Findings Of Fact The School Board of Broward County, hereinafter Respondent, issued a request for proposals (RFP), soliciting sealed bids for materials and labor for $6.5 million general renovations and additions to South Broward High School, Project #0171-88-03, hereinafter South Broward Project. The RFP and bid documents for the South Broward Project were contained in a 2-inch thick book entitled "Project Manual South Broward High School General Renovations and Additions Project #071-88-03." The RFP required all bids by 2:00 p.m., December 8, 1992, and required each bidder to include a certified check or bid bond for 5 percent of the base bid "as evidence of good faith and guaranteeing that the successful bidder will execute and furnish . . . a bond . . . for 100 percent of the Contract, said bond being conditioned for both performance and payment. . . ." Further, the RFP notified bidders that Respondent would have a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) subcontracting goal of 15 percent for the contract: 5 percent Black, 5 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent women. In addition, the RFP stated that Respondent had the right to reject bids and waive any informalities. As part of the bid documents provided to bidders, Respondent included its policy statement on bidding procedures and award of construction contracts. Among other things, the policy statement indicated that a Statement of Bidder's Qualifications form was required to be completed by bidders and received by Respondent prior to the date set for the bid award, that failure to do so "may" be an irregularity in bidding procedures, and that Respondent may require a bidder to furnish data to determine "beyond a reasonable doubt that the bidder is qualified to perform the contract." The Statement of Bidder's Qualifications form included questions requesting information from bidders on projects they had completed of similar size or larger; a list of present contracts, with amounts; whether fully bonded; and information on any failure to complete a bonded obligation. Additionally, the bid documents included a section entitled "Instruction To Bidders And The General Conditions," hereinafter Instructions and Conditions. The said document contained several Articles, of which Articles 4, 5, 7 and 8 are relevant to this bid protest. Article 4 of the document, Posting of Bids, states in pertinent part: Notice of intent to award or reject bids shall be posted . . . with recommendations reflecting the lowest responsive bidder meeting specifications, terms and conditions. Recommendation and tabulation will be posted seven (7) days after the bid date by 4:30 p.m. in the reception area of the Facilities Department. (Emphasis added) Article 4 also presented the time frames in which a bidder must file a protest of the recommendation, including the notice of protest and the formal written protest. Article 5, Basis For Award, states that Respondent's intent is to award the contract [T]o the lowest responsive bidder in accordance with the requirements of the Bidding Documents, within the funds available. (Emphasis added) The Article further states: Additional funds may be added to this project in order to award a contract if the lowest responsive bid exceeds the available funds. The lowest responsive bidder . . . will be established through an evaluation of the combined prices for the Base Bid and Alternates. (Emphasis added) Article 7, Withdrawal of Proposals, states in pertinent part: The Proposal may be withdrawn if The School Board of Broward County, Florida, fails to accept it within (60) calendar days after the date filed for opening bids. (Emphasis added) Article 8, Disqualification of Bidders, states in pertinent part: (d) No Proposal or Bid will be considered unless accompanied by a Proposal guarantee or good faith deposit in the amount and on the form specified in the Invitation for Bids, and/or Advertisement for Bids. Further, included in the bid documents was a section entitled Special Conditions. Article 10 of the Special Conditions dealt with MBE subcontractor requirements. Section 3 of Article 10 states in pertinent part: [F]ailure on the part of the Bidder to comply with the requirements of this Article shall be cause for finding the bidder non-responsive, unless every reasonable effort to utilize MBE subcontractors is demonstrated to The School Board of Broward County, Florida. In the event a bid is deemed non-responsive, award may then be made to the next lowest bidder, or all remaining bids may be rejected and the project readvertised. (Emphasis added) On December 8, 1992, as advertised, the bid opening on the South Broward Project was conducted. There were no irregularities at the bid opening. Roma Construction, Inc., hereinafter Petitioner, was a bidder on the South Broward Project along with other bidders. Petitioner was the lowest bidder. It is undisputed that Petitioner timely filed all of the requested bid documents, and complied with all the bid specifications. At the time of the South Broward Project bid, Petitioner was the contractor on another project with Respondent, referred to as the Deerfield Beach Elementary School Project, hereinafter Deerfield Project. Petitioner and Respondent were experiencing problems with the Deerfield Project, for which each blamed the other. Finally, on January 19, 1993, Respondent declared Petitioner in default of the Deerfield Project. Petitioner and Respondent are in pending litigation involving their dispute of the Deerfield Project. Respondent's Facilities Department had the responsibility of making a recommendation to Respondent as to which bidder should be awarded the contract. The lowest bidder is requested by the Facilities Department, subsequent to the bid opening, to submit the Statement of Bidder's Qualifications form, hereinafter Qualifications Statement. The Facilities Department uses the Qualifications Statement to obtain a general background of a bidder. Failure to provide the Qualifications Statement was waivable by the Facilities Department and was, therefore, not a disqualifying event. Even though Petitioner was the lowest bidder at bid opening, it was not requested by the Facilities Department, per the instructions of the Facilities Director, to submit the Qualifications Statement. 