The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Model 2000, Inc., a talent agency, violated Sections 468.402(1)(d), 468.402(1)(e), 468.402(1)(s), 468.402(t), 468.410(2), 468.410(3), 468.412(6) and 468.413(2)(e), Florida Statutes, through solicitation, fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, exploitation, trick, scheme, or device, exercise of undue influence, requiring photography services as a prerequisite condition of employment, and failure to provide contracts of representation as alleged in each of the 15 separate Administrative Complaints filed in this cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the licensing and regulation of talent agents in Florida. Authority for the licensure and regulation is set forth in Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, and associated provisions of the Florida Administrative Code. At all times relevant and material to this inquiry, Respondent, Model 2000, Inc., was owned and operated by Nancy Sniffen, a.k.a. Nancy Keogh (Sniffen), and was licensed in the State of Florida as a Talent Agency, having been issued license number TA 0000618. The last known address for Respondent is 4852 West Gandy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. At all times relevant to this case, Sniffen advertised in print, served, operated, managed, and held herself out to the public as a Talent Agent by and through Model 2000, Inc. In the Tampa Tribune daily newspaper under the headings, Classified, Employment General Section, Sniffen published the following ad and variations thereof: ACT/MODEL NOW Kids! Teens! Adults! For TV commercials, print, catalogs, movies. Get started the right way now!! Call 837-5700 for interview. No fees Model 2000 Inc. TA#681. As a direct result of the above advertisement, Renee Donaldson, Irma Avery, Charlene Mars, Gina Hughes, and Robert Mikolajczak responded to the Tampa Tribune advertisement. In the Weekly Planet, a hiring ad, similar in content to the Tampa Tribune ad, containing "Call 837-5700" was published by Model 2000, Inc. As a direct result of this advertisement in the Weekly Planet, Athena Lopez and Lisa Menuto responded. During the initial meeting between Sniffen and the witnesses herein, she made promises, guarantees, and statements known to be false when made regarding each individual's looks and their latent talents. They were told that each had great employment opportunities as models, and with her connections with several department stores, J.C. Penny, Beall's, and Dillards, and her connections with their catalog companies, each model was assured of employment. Based upon their individual looks and ethnic differences, Sniffen stated to one or more of the witnesses who testified that there was: "a high demand for ethnic models" (non-whites), "lots of job for Hispanics," "abundance for work for people with your looks," "they are looking for someone your age," and "there is a demand and need for someone like you." Sniffen intended these statement to induce individuals to rely upon her assessment and expertise as a modeling agent to secure employment. At the time Sniffen made the above statements, she knew or should have known that employment opportunities for models required more than her one-look assessment. Sniffen assured each witness that "there was a lot of work in the area"; "companies were looking for people like [sic]"; "have so much work and not enough models to fill jobs"; "I'm affiliated with J.C. Penny, Burdines, and Dillards in their casting area for hiring for photo shots"; and "Florida is number one in hiring for print work." Based upon these representations or variations thereof, Athena Lopez, Irma Avery, Charlene Mars, Fiona West (for her daughter Christy West), Lisa Menuto, Robert Mikolajaczak, Gina Hughes (for her daughter Gabriella Hughes), Tom Stanton, and Nelita Parris agreed to have their photographs taken and agreed to engage Sniffen as their respective modeling agent and representative. The record contains no evidence that Sniffen presently had or had in the past "affiliations" with any of the major chain stores or their casting departments. During the initial meeting with these witnesses, Sniffen required them, as a condition precedent to beginning their modeling career, to have photographs made. These photographs were to be taken by Sniffen's staff photographers, and from those photographs each model was required to have composite cards printed at an additional cost. Based upon the representations made by Sniffen requiring each model to have composite card photography, each witness agreed and paid Sniffen a photograph and composite card fee. The witnesses below made payments either in cash and/or by credit card to have their photographs taken by Sniffen's photographers at a location she designated. Spencer Borisoff $934.07 Tom Stanton $855.00 Athena Lopez $466.94 Lisa Menuto $693.00 Gina Hughes $1,040.82 Robert Mikolijcak $347.00 Aaliyah Womack $603.92 Charlene Mars $261.15 Irma Avery $774.90 Nelita Parris $150.00 Christy West3 $855.00 Nelita Parris $150.00 No witness hereinabove secured employment with any company as a result of the composite card photographs. Sniffen's representation as their talent agent that composite cards were a pre-employment requirement in the modeling business was untrue and knowingly made with the intent to, and in fact did, cause each witnesses to reply thereon to their determinant. Sniffen hired Anthony Guagliardo, a Florida-licensed public service photographer since 1999, as one of her three photographers to take photographs of her clients. From November 1999 to April 2000, Guagliardo worked for Sniffen taking photographs of her clients. Sniffen called the Photo Hut were he worked seeking a photographer that would assist her with photographing her clients who came in to have their composite cards made. Sniffen's initial phone conversation at Photo Hut was with another person on duty who asked other employees if anyone was interested in part-time work. After a brief conversation, Guagliardo agreed to be a photographer and began working for Model 2000, Inc. According to his testimony, Guarliardo's daily employment hours were from 9:00 a.m. to 5/6:00 p.m. daily. He worked infrequently on Saturdays and Sundays. For his photography services, he was paid $25.00 per hour. During a routine day, Guagliardo testified that as many as 20 persons would arrive to have their pictures taken, and he would take 18 shots of each client in three different poses or positions. Mr. Guagliardo testified that a bulk purchase of film reduced cost of each roll of film to $2.00 per roll. The contact sheet cost $20.00 per sheet from which 72 photographs were made. A single roll of film was needed to photograph two clients. The cost to Sniffen for one hour of the photographer's time, a roll of film, and two contact sheets averaged $65. The average amount Sniffen charged each of the 11 clients listed above for their photo-shoot was $583.00 each. During the time he was on duty, Guagliardo testified that normally two additional photographers were also working doing photo shoots for Sniffen. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Sniffen advertised to attract customers, each of whom she required payment for photographs upon her representations that composite photograph cards were a pre-employment requirement for modeling. The evidence sufficiently demonstrates that Sniffen had no honest intent; her singular purpose was financial gain, and her means was the photography/composite card requirement. Once monies were paid, few of the witnesses were able to contact Sniffen and none secured modeling employment through Sniffen's efforts. The models, believing Sniffen's assurances that composite card photographs were necessary for securing employment in modeling, later came to realize Sniffen's intent was only to secure payment for the photo sessions. Sniffen's continued refusals to answer phone calls, to communicate with the witnesses after composite card payments were made, and the lack of leads and/or contacts from potential employers demonstrated her single-minded purpose not to assist them as their modeling agent. They were intentionally misled by Sniffen's false promises. The Agency proved the allegations in the following Administrative Complaints: DOAH 02-2982 - Spencer Borisoff DOAH 02-2983 - Tom Stanton DOAH 02-2984 - Athena Lopez DOAH 02-2985 - Lisa Menuto DOAH 02-2988 - Gina Hughes DOAH 02-2990 - Robert Mikolkczak DOAH 02-2992 - Aaliyah Womack DOAH 02-2993 - Charlene Mars DOAH 02-2994 - Irma Avery DOAH 02-2995 - Nelita Parris DOAH 02-2996 - Christy West The Agency presented no evidence concerning the administrative complaints below and have not met its required burden of proof. DOAH 02-2986 - Bilan Evans DOAH 02-2987 - Louis Kelbs DOAH 02-2989 - John Greene DOAH 02-2991 - Van Saint Meyer
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found, the evidence admitted, and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the following Administrative Complaints: DOAH Case No 02-2986; DOAH Case No. 02-2987; DOAH Case No. 02-2989; and DOAH Case No. 02-2991. It is further Recommended that: Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent in violation of Section 468.413(2), (3) and (4), Florida Statutes, and impose the following penalties: Require Respondent to make restitution to the Complainants below within 60 days: Case Nos. Complainants Amount DOAH 02-2982 Spencer Borisoff $934.07 DOAH 02-2983 Tom Stanton $855.00 DOAH 02-2984 Athena Lopez $466.94 DOAH 02-2985 Lisa Menuto $693.02 DOAH 02-2988 Gina Hughes $1,040.82 DOAH 02-2990 Robert Mikolkczak $347.00 DOAH 02-2992 Aaliyah Womack $603.92 DOAH 02-2993 Charlene Mars $261.15 DOAH 02-2994 Irma Avery $774.90 DOAH 02-2995 Nelita Parris $150.00 DOAH 02-2996 Christy West $855.00 Impose a fine in the amount of $1,000 for each of the following Administrative Complaints: DOAH Case No. 02-2982; DOAH Case No. 02-2983; DOAH Case No. 02-2984; DOAH Case No. 02-2985; DOAH Case No. 02-2988; DOAH Case No. 02-2990; DOAH Case No. 02-2992; DOAH Case No. 02-2993; DOAH Case No. 02-2994; DOAH Case No. 02-2995; and DOAH Case No. 02-2996, for a total of $11,000 in fines. Permanent revocation of Respondent's license. Should Respondent fail to timely comply with full payment of the restitutions and the fines as herein ordered, the Agency pursue those sanctions as provided in Sections 468.413(2) and 468.413(4), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 January, 2003.
The Issue Whether the changes to the Department's Invitation to Bid (Rebid II) suggested by Polaroid and/or NBS should be made? GENERAL. The Parties. The Department is the state agency charged with, among other things, the responsibility to adopt and implement a program for the production of color photographic drivers' licenses for the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 322, Florida Statutes. Polaroid and NBS are the two major suppliers of equipment and materials used in the majority of states to produce color photographic drivers' licenses. Both serve approximately 50 percent of the States. NBS is the current supplier of color photographic drivers' licenses in the State of Florida. Definitions. Florida's color photographic drivers' license is essentially a picture of the driver and a data card containing pertinent information about the driver. A camera takes a picture of the driver and the data card simultaneously. The picture is developed in a relatively short period of time and the resulting picture is laminated with a clear plastic. The size of the portion of the driver photographed and the data card are reduced, obviously, when the picture is taken. The terms reduction factor refer to the size of the resulting license compared to the original data card. For example, a requirement that the license not have a reduction factor of greater than 40 percent means that the resulting size of the picture of the data card photographed must be a least 60 percent of its original size. The resulting picture of the driver and the data card is referred to as the core. The core consists of a picture of the driver's face, neck and shoulders, the data card and a "header bar" which is the area above the data card containing "Florida Driver License" on the currently used drivers' license in Florida. The core may be fully laminated with clear plastic. If so, the laminate may be sealed in two ways: "flush-cut" or "lip-seal." If the lamination goes just to the edges of the core, this is referred to as a flush- cut design. If the laminate goes beyond the edges of the core and the front and back lamination is sealed together, this is referred to as a lip-seal design. The type of film used generally is referred to as either "paper-based film" or "plastic or polyester-based film." If the core consist of paper-based film the core will consist of a layer of plastic on the front and back and a paper center. If the core consist of plastic-based film the core will be all plastic. An ultraviolet or black-light security feature means that letters or an image of some kind can be seen with the naked eye only under an ultraviolet or black-light. HISTORY OF FLORIDA'S COLOR PHOTOGRAPHIC DRIVERS' LICENSE. The Initial Contract. Color photographic drivers' licenses (hereinafter referred to as "License" or "Licenses"), have been used in the State of Florida since December 3, 1973. The initial contract entered into by the Department for the provision of Licenses (hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Contract") was with DEK Processes Division of Scott & Fetzer Company. The DEK Processes Division of Scott & Fetzer Company was acquired by NBS in March of 1985. The Initial Contract was entered into for the period 1973 to 1977. The Licenses produced pursuant to the Initial Contract were laminated with a lip seal, measured 3-3/8" x 2-1/8", had a paper-based film core which measured 2-3/4" x 1-3/4" and cost the State 37.98 cents per License. The Initial Contract was renewed in 1977. The renewed contract was valid through 1981 and provided for Licenses which measured 3-3/8" x 2-1/8", flush-cut sealed lamination, a polyester-based film core and cost the State 36.725 cents per License. By using a flush-cut seal, the size of the film core increased to the same size as the License. This increase in size was instituted because of negative reactions to the legibility of the Licenses produced under the Initial Contract raised by law enforcement, merchants and the public. The 1982 Contract. In 1981 the Department solicited bids for a new four-year contract with a four-year extension option (increasing the length of the contract to June 30, 1990). The 1981 Invitation to Bid allowed a large or small license and the use of a paper-based or plastic-based film core. Both Polaroid and NBS submitted bids on the 1981 Invitation to Bid. NBS was awarded the contract, which it entered into with the Department on February 22, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the "1982 Contract"). The 1982 Contract contained the following relevant provisions: The initial term of the contract was through June 30, 1986; Licenses