALS argues the Solicitation, by its scope of work, necessitates that a bidder has a license in electrical contracting, ALS is attempting to litigate an untimely specifications challenge. The License Requirement ALS contends "the entirety of the work [under Contract No. E5X18] constitutes electrical contracting for which an electrical contracting license is absolutely required." Amended Petition, ¶ 45. According to ALS, the requirement is set forth both expressly in the Solicitation and by the nature of the work described therein. ALS points to Article 715-2.1 of the Specifications Package, entitled "Contractor Responsibility": "A license to do business as a certified or registered electrical contractor pursuant to Chapter 489, Part II, Florida Statutes is required." Chapter 489, part II, governs electrical contracting. Under the statute, only certified or registered electrical contractors are permitted to perform electrical contracting in Florida. § 489.516(2), Fla. Stat. ("No person who is not certified or registered shall engage in the business of contracting in this state."). DBi and the Department stipulated on the record that most of the work described in the Specifications Package is electrical contracting work that requires an electrical contractor's license under chapter 489, part II. ALS expert, Curtis Falany, testified to the same. Mr. Falany conceded that under chapter 489, part II, work requiring an electrical contracting license begins the first time a worker approaches an electrically energized device and begins to manipulate it. Mr. Falany further admitted it is possible that, after Contract No. E5X18 is executed, a month could elapse without any such work needing to be performed. DBi does not dispute that work requiring electrical contracting licensure will likely arise under Contract No. E5X18, but contends that, in this performance maintenance contract, exactly what work will be performed is entirely speculative at this point. Further, while ALS refers to the Specifications Package as the contract's "scope of work," DBi asserts that the Specifications Package is a set of specifications that would apply to work that may need to be performed under the contract. Although ALS' argument, that intended electrical contracting work must be awarded to a licensed contractor, makes common sense, it ignores the explicit language of the Specifications and the reality of a performance- based maintenance contract. The only reference in the Specifications to a license requirement is under the heading "Contractor Responsibility," not "Bidder Responsibility." In fact, when the Department intends to require the bidder to have the electrical license, it is quite capable of asking for proof of the same at the time of the bid submission. For example, the Department entered into evidence the solicitation for a District Seven highway lighting maintenance contract that ALS was recently awarded, Contract No. E7N92, in which the solicitation expressly provides bidders "must possess and submit with their bid a license to do business as a Certified or Registered Electrical Contractor pursuant to Chapter 489, Part II, Florida Statutes." The Solicitation here contains no such provision. Likewise, the "Experience in Highway Lighting" form bidders were required to submit with their bids did not mention licensure. ALS contends DBi may not subcontract electrical work to a licensed electrical contractor. However, this ignores Article 8-1 of the Specifications, entitled, "Subletting or Assigning of Contracts," which states that the "Contractor" may "sublet," or subcontract, the contract work. The Department's witnesses testified that this means the contractor may subcontract up to 100 percent of the contract work. There is no provision in the Solicitation directing bidders to identify their subcontractors when submitting their bids. Indeed, with performance-based contracts, the Department typically does not ever learn whether any of the work is subcontracted or whether the work is self-performed. The competent, substantial evidence showed that not all work that might be performed under Contract No. E5X18 directly involves electrical work. For example, maintenance of traffic (referred to as "MOT"), tree trimming, and the general assessment of what work is needed typically do not involve installing, repairing, altering, adding to, or designing electrical wiring, fixtures, appliances, apparatus, raceways, conduit, or any part thereof that generates, transmits, transforms, or utilizes electrical energy in any form. See § 489.505(12), Fla. Stat. Consequently, the undersigned finds that Contract No. E5X18 is not an electrical contract per se, but rather is a performance maintenance contract that—like a broader, general performance maintenance contract— should eventually involve electrical work that requires electrical contracting licensure. The undersigned also finds that, while such work is likely to occur, whether and when it will is entirely speculative. Accordingly, only requiring the actual contractor (either on its own or through a subcontractor) instead of the bidder to possess an electrical contractor's license at the time of work, is the only logical interpretation of the Solicitation language. The Experience Requirement As discussed above, the Solicitation instructed each bidder to demonstrate, using one of two methods, the expertise that qualifies it to perform the contract. Bidders could describe "at least three years of experience in the performance of Highway Lighting" or show that they were prequalified by the Department in two specified work classes. On the "Experience in Highway Lighting" form each bidder was required to submit, DBi listed three contracts, all performance-based contracts with the Department's District Five, and all active contracts when bids for Contract No. E5X18 were submitted. In the space to describe the "Type of Work Performed," DBi stated, "Asset Maintenance/Highway Lighting." In the space to specify "Prime or Sub," DBi stated, "Prime."1 ALS contends DBi lacks the required expertise in two ways: (1) DBi did not self-perform the electrical work on those contracts but instead subcontracted the work; and (2) those contracts were "asset maintenance" 1 DBi also checked the “prequalified” box, but its Chief Operating Officer testified that this was an error. contracts, not "highway lighting maintenance" contracts. DBi readily admits that ALS performed some of the electrical work as a subcontractor on each contract listed and contends that DBi's position as prime contractor on all three contracts renders the work it subcontracted DBi's experience for purposes of the Solicitation. That the contracts DBi listed