1/ The Facilities Director had decided to obtain Petitioner's Qualifications Statement from the most recent and on-going project that Respondent had awarded to Petitioner, i.e., the Deerfield Project, and make inquires from that Qualifications Statement. He was going through this process although he had made a predetermination that Petitioner probably would not be a responsible bidder. Using Petitioner's Qualifications Statement from the Deerfield Project, the Facilities Director contacted architects on Petitioner's prior projects. The architects made numerous "negative" comments regarding Petitioner's construction delays. Further, the Facilities Director made inquiries regarding lawsuits against Petitioner on projects. He was notified by Respondent's lawyers of what he considered to be an inordinate number of pending lawsuits against Petitioner. Based upon the information received from the inquiries and upon Petitioner's January 19, 1993, default declared by Respondent, the Facilities Director concluded that he could not recommend awarding the contract to Petitioner as the lowest responsible bidder. Consequently, he directed his staff to recommend awarding the contract to Dayco-Astaldi Construction Corporation, as the lowest responsible bidder. On January 25, 1993, approximately six weeks after the bid opening and six days after Respondent declared Petitioner in default of the Deerfield Project, the Bid Tabulation Form (BTF) was posted. The BTF showed Petitioner as the lowest bidder, and Dayco-Astaldi Construction Corp. as the next lowest bidder. However, Respondent's Facilities Department, stated on the BTF that its recommendation would be to award the contract to Dayco-Astaldi Construction Corporation as the lowest responsible bidder meeting the bid specifications. Additionally, the BTF included the notice that bidders could object to the intended action and the statutory procedure to follow. No evidence was presented that, between the time of the bid opening and the posting of the BTF, either Petitioner or any other bidder made an attempt to withdraw their bid. Petitioner filed its notice of protest on January 26, 1993, which was timely. Petitioner filed its formal written protest on February 1, 1993, which was timely. On February 23, 1993, Respondent considered Petitioner's protest at its scheduled meeting. Respondent "rejected" Petitioner's protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Broward County enter its final order rejecting Roma Construction, Inc.'s, bid and awarding the bid in South Broward High School Project #0171-88-03 to Dayco-Astaldi Construction Corp. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of May 1993. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May 1993.
Findings Of Fact In August, 1975, the Department of General Services invited competitive bids for the purchase of supervisory and control equipment and revenue metering equipment for expansion of primary electric utilities in the Capitol Center, a project known as State Project No. DGS-6026/6424, AEP File No. 74288-003. Plans and specifications for the project were developed by the department's consulting architect/engineers Reynolds, Smith and Hills. The Department of General Services (hereinafter Department) and Reynolds, Smith and Hills (hereinafter Reynolds) conducted formal bid opening on September 25, 1975. Bid proposals were received from petitioner, Weston Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Weston), and from Respondents, Harris Corporation (hereinafter Harris) and Hathaway Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Hathaway). The amount of the bids were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID ALTERNATE NO. 1-ADD TOTAL Harris 332,000.00 28,649.00 360,649.00 Weston 338,991.00 20,965.00 359,996.00 Hathaway 343,429.00 33,224.00 376,653.00 Hathaway's bid as submitted was responsive to the specifications and other requirements of the bid invitation. Weston's bid was responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation with the following exception. Specification B-2, in its second paragraph, states: "In order to facilitate the execution of the Agreement, the Bidder shall submit with his proposal a list of and brief description of similar work satisfactorily completed, with location, date of contracts, together with names and addresses of Owners." Weston did not submit that information with its bid but did submit that information on October 9, 1975. The Harris bid as submitted was not responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation. The material deviations from the specifications found in the Harris bid are as follows: Paragraph 16755-13(c) of the specifications states that data logger equipment by Teletype, Lear Siegler or General Electric will be considered. The Harris bid proposed a data logger manufactured by Practical Automation, Inc. and noted that if Harris was required to conform to the specifications by furnishing a data logger manufactured by one of the three specified manufacturers, its base bid would have to be increased by $635.00. Paragraph 16755-18 of the specifications requires a specific number of supervisory functions at each of the nineteen locations. The Harris bid met the requirements of the specifications at only one of the nineteen locations. At each of the other eighteen locations the Harris bid was from one to three supervisory points deficient. According to the evidence presented it would cost between $250 to $300 per location to furnish the supervisory points left out of Harris' bid. Paragraph 16755-13(d) of the specifications requires that the data logger shall log an uninitiated (alarm) change of status in red lettering. Harris' bid states that the equipment they have chosen is not available with red ribbon printout and that they therefore propose that all changes normally logged in red would instead have an asterisk in the first column. This specification requiring logging in red of an alarm change of status was included by the specifications writer of the architect/engineers as a safety feature. Paragraph 16755-13(e) of the specifications requires that the log shall contain time in a 24 hour format to a tenth of a minute. The Harris bid proposes that the log shall be in seconds rather than tenths of a minute. The specifications require equipment delivery to the job site and substantial completion within 180 calendar days after receipt of Notice To Proceed. The specifications further provide for liquidated damages of $100 per day for each day the contractor fails to meet the above completion date. The Harris bid requested that the liquidated damages clause and the required time for completion be modified to provice that the 180 day period would not commence until all drawings had been approved by the architect/engineers. The architect/engineers, Reynolds, Smith and Hills, calculated that the required drawing time was approximately 60 days. Therefore, the Harris bid proposes that Harris would have 240 days instead of 180 days in which to deliver the equipment to the site and substantially complete the contract. The Harris bid proposed a deviation from the warranty provision of the specifications. The specifications in paragraph E-17 placed the final determination of the need for repairs or changes under the guarantee clause of the specifications with the architect/engineers and the owner. Harris proposes to alter those specifications and place the right of final determination as to the existence and cause of any claim defect with Harris. Harris' bid contained information setting forth their experience with the Micro II System, which is the system they proposed in their bid. That information shows that the Micro II System had been in use no more than two and one-half years at the time of the bid letting. In its evaluation of the bidders' proposals, based upon the data contained in the original bid packages, Reynolds calculated that the deviation from the specifications by Harris gave Harris at least a $10,135 advantage in its bidding (See Petitioner's Exhibit 8). That evaluation did not include a dollar value for the deviation from the specification concerning the warranty. In that evaluation Reynolds noted the failure of Harris to meet the supervisory point