were to be lip-sealed; The Licenses were to measure not less than 2-3/4" wide and 1-3/4" high and not more than 3-3/8" x 2-1/4" before lamination; A paper-based film core measuring 2-3/9" x 2-3/4"; The price per License to the State during the first four years was to be 42.9 cents; The price per License to the State during any extension was to be 42.9 cents plus or minus the increase or decrease in the cost of material; and The contract could be extended for an additional four years through June 30, 1990. The laminate had to be bonded to the License in such a way that it would be impossible to remove the laminate without destroying the License; and The License had to have an ultraviolet or "black- light" security feature. The current Florida License is produced pursuant to an extension of the 1982 Contract. The First Invitation to Bid - 1985. In June of 1985 the Department decided to issue an invitation to bid seeking to let a new License contract rather than exercising the option to renew the 1982 Contract. This decision was made because of a desire to improve the legibility, security and durability of the currently produced License. In June, 1985, Major Clay W. Keith, former Director of the Department's Division of Drivers' Licenses, proposed the appointment of a task force to study the License in use in 1985 under the 1982 Contract and possible improvements thereto. Major Keith proposed the task force in anticipation of the June, 1986, expiration of the initial four-year term of the 1982 Contract. Three major concerns were raised by the Department with regard to any License the State issued: legibility, durability and security. The Department had received complaints from law enforcement and merchants concerning eligibility of the existing License and previous Licenses. The Department had also received complaints concerning the ability to counterfeit or alter the existing License and previous Licenses. The Department had also had problems with the durability of previous Licenses. Additionally, current law allows renewal of Licenses for six year terms and up to eight or ten years in some cases. On July 3, 1985, Major Keith advised Mr. Leonard R. Mellon, the Director of the Department, and Mr. Fred Dickinson, Deputy Director of the Department, by memorandum that a task force of persons with the expertise believed to be needed to study the existing License was being formed to decide what type of License to use in the future. 0n July 10, 1985, Mr. Mellon wrote a note to Major Keith indicating the following: I do not want a task force established for this purpose. Please see me as soon as possible to discuss this matter. Major Keith, as directed, saw Mr. Mellon. Mr. Mellon gave Major Keith a sample License and told Major Keith that the sample License was what the Department wanted. The sample License was an all-plastic License, similar in design and thickness to a credit card. It had embossed letters, like a credit card, of certain information. Mr. Mellon explained that the sample License would meet the Department's desire to provide a License which was durable, legible and secure. Mr. Mellon obtained the sample License he gave to Major Keith from representatives of NBS, including Barry Horenbein, during a demonstration of identification cards made by DEK sometime during 1985. The 1985 demonstration was attended by Mr. Mellon, Mr. Horenbein, Mr. Vince Toffany, Mr. Carlos Urrutia and Mr. Bobby Bowick. Mr. Toffany, Mr. Urrutia and Mr. Bowick are representatives of NBS. Mr. Horenbein is the legislative liaison of NBS in Florida and has been a close personal friend of Mr. Mellon for over 27 years. The Department ultimately learned that the sample License given to Major Keith by Mr. Mellon could not be produced in the manner that Licenses are produced in Florida. The sample License was produced in a laboratory-type setting and it would be too costly to produce "over the counter" as Licenses are produced in Florida. In the Fall of 1985 the Department issued an invitation to bid instead of renewing the 1982 Contract with NBS and decided not to attempt to produce a License identical to the sample License given to Major Keith by Mr. Mellon. The Department decided to issue an invitation to bid in order to obtained a more legible, durable and secure License. The Department issued an Invitation to Bid on November 27, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "First ITB"). Among the specifications contained in the First ITB, were the following: The film core of the License was to be a plastic-based film core; Lamination: flush-cut seal; The License was to measure 3-3/8" x 2-1/8"; and An ultraviolet security system. No requirement as to the maximum reduction factor was contained in the First ITB. At the time the First ITB was issued, Polaroid did not yet have plastic-based film. The Department was not aware of this fact at the time. NBS did have plastic-based film. Based upon information provided to the Department by Polaroid representative, the Department believed that Polaroid could provide a plastic-based film. In fact, Christ Rousseff, an employee of Polaroid, sent a letter dated August 2, 1985, to Mr. Mellon informing him that Polaroid could provide an all plastic-based License. Polaroid and NBS submitted bids in response to the First ITB in January, 1986. Polaroid's bid cost per License was 49.9 cents and NBS's bid cost per License was 56.6 cents. On January 27, 1986 the first bid tabulations indicated that Polaroid's bid was non-responsive as a result of Department of Agriculture testing of the License bid by Polaroid. Polaroid had used a paper-based film core which was revealed in the testing and was contrary to the specifications of the First ITB. NBS's bid to the First ITB was also rejected because the Department of General Services determined that there had not been two responsive bids submitted. The rejection of bids on the First ITB became final agency action. The Department began to prepare a new invitation to bid. On March 6, 1986, Polaroid, at the request of the Department, conducted a demonstration of the type of License it could provide to the Department. Polaroid demonstrated a fully-laminated, lip-sealed, paper-based film core License. The demonstration was attended by Major Keith, Mr. James W. McInnis and other employees of the Department. Mr. Mellon spent about 5 minutes at the demonstration. On March 12, 1986, Major Keith sent a memorandum to Mr. Mellon through Mr. Dickinson concerning the Polaroid demonstration. The Memorandum indicated that Division of Drivers' License personnel agreed that Polaroid had demonstrated the ability to provide an acceptable License. Extension of the 1982 Contract. On March 23 1986, a Sunday, Mr. Mellon and Mr. Dickinson spent the afternoon at the home of Mr. Horenbein. Present were Mr. Horenbein, Mr. Toffany and Mr. Bowick, all of whom represented NBS. A buffet dinner was served. Discussions occurred on this date concerning the price which would be charged for Licenses and whether additional cameras could be provided if the 1982 contract was extended for an additional four years pursuant to the renewal option contained in the 1982 Contract. Mr. Mellon, on behalf of the Department, and the representatives of NBS agreed at the Sunday dinner that the 1982 Contract would be extended. Agreement was reached on a price per License to be paid and on the provision of additional cameras. Other discussions had taken place concerning whether to extend the 1982 Contract. On Monday, March 24, 1986, Mr. Dickinson met with Department personnel and informed them that the 1982 Contract would be extended. A Renewal of Color Photographic Driver License Agreement was prepared. This agreement provided that the price per License for the extended term would be a set price of 42.9 cents instead of the 42.9 cents per License adjusted for any increase or decrease in the cost of sensitized photographic materials and laminates as specified in the 1982 Contract. The renewal also provided that NBS would provide additional camera equipment. The Department executed and tendered to the Department of General Services its proposed exercise of the option to renew the 1982 Contract. This action by the Department extended the 1982 Contract through June, 1990. Major Keith was not aware of the renewal until after the renewed agreement had been executed. At the time the Department exercised its option to extend the 1982 Contract, the Department only had one week left in which to exercise its option. The option to renew had to be exercised at least ninety days prior to the expiration of the initial term of the 1982 Contract. Because of the lack of time remaining during which the Department could exercise its option, Mr. Mellon decided that renewing the 1982 Contract was in the best interest of the Department. The Department was able to obtain a License at no substantial increase in cost for an additional four years. Following the execution of the renewal of the 1982 Contract, Polaroid filed two Notices of Protest which were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Department. The Protests were assigned case numbers 86-1337 and 86-1372. On May 6, 1986, Polaroid, the Department and NBS entered into an agreement settling the dispute in case numbers 86-1337 and 86-1372. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, NBS agreed to continue providing Licenses at a cost of 49.58 cents per License. The term of the renewal was shortened to expire on August 31, 1987 and the parties agreed that there would be no further extensions of the 1982 Contract agreed upon without the approval of the Governor and the Cabinet. Finally, the parties agreed that a new invitation to bid would be issued to obtain a provider of Licenses beginning September 1, 1987. The Governor and Cabinet approved the settlement in May of 1986. The settlement became final agency action. Licenses currently being produced in Florida pursuant to the renewal agreement approved by the Governors and the Cabinet contain a core slightly smaller than 1-3/4" x 2-3/4", are enclosed in lip-sealed lamination and use ultraviolet security markings on the back of the Licenses. The data card reduction factor is 42 percent. Rebid I. On June 6, 1986, the Department issued a Request for Information in an effort to preclude the development of noncompetitive specifications for future invitations to bid. In response to this request, Polaroid informed the Department that it could not provide an all-plastic License and NBS indicated that it could. On July 22, 1986, Mr. McInnis circulated the first draft of the specifications for the next invitation to bid to Department personnel. It specified a License with full lamination, lip-seal and a plastic-based or paper- based film core. The draft provided that the core of the License was to measure 3-1/8" x 1-7/8" prior to lamination. Ultraviolet light security markings were also required. For the first time, the draft of the specifications included a reduction factor requirement: The document to photograph reduction factor shall not exceed 40 percent so that the size of the photograph of the data card shall not be less than 60 percent of the size of the photographed document. Section 4.8.1 of the draft invitation to rebid. This provision was included partially because of the responses to the Request for Information submitted to the Department by Polaroid and NBS. Major Keith was told by Mr. Dickinson that "the front office" wanted Rebid I to require a plastic-based film core. Major Keith understood the "front office" to mean Mr. Mellon. In developing the next invitation to bid, the Department determined that enhanced security was a critical concern that needed to be addressed. At least in part, the Department's concern for security was based upon questions raised about security from the Governor's office, the Cabinet and law enforcement. The Department attempted to determine what security features were available. The Department received sales and promotional brochures for various security products from Polaroid, 3M and Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Polaroid, NBS and 3M were all invited to demonstrate their security features to the Department and they made presentations. Polaroid demonstrated "Polasecure" and 3M demonstrated "Confirm." These products and Armstrong's "Armstrong Advantage" are security markings contained in laminating materials which change appearance when the viewing angle of a License changes. Polaroid and NBS made their presentations to the Department, at the Department's request, in September of 1986. The primary emphasis of the demonstrations was security. On October 3, 1986, the Department issued Invitation to Bid (Rebid I) (hereinafter referred to a "Rebid I"). In Rebid I, the Department included the same overall size requirement (3-3/8" x 2-1/8") included in the First ITB. The requirement that the film core be plastic (polyester, polycarbonate or an equivalent plastic) included in the First ITB was also included in Rebid I. The Department changed the seal specified in Rebid I to a lip-seal, added a requirement that the reduction factor should not exceed 40 percent and required a new security feature. Because lip-seal was specified, the Department also provided that the core of the License should measure 3-1/8" x 1-7/8." Rebid I also included the following security requirement which was not included in the First ITB: The laminate shall be bonded to the finished license in such a way that the photographic image will be destroyed or defaced if the laminate is removed. Section 4.8.3. of Rebid I. The new security feature specified in Rebid I provided for the following: The finished license or identification card shall contain pre-applied security markings affixed to the inside surface of the front of the laminate which, when laminated to the film core, will become an integral part of the core ... The security marking feature shall utilize a process which will render the security markings alternately visible and invisible as the viewing angle changes. Any alteration of the security marking must be easily discernible with the naked eye, requiring no auxiliary reading devises for verification. The pre-applied security markings must be secure against being photographically reproduced or copied. [Emphasis added]. Section 4.8.4 of Rebid I. Although the Department did not intend to provide any competitive advantage to Polaroid in specifying the security feature of Section 4.8.4 of Rebid I, NBS informed the Department that the description of the security feature underlined in finding of fact 65 was a generic description of "Polasecure." In fact, the language used came out of a speech given by a Mr. DeKeiver at a conference held in Washington D.C. Although Mr. DeKeiver apparently had no connection with Polaroid, the copy of the speech relied upon in drafting Section 4.8.4 of Rebid I was provided to the Department by Mr. Weer, a Polaroid representative. Rebid I provided that potential bidders could submit written changes to the specifications recommended by a potential bidder. In a letter dated October 16, 