were general asset maintenance contracts instead of, specifically, lighting maintenance contracts, does not matter here. The Solicitation expressly refers to Contract No. E5X18 as a "Maintenance Performance Contract" and lists as the sole work item "Highway Lighting Maintenance." The Department considers highway lighting to be an asset of the Department, which is consistent with calling Contract No. E5X18 a maintenance contract. Further, Ms. Hutchison, the State Administrator for Maintenance Contracting, testified, although some of the Department's asset maintenance contracts are broad in scope and cover all work in a geographic area, that is not always the case; sometimes an asset maintenance contract is specific to only one type of work. The Solicitation provided that a bidder could demonstrate expertise by showing it had "at least three years of experience in the performance of Highway Lighting." The Solicitation does not state that experience must be direct- or self-performed or that the bidder may not include experience of subcontractors. From the Department's and DBi's perspectives, DBi "performed" those contracts—including the electrical work—within the meaning of the Solicitation's expertise provision. DBi is the one that contracted with the Department and is responsible to ensure all work under the contracts is timely completed in accordance with the contracts' terms. DBi is the one that invoiced the Department and the one the Department has paid and pays for all work under the contracts. And because, like the contract at issue here, these contracts are performance contracts, DBi was and is the one responsible for determining what work needs to be performed and how. DBi does not simply oversee others' performance of work items determined to be necessary by the Department, as occurs with a work-item contract. That certain work was performed by subcontractors does not negate that DBi successfully completed the contracts. The Department's practice, when procuring performance-based contracts, of treating a prime contractor's experience to include the experience of subcontractors is rational, reasonable, and justifiable. Accordingly, DBi met the experience requirement of the Solicitation. In contrast, ALS did not meet the experience requirement. ALS did not list three years' experience in highway lighting work, instead choosing to demonstrate expertise solely through its Department-issued prequalification. ALS submitted a copy of its current Certificate of Qualification and checked the "prequalified" box on the Experience in Highway Lighting form, representing that it held both Underground Utilities (Electric) and Traffic Signal prequalification. However, ALS' Certificate of Qualification reflects that ALS is prequalified in the work classes Traffic Signal and Electrical Work, but not Underground Utilities (Electric). ALS attempted to show, through the testimony of its Region Manager Richard Calledare, that Electrical Work is a "major" work class and Underground Utilities (Electric) is a "minor" work class subsumed within the umbrella of Electrical Work and that, therefore, ALS was effectively prequalified in both work classes. In support, Mr. Calledare suggested that the undersigned should "check the [Department's] website." However the website was not introduced into evidence and constitutes uncorroborated hearsay which cannot support a finding of fact. ALS presented no competent, substantial evidence supporting this argument—no evidence as to what major and minor work classes are and no evidence that the Electrical Work work class encompasses Underground Utilities (Electric). Further, the only evidence ALS presented was testimony from Mr. Calledare, yet there was no evidence Mr. Calledare was ever employed by the Department or had any specialized knowledge or other qualification that would render his perspective on this issue competent and substantial evidence sufficient to support a finding that ALS' prequalification in Electrical Work sufficed to meet the Underground Utilities (Electric) requirement. In contrast, the Department presented competent, substantial evidence showing that ALS' argument fails. As Mr. Calledare conceded, the Solicitation's plain language makes no mention of the work class Electrical Work. The Department's current list of qualified contractors shows that multiple contractors are prequalified in both these classes, demonstrating that a contractor can be prequalified in Electrical Work without being prequalified in Underground Utilities (Electric) and reflecting that being prequalified in Electrical Work is not the same as being prequalified in Underground Utilities (Electric). Deanna Hutchison, a Department State Administrator for Maintenance Contracting, testified that Underground Utilities (Electric) and Electrical Work are separate, mutually exclusive classifications and that Electrical Work is not inclusive of Underground Utilities (Electric). ALS' failure to hold a Department-issued prequalification in Underground Utilities (Electric), as well as Traffic Signal, and failure to demonstrate the required expertise by any other means, rendered ALS' bid nonresponsive.2
Conclusions For Petitioner: Karen D. Walker, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Keith Ramsey, Esquire Ben W. Subin, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2600 Orlando, Florida 32801 For Respondent: Sean W. Gellis, General Counsel George Spears Reynolds, Esquire Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 For Intervenor: Megan S. Reynolds, Esquire William Robert Vezina, III, Esquire Vezina Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the protest filed by American Lighting and Signalization, LLC, should be dismissed, and the Department of Transportation should enter a final order awarding Contract No. E5X18 to DBi. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 2021. Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben W. Subin, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2600 Orlando, Florida 32801 Karen D. Walker, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Robert Vezina, III, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A. 413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Spears Reynolds, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Amber Greene, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Megan S. Reynolds, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sean W. Gellis, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James Keith Ramsey, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2600 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kevin J. Thibault, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