requirements. They calculated that this would add $3,900 to Harris' bid based on twelve locations at $300 per location. In fact, Harris failed to meet the requirements at eighteen locations, which at $300 per location, would add $5,400 to Harris' bid. Thus, using the evaluation figures of Reynolds, it appears that Harris' deviations from the specifications gave them at least an $11,635 advantage in the bidding. On October 9, 1975, Reynolds held a conference with each of the three bidders. At that conference Weston provided a list of three names, with addresses of customers for whom Weston had completed work similar to that proposed in its bid. Reynolds did not receive any material information from these references until after October 31, 1975. At least two of the references commented favorably on Weston's performance in letters to Reynolds dated January 13, 1976 and January 20, 1976, respectively. By letter dated October 31, 1975, Reynolds' project manager for this project conveyed the architect/engineers' recommendation for award to the Department. That recommendation was that the contract be awarded to Hathaway Instruments, Inc., for the base bid item only. The recommendation noted that the alternate should be rejected because the bids for the alternate were excessively high. As stated in the letter of recommendation, Reynolds rejected Harris' bid because "there were several major exceptions taken to the specification (sic), the most serious of which was their not being able to meet the delivery schedule." Also, as stated in the letter of recommendation, Weston's bid was apparently rejected because they "could not meet the experience qualifications as specified." Harris, at the time of the bid letting, had five years experience with its Micro I equipment but had only two and one-half years experience with its Micro II equipment. The two lines of equipment constitute two generations of equipment. Neither Harris nor Weston had five years experience with the specific equipment proposed in their bids. Both, however, have had five years experience with the general type system and equipment proposed with Harris being the more experienced of the two. Based upon the evidence presented Weston and Harris are both responsible bidders. In November, 1975, the Department directed Reynolds to contact Harris and determine whether Harris would conform their bid to the specifications. The project manager for Reynolds so contacted Harris and by letter dated November 17, 1975 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4), notified the Department that Harris stated they would deliver the equipment within the time required by the specifications. That letter reiterated Reynolds' recommendation of Hathaway as contained in their letter of October 31, 1975. Reynolds did not retreat from their recommendation of Hathaway and at the final hearing again stated that recommendation. Thereafter, the Department proposed to award the contract to Harris and set the matter for final decision on December 2, 1975. Harris' bid was a responsible offer but was not in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions. The bids of Weston and Hathaway were responsible offers and were in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions except as noted in paragraphs 4, 7 and 19 herein. Paragraph B-18 of the Specifications and Contract Documents (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) states that "No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced." Section A of the same document states that bids would be received until 2:00 p.m. EDST, on September 25, 1975. No evidence was presented which would show that the time for receiving bids was extended beyond that set forth above. Therefore, the close of bidding appears to have been at 2:00 p.m., EDST, September 25, 1975. The agreement by Harris to conform their bid to the specifications and conditions constituted a material modification of their bid. This modification occurred in November, 1975, after the close of bidding, and was therefore not allowable under the terms of the Specifications and Contract Documents set forth above. The lowest base bid and alternate bid of those responsible offers received in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions was that of Weston. No evidence was presented which would show that the Department submitted its complete File on this matter to the Division of Purchasing along with its reasons for recommending a bid other than the low bid meeting specifications, as required by Section 13A-1.02(a), F.A.C.
The Issue Whether Allstate Construction's (Allstate) bid was delivered in time. Whether Florida State University (FSU) had the authority to waive the lateness of Allstate's bid if it was late. Whether the failure by Allstate to acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2 was a bidding irregularity. Whether Allstate's failure to acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2 could be waived by FSU.
Findings Of Fact Florida State University requested bids for repairs to the roof and walls of Thagard Student Health Center on July 2, 1992. Thereafter, two addenda were issued. The first addendum was issued on July 27, 1992, and the second on July 28, 1992. Item #1 of Specifications in Addendum No. 1, which is attached, changed the date the bids were to be presented to August 6, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 124-D of Mendenhall Maintenance Building at FSU. Item #1 to Specifications in Addendum No. 2, which is attached, changed the specifications of ringlets and counterflashings published in Item #4 to Specifications in Addendum No. 1; and Item #2 in Addendum No. 2 changed the specifications of the materials in the cants published in the original specifications. On August 6, 1992, representatives of Harrell, Southeast, and FSU were present in Room 124-D, Mendenhall Maintenance Building prior to 2:00 p.m. Harrell and Southeast had already presented their bids to Sallie Dixon, FSU's representative. One of the persons present had called upon Ms. Dixon to call time and open the bids, but she had not done so when Dot Mathews and Joe O'Neil entered the room. Mr. O'Neil announced to those present that Ms. Mathews was late because he had misdirected her to another part of the building when Ms. Mathews's had entered the office he was in, Room 124, and had asked directions. Ms. Mathews immediately handed Allstate's bid to Ms. Dixon, and Ms. Dixon received it. Immediately, Ms. Dixon opened, tabulated, and posted the bids. Allstate had the lowest responsible bid. Allstate's bid did not acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2. FSU's rules on bidding provide that the official time will be that of the clock in the reception area of the Purchasing Department; however, the opening was held in Mendenhall Maintenance Building because of repairs to the Purchasing Department, and the university's officials were uncertain whether the reception area and clock existed at the time of the opening. It was the clear impression of all present, except Ms. Mathews, that the bid presented by Ms. Mathews was after 2:00 p.m. The estimates of the time varied, but none placed the time beyond 2:04 p.m. FSU generally sent an acknowledgment form with an addendum which required the