1986, NBS recommended that "the state require a specific security feature or security product... " other than Polasecure which would be available to both Polaroid and NBS. NBS also recommended that Section 4.8.3 of Rebid I be changed to require a full-cut seal instead of a lip-seal. Polaroid, in a letter dated October 16, 1986, recommended that paper- based film be allowed. On October 21, 1986, the Department rejected Polaroid's recommended change to allow paper-based film and NBS's recommendation to require a full-cut seal. The Department, because of its concern that Section 4.8.4 of Rebid I contained a description of Polasecure, accepted, in part, NBS's recommendation concerning the security feature. The Department changed the security requirement to provide that "Armstrong Advantage or Polaroid Polasecure or department approved equivalent pre-applied security markings ... " be affixed to the inside of the laminate. The Department made this change in an effort to eliminate any competitive advantage to potential bidders. Polaroid and NBS both submitted bids in response to Rebid I. On December 10, 1986, the Department's committee which evaluated the bids submitted in response to Rebid I reviewed the results of tests conducted on the License bid by Polaroid and NBS. NBS's bid was rejected because its License failed to disintegrate, as required by Rebid I, when the laminate was separated from the core. The committee therefore rejected NBS's bid without considering the price it had bid. Although NBS had recommended that the Department specify Armstrong Advantage as a security feature, this security feature was incompatible with the requirement that the photographic image be destroyed upon removal of the laminate. NBS was aware of this and so informed the Department. NBS did not timely inform the Department, however. NBS's proposed License failed to satisfy the test performed on the License because of this incompatibility. Polaroid's bid met the specifications of Rebid I and, upon opening the cost proposals, it was determined that Polaroid's bid price was 71.804 cents per License. On December 10, 1986, the evaluation committee prepared a memorandum in which it indicated that the Polaroid bid should be accepted. Major Keith approved the recommendation and sent the recommendation to Mr. Dickinson. Mr. Dickinson also recommended approval of Polaroid's bid and sent the recommendation on to Mr. Mellon. Mr. Mellon rejected Polaroid's bid because the Department had only budgeted 60.9 cents per License and Polaroid's bid of 71.804 cents was too far in excess of the budgeted amount. The amount budgeted by the Department was based in part on Polaroid's bid in the State of Ohio in September of 1986. Polaroid had bid 55.9 cents per license in Ohio. The Department arrived at 60.9 cents per License by adding approximately 5 cents to the amount bid in Ohio for the additional requirement contained in Rebid I of Polasecure. The product bid in Ohio was not, however, sufficiently similar to the License being sought by the Department to arrive at a budgeted amount for the Florida License. Ohio, unlike Florida, was not seeking a License with full lamination. Therefore, Ohio did not include the cost of laminating equipment, laminating materials or die cutters. There were other differences in Ohio's program which affected the cost bid by Polaroid in Ohio. The Department was not aware of the differences with the License bid in Ohio and the License the Department was seeking in Rebid I. The Department posted its tabulation on December 16, 1986. The Department indicated its decision to reject Polaroid's bid because "cost exceeds budget request." The Department's action with regard to Rebid I is final agency action. Rebid II. In January, 1987, the Department began drafting specifications for the next invitation to bid. Mr. McInnis was one of the primary technical drafters of the invitation to bid. Under the normal "chain-of-command" in the Department, Mr. McInnis received his instructions through or from Major Keith. In early January of 1986, Mr. McInnis was given a note on Mr. Dickinson's note paper by Mr. McCaskill containing the following: Plastic Size Security - Negotiable Maintenance/Serviceability Number of Cameras Mr. McCaskill explained to Mr. McInnis that the first two items, plastic and size, were not negotiable and that the 16 other items were to be studied further. Mr. McCaskill explained that the next invitation to bid was to provide for a License with a plastic- based film core and was to be the same size as in Rebid I, 3-1/8" x 1-7/8". The note from Mr. Dickinson was not received through Major Keith, which was the normal way that Mr. McInnis received instructions from Mr. Dickinson. Mr. McInnis prepared draft specifications and showed them to Major Keith along with the note from Mr. Dickinson. Major Keith instructed Mr. McInnis to submit the revised specifications back to Mr. Dickinson in the chain that he had received the note since Major Keith had not been involved in the instructions Mr. McInnis had received. Mr. Mellon's decision to instruct Mr. McInnis to specify plastic and to stick to the larger size License was made because Mr. Mellon believed that those items would insure a License that was durable, readable and had some security to it. The Department asked for the assistance of the Department of General Services in reviewing the draft of the invitation to bid. The Department of General Services reviewed the draft primarily with regard to the special conditions and not the technical specifications of the draft invitation to bid. On January 27, 1987, the Department issued its third invitation to bid, Invitation to Bid (Rebid II)(hereinafter referred to as "Rebid II"). Rebid II specified that the License was to have a plastic-based film core, lip seal, no more than a 40 percent reduction factor and was to measure 3- 1/8" x 1-7/8". These were the same specifications contained in Rebid I. The security feature contained in Rebid I was replaced with the ultraviolet light requirement of the First ITB. The decision to continue to require plastic-based film core was made by the Department because of Mr. Mellon's belief that it would result in a more durable, readable and secure License. The elimination of the security feature to be contained in the laminate was based upon the Department's desire to obtain a cost bid within the Department's budget. Potential bidders were required to submit any suggested changes to Rebid II in writing. On February 3, 1987, Polaroid timely submitted recommended changes in writing to the Department. The relevant recommended changes included the following: That the requirement of Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II that "photo sensitized polyester, polycarbonate, or an equivalent plastic material be changed to "photo sensitized material Polaroid recommended this change based upon its argument that sealing the photo core in a sealed and bonded polyester laminate would provide the necessary security and durability the Department was seeking and that paper-based film offered substantial cost savings; That the requirement of Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II as to the size of the photo core be changed to allow a range of sizes from 2-3/4" x 1-3/4" to 3-1/8" x 1-7/8". Polaroid recommended this change based upon its argument that the 40 percent maximum reduction factor could be met on a smaller film core and therefore reduce the cost of Licenses; That the ultraviolet light security feature be replaced with a requirement that Polasecure, Armstrong Advantage or equivalent security laminate be provided. Polaroid recommended this change based upon its argument that security would be enhanced at relatively little cost. The recommended changes in the size of the License and the film-core material are similar to the current License specifications. NBS did not submit any written recommended changes to Rebid II. By letter dated February 4, 1987, Secretary of State George Firestone asked Mr. Mellon about the Department's response to the suggested changes from Polaroid and requested an explanation of the specifications of Rebid II. In response to the Secretary of State's inquiry, Mr. Mellon submitted a letter and report to the Secretary of State. In part, Mr. Mellon told the Secretary of State the following: Both Polaroid and NBS have demonstrated their ability to provide a plastic core license. However, NBS informed the Department in a presentation made on September 17, 1986, that it will be unable to obtain paper film after the conclusion of their current contract with the State of Florida (August 31, 1987). They will be unable to bid on any contract for paper-based licenses after that date. In order to provide the State of Florida with the most durable license at the lowest cost, at least two bids providing the same durable core must be considered. Allowing vendors to bid two unlike products, either paper or plastic, would create a situation in which the products could not be objectively evaluated. That type of specification would also give a built-in price advantage to the vendor bidding a paper core, thereby prohibiting a competitive bid for the license, and increasing the price for the State. Mr. Mellon also suggested that the Department's decision to require a large license would make the License more legible and that requiring only an ultraviolet light feature for security was designed to reduce cost. In the draft of the response to the Secretary of State, the Department indicated that Polasecure, Armstrong advantage or similar security laminate would improve security and was preferred by the Department. This language was not contained in the final letter. On February 17, 1987, a meeting was conducted by the Department. It was attended by Mr. Mellon, Mr. Dickinson, Major Keith, Jim Cox and Mr. McCaskill. As a result of this meeting the Department decided to amend the specification contained in Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II pertaining to the film-core of the License. The Department decided to allow a paper-based or plastic-based film core in the hope that the cost bid by the vendors would come within the Department's budgeted amount. Polaroid's other suggested changes were rejected. On February 19, 1987, the Department issued Addenda III to Rebid II. Addenda III amended Rebid II by deleting the requirement that the core be plastic-based film and substituted the requirement that the core be "full color photosensitized material", i.e., paper-based or plastic-based. Addenda III also amended the requirements pertaining to samples. 0n February 20, 1987, Polaroid submitted a Notice of Protest to Rebid II, as amended. NBS submitted a Notice of Protest to Rebid II, as amended, on February 23, 1987. Polaroid and NBS both subsequently timely filed Formal Protests and Requests for Administrative Hearing. THE ALLEGED DEFICIENCIES OF REBID II, AS AMENDED. General Requirements of Rebid II, as Amended. A successful bidder to Rebid II would be required to furnish the Department with camera systems, photographic backdrops, film, laminating materials and equipment, training, support, maintenance and all other equipment and supplies necessary to produce Licenses and identification cards at License issuing offices of the Department throughout Florida. For each License or identification card produced, three film negatives must also be produced. The Department's License examiners will operate the equipment and produce Licenses. Approximately 1,000 examiners will have to be trained and supported. A fixed price for each License actually issued will be paid. Licenses not issued because of equipment problems or defective materials are not paid for by the Department. The driver, data card and header bar are photographed simultaneously and the images are optically combined by the camera system on a single piece of instant photographic film. The film is trimmed to the appropriate size in a "die cutter." The combined image recorded on the film core is simultaneously recorded on color negative roll film. Each negative is imprinted with a number. Two black and white, 16 millimeter roll film negative copies are made. A "rapid retrieval system" including two microfilm reader/printers, to retrieve copies of the negatives must be furnished by the successful bidder. The film core is to be laminated with a 1/8" lip seal. The License is to be the same size as a credit card, 2-1/8" high by 3-3/8" wide. This is the size of Licenses issued in most states. The License must be sufficiently durable to last seven years without deteriorating to the point that its functions are compromised. Printed data on the License should be sufficiently legible for law enforcement officers and others who rely on the License as a form of identification. The License should be secure it should be difficult to alter a License or to product a counterfeit License without the altered or counterfeit License being detectable. The primary goal of the Department in issuing Rebid II, as amended, was to provide a License at a reasonable cost which is legible, durable and secure. Polaroid's and NBS's Challenge to Rebid II, as Amended. Rebid II, as amended, represents the Department's third attempt to let a new contract for the issuance of Licenses. The Department's rejection of the first two attempts, the First ITB and Rebid I, have become final agency action. The extension of the 1982 Contract has also become final agency action. In this proceeding NBS has challenged the following portions of Rebid II, as amended: The requirement of Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as amended by Addendum III, that the film core is to be "full color photo sensitized material." NBS has contended that the film core should be composed of "polyester, polycarbonate or equivalent plastic material." The requirement of Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II that the "document to photograph reduction factor shall not exceed 40 percent so that the size of the photograph of the date card shall be not less than 60 percent of the size of the photographed document." NBS has contended that a 30 percent reduction factor should be specified. The requirement of Section 4.8.3 of Rebid II that a lip-seal lamination design be used. NBS contends that a flush-cut design should be required. Polaroid challenged the following portions of Rebid II, as amended: The requirement of Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as amended by Addendum III that the film core be "3-1/8 inches wide and 1-7/8 inches high prior to lamination." Polaroid contends that a range of sizes should be specified, from 2-7/8 to 3-1/8 inches wide and from 1- 3/4 to 1-7/8 inches high. The requirement of Section 4.8.4 of Rebid II which requires a black-light security feature. Polaroid contends that the Department should specify a security marking applied to the inside of the front laminate which is visible in ordinary light and is alternately visible and invisible as the angle of viewing the License is changed. The requirement of Section 4.10.4 of Rebid II that no applicant be required to wait for a second applicant before the first applicant's License is processed. The parties stipulated that this challenge arose as a result of a misunderstanding of the requirements of Section 4.10.4 of Rebid II. Based upon a clarification of this Section by the Department Polaroid agreed not to pursue this portion of its challenge to Rebid II. At the final hearing, Polaroid and NBS maintained that the Department had evidenced a bias in favor of the other. Film Core; Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as Amended by Addendum III. Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as amended by Addendum III, provides, in pertinent part: The finished color photo core of the driver license or identification card shall be full color photo sensitized material .... This provision replaces the requirement of Rebid II before amendment that the License be "full color photosensitized polyester, polycarbonate, or an equivalent plastic material Other pertinent provisions of Rebid II which affect the type of film- core material include the following: The Color photographic image must remain stable and survive intact under conditions of strenuous wear and tear and the photographic image must not significantly deteriorate or become illegible during the life of the license (seven years). The Contractor shall bear the cost of materials and supplies for the reissuance of each license or identification card which must be reissued due to failure to meet these requirements. The license or identification card shall be fully laminated, front and back, with a 1/3 inch lip seal. The laminate shall be not less than .007 inches thick per side and the back must have a surface which can be written upon. Data to be specified by the Department shall be printed on the side of the laminate. The finished license shall be 3-3/8 inches wide by 2-1/8 inches high including lip-seal lamination. The laminate shall be bonded to the finished license in such a way that the photographic image will be destroyed or defaced if the laminate is removed. The finished license shall be not less than .021 inch and not more than .062 inch thick after lamination. The contractor shall be responsible for the supply of laminating equipment, materials, support services (e.g. training) and all other commodities necessary to assure that driver licenses have appropriate protection and security laminates. As a part of their equipment demonstration, bidders shall submit with their bid twenty- five (25) sample licenses and ten (10) sample identification cards for testing and evaluation by the State of Florida. The samples must be identical to the proposed license and identification cards. If the proposed samples submitted for testing do not fulfill the requirements of this ITB, the State may reject the bid solely on this basis. Samples must be submitted at no additional cost to the State and additional quantities specified by the Department for further testing after opening of the bid must be supplied as long as said quantity does not exceed 100. Sample licenses and identification cards will be tested by the Division of Chemistry, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services of the State of Florida. These tests will include a tear test, an abrasion test, a tensile test, the use of a fadeometer, and a test of the ease of alteration. The tear test must exhibit a strength of at least 100 lbs., while the license must have a tensile strength of at least 250 lbs/in of width. The abrasion resistance must show either no or only a slight dulling of the surface after 300 strokes with a dry nylon brush and there should be no or only slight fading visible with the use of the fadeometer. The provision of Rebid II pertaining to the film-core material used cannot be reviewed in a vacuum. The provisions of Sections 4.8.2, 4.8.3 and 4.8.7 of Rebid II quoted above have not been challenged by Polaroid or NBS and must be considered when reviewing the film-core material requirement of Rebid II. When the provisions of Sections 4.8.2, 4.8.3 and 4.8.7 of Rebid II and the film-core requirement of Rebid II, as amended, are taken into account, the Department's goal of providing a legible, secure and durable License should be insured. The effect of Addendum III is to allow potential vendors to bid a License which contains a paper-based or plastic-based film core. NBS has contended that the Department is restricting competition by allowing a paper-based film core License to be bid. The evidence fails to support this contention. Polaroid is the primary manufacturer of paper-based instant photographic film, producing as much as 85 percent of such film. There is, however, at least one other manufacturer of paper-based film. That manufacturers is currently supplying paper-based film to NBS for use in producing the current License used in Florida. NBS has been notified by its current supplier of paper-based film that the film cannot be produced and supplied to NBS at the current price because it is only being manufactured for NBS's use in Florida. The evidence did not prove whether the statements made to NBS are true. Even if it is assumed that NBS cannot obtain paper-based film except at a higher price, the evidence did not prove that NBS cannot obtain paper-based film. Nor did the evidence prove that only one of the potential bidders could produce a License with "full color photo sensitized material." In the response to Rebid I, Polaroid and NBS produced a license which would meet this requirement. NBS's plastic-based film which it uses to produce Licenses has better contrast and resolution than Polaroid's paper-based film. NBS's Dekachrome polyester material, which is manufactured by Ciba-Geigy, will resolve in excess of 100 lines per millimeter, and may resolve up to 140 lines per millimeter, resulting in the ability to render a high degree of resolution for smaller items, including type or letters. Polaroid's film generally resolves at approximately 14 lines per millimeter, with a maximum resolution of 20 lines per millimeter. The NBS Dekachrome film has approximately a five to one factor of sharpness and clarity over Polaroid film. The contrast ratio of NBS Dekachrome material is approximately 77 percent and the contrast ratio of Polaroid film is approximately 73 percent. The difference in contrast and resolution can be measured in the laboratory. The evidence failed to prove that the differences significantly affect the legibility of Licenses actually produced using the film of Polaroid or NBS. The evidence also failed to prove that there is any significant difference in the legibility of Licenses produced with plastic-based film or paper-based film. There is no difference between Polaroid's plastic-based film and its paper-based film with regards to contrast and resolution. The difference in Polaroid film and NBS film is caused by the instant development process used by Polaroid and not by the difference in the material it uses. Therefore, the differences in contrast and resolution would exist even if Polaroid bid a plastic-based film. The evidence failed to prove that plastic-based alterations to Licenses or counterfeiting of Licenses. Rebid II, as amended, provides that sample Licenses are to be produced under the Department's supervision after bids are submitted. Those Licenses then must pass tests for tear strength, tensile strength, scratch resistance and resistance to fade. These provisions of Rebid II have not been challenged. These provisions will test the durability of the Licenses whether paper-based film or plastic-based film is used. Rebid II, as amended, allows the laminate to be a minimum of 0.007 inches to a maximum of 0.062 inches thick. The thickness of the laminate selected and the film core will affect the tear strength and tensile strength of Licenses. Use of a lip-seal laminate will also affect the durability of the License and eliminate the durability problems of paper-based film. Both Polaroid and NBS can bid in response to the requirement of Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as amended by Addendum III, that plastic-based or paper-based film be used. Reduction Factor; Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as Amended. Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as amended, provides, in pertinent part, the following requirement: The document to photograph reduction factor shall not exceed 40 percent so that the size of the photograph of the data card shall be not less than 60 percent of the size of the photographed documents. The above quoted portion of Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II was contained in the original Rebid II issued by the Department on January 27, 1987, and was not amended by the Department. Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II also requires that the License core is to be 3-1/8 inches wide and 1-7/8 inches high prior to lamination. Section 4.8.3 of Rebid 11 requires that the finished License is to measure 3-3/8 inches wide by 2-1/8 inches high including lip-seal lamination. These requirements were contained in the original Rebid II issued by the Department on January 27, 1987, and were not amended by the Department. Sections 3.2 and 3.3.2 of Rebid II provide for consideration by the Department of proposed changes to Rebid II. Section 3.3.2 of Rebid II provides the following requirements with regard to the manner in which changes were to proposed by potential bidders: The bidder, who requests changes to the State's specifications, must identify and describe the bidder's difficulty in meeting the State's specifications, must provide detailed justification for a change, and must provide recommended changes to the specifications. Requests for changes to the Invitation to Bid must be received by the state not later than 5:00 p.m., February 3, 1987. A Bidder's failure to request changes by the date described above, shall be considered to constitute bidder's acceptance of State's specifications. NBS's challenge to the 40 percent reduction factor requirement of Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II was not suggested as a change to Rebid II by NBS prior to February 3, 1987. NBS did not, therefore, comply with the requirements of Sections 3.2 and 3.3.2 of Rebid II in suggesting that the maximum 40 percent reduction factor be changed to a maximum 30 percent reduction factor. Sections 3.2 and 3.3.2 of Rebid II have not been challenged by Polaroid or NBS. At the commencement of the final hearing of this case the Department announced that it intended to change the reduction factor requirement of Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II to require a maximum reduction factor of 30 percent instead of the maximum of 40 percent contained in Rebid II as challenged in this proceeding. Lip Seal; Section 4.8.3 of Rebid II, as Amended. Section 4.8.3 of Rebid II requires, in pertinent part, the following: The license or identification card shall be fully laminated, front and back, with a 1/8 inch lip seal. The laminate shall be no less than .007 inches thick per side and the back must have a surface which can be written upon. Data to be specified by the Department shall be printed on the inside of the laminate. The finished license shall be 3- 3/8 inches wide by 2-1/8 inches high including lip-seal lamination. The laminate shall be bonded to the finished license in such a way that the photographic image will be destroyed or defaced if the laminate is removed... [Emphasis added]. NBS's challenge to the lip-seal lamination requirement of Section 4.8.3 of Rebid II was not suggested as a change to Rebid II by NBS prior to February 3, 1987. NBS did not, therefore, comply with the requirements of Sections 3.2 and 3.3.2 of Rebid II in suggesting that a flush-cut seal be substituted for a lip-seal method of sealing the lamination. The estimated cost per unit of lip-seal lamination for NBS's Licenses is six to eight cents per License. The requirement of a lip-seal laminate contained in Rebid II was intended to provide additional security and durability. Lamination tends to prevent moisture, which causes deterioration of the License, from penetrating the photo emulsion of the photo-core. Whether plastic-based or paper-based film is used, the film emulsion layer may be scratched off if no lamination is used. Emulsion can also be removed from plastic-based film by moistening the film surface. The Department used a plastic, unlaminated License in 1978. The photo emulsions of this License came unattached from the license core and had to be laminated. The Department tried to use a flush-cut seal on paper-based film as a result of the problems it had with deterioration of the License produced by NBS in 1978. Flush-cut sealing of a paper-based film License does not stop the deterioration problems caused by water damage. The requirement of Section 4.8.3 of Rebid II that the License be lip- sealed is reasonably calculated to enhance the security and durability of the License. It will also enhance legibility by eliminating deterioration of the License. The requirement of Section 4.8.3 of Rebid II concerning lip-seal lamination does not restrict competition. Both Polaroid and NBS can bid a License with lip-seal lamination. F. Security; Section 4.8.4 of Rebid II, as Amended. Section 4.8.4 of Rebid II provides: The finished license or identification card shall contain security markings to be specified by the Department. The security markings shall be printed in fluorescent dye or a similar process so that they become visible when exposed to ultraviolet light. The security markings may be a part of the laminating process. Section 4.8.4 of Rebid I, as amended by Addenda III, provided: The finished license or identification card shall contain pre-applied security markings affixed to the inside surface of the front of the laminate which, when laminated to the film core, will become an integral part of the core. The graphic design of the pro- applied security markings must be approved by the Department. The security markings feature shall utilize a process which will render the security markings alternately visible and invisible as the viewing angle changes. Any alteration of the security markings must be easily discernible with the naked eye, requiring no auxiliary reading devices for verification. The pre-applied security markings must be secure against being photographically reproduced or copied. The First ITB contained the same security feature contained in Rebid II. A security feature like Polasecure, which changes appearance when the viewing angle changes, would provide a bettor deterrent to alterations and counterfeiting of Licenses than ultraviolet light. Such a security feature can be seen by law enforcement and others without any auxiliary viewing devices or special lighting. Although the security feature contained in Rebid I would enhance the security of Licenses, it was eliminated from Rebid II because of the inability of NBS to bid a License which contains such a feature and is consistent with the adhesion of the lamination specifications contained in Rebid I and Rebid II and because of the additional cost of such a feature. Polaroid had represented to the Department that Polasecure would increase the cost of a License by approximately five cents per License. The evidence failed to prove that this information is correct. The evidence suggests that additional cost of Polasecure is in excess of five cents per License. The ultraviolet security feature will provide security against unsophisticated counterfeiters and ensure the security goal of the Department is met. The Department is attempting to provide security against amateurs. Given enough time, any security feature can be counterfeited. Even products like Polasecure can be stolen from driver license offices and used to produce counterfeit Licenses. The Department properly weighed the need for a security feature for Licenses and the cost of such security features and has provided a reasonable security feature in Rebid II. Polaroid and NBS can produce a License which meets the security requirement of Rebid II. License Size; Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as Amended. Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as amended, requires that the core of Licenses measure 1-7/8 inches by 3-1/8 inches. Polaroid has suggested that this provision be changed to allow a range of 1-3/4 inches by 2-3/4 inches to 1-7/8 inches by 3-1/8 inches. The smaller size core suggested by Polaroid is used in 26 of the 27 states presently served by Polaroid and by various agencies of the federal government. If the smaller size core is allowed, Polaroid can produce two Licenses from one sheet of its film. If the larger size core is required Polaroid can only make one License from each sheet of film. The Department has required a larger License size in order to improve the legibility of Licenses. The Department is concerned about complaints it has received from law enforcement officers and others about the legibility of the currently used License. The current License is legible by anyone who meets the vision requirements for employment by the Florida Highway Patrol, given good lighting and proper lenses to correct any vision problems the person may have. Not everyone, however, meets the vision requirements for employment by the Florida Highway Patrol. More importantly, law enforcement officers are sometimes required to read Licenses under poor lighting conditions. It is therefore reasonable for the Department to attempt to improve License legibility. Factors which affect the legibility of a License include the quality of the printing on the data card used, the degree of contrast on the data card, the optical-reduction factor in the camera, and the quality of the photographic image produced by the camera and the film. The evidence did not prove that the difference in the size of the License specified in Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as amended, and the size suggested by Polaroid will affect the legibility of the License. Although evidence was presented during the final hearing concerning plans of the Department to improve the method in which the data card is printed, Sections 3.18 and 4.6.5 of Rebid II, as amended, specify that the Department's existing and currently used data card is to be used in submitting bids to Rebid II, as amended. These provisions have not been challenged. Legibility will be affected by the extent of the maximum reduction factor allowed. The smaller the maximum reduction factor allowed, the better the legibility will be. Once reduced, the data card must fit into the size specified for the License core. Therefore, the reduction factor specified and the size of the License core must be consistent. In the current License produced in Florida, the data card is reduced by 42 percent from its original size. The License produced in 1978 featured a 33 percent reduction factor. The requirement as to the size of the License core and the maximum 40 percent reduction factor contained in Rebid II, as amended, are inconsistent. Mr. McCaskell conducted a study which indicated that if a 40 percent reduction factor is used there will be a considerable amount of unused space on a License core which measures 1-7/8 inches by 3-1/8 inches. If the size of the License core is reduced to allow a License core measuring 1-3/4 inches by 2-3/4 inches, a data card reduced by 40 percent will not leave unused space. The specification as to the maximum 40 percent reduction factor was included in Rebid II as a compromise between what Polaroid and NBS had informed Mr. McInnis they could produce. It was not based upon any scientific analysis by Mr. McInnis. Although a data card reduced by a maximum 40 percent reduction factor will fit on the smaller License suggested by Polaroid, the legibility of the License will not be improved. If the maximum reduction factor is reduced from 40 percent to 30 percent, however, the legibility of the License will be enhanced. A data card reduced by a maximum reduction factor of 31 percent will fit into the space for the data card specified for a License core of the size specified in Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as amended. If the header bar is reduced slightly a data card reduced by a maximum reduction factor of 30 percent will fit onto a License core of the size specified in Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as amended. A data card reduced by a maximum reduction factor of 31 percent will also fit into the space for the data card specified for a License core of the smaller size suggested by Polaroid. If the header bar and the area for the driver's picture are reduced slightly, a data card reduced by a maximum reduction factor of 30 percent will fit onto a License core of the smaller size suggested by Polaroid. The size specified by the Department in Rebid II, as amended, will not directly affect the goal of improving the legibility of the License. Reducing the maximum reduction factor to 31 percent will improve legibility and will be consistent with the other requirements of Rebid II, as amended, as to the size of the header bar and the size of the photograph of the driver. Allowing the range of sizes in the License core suggested by Polaroid is consistent with a reduction of the maximum reduction factor. Allowing the suggested range of sizes may also result in a cost savings to the Department since Polaroid would be able to produce two Licenses from one sheet of film. The Department's actions with respect to the License core size and the reduction factor have been arbitrary. Reducing the maximum reduction factor and allowing the Polaroid's suggested range of sizes for the License core are more reasonable specifications. Both Polaroid and NBS can bid a License meeting a 31 percent maximum reduction factor requirement and the Polaroid suggested range of License core sizes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department add a paragraph to its invitation to bid informing potential bidders that failure to challenge the specifications of the invitation to bid within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1985), and Rule 15-2.003(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that NBS's suggested changes to Rebid II, as amended, concerning the film core material specified in Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as amended, and lip-seal lamination specified in Section 4.8.3 of Rebid II, as amended, be denied. It is further RECOMMENDED that Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as amended, be amended to allow a maximum reduction factor of 30 percent. It is further RECOMMENDED that Polaroid's suggested changes to Rebid II, as amended, concerning the type of security feature specified in Section 4.8.4 of Rabid II, as amended, and the specification of Section 4.10.4 of Rebid II, as amended, be denied. It is further RECOMMENDED that Section 4.8.1 of Rebid II, as amended, be amended to allow the film core to measure 2-7/8 to 3-1/8 inches wide and 1-3/4 to 1-7/0 inches high. It is further RECOMMENDED that the size of the header bar and the space for the drivers' photograph be modified to accommodate a maximum 30 percent reduction factor and the smaller size License core. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1125BID The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in, the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Polaroid's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding RO Number of Acceptance of Fact Number or Reason for Rejection 1. 1. 2. This proposed finding of fact is irrelevant except to the extent that Polaroid and NBS serve about half of the states. See paragraph 2. 3. 103. 4. 104. 5. 105. 6. 4 and 6. 7. 106. 8. 107. 9. 7 and 108. 10. 109. 11. 7. 12. 108. 13. 113. 14. 110. 15. 111. 16. 112. 17. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 18. 114. 19. 116 and 117. 20-22 116. The portion of proposed finding of fact 22 which begins "but careful ..." is rejected as argument. 23-25. 117. 26. 114. 27. 118. 28-31. 20. 32. 52. 33-36. Hereby accepted. 37-38. Irrelevant. 39. 22-24. 40. 28. 41. 29. 42. 30-31. 43. 32-33. 44. 34-35. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 45. 36. 46. 37 and 40. 47. 40-41. 48. 42. 49. 43. 50. 44. 51. 45-46. 52. 45 and 48-49. 53. 48. 54. Hereby accepted. 55. 56. 49. The fact that "the Department did not approach Polaroid Corporation to determine if Polaroid could temporarily supply driver license systems during the same interim period is irrelevant. Irrelevant. 57. 50. 58. 51. 59-60. 53. 61. 54. 62. 54 and 63. 63. 54. 64-65. 55. 66. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 67. 56. 68-69. 57. 70-71. 58. 72. 60. 73. 158. 74. 60. 75. 61. 76. 160. 77. Irrelevant. 78. 62. 79. 63. 80. 64. 81. 65. 82. 66. 83. Irrelevant. 84. 67. 85. 70. 86. 68. 87. 69. 88-90. 71. 91. 72. 92. 73. 93. 75. 94. Irrelevant. 95. Hereby accepted. 96. 75. 97. 76. 98-99. 77. 100. 82. 101. 78. 102. 79. 103. 80. 104. Irrelevant. 105. 83. Mr. McInnis was one of the 106. primary technical drafters. 84-85. The last sentence is not 107-108. supported by the weight of the evidence. 84. 109. 86. The last sentence is irrelevant. 110-111. 88. 112. 89. 113. 90. 114. 91-92. 115. 90. 116-117. Irrelevant. 118. 93. 119. 94. 120. 96. 121. 97. 122-123. 98. 124. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 125-126. 99. 127-132. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 133-134. 100. Irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 137. 101. 138. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 139. 101 and 119. 140. 138. 141. 126. 142-144. Statements of law. 145. 128 and 133. 146. 132. 147. 134. 148. 135. 149. 136. 150. 137. 151. 153. 152. 150 and 153. 153. 151. 154. 164-165. 155. 166. 156. 157. 167. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 168. 158. 169. 159. 170. 160. 161-165. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 166. 174-175. 167. Irrelevant. 168. 174. 169. Irrelevant. 170. 180. 171. 179. 172. 181. 173. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 174-175. 183. 176. 184. 177. Hereby accepted. 178. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 179. 159. 180. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. NBS's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. 1. 2. 2. The last-sentence is irrelevant. 3. 10-14. 4. 15. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5. 16-18, 20-21 and 51. 6. 19. 7. 23. 8. 24. 9. 25-27. 10. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11. 37. 12. 35. 13. 36. The last sentence is irrelevant. 14. 38-40. 41. The second sentence is uncorroborated hearsay. 47-48. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 46. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 18. 49. 19. 50. 20. 51. 21. 43-44. Polaroid did not request permission to conduct a demonstration Polaroid was requested by the Department. The opinion expressed by Major Keith was the opinion of his office. 22. 53, 61-63, 65-68 and 71. 23. 72 and 74. 24. 73 and 75. 25. 76. 26. 76-77. 27. Irrelevant. 28. 77. 29. 89-90 and 93. 30. 94. 31. 97. 32. 98. 33. 100. 34. 101. 35. 102. 36. 139, 141 and 164. 37. 144. 38. Hereby accepted. 39. 177. 40. 174. 41. 179. 42. 175-176. 43. 175. Hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 46. 145. 47. 7. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 51. 147. 52-56. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 57. Irrelevant. 58. 155. 59. 156. 60. 157. 61. 162. 62-63. 66. 64-65. Irrelevant. 66-67. 74. 68. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 69. 160. 70. 163. 71. 101 and 119. 72. 119. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 125. The evidence failed to prove that "there exists virtually no other economical source for a similar paper based instant photographic product." 75. 126. 76-80. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 81. 134. 82. Irrelevant. 83-86. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 87. 128. 88. 129. 89. 130. 90. 131. 91. Irrelevant. 92. 133. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 93. 138. 94. 113. 95-96. Irrelevant. 97-102. Not supported by the weight of the evidence, irrelevant or statement of law. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. 4. 2. 119. 3-5. 120. 6. 121-122. 7. Statement of position. 8. 128. 9. 145. 10. 148-149. 11. 152. 12. 151-152. 13. Hereby accepted. 14. 154. 15. 139 and 144. 16-17. 168. 18. 173. 19. 179. 20. 172-173. 21. 22. 172. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 164. 23. 24. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 113. 25. Irrelevant. 26. 27. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 180. 28. 185. 29. 155. 30. 156. 31-32. 74 and 81. 33. 159. 34. 160. 35-38. 161. 39. 163. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard R. Mellon Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Enoch J. Whitney, Esquire General Counsel Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 H. Michael Madsen, Esquire Douglas J. Rillstone, Esquire Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Parker, Skelding, McVoy & Labasky Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert G. Holderness, Esquire Robert G. Holderness & Associates 925 L. Street, Suite 1490 Sacramento, California 95814
