Findings Of Fact David R. Ness, Petitioner, attended Southern College of Optometry in Memphis, Tennessee, and graduated in May 1990. Part of his training included a three-month externship with James C. Lanier, O.D., an optometrist practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. Lanier found him a very competent student, thorough in his fact finding and case histories; and satisfactory, if not above average, in his examination of the patients. Dr. Lanier did not participate in the grading of the examination in issue and has no personal knowledge of Petitioner's performance on the examination. Petitioner sat for the September 1990 Optometry licensure examination. He passed the certification portion of the examination and the laws and rules section; he failed the pharm./ocular portion and the clinical portion. After several challenges to the examination, the Board adjusted some scores, but Petitioner's scores in the pharm./ocular section and the clinical sections were still below passing. Written Examination The pharmacology/ocular written portion of the examination consists of a series of case histories, with five questions directed to each. Petitioner explained that he challenged his score on the following specific questions: History #1, question #4; History #5; question #23; History #7, questions #32-35; and History #10, question #48. Case history #1 describes a 19-year old female soft contact lens wearer with symptoms correctly identified by Petitioner as Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis. The patient relies on her contact lenses because she is an actress. The severity of her condition is 3+ on a scale of 1-4, with four being the most severe. Question #4 requires selection from six choices of the initial management course of choice. Petitioner chose "c", Pred Forte suspension, every two hours. Pred Forte is the strongest commercially available steroid and its application every two hours is reserved for very severe cases. While the condition described is moderate to severe, the better answer is "f", "switch to preservative free system, enzyme cleaning 1 time a week". The patient's cleaning solution, described in the case history, is an old solution with a preservative which is known to cause conjunctivitis. While the safest course would be to discontinue contact lens wear, this is a radical option for a patient who must wear the lenses for her work. The preferred course then is to change the solution to see if the condition improves before moving to a less conservative treatment such as Pred Forte. Case history #5 describes symptoms and includes a color photograph of the eye in issue. Petitioner correctly identified the differential diagnosis as "Essential Iris Atrophy" and "Reiger's Anomaly". The next question, #23, states that the fellow eye shows similar findings in a slit lamp examination, and asks which of the differential diagnoses is the final diagnosis. Petitioner selected "Essential Iris Atrophy". The correct answer is "Reiger's anomaly". Essential Iris Atrophy is almost always unilateral and Reiger's is bilateral. The question required the examinee to know this distinction. Case history #7, describes a 37-year old patient with alleged recent vision field loss which occurred after thoracic surgery. The history describes an examination in which the patient remarks that he "isn't going to sue the physician" and where, with coaxing, his vision is much better than he admits. The patient also presented summary results of carotid artery testing and CT studies, which were normal. In his answers to questions 32-35, Petitioner chose diagnoses and treatment based on his conviction that he should try to help anyone who would come to him. He missed the fact that the patient described in the case history is a malingerer who likely is trying to sue his surgeon, and who requires no treatment. Case history #10 describes a 68-year old patient who is being examined for fitting of an extended wear contact lens. The best corrected vision is 20/50 OD, with or without a contact lens. The examination question includes two photographs, one of the fundus examination, the other of a fluorescein angiogram. An angiogram is obtained by injecting dye in the forearm and taking pictures with a special filter as the dye circulates through the blood vessels within the eye. This process is able to reveal abnormalities in the eye. Petitioner missed the question relating to the final diagnosis, which should have been "age-related macular degeneration with secondary choroidal neovascular membrane". Final diagnosis relied, in part, on the fluorescein angiogram. While Petitioner is not arguing that his answer is correct, he contends that the question itself is invalid, because it depends on a process which optometrists are not licensed to perform and it was too technical for recent graduates. People coming out of school have been exposed to live patients and have seen fluorescein angiograms performed and have seen their photographs. Moreover, in Florida, the number of elderly patients makes it necessary that optometrists be proficient in diagnosing age-related macular degeneration. The Practical/Clinical Examination Section 1 of the clinical portion of the practical examination involves the two examiners' review of the examinee's performance of an actual eye examination of a live patient. The two examiners are briefed extensively prior to