bidders to acknowledge receipt of the addendum; however, in this instance, the addendum was sent by the supervising engineer, and an acknowledgment form was not sent with the addendum. The specifications did not require acknowledgment of addenda. The essence of the substantial amount of testimony received on the impact of the changes was (1) that the change in thickness of materials had a negligible impact, and (2) the real change in costs was the result of the requirement that the paint finish be by the manufacturer. The requirement that the materials be painted by the manufacturer was part of Addendum No.1. Further, the bidders are deemed manufacturers, and the finish that they put on the manufactured items is "by the manufacturer". Although testimony was received that Petitioner would have manufactured the items and then had them coated thereby increasing their total costs, an alternative method of manufacture was described by Allstate's representative in which the painted raw materials are retouched after being cut and welded into the finished structures. Petitioner's choice of the first method was explained by its representative to be its effort to comply with the bid requirement that the winning contractor guarantee the finish for twenty years. Intervenor's choice was to use the second method. To the extent that one method may have been more expensive that the other, there was no prohibition of the Petitioner to adopt the less expensive method; and, therefore, there was no economic advantage to Allstate. In the absence of an economic advantage to Allstate, Allstate's failure to acknowledge Addendum No. 2 was a minor irregularity. FSU waived the lateness of Allstate's bid and Allstate's failure to acknowledge Addendum No. 2, and awarded the bid to Allstate.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's Petition be dismissed, and the bid be awarded to Allstate Construction, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-5465BID Florida State University and Allstate Construction, Inc. submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which findings were adopted and which were rejected and why: Florida State University's Proposed Findings: Para 1-4 Adopted. Para 5-7 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 8 Adopted. Para 9-11 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 12-24 Adopted. Para 25 Not necessary/irrelevant. Allstate Construction's Proposed Findings: Para 1,2 Adopted. Para 3 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 4-8 Adopted. Para 9 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 10-15 Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Wendell Parker Mike Harrell Harrell Roofing, Inc. P.O. Box 20421 Tallahassee, FL 32316 Sonja Mathews Florida State University 540 W. Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4038 Davisson F. Dunlap, Jr. 3375-A Capital Circle, N.E. Tallahassee, FL 32308 Jeff Miller Route 16, Box 1307 Tallahassee, FL 32310 Dale W. Lick, President Florida State University 211 Westcott Building Tallahassee, FL 32306-1037 Gerold B. Jaski, General Counsel Florida State University 540 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32306
The Issue The issue is whether Mr. Hill, as a certified general contractor, is guilty of gross negligence or misconduct in the practice of contracting, and of failing to discharge his supervisory duty as a qualifying agent by qualifying the firm Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. when he was not actively involved in the operation of that firm, but merely obtained permits for the firm's work.
Findings Of Fact Robert C. Hill is a certified general contractor and holds license CG C028519. Mr. Hill had been hired as one of four or five salesmen for Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. by its owner, Eugene Weiner. That company sold rolldown, accordion, panel, and awning metal shutters. Gulfstream acted as a procuring agent for Seaview Manufacturing, Inc., which fabricated and installed the shutters. A homeowner who wanted shutters would contact a salesman for Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. The salesman would measure the area to be covered for the purpose of estimating a price and give the homeowner a price. If the price was accepted, the shutters would be ordered from Seaview Manufacturing through a purchase order. Engineers from Seaview would then visit the property again to take exact measurements for fabrication, and Seaview would install the shutters. After the homeowner accepted the installation, the homeowner would pay for the shutters. Payment usually had been financed, and upon acceptance by the homeowner, the financing entity would release the proceeds of the home improvement loan which would be paid to Seaview for the product, and to Gulfstream for its sales commission. The average job sold by Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. was about $2,400 per home. Because of the way in which the sales transactions for shutters were structured, the only party which had any contractual relationship with the homeowner was Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. Mr. Hill was also able to handle work in addition to shutters, such as window replacements, because he had a contracting license. About 85 to 90 percent of Gulfstream's business was shutters and 5 percent windows or other work. The owner of Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. assumed that Seaview Manufacturing, which had been in the business of fabricating and installing shutters for more than 30 years, obtained any permits that were needed for the installation of the shutters. In fact, no permits were obtained by Seaview, Gulfstream, or Mr. Hill for those installations. Mr. Hill agreed to become qualifying agent for Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. so that he could pull permits for spin-off jobs he obtained for window work or other small remodeling jobs, such as porches, which arose in connection with contracts for awning work he obtained. Gulfstream had no other qualifying agent. This qualification took place in August 1985. When Mr. Hill qualified as the agent for Gulfstream Shutter and Import Corp., he had no oversight of the finances of the company or supervision over the shutter fabrication or installation performed by Seaview Manufacturing on contracts procured by Gulfstream's salesmen. Eventually, Mr. Hill left Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp., and began his own business, Contractors Marketing, which he qualified with the Department of Professional Regulation.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that a final order be entered finding Mr. Hill guilty of violating Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes (1985), which make out a violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1985), and that he be fined $250. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of April, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 22nd day of April, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Robert C. Hill Department of Professional 5766 Northeast 15th Avenue Regulation Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33334 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely William O'Neil, Esquire Executive Director General Counsel Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation Post Office Box 2 130 North Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to an unlawful employment practice on the basis of her race in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on exhibits admitted into evidence, testimony offered by witnesses, and admitted facts set forth in the Prehearing Stipulation. Background Ms. Logan is an African-American female and a member of a protected class. At all times material to this matter, she was employed as an esthetician at Brow Art 23. Ms. Logan was an employee of Brow Art 23 as that term is defined by the FCRA. Brow Art 23 is a skin care salon that specializes in eyebrow threading. The Brow Art 23 corporate offices are located in Highland Park, Illinois. However, it has multiple locations throughout the United States, including Florida. Ms. Logan worked at Brow Art 23 in the Cordova Mall located in Pensacola, Florida. At all times material to this matter, Brow Art 23 employed more than 15 full-time employees. Ms. Logan filed a complaint with the Commission alleging Brow Art 23, through Sara Mark, created a hostile work environment and had racial bias against African-Americans. The Commission issued a “No Cause” determination and Ms. Logan filed a Petition for Relief, which is the matter before the undersigned. Ms. Logan is a licensed esthetician in the State of Florida. Her license allows her to perform hair removal techniques, such as threading, waxing, and sugaring. Ms. Logan’s license also permits her to perform eyelash extensions. Ms. Logan sought employment with Brow Art 23. She was interviewed and began work the next day. Other than in the instant matter, Ms. Logan had not been disciplined during her employment with Brow Art 23. Ms. Mark’s Actions/Hostile Work Environment Between December 2015 and January 2016, Sara Mark was hired to work in the Cordova Mall store. Ms. Mark is believed to be of Egyptian descent.3/ Asha Logan and Sara Mark initially were friendly and worked well together. However, at some point in 2016 their relationship changed. Ms. Logan testified that Ms. Mark engaged in hostile behavior toward her in various ways. Ms. Logan testified that Ms. Mark would remove her tips from the cash register without permission. Ms. Mark told customers not to patronize other threaders but, when confronted, Ms. Mark would deny making the statements. However, Ms. Mark did not single out Ms. Logan. Ms. Logan testified that Ms. Mark would follow her while she was working inside the store and stand close to her when she was servicing customers. Ms. Mark would also follow Ms. Logan outside the store in the mall corridor while Ms. Logan was attempting to solicit customers. Brow Art 23 employees, Dominique Welch and Mariella Ablaza, witnessed the behavior. They testified that Ms. Mark appeared to be attempting to intimidate Ms. Logan when she followed her. Ms. Mark also read Ms. Logan’s private emails. All employees had access to a single company computer at Brow Art 23. While emails were sent from the company to communicate with employees as a group, Ms. Mark would repeatedly read Ms. Logan’s private emails that were addressed only to her. Ms. Mark’s actions went beyond non-physical intimidation. It also involved physical aggression. In an incident, which is a primary issue here, Ms. Mark walked past Ms. Logan and kicked her foot. Both Ms. Logan and Ms. Welch testified that it was an intentional act because Ms. Mark had enough room within the designated area to avoid contact when she kicked Ms. Logan. Moreover, she did not apologize to Ms. Logan for kicking her foot. Ms. Logan testified that she believed Ms. Mark’s behavior was motivated by racial bias against African-Americans because Ms. Mark made comments about African-American customers being dirty, smelling badly, and not tipping. In addition to the comments about African-American customers, Ms. Mark used offensive language which demonstrated her racial animus. While working with Ms. Logan and Ms. Welch, Ms. Mark used the racial epithet “nigger.” Ms. Logan and Ms. Welch asked Ms. Mark not to use the word because they found it offensive. Despite the requests, Ms. Mark continued to repeat it and said, “I don’t understand why I can’t call you a ‘nigger.’” In a separate incident, Ms. Logan, Ms. Welch, Ms. Ablaza, and Ms. Mark were working together. The group began discussing where Ms. Mark was originally from and someone referenced Ms. Mark as being from Africa. Ms. Mark replied, “No, I’m not. I'm not a 'nigger.'" Ms. Logan informed her assistant manager, Rusbina Malak, of the incidents and concerns she had with Ms. Mark. After receiving no response, Ms. Logan then reported her concerns to Ms. Marcano. Up to this point, Ms. Logan had not communicated her concerns regarding discrimination. Ms. Marcano testified that she had no independent recollection of Ms. Logan contacting her about complaints of harassment, assault, or discrimination and had discarded any notes that she had in a notebook of conversations with employees during that time. Ms. Marcano received information from Ms. Malak that she characterized as two employees “not getting along.” Ms. Marcano then instructed Ms. Logan to text her complaint to the group and scheduled a conference call on Whatsapp. Whatsapp is an instant messaging application that Ms. Marcano and Ms. Malak used to communicate with the employees at the Cordova Mall store. Whatsapp is an open forum where each user can view the messages and comments of the other users in the group text. The use of Whatsapp was not authorized by Brow Art 23’s corporate office. Ms. Logan followed the instructions of her managers and posted her complaint on Whatsapp. During the conference call, there was a group discussion between all the employees at the Cordova Mall location, Ms. Marcano, and an unnamed individual from human resources. According to Ms. Marcano, all the issues were resolved during the conference call. To the contrary, Ms. Logan and Ms. Welch disagreed and testified that management essentially disregarded their complaints. The Eye Brow Art 23 employees, including the store manager and the regional manager, testified that a manager had never been to the Cordova Mall location once during the period that Ms. Mark was hired and the incident of August 17, 2016.4/ Policy and Procedure Brow Art 23 provided employees with an employee handbook, which directs employees to make complaints directly to their team leader and manager. Brow Art 23 also has an equal employment section of their employee handbook that specifically directs employees to address violations of the equal employment policy with the team leader. The team leader would then forward the complaint to the manager or corporate office. Under the policy, complaints are to be promptly investigated with due regard for the privacy and respect of all. In addition to the equal employment policy, Brow Art 23 has a policy prohibiting harassment, including creating a hostile work environment. The circumstances, which may constitute harassment, include language, epithets, and unwelcome touching. Ms. Malak testified that she received several complaints from Ms. Logan and that she “saw that [Ms. Logan] had a lot of problems [with Ms. Mark].” Ms. Malak