Findings Of Fact Sandor Koltay, Petitioner herein, is an electronic repair dealer registrant who holds registration no. 2615. William C. Kimbrel, Electronic Registration Bureau Chief since approximately April 12, 1971, is in charge of overseeing and supervising the Electronic Repair Dealer Registration Division. During early 1972, Kimbrel ordered two colored TV set which were shipped to the Miami Division Office, for use in checking repair dealer registrants who were the subject of complaints from collsumers. Joseph Hytha, an electronic inspector-investigator, working under Kimbrel for the past three years was employed by RCA for approximately 20 years in various positions of responsibility. He also was employed by Teledyne Corporation and supervised as many as 30 technicians. During his employ:nent career as an electronic repairman, he has repaired in excess of approximately 40,000 TV sets. He has been qualified as an expert in the courts of Duval and Volusia counties. Evidence reveals that the Bureau had received some complaints about the quality of workmanship engaged in by the Petitioner and working through tile assistance of the Consumer Affairs Division of Plnellas County, the Respondent used one of the referenced TV sets which was repaiied and marked and given to a citizen to be repaired by the Petitioner. The TV set was marked on the cabinet, chassis, the picture tube and the high voltage cage. Prior to being given to the citizen for repair, the set was initially checked by DivisIon employees Uytha, Stanley T. Crocker, an electronic inspector-investigator and Richard Hughes, a Division employee who is also a certified electronic technician. Crocker removed the tubes from the set and placed them in a cathode-ray tester and Hughes recorded the data with employee Hytha noting and checking all functions (State's Exhibit #3). During the examination by the Division, the filaments were closed and there was continuity in the picture tube. All tubes were marked by a nick on the number one pin for each tube removed from the set. The focus tube was removed from the set and scientifically knocked out to get a "no picture" condition. (State's Exhibit #4) initially, the set was given to Doris Dano, an employee of the Pinellas County Consumer Affairs Division, who called Petitioner to get the TV serviced. The "no picture" condition was shown to a Mr. Richards, who is also a Consumer Affairs employee, prior to the time that the Petitioner was called. John K. Kyle, a Pinellas County resident was given the set since he lived in the service area in which the Petitioner operated. When the TV set was carried to Kyle's apartment, he called the Petitioner who came and examined the set. Kyle explained to Petitioner that "he had no picutre and therefore he probably needed a new picture tube." Koltay examined the set and stated that it required a new tube after an examiniation of approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Kyle was explained his various options and after Petitioner used his phone, he was given several quotes based on estimates that Petitioner had received from two suppliers for various quality and guarantees on picture tubes. The evidence reveals that while examining the set, .the Petitioner commented that the set was dirty and called Kyle ever to the back of the set with the curtains drawn in the apartment to show him that the picture tube was not lighting up and therefore the picture tube was defective. The Petitioner was instructed by Kyle to use the better of the two picture tubes discussed and Petitioner gave him a quote of $210.00. The set was repaired for this price and it was redelivered to Kyle as agreed. Petitioner carried the set to his shop which is located at 3580- 66th Avenue North, in Pinellas Park and replaced the tube with a Grade C (used) Montgomery Ward Airline tube. Prior to installing the new tube, Petitioner testified that he tried to "spark" the tube. After conducting the "spark" test, he was certain that the tube was defective as he had suspected at Kyle's apartment. However, after he installed the new tube, the set still would net play and he checked the focus tube which was replaced. Thereafter the Petitioner made some adjustments to the set and when it was in good operating condition, he phoned Kyle and made an appointment to return the set. Petitioner admitted that he used a "1AV" tube as opposed to a "2AV2" tube inasmuch as the tubes are interchangeable and in fact some manufacturers suggest such a replacement with the original "2AV2" tube malfunctions. Later that day, Deputy Poorbaugh, who assisted in the investigation of the Petitioner beginning sometime around May 19,.1977, executed an affidavit, obtained a warrant and searched the Petitioner's shop after the set was returned to Kyle. Depuy PoorBaugh confiscated the tube which the Petitioner had removed from Kyle's set. The Petitioner had the tube marked "re-do." When questioned by Deputy Poorbaugh, Petitioner told him that he did not use a picture tube tester since his tester was inoperable, however, he had used other comparable tests and that the filament did not light up. Respecting the allegation that the Respondent charged for and applied a cleaning agent to Kyle's VHF tuner, the evidence revelas that Koltay, as a matter of practice cleans all TV tuners since the St. Petersburg area is very humid and cleaning the tuner seems to be a means of preventative maintenance which alleviates future problems. For this service, Petitioner did not charge Kyle a fee. When Deputy Poorbaugh seized the picture tube removed from Kyle's set, it was turned over to the State Attorney's office after it has been transported to the Division Office for a check. Richard Hughes, a certified electronic technician (CET) with approximately 31 years experience in the television repair field, testified that when the tube that had been removed from Kyle's set was checked, it had consistent readings of 11.9 on all three guns. (State's Exhibit #4 composite). Hughes testified that readings on new sets varied from 11.5 to 12. He estimated that based on the 20,000 to 25,000 sets of this type which he has repaired, he never witnessed an intermittent type fi1ament in a set of this type. He further testified on cross-examination that newer TV sets are not easily shaken by jostling because the elements are spot welded ridgidly in position. Sometime during the year 1976, Respondent's agent visited the Petitioner's home and demanded to inspect his invoice and other operating receipts. Petitioner refused, explaining that his wife, who maintained his books and invoices, was not at home. After an exchange of harsh words, Petitioner asked the agents to leave because he was "about to lose his temper". The following day, the Petitioner and his wife made phone calls to the Respondent's Division office in Tampa and a call was also made to the headquarters office in Tallahassee. Petitioner was advised to carry his invoices and all other operating receipts to the Tampa Office for inspection, which was done. Sandor T. Koltay, (Petitioner) has been in business at the above address for more than seven years and has approximately 15 years experience in television repair service. He has taken basic electronic courses, however, he is net a certified electronics technician. Petitioner's business phone rings at his home and he admits to the requirement that he make available to the Division all records and invoices upon request. He testified that this was done in all cases. Petitioner expressed an opinion that the State was "out to get him" based on the prior visit of Division employees Schreder and Crocker. He opined that they attempted to "shake him doqn" for approximately $3,000.00 based on six alleged violations. Sandra Koltay, Petitioner's wife, testified that she recalled the incident involving the Respondent's agents Crocker and Hytha as having occurred during the summer of 1975. She testified that the agents threatened her husband and told him that "he was in a great deal of trouble; that complaints had been received from numerous customers and that he owed six violations at $500.00 each for a total aalount of $3,000.00." She persuaded her husband to call the Bureau Chief in Tallahassee and express his desire to cooperate with the Division in any way possible. Kimbrel suggested that Petitioner carry all files for the previous six months to Tampa, for inspection. As stated, the records were carried to Tampa for inspection. Joseph W. Hytha recalled the visit to Petitioner's home during the summer of 1975 with agent Crocker. He testified that this visit was prompted by the Division's receipt of two irregular complaints and the Department's desire to discuss other matters. He testified that the invoices were illegible and inasmuch as they were at Petitioner's home, (office) they decided to carry out a regular office inspection. Mr. Hytha denied any threats having been voiced by himself or agent Crocker. Warren Quibelle, a CET with approximately 30 years in the electronic repair service business, testified that he had, during his career, worked on many RCA picture tubes such as the one in question here and that he has witnessed numerous "open" filament or intermittent problems problems existing on such tubes. BH testified that he has personally rejected TV tubes based on intermittent filaments. He testified that this is especially so in this instance inasmuch as the set was approximately five years old when it was serviced by the Petitioiier and that the average tube life span is five to seven years. Quibelle expressed doubts as to the accuracy of the 11.9 reading on a five year old picture tube. He further said that there was no way to determine whether or not an intermittent problem existed unless the problem occurs when the technician is present. Numerous witnesses testified that they had had their TV sets repaired by the Petitioner and expressed their opinion that he was reliable, honest and trustworthy. They all testified that they never voiced any complaint to the State or the Division of Consumer Affairs. (Witnesses Neal and Irving)
Conclusions Although the record reveals that there was at least a one day's delay in the Division's ability to inspect Petitioner's records - as requested, the person who was denied the inspection, Stanley Crocker, was not present and therefore it is difficult to determine on this record whether or not the request was actually made. Respecting the allegation that the Petitioner made untrue and misleading statements to John K. Kyle to the effect that he needed a new picture tube, the evidence reveals that the Petitioner, in fact, replaced the tube based on his examination which revealed that the filament in the picture tube was open. This is a problem of an intermittent type and witnesses for the Petitioner and the Respondent both testified that an intermittent problem is one which "is not apparent...and it cannot be traced. The only time such a problem can be traced is when the problem actually exists". This is the intermittent condition warranty given to Messr. Kyle and which apparently has the Respondent's imprimatur. I therefore conclude that these allegations have not been established by competent and substantial evidence nor has the allegation been substantiated that the Petitioner knowingly replaced the tube in Kyle's set when he knowingly was aware that the tube was not defective and replacement was not necessary as alleged as being violative of Chapter 468.159(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes. Respecting the allegation that the Petitioner charged for and applied a cleaning agent to Kyle's VHP tuner, the evidence reveals that no charge was made for the tuner cleaning repair. (State's Exhibit #5) Respecting the allegation that the Petitioner presented to John K. Kyle an illegible invoice ill violation of Rules and Regulations 7E-2.10, the evidence reveals that although Petitioner's handwriting leaves something to be desired, the undersigned can read such and therefore I cannot conclude that it is illegible in violation of Rule and Regulation 7B-2.10 of the Department's rules. The undersigned was unable to find any requirement in Florida Statute 468.155 to the effect that the Petitioner was required to notify the Division of a change of home address on or about June 1, 1976, as alleged in paragraph seven of the amended notice to show cause filed herein. It was further noted that Petitioner's registration has his business address denoted thereon and was available there at all times. Finally, I conclude that Petitioner, in fact, installed a Montgomery Ward- Airline brand picture tube in Kyle's TV set as alleged in paragraph six of the amended notice to show cause filed herein. The remaining allegations in paragraph six are rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the Petitioner be assessed a civil penalty of $250.00 based on the violation found above. In all other respects I hereby recommend that the allegations contained in the amended notice to show cause filed herein be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of December, 1977, Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Gentry, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Charles H. Scully, Esquire 445-31st Street, North Suite 204 St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Charles E. H. Beck, Esquire 3806 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF GENERAL REGULATION STATE OF FLORIDA SANDOR KOLTAY t/a/ CITY TV, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-1531 STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF GENERAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Donald C. Munafo was certified by the Department of Education and employed on continuing contract by the Pinellas County School Board as a physical education instructor at the 16th Street Middle School in Clearwater. He has been employed by the Pinellas County School Board for approximately 15 years. Munafo has been involved in photography for a number of years and has done professional photography for ten years as a sideline to his primary occupation as a school teacher. He is a member of Bay Photographic Association located in the Tampa Bay area, which is an affiliate of Florida Professional Photographers. In May 1984 Richard Norgrove, who also taught at 16th Street Middle School, formed Edventure Media, Inc., to provide himself and his wife with a tax shelter and to produce educational and training videos. Knowing Munafo to be a professional photographer, Norgrove consulted with him as to ideas on equipment Norgrove needed. After forming the corporation and making a few training films, Norgrove decided to produce a video of a "cat fight," which involves two females in brawl. He advertised for models to engage in a wrestling match and employed two who responded to his ad. Norgrove prepared a simple script and did the filming at his home. He requested Munafo to take some stills during the video filming to use to advertise copies of the cat fight for sale. To accommodate Norgrove, Munafo took still photographs of the models while Norgrove made the videotape of the girls tearing each others. clothes off and simulating a real fight. By the end of the video each girl was wearing only panties. This video was titled "The Dress." Shortly thereafter, Norgrove decided to make another cat fight video and again advertised for models. One of the girls answering the ad was Lisa Anderson. Norgrove again asked Munafo to take still shots while Norgrove made the videotape. Again Munafo agreed to help in the endeavor, knowing that the still shots would be used to promote the video and/or sold. Munafo received no compensation from Norgrove other than the cost to Munafo for supplies and for developing the pictures. During the taking of this video, which was titled "The Boyfriend," both of the models were reduced to complete nudity. Lisa Anderson was one of the girls involved in the video of "The Boyfriend." Lisa Anderson had answered Norgrove's ad by telephone, and