advised Ms. Logan to contact her supervisor, Ms. Marcano, because she had no authority to handle those types of complaints. Ms. Logan attempted to send an email to Ms. Sadek on May 19, 2016, regarding her complaints of discrimination and harassment. The email was addressed to “Vyolit@browart23.com.” Ms. Sadek denied that she received the email and credibly testified that her email is vyolit.sadek@browart23.com. The undersigned finds that there was insufficient evidence offered to demonstrate that Ms. Sadek received Ms. Logan’s email. Ms. Logan also sent electronic messages to management with complaints regarding her problems with Ms. Mark. On June 2, 2016, Ms. Logan sent a text message to Ms. Malak and complained that “I have reported to you several weeks ago via phone that I’m having serious issue with worker Sara. I have told you that she has kick [sic] me in the back store out of dislike and you said you’d get with Krishnara and nothing has been done about being kicked yet.” On June 27, 2016, Ms. Logan sent a text message to Ms. Malak and complained that “I have sent you information one [sic] how nasty the store is left everyday and how I an [sic] harassed everyday. Can you give me an idea of how long before this issue will be resolved.” There is a date stamp below the June 27, 2016, text message indicating that it was read on the same date. Ms. Malak confirmed that she received the message. Instead of resolving the issue, Ms. Malak directed Ms. Logan to “put the message on the group message so everybody can read and everybody can see and they can reply.” Ms. Logan received no resolution to her complaints. On July 26, 2016, Petitioner sent another email, which was addressed to Mary Fernandez, a human resources staff member of Brow Art 23, and copied Ms. Malak and Ms. Marcano. The email subject line included “discriminative treatment by Worker Sarah Marks.” This was the first time that Ms. Logan expressed her concerns about Ms. Mark’s behavior being racially motivated. There was insufficient evidence offered to demonstrate that the email address for Ms. Fernandez was correct or that Ms. Fernandez received the email. However, the email address for Ms. Malak and Ms. Marcano were correct and both members of management affirmed that they received the email. Ms. Logan properly followed the written policy contained in the employee manual. She reported her complaints of harassment to her store manager, Ms. Malak, and to the regional manager, Ms. Marcano. She reported her complaints that she believed the harassment was racially motivated. There was no corrective action taken to address Ms. Mark’s behavior. Although there was testimony that Ms. Mark engaged in similar acts with other employees, she consistently engaged in harassing behavior with Ms. Logan. Moreover, although there were other employees of different racial backgrounds (i.e., Hispanic, Asian, etc.), Ms. Logan is the only employee to whom Ms. Mark directed a racial epithet. Incident Leading to Ms. Logan’s Suspension on August 17, 2016 On August 17, 2016, Ms. Logan, Ms. Ablaza,5/ and Ms. Mark were together at the store. There were three chairs in the sitting area, including two store-owned chairs and a chair owned by Ms. Mark. The chair Ms. Logan used was owned by the store for employee use. It was well-known that Ms. Mark did not permit other employees to use her chair. The three employees were sitting in the employee break room area waiting for customers. The employees would sit in a particular position based on rotation to provide services to customers. Ms. Logan was sitting in the first chair as she would service the next customer. Ms. Logan was sitting in a store-owned chair and Ms. Mark was sitting in her personal chair. Ms. Logan then left her chair to service a client. However, she discovered that she did not have a customer. When Ms. Logan returned, Ms. Mark was sitting in the first chair (previously occupied by Ms. Logan). What happens next is in dispute. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Logan placed her hand on the back of the chair, Ms. Mark began to stand up from the chair, and Ms. Logan moved the chair so she could sit in it. Ms. Mark did not testify at the hearing. However, her description of the incident in a text message to Ms. Malak was that Ms. Logan pushed her from the chair. Ms. Ablaza, the only neutral witness to the incident, testified about what she observed. Ms. Ablaza recalled that Ms. Logan asked Ms. Mark for her chair but Ms. Mark ignored her. Ms. Logan asked Ms. Mark for the chair a second time and explained that she needed to sit due to back pain. Again, Ms. Mark did not respond to Ms. Logan’s request. Ms. Logan was holding the chair when Ms. Mark began to stand. Ms. Ablaza saw Ms. Mark on the floor using her hands to support herself. Ms. Ablaza had a clear, unobstructed view of the incident. Ms. Ablaza did not see Ms. Logan pull the chair from underneath Ms. Mark, and she did not see Ms. Logan push Ms. Mark. Ms. Ablaza shared her description of the incident with Ms. Malak before Ms. Mark was instructed to call the police. Ms. Ablaza also sent a description of the incident to Ms. Marcano by text message within the two days following the incident. Ms. Ablaza is found to be credible and corroborates Ms. Logan’s description that she did not push Ms. Mark, she did not pull the chair from underneath Ms. Mark, or otherwise cause Ms. Mark to fall from the chair. Ms. Malak directed Ms. Mark to call the police and Ms. Mark followed Ms. Malak’s instruction. The police arrived and spoke to Ms. Ablaza and Ms. Mark. Ms. Logan was asked to leave the store on that day, but she was not arrested. Ms. Malak notified Ms. Logan that she was suspended for an indefinite period of time because Ms. Mark reported that Ms. Logan hurt her. The action taken by Ms. Malak was communicated to human resources and Ms. Marcano and affirmed by corporate management and human resources. Brow Art 23 corporate representatives attempted to schedule a conference call with Ms. Logan to discuss her employment status. However, Brow Art 23 made no further contact after Ms. Logan requested that her counsel be present during any discussions. Ms. Logan did not return to work at Brow Art 23 and, thus, was effectively terminated on August 17, 2016. Retaliation Petitioner alleged in her complaint of discrimination that Respondent retaliated against her after she complained about Ms. Mark. Disability Discrimination Petitioner did not present any evidence to demonstrate she had any condition that proves she suffers from a disability or that an adverse action was taken due to her alleged disability. Age Discrimination Petitioner did not present any evidence to demonstrate she was discriminated against on the basis of age. Ms. Logan did not present any evidence to demonstrate the age of any alleged comparator. Past Wages As a condition of employment, Ms. Logan signed a non- compete agreement, which required that she not disclose any information or techniques learned while employed with Brow Art 23. The non-compete agreement also barred Ms. Logan from working with another competitive business within a 25-mile radius for up to 18 months (until after February 17, 2018). Brow Art 23 also had stores in neighboring cities to Pensacola, which in