they first met at a bar where Lisa was served alcoholic beverages. She had told Norgrove she was 23 years old and was anxious to make some money modeling and did not object to removing her clothes. Lisa subsequently signed a release stating that she was over 18 years old. As a matter of fact, Lisa was 17 when the video and subsequent photographs of her were taken. Lisa did not testify in these proceedings, but led Norgrove to believe she had been married twice and at the time the video was made was living with two men. One newspaper article (Exhibit 20) stated she was the mother of two children. Norgrove packaged "The Dress" and "The Boyfriend" on one cassette (Exhibit 8) and advertised it for sale in adult magazines under the title "Battling Beauties." He sold between 20 and 50 of these cassettes for approximately $60 each. Munafo took no part in promoting the cassette, mailing the cassettes, nor did he receive any percentage of the money Norgrove received for the sale of the cassettes. Following the filming of "The Boyfriend" Lisa called Norgrove several times to see if he had more jobs for her since she needed to make some money. Finally, Norgrove told her that he might be able to sell some nude photos of her to a publishing house but could not guarantee their sale. He offered to take the pictures and if they sold split the proceeds with her. Lisa agreed and Norgrove decided his sailboat would provide a good background location for the photo sessions. Again he requested Munafo to come along and take the photographs while he, Norgrove, ran the sailboat. At the appointed time they sailed out into open water where Lisa stripped and assumed various poses while Munafo took pictures. These pictures were admitted into evidence as Exhibits. Upon returning to shore, the three of them went to Munafo's house where Norgrove did another video of Lisa in the nude doing exercises. During the making of this video Munafo was downstairs and came up to the studio less than a minute before the video was completed. At this time Lisa was jumping on a small trampoline and Munafo suggested to Norgrove that he take some shots from the floor looking up. For the photos of Lisa taken in the sailboat, Munafo was again reimbursed only for the film and cost of developing the pictures he took. All told Eventure Media, Inc., paid Munafo less than $100.00 for the costs he incurred in shooting the pictures requested by Norgrove. Munafo's testimony was uncontradicted and corroborated by Norgrove that all Munafo expected to receive from his participation were his expenses and the expectation that he would meet a model he could later employ to pose for a figure study. Munafo is a serious photographer who participates in many of the competitions sponsored by photography groups, both local and statewide. Exhibit 16 was admitted as a copy of a figure study Munafo entered in a photo contest and took second place. In the interim the local police received information that Norgrove had been making pornographic videotapes and they alerted the United States Postal Inspectors. Their investigation revealed that Lisa Anderson was 17 years old at the time the videos and photographs were taken. 18 USC §2251, et seq., makes it a federal crime to use anyone under the age of 18 as a participant in a sexually explicit film or to transmit such film through the United States mail. After obtaining copies of the video cassettes and still photographs, the federal authorities obtained an indictment against Norgrove and Munafo and arrested them on March 4, 1985. The time of their arrest was the first inkling either had that Lisa Anderson was under the age of 18. News of the arrest of three Pinellas County school teachers (Norgrove's wife was also arrested) charged with distributing sexually explicit films involving minors received wide dissemination from the local press and, by reason of the implications of "kiddie-porn," the events leading to the trial in federal court and the results of that trial were closely followed and reported by the press. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the Norgroves negotiated a plea of guilty of conspiracy and received a lenient sentence. Munafo went to trial and was acquitted of all charges by the jury (Exhibit 17). Following the arrest of Munafo and the Norgroves, they were suspended by the School Board and hearings were requested. The Department of Education preferred charges to discipline their certificates based on the same allegations made by the School Board in their suspensions, and all cases were consolidated for hearing. Continuances were granted to await the outcome of the federal proceedings before conducting these administrative proceedings. Following the Norgroves negotiating a plea in the federal court trial, they withdrew their request for a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing and were dropped from these proceedings. No evidence was presented that Respondent showed explicit sexual films or pictures to other teachers as is alleged in the charging document by the Superintendent. Nor was any testimony presented to show that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system was seriously reduced by the publicity associated with his arrest, trial and subsequent acquittal. The primary, if not sole, basis for the disciplinary action proposed by the School Board and the Department of Education is whether the actions of Munafo in taking sexually explicit photographs of Lisa Anderson and another woman constitute immorality, misconduct in office, gross immorality or moral turpitude, or conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness in the Pinellas County school system. The photographs which form the basis of these charges are similar to those published in adult magazines such as Penthouse, Hustler, Playboy, Cavalier, etc., which are transmitted through the United States mail and are displayed on the magazine racks of vendors of newspapers and magazines in drugstores, airports, bookstores, and newsstands open to the general public. Petitioner produced two witnesses to testify to the immorality of one who would take explicit sexual photographs. Neither of these witnesses is a professional photographer although one teaches photography in a Pinellas County school. He did not believe a teacher should be held to a higher moral standard respecting activities totally unassociated with the school than is a member of the general public, but his personal moral convictions would preclude him from taking such pictures. Petitioner's other witness, John F. Joyce, Ed.D., opined that it was immoral for a school teacher to take such photographs as were taken by Respondent. Dr. Joyce, however, did not think it immoral for a teacher to look at pornographic photographs in Hustler magazine with prurient interests or even to be editor of such a magazine. How the work of an editor, in deciding which I pornographic photographs will sell the most magazines and still be within the letter of the law so as to avoid prosecution or a ban of the sales in a magazine, can be all right while the mechanic (or artist), who opens the shutter of the camera to expose the film and record the pornographic pose is immoral, completely eludes me. Accordingly, little weight is accorded this opinion. Nor is the age of Lisa Anderson at the time these photographs were taken relevant to the charge of immorality. Respondent certainly thought he was taking a photograph of a woman over the age of 18; and such opinion was justified by the physical appearance of Lisa, by the model release form she signed (Exhibit 10) stating she was over 18, by her marital history, and by her reported living arrangements (with two men). The photographs taken on the sailboat (Exhibits 1-5) clearly fit the category of sexually explicit and are more pornographic than are the stills Munafo took during the videotaping of he cat fights. Accordingly, the outcome of these proceedings can be said to stand or fall on whether the taking of these photographs (Exhibits 1-5) constitutes immorality or gross immorality by a school teacher. In making this ultimate finding of fact it is significant that such photographs are protected by the First Amendment provided the model is over 18 that such photographs can be sent through the United States mail system without any violation of the law (again if the model is over 18) that the sole basis for the criminal charges preferred against this Respondent was the age of the model used that it would not be considered an offense involving moral turpitude or jeopardize any license they have if a lawyer, doctor, banker, or broker took such photographs that Munafo was acquitted of these criminal charges that in these criminal charges specific intent is not an element of the offense and that Munafo reasonably believed that Lisa Anderson was over 18 at the time these photographs were taken. Lisa Anderson had no apparent connection to the Pinellas County school system and none of the filming had any connection to a school or school system or in any way indicated the model was a minor. From these findings comes the ultimate finding of fact that taking these photographs of Lisa Anderson does not constitute immorality, gross immorality, or misconduct in office.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Hollywood Construction of Northwest Florida, LLC (Hollywood Construction), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance as required by chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2014); and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement in chapter 440, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. An employer can satisfy that requirement by purchasing a workers’ compensation insurance policy or by leasing employees through an employee leasing company with a workers’ compensation insurance policy. With regard to the latter, the employer pays the employee leasing company, and the employee leasing company then compensates the leased employees for their labor. Donald Hurst is employed as a workers’ compensation investigator for the Department. He works out of a district office in Pensacola, Florida, and his territory covers Bay, Gulf, Franklin, and Liberty Counties. Hollywood Construction is a construction business with its principal office in Panama City, Florida. On approximately August 6, 2014, Mr. Hurst received a phone call from Barry Hutchinson, who claimed to be an injured employee of Hollywood Construction. That phone call prompted Mr. Hurst to access a website managed by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, where he learned of Hollywood Construction’s address and that R. Gage Golden was responsible for the business operations. Mr. Hurst also accessed the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), which is a Department-maintained database that records whether a particular employer has workers’ compensation coverage. CCAS indicated that Hollywood Construction had workers’ compensation coverage through an employee leasing company in lieu of procuring its own workers’ compensation insurance policy. Because Mr. Hutchinson alleged that he was a Hollywood Construction employee who had no workers’ compensation coverage, Mr. Hurst decided that further investigation was warranted and visited the job site where Mr. Hutchinson stated he had been working. The purpose of this visit was to verify whether any workers at the job site had coverage. After finding no one at the reported job site, Mr. Hurst served Hollywood Construction with a Request for Production of Business Records on August 14, 2014, seeking various types of business records that would reveal whether Hollywood Construction had been directly paying employees or subcontractors between May 6, 2014, and August 6, 2014. The business records produced by Hollywood Construction indicated that Hollywood Construction had made direct payments to Mr. Hutchinson. Accordingly, and because Hollywood Construction had no workers’ compensation coverage outside its employee leasing arrangement, Mr. Hurst concluded that Hollywood Construction had failed to procure all necessary workers’ compensation coverage. Next, Mr. Hurst hand-delivered to Hollywood Construction on September 3, 2014, a document entitled “Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation.” The aforementioned document sought additional records pertaining to the period from August 7, 2012, through August 6, 2014 (i.e., the audit period), that would enable the Department to ascertain how much money Hollywood Construction had paid directly to employees and/or subcontractors. The requested records corresponded to the two-year period established by section 440.107(7)(d) for penalty calculations. After reviewing those records, the Department concluded that multiple individuals were receiving direct payments from Hollywood Construction, rather than from Hollywood Construction’s employee leasing company. As a result, Mr. Hurst personally served on January 22, 2015, an Order of Penalty Assessment requiring Hollywood Construction to pay a penalty of $100,326.46. At some point thereafter, Hollywood Construction produced additional records to the Department, and the Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on May 11, 2015, imposing a penalty of $89,886.28. Ultimately, the Department issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on September 21, 2015, requiring Hollywood Construction to pay a penalty of $21,853.80. The $21,853.80 penalty sought by the Department is based on Hollywood Construction’s payroll during the audit period and the premium Hollywood Construction would have paid if it had obtained all of the necessary workers’ compensation coverage during the audit period. In order to calculate Hollywood Construction’s payroll during the audit period and the resulting premium, the Department relied on information provided by Hollywood Construction to ascertain the nature of its employees’ work and assigned each employee a classification code from the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Classification codes pertain to various occupations or types of work, and each one has an approved manual rate used by insurance companies to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. An approved manual rate corresponds to the risk associated with a particular occupation or type of work. Therefore, the manual rate corresponding to a roofer will be higher than the manual rate corresponding to secretarial work. The Department’s review also indicated that some of the payments at issue were non-wage expenses. For example, Hollywood Construction was reimbursing individuals for procuring items such as building materials and gasoline. Payments intended to reimburse employees for procuring such items are non-wage expenses that do not count towards an employer’s workers’ compensation obligation because those payments are not payroll. However, the Department was of the opinion that Hollywood Construction’s records were insufficiently detailed to enable the Department to ascertain whether all the payments at issue were wages or non-wage payments. Accordingly, and