effect extended the 25-mile radius. The parties stipulated that while employed at Brow Art 23, Ms. Logan’s pay rate was $20.00 per hour. She worked 40 hours per week and made approximately $150.00 per week in tips. Thus, Petitioner earned $950 per week ($20.00 x 40 hours = $800 + $150 (tips) = $950 per week). Ms. Logan applied for and received unemployment in the amount of $2,614.00. Ms. Logan introduced re-employment letters for 11 weeks, but was paid a total of 12 weeks, bringing the total paid out closer to $3,000.00. Ms. Logan worked for two weeks temporarily as a server in March 2017 and earned approximately $200.00. Ms. Logan could not remain employed in the position due to her medical limitations. From October 2017, through November 2017, Ms. Logan also worked at Blink part-time as a full-service technician performing epilation techniques, such a sugaring, waxing, and eyebrow design. She initially earned a wage rate of $15.00 per hour. At some point her hours were decreased, and her pay was ultimately reduced to $10.00 per hour. Ms. Logan was paid a total of $1,350.00 while employed at Blink. Ms. Logan also worked at a hotel for an undetermined time period in November and December 2017, earning approximately $1,800.00. Based on the evidence, Ms. Logan experienced a loss in pay of $34,690. Ms. Logan has incurred costs and attorneys’ fees related to this final hearing in amounts that are currently undetermined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order: Finding that Respondent constructively discharged Asha J. Logan by suspending her indefinitely and subjecting her to a hostile work environment based on Petitioner’s race; Ordering Respondent to pay Petitioner $34,690.00 in back pay through the final date of the hearing, February 2, 2018, with interest accruing on the total amount at the applicable statutory rate from the date of the Commission's final order; Ordering Brow Art 23 to make arrangements to reinstate Petitioner to an equivalent position with Brow Art 23; Prohibiting any future acts of discrimination by Brow Art 23; and Award Petitioner attorneys’ fees and costs. Jurisdiction is reserved for a determination of the specific amount of attorneys’ fees and cost to be awarded. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 23rd day of May, 2018.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the "Integration of Technical and Design" portion of the licensure examination administered in June of 1997.
Findings Of Fact In July 1997, Petitioner sat for Section 5 of the Landscape Architect Registration Examination that had been prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CARLB). CARLB is a national organization that prepares licensure examinations for several states, including Florida. Section 5, styled Integration of Technical and Design Requirements, contains 5 vignette problems, each of equal weight. Petitioner received a passing grade for problems 1 and 3. When her responses were initially scored, she did not receive a passing grade for problems 2, 4, and 5. Her responses were re- scored at her request. She did not receive a passing score for these three problems following the re-scoring of her responses. For Petitioner to have passed Section 5, she would have had to have a passing score on three of the problems. 1/ The candidates were required to prepare design development details for a terrace area. The two problems at issue in this proceeding pertained to the construction of a free- standing wall (vignette problem 2) and the construction of a pool (vignette problem 4). The candidates were to assume that the soils were stable and that the frost depth was 24 inches. The scoring for the five problems required the grader to first determine whether the design by the candidate met the criteria to be scored. Critical issues were identified by the committee that prepared the examination and were part of the scoring criteria used by the graders of the examination. If it did not meet that criteria, the candidate received a grade of "s," which is a failing grade. If it met the criteria to be scored, the grader next determined whether the candidate missed any critical items. If there were missed critical items, the candidate received a score of "c," which is a failing grade. If there were no critical items missed, the grader continued grading the design until a final grade was determined. When Petitioner's responses to problems 2 and 4 were initially scored, she received a grade of "c" for both problems. When her responses to the two problems were re-scored, she received a grade of "c" for problem 2 and a grade of "s" for problem 4. For the purposes of scoring the examination, the term "Critical Failure," for which the candidate would receive a grade of "c," is defined as: solution indicates a life/safety error or fails to demonstrate the primary knowledge being tested on the vignette problem. For the purposes of scoring the examination, the term "unscoreable" [sic] for which the candidate would receive a grade of "s" is defined as: the solution is blank or fails to follow basic problem requirements given in the vignette problem statement. Problem 2 required the candidates to draw a cross- section of a free standing wall. The candidates were instructed to label materials, fasteners, finishes, and/or joining materials. Among the critical issues identified for problem 2 are the following, which Respondent asserts that Respondent failed to meet: 2/ Stone veneer is not tied to the wall. Fails to show compacted subbase and/or subgrade (i.e., compacted and undisturbed subgrade or compacted granular base shown). There was a dispute between Petitioner's expert witnesses and Respondent's expert witnesses as to whether Petitioner's response to vignette problem 2 should have received a passing grade. Respondent's expert was of the opinion that masonry ties should have been used to tie the stone veneer to the wall, and that Petitioner's failure to do so merits a failing grade. Petitioner's experts were of the opinion that Petitioner adequately tied the stone veneer to the wall by using mortar. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that while tying the stone veneer to the wall with masonry ties is the preferred method, using only mortar is an acceptable method. Using only mortar does not meet the definition of a critical failure issue. Respondent's expert also was of the opinion that Petitioner's failure to show that the area under the footing of the wall was compacted subgrade is a critical fail issue. Petitioner showed that certain areas above the footing were to be compacted subgrade, but she clearly did not show the area under the footing to be compacted subgrade. Respondent established that this is a critical failure issue because the failure to erect the wall on compacted subgrade could impair the structural integrity of the wall. This failure justified the failing grade, given Petitioner's response to problem 2. Vignette problem 4 required Petitioner to show the cross-section of a poured-in-place concrete pool. Among other instructions, the candidates were told to include a permanent combination drain/overflow structure and to label all critical dimensions. The only critical issue for problem 4 was the following: "Pool does not extend to or below frost depth (from top of water elevation)(dimensioned, labeled or noted)." Initially, Petitioner's response to problem 4 was awarded a score of "c." When it re-scored, the grade was changed from a "c" to an "s." Respondent's expert testified that the design was re- scored as an "s" because of the manner Petitioner's depicted the drain/overflow structure. In her notes, she indicated that the drain/overflow structure was a "2 x 18" high standpipe with dome removable from floor drain." The structure she described was not the structure she drew. As drawn, the drain/overflow structure would not have worked because it could not have been removed from the floor drain. The manner in which she drew the drain/overflow structure established that Petitioner was not entitled to a passing grade for problem 4. Petitioner's design did not place the bottom of the pool at or below the frost depth and she did not dimension, label, or note, the frost depth. Her experts argued that frost depths are not a factor that needs to be considered in Florida and that her failure to address the frost depth issue should not be a critical failure issue. That argument is rejected because Petitioner was not at liberty to ignore the fact that the hypothetical structure was to be built in an area with a frost depth of 24 inches. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that dismisses Petitioner's challenge to her grades to problems 2 and 4 of the "Integration of Technical and Design" portion of the licensure examination administered in June of 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 1999.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been registered as a specialty contractor in Florida, having been issued license number RX-00492l2. He has also been, and continues to be, the qualifying agent for Stretch and Seal, Inc. On July 10, 1986, Emmanuel E. Cabral entered into a contract with Stretch and Seal, Inc., for cleaning of the roof on his residence in Inverness, Florida, application of a base coat and finishing coat of Stretch and Seal on the entire roof (approximately 1,518 square feet), coating of all vents and roof edges, and coating where his flat roof meets the shingle portion of his roof. The total contract price was $1,600. Richard J. Cummings executed this contract on behalf of Stretch and Seal, as "authorized signature." Cummings is not licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The Cabral contract provided a ten year warranty, and specified that, "All material is guaranteed. . . . All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices." The warranty was signed by Respondent, as President of Stretch and Seal, Inc. Cabral made three payments in July and August, 1986 in the total amount of $1,600 for work performed on his roof pursuant to his contract with Stretch and Seal, Inc. These payments were by checks payable to "John P. Terranova." Cummings had instructed the Cabrals to make the payments directly to Respondent. At hearing, Respondent admitted receiving and cashing these checks. On August 12, 1986, Emmanuel Cabral executed a Customer Work Acceptance and Job Rating Form which indicates he considered the work performed on his roof to be "satisfactory." This is the lowest rating shown on the form other than a general category marked "other." The Cabrals responded to a newspaper ad about Stretch and Seal which featured Respondent, and which stated the product "protects roofs" and "stops most annoying leaks." The toll free phone number in the ad is the same one that is printed on the Stretch and Seal contract which Mr. Cabral eventually signed. When Richard Cummings came to their house to explain the product, he presented the Cabrals with a flyer describing Stretch and Seal as a "new roof sealer" that "stops leaks and protects your roof." At the time they contracted with Stretch and Seal, Inc., the Cabrals' roof did not leak. Mrs. Anna Cabral testified that they were interested in insulating their roof to help the house stay cooler. The newspaper advertisement and flyer that Cummings gave them represented that the product reduces energy costs, reflects the sun's rays and insulates, plus reduces noise from wind and rain, and Mr. Cabral contracted with Stretch and Seal, Inc., based upon these representations. The Cabrals' roof began to leak in October, 1986 and additional leaks continued to appear throughout their house through November, 1986. Mrs. Cabral made repeated efforts to contact Respondent or Cummings, and although workmen did appear at their house on one occasion, the Cabrals were not home, and therefore no repair work was done. Respondent failed to honor the warranty given on this job in any way. Eventually, the Cabrals had to have their roof entirely redone by another roofing company, at a cost of $2,300. No local permit was obtained for the work performed on the Cabrals' roof, although a permit is required by the applicable local building code for any improvements to property valued at more than $300, except painting. Respondent presented two defenses. First, he maintained that the product applied to the Cabral roof is simply a paint, and not a sealant, insulator, or weatherproofing agent. Representations about the product made by Respondent in newspaper ads and by his authorized agent to customers do not support Respondent's assertion at hearing. Competent substantial evidence was not presented at hearing by Respondent to rebut the clear and convincing evidence presented by Petitioner that the product applied to the Cabral roof was represented to be a sealant, insulator and weatherproofing agent. Second, Respondent maintained that he had sold the Stretch and Seal "area distributorship" to Cummings prior to this job with the Cabrals. Therefore, he argued he was not responsible for the work that Cummings performed. While Cummings did the actual work on the Cabral roof, and signed the contract with Mr. Cabral, Respondent was, and still is the qualifying agent of Stretch and Seal, Inc. It was Respondent who signed the Cabrals' warranty, and received and cashed their checks in payment for this job. The distributorship agreement between Respondent and Cummings, executed in December, 1985, specifically recites and acknowledges Cummings' responsibilities under the agreement in consideration for Respondent "using his licenses." Thus, it is clear that Stretch and Seal, Inc., continued to do business and to operate under Respondent's license, with him as qualifying agent, even after the distributorship agreement was executed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's specialty contractor registration for violating Sections 489.105(4), 489.115(1)(b), 489.117(2), 489.119, and 489.129(1)(d),(j) and (m), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4010 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2-4. 4-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 7-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 8. Acted in part in Finding of Fact 9, but otherwise Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 8, but otherwise Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Sims, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 John P. Terranova 3 Birdie Lane Palm Harbour, Florida 33528 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