pursuant to rule 69L-6.035(1)(i), the Department presumed that 80 percent of the payments at issue were payroll that would count toward calculating a business’ workers’ compensation premium. Using the approved manual rates and the wages paid during the audit period (adjusted as described immediately above), the Department determined the individual insurance premiums Hollywood Construction would have paid for the employees in question if Hollywood Construction had procured workers’ compensation coverage during the audit period. Then, and as required by section 440.107(d)(1), the Department multiplied each individual premium by two in order to calculate the penalty associated with each employee, and those individual amounts totaled $21,853.80. R. Gage Golden (Hollywood Construction’s representative/owner) credibly testified during the final hearing that none of the payments used to calculate the $21,853.80 penalty were wages. Instead, those payments were non-wage expenses that should not influence Hollywood Construction’s workers’ compensation obligation. Furthermore, Mr. Golden argued that there is insufficient guidance in the relevant statutes and rules as to how business records must be maintained. The undersigned finds (as a matter of ultimate fact) that the Department failed to carry its burden of proving that $21,853.80 is the appropriate penalty and/or that the Department utilized the correct methodology in calculating that penalty. Hollywood Construction’s records sufficiently demonstrate that certain categories of payments were expenses, and a review of Hollywood Construction’s business records in Exhibit 10 indicates that the Department erroneously deemed certain payments to be wages rather than expenses. Specifically, Hollywood Construction’s Transaction Listing on pages 89 through 92 of the Department’s exhibits indicates that James Franklin (a Hollywood Construction employee) received eight payments between January 3, 2013, and May 2, 2013, totaling $1,239.00. If $1,239.00 is reduced by 20%, then the resulting figure is $991.20, and the Department’s penalty calculation worksheet alleges that James Franklin received $991.20 worth of payments directly from Hollywood Construction between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2013. However, Hollywood Construction’s General Ledger on pages 176 and 177 of the Department’s exhibits indicates that the payments made to Mr. Franklin between January 3, 2013, and May 2, 2013, were travel reimbursements rather than wages. Because travel reimbursements are not payroll, the aforementioned payments should not have been used in calculating Hollywood Construction’s penalty. Further review of Hollywood Construction’s business records suggests that other payments identified in the General Ledger as expenses may have been treated as wages for purposes of calculating the $21,853.80 penalty. For example, the General Ledger notes that several payments were made to Hollywood Construction employees and characterizes those payments as “Purchases/Materials” (pages 137 through 140 of the Department’s exhibits); Employee Travel Reimbursement (pages 140 through 143 and 176 through 181 of the Department’s exhibits); “Sales/Estimating Exp” (pages 146, 147, 182 and 183 of the Department’s exhibits); “Auto/Truck” (pages 149, 150, and 189 of the Department’s exhibits); “Purchases/Job Costs” (pages 168 through 176 of the Department’s exhibits); and “Maintenance/Repairs” (page 185 of the Department’s exhibits). To whatever extent that the Department’s proposed penalty of $21,853.80 includes any payments identified by Hollywood Construction’s General Ledger as “Purchases/Materials,” Employee Travel Reimbursement, “Sales/Estimating Exp,” “Auto/Truck,” “Purchases/Job Costs,” or “Maintenance/Repairs,” those payments must be excluded from the penalty calculation. The undersigned also finds (as a matter of ultimate fact) that there is no evidence that Mr. Golden or anyone associated with Hollywood Construction intentionally understated Hollywood Construction’s payroll so as to lessen its workers’ compensation obligation. Furthermore, the Department has not alleged that the business records provided by Hollywood Construction are inaccurate or untrustworthy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, recalculate the proposed penalty by excluding payments listed in Hollywood Construction’s General Ledger as “Purchases/Materials,” Employee Travel Reimbursement, “Sales/Estimating Exp,” “Auto/Truck,” “Purchases/Job Costs,” or “Maintenance/Repairs.” If the recalculated penalty is greater than $0.00, then it is further RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that Hollywood Construction of Northwest Florida, LLC, failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage at certain times between August 7, 2012, and August 6, 2014, in violation of section 440.107. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2015, 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 3rd day of December, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Gage Golden Hollywood Construction of Northwest Florida, LLC 3003 State Avenue Panama City, Florida 32405 Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the Department), should enter into a contract with Southern Photo Supply as low responsive bidder under Invitation to Bid (ITB) 052-98; the Petitioner, E. L. Cole Photography, Inc., contends such a contract would breach the Petitioner's contract under ITB 055-97.
Findings Of Fact On May 14, 1997, the Respondent, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the Department), awarded a contract for miscellaneous photographic supplies to the Petitioner, E. L. Cole Photography, Inc., as the low responsive bidder under ITB 055-97. ITB 055-97 replaced a similar contract awarded to Southern Photo Supply, as the low responsive bidder under ITB 039-94. Both ITBs were restricted to minority business enterprises (MBEs). Both ITBs (039-94 and 055-97) specified supplies listed under "Product Groups." The preamble to the "Product Groups" list in the bid specifications for both ITBs stated: The following product groups include the listed representative products and the anticipated order quantities for the representative products during the . . . contract period. These lists are based on a combination of experience and estimation, and are furnished to assist bidders to determine their interest in the contract and to estimate the type and volume of business that might be derived from the contract. However, the agency reserves the right to vary both products used and quantities required as may best serve the interests of the agency in carrying out agency business. Both lists included a group consisting of various types of color negative standard roll film in quantities ranging from 120 to 360 rolls. ITB 039-94 was for an eighteen-month contract (through June 30, 1995), renewable for two additional twelve-month terms. ITB 055-97 was for a five-year contract (through June 30, 2002), renewable for one additional five-year term. Both ITBs (039-94 and 055-97) included the following provision entitled "Additions/Deletions": "As products and agency requirements change over the life of the contract the agency may add new or different products to an appropriate discount group, or increase the use of products, at the same discount rate, or discontinue or reduce the use of products." Twice during the life of the 1994 contract, the Department solicited price quotes from Southern Photo for a large order of a type of color negative standard roll film not specifically listed under "Product Groups" in ITB 039-94. Southern Photo responded that it would sell the film to the Department at a 33% discount, which was even higher than the already deep 32% discount for color negative standard roll film in Southern Photo's response to ITB 039-94. The Department saw no need to solicit price quotes from other suppliers to verify that Southern Photo's 33% discount was deep enough to justify foregoing the issuance of an ITB for the film, with attendant administrative costs and delay. Instead, the Department added the purchase to the 1994 contract using the "Additions/Deletions" clause. The second time the Department added a large order of a type of color negative standard roll film not specifically listed under "Product Groups" in ITB 039-94 was about the time it was awarding the contract to the Petitioner under ITB 055-97. In the Petitioner's response to ITB 055-97, the discount for color negative standard roll film in the Petitioner's response to ITB 055-97 was 18%. Upon inquiry, the Department was advised that Southern Photo again would sell the large order at a 33% discount. Given the depth of Southern Photo's discount, as compared to the discount for color negative standard roll film offered in the Petitioner's response to ITB 055-97, the Department's decision was logical and reasonable. The Department assumed that the Petitioner would not reduce its price for color negative standard roll film from an 18% discount down to a 33% discount. It also was logical and reasonable for the Department to believe that it would not get a price quote from any other MBE that would be enough below Southern Photo's price quote to justify the administrative cost and delay of issuing an ITB for the film. On or about April 22, 1998 (long after Southern Photo's contract under ITB 039-94 had expired and well into the Petitioner's contract under ITB 055-97), the Department decided it needed to place another large (11,000-roll) order of color negative standard roll film that was not specifically listed under "Product Groups" in ITB 055-97, namely Kodak Ektapress PJ400 135/36 (PJ400). The Department asked the Petitioner for a price quote. The Petitioner took the position that the order was covered by its contract under ITB 055-97 and quoted a price ($4.95 a roll) that would reflect the 18% discount offered on color negative standard roll film in the Petitioner's response to ITB 055-97. The Department believed that it could buy the PJ400 film at a price low enough to justify the administrative cost and the delay of issuing an ITB for the film instead of adding it to the Petitioner's contract at $4.95 a roll. To ascertain if its belief was accurate, the Department solicited price quotes from several other MBEs and was able to obtain lower quotes, including a quote from Southern Photo of $3.96 a roll. The Department decided that the prospect of possibly saving $11,000 or more would be worth the administrative cost and delay of issuing an ITB for the film. On or about May 22, 1998, the Department issued ITB 052-98 for 11,000 rolls of PJ400 film. Both the Petitioner and Southern Photo responded. Southern Photo again offered a price of $3.96 a roll. Recognizing that it was not bound by the 18% discount in its response to ITB 055-97, the Petitioner bid $4.30 a roll. However, the Petitioner submitted its response "under protest." The Petitioner made clear in the cover letter to its response that the Petitioner still believed that the 11,000 rolls of PJ400 film should be added to the Petitioner's contract under ITB 055-97. On June 4, 1998, the Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract to Southern Photo. The Petitioner filed a notice of protest on June 9 and a formal protest on June 22, 1998. In its protest, the Petitioner took the position that the intended award of the contract to Southern Photo would breach the Petitioner's contract under ITB 055-97. In part, the Petitioner based its protest on its understanding that, at the opening of the responses to ITB 055-97, the Department's Chief of Contract Purchasing, William R. Rothman, answered in the affirmative a question from the Petitioner's principal, Eddie Lee Cole, Sr., as to whether the Petitioner would be the supplier of all of the Department's needs for photographic supplies under ITB 055-97. Cole's testimony in support of the Petitioner's protest is rejected as being either a miscommunication or a misunderstanding on his part. It is not believed that the Department's Chief of Contract Purchasing would have answered such a question in the affirmative in the face of the provisions of ITB 055-97. See Findings 2 through 4, supra. Despite the possible ambiguity injected by the use of the phrase "representative products" in the preamble to the "Product Groups" list in the bid specifications for ITB 055-97, Rothman testified that he viewed the purpose of the phrase to be to give the Department flexibility in the use of the "Additions/Deletions" clause. In particular, Rothman understood the purpose of the phrase to be to alert bidders that the Department would not necessarily purchase all listed products or purchase them in the listed quantities. Given Rothman's interpretation of ITB 055-97, it is not likely that Rothman would have given an affirmative answer to Cole's alleged question. If he did, it is found that Rothman's answer was intended to incorporate the provisions of the ITB as defining the contractual relationship between the Department and the Petitioner. The Petitioner's protest also was based in part on evidence that, on at least one occasion, the Department purchased from the Petitioner photographic supplies not specifically listed under "Product Groups" in ITB 055-97 without making formal use of the "Additions/Deletions" clause. However, it is found that the Department's action in that regard was an oversight from not carefully comparing its purchase orders to the "Product Groups" list. Reading the ITB in its entirety and in pari materia, it is found that the phrase "representative products" was not intended to require the Department to purchase large (11,000- roll) orders of color negative standard roll film not specifically listed under "Product Groups" in ITB 055-97 from the Petitioner. (Despite this finding, it is suggested that rephrasing the language in future ITBs may eliminate ambiguity, as well as the cost and delay it apparently caused in this case.) The Petitioner's protest also was based in part on its concern that, despite virtually identical pertinent ITB provisions, the Petitioner was not treated under its contract (ITB 055-97) the same way as the Department treated Southern Photo under its contract (039-94). However, as reflected in these findings, the Department actually treated both contractors the same; the outcome of that treatment was different only because Southern Photo's price quotes for large orders of color negative standard roll film not specifically listed under "Product Groups" were much lower than the Petitioner's.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order denying the Petitioner's bid protest and awarding the contract under ITB 052-98 to Southern Photo Supply. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Hobbs, Esquire Cummings, Hobbs and Wallace, P.A. 1020 East Lafayette Street, Room 205 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judson M. Chapman, Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 2399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 2399-0500 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