the examination as to what to look for, but they do not confer during the examination when scoring various functions. For this reason, there may be disagreement between the two examiners. The scores are averaged. On section 1, item #6, with regard to the patient's case history, "follow-up information", the point spread is 0-7, with points being subtracted for failure to follow up on certain information. One examiner gave Petitioner the maximum number of points for the entire case history section. The other examiner gave Petitioner a "no" (0 points) under "personal ocular history", and commented on the examination score sheet that the examinee did not ask ocular history. The same examiner took off 2 points on item #6, "follow-up information" and commented, "did not ask ocular history". At some point during Petitioner's initial challenge, he was given credit for item #3, because it was determined that he did obtain an ocular history. The additional points were not restored to item #6, but should have been; as the failure to obtain that history is the basis for the reduced score. The examiner was not present at hearing to explain any other basis. Section 2 of the clinical portion of the practical examination requires the examinee to perform a series of functions under the scrutiny of two examiners (not the same two as in section 1). Again, the scores are awarded without consultation and there are discrepancies. In each area the examiner marks "yes" or "no" as to whether the procedure is properly performed. A "no" must be supported with the examiner's comment. Two yes marks entitle the examinee to 2 points; a yes/no is worth one point; and two no's are scored zero. For each function, the examinee must demonstrate twice. That is, he says "ready", and the first examinee views the result, then he prepares again and signals, "ready", for the second examiner. For section 2, the candidate is performing techniques or functions on his own patient, a patient whom he brings to the examination and with whom he is familiar. Petitioner is challenging the grading method for Section 2. In 6 out of 16 techniques or functions, the two examinees disagreed; that is, one gave a "yes", and the other, a "no". Petitioner contends that he should get full credit anytime he got one "yes", since that indicates that two people, the examinee and one examiner, agree. There are several reasons why two examiners may disagree on whether the examinee performed a function or technique properly. In some instances one examiner may give the individual the benefit of the doubt; in other cases the patient might move or blink or the examinee might lose his focus. The fact that two examiners independently assess the results gives the examinee two chances to demonstrate his skill. The third section of the clinical examination requires an examination of a live patient where the refractive error of the patient's vision is determined, and a prescription is made. Before being presented to the examinee, the patient is examined independently by three licensed optometrists serving as "monitors". Their examinations give the refraction results against which the examinee's results are compared. Their examinations also determine whether the patient is suitable; that is, the eye must be refracted correctable to 20/20 and the other eye correctable to 20/50. A fourth monitor reviews the results before the patient is presented to the examinee. In this case the patient was examined by the monitors and was found acceptable. Petitioner had problems with the patient; the best he could read was the 20/25 line. Petitioner felt that the patient should have been disqualified and commented in writing on that at the end of his examination, as was appropriate. The comments were reviewed by Dr. Attaway, who considered that the patient had met the criteria when examined by the monitors. Petitioner's refractions varied significantly from the monitors' refractions, which also varied somewhat from each other. Petitioner received a score of 3, out of possible 20, on this portion of the examination. Dr. Attaway did not, himself, examine the patient and the monitors who performed the examinations were not present to testify. The only evidence to rebut Petitioner's findings was the written report of the monitors. Pass Rate for the Examination Out of 130 candidates, approximately 34 percent passed all parts of the September optometry examination. In 1986, 51 percent passed; in 1987, 33.5 percent passed; in 1988, 59.6 percent passed; and in 1989, 52 percent passed. These figures do not, alone, establish that the test is too technical or unfair, nor does the fact that very good students failed. When the examinations are evaluated, when the examinee's performance is rated, there is no established pass rate; the monitors have no idea how close the individual examinee is to passing, either originally or when a challenge is being addressed. Petitioner was a very articulate and candid witness. His two experts were clearly knowledgeable and were sincerely concerned that he should be licensed. None had the experience of Respondent's witnesses, also well-qualified licensed optometrists, in working with the examination. With the exception of the inconsistent score on Section 1, item #6, Petitioner failed to prove that he is entitled to a higher score on any portion of the examination, or that the examination itself was invalid or unfair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that Petitioner's final score on Section 1 of the clinical examination be adjusted to reflect full credit for Item #6; that he be permitted to retake Section 3 of the clinical examination; and that his remaining challenges to the examination be denied. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 29th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0700 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Adopted in paragraph 2. 3. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. 4.-6. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in summary in paragraph 2. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Finding of Fact #15 reflects the grades after adjustment. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. This fact does not make the examination invalid so long as it fairly evaluates the qualification of the applicant. 13.-14. Rejected as statements of statutory language rather than findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings The Hearing Officer is unable to find where in the record the exact final score of Petitioner is reflected. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as restatement of testimony rather than findings of fact. 4.-5. Rejected as unnecessary. 6.-15. Rejected as restatement of testimony; summary statements, or argument, rather than findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: David R. Ness 611 Poinsettia Avenue Titusville, FL 32780 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford, Exec. Director Dept. of Professional Regulation Board of Optometry 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to receive a passing score on the clinical portion of the August 1999 optometry licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sandra Farhady (Farhady), took the Florida optometry licensure examination in August 1999. The examination is divided into four portions: laws and rules, pharmacology, clinical, and certification. Prior to the administration of the test, each examiner is given grading standards, which are the requirements that must be met by a candidate to successfully demonstrate a particular procedure. All examiners receive standardization training, during which the examiners are trained to apply grading standards consistently. Examiners are instructed to wear their best corrective lenses. Examiners are instructed to grade each applicant independently of each other and are not permitted to confer with each other concerning a candidate's score. If both examiners agree, the candidate receives no credit or full credit, depending on whether they considered the candidate to have properly performed the procedure requested. If they disagree, the candidate is given partial credit on that procedure. The clinical portion of the examination requires the applicant to perform a number of tasks while two examiners evaluate the procedures. The examiners observe the procedure through a viewing system known as a teaching tube which is attached to the optometrist's equipment used by the candidate. Only one teaching tube is used so each examiner views the procedure separately. The candidate may ask the first examiner to grade his view and hold the view for the second examiner without having to refocus, or the candidate may perform the procedure for each examiner. Farhady passed the laws and rules, pharmacology, and certification portions of the examination, but failed the clinical portion of the examination with a score of 69.1. The passing score for the clinical examination is 75.0. Farhady challenged the score that she received on question 11a of the clinical examination. The question dealt with a procedure called retinoscopy, and the Department conceded at final hearing that Farhady should have been given credit for her answer. The additional points associated with question 11a raised Farhady's final score to 70.125. Farhady challenged the score she received for questions 33a, 33b, 33c, and 34a of the clinical examination. The questions relate to a procedure known as applanation tonometry, which is used to check a patient for glaucoma by measuring the intraocular pressure. This portion of the examination was worth ten points. Applanation tonometry is performed using a tonometer. The tonometers used by all the candidates for the August 1999 examination were part of a Zeiss slit lamp, which is also called a Zeiss microscope. It is an apparatus commonly used by optometrists within the scope of their practice. Each of the tonometers had a large fixation device mounted on the left side of the microscope. On the day of the clinical portion of the examination, the tonometer used by Farhady was in working order. No other candidate made a complaint concerning the working condition of the tonometer. The tonometer used by Farhady was not altered before, during, or after Farhady's session. There are time limits for section two of the clinical portion of the examination, which includes the applanation tonometry procedure. The Candidate Information Booklet for the Optometry Examination, which is provided to all candidates prior to the examination, provides: To protect the patient and to evaluate clinical competency, we will put time limits on the amount of time you will have to attempt each of the Section Two procedures. Timing will start after you receive the initial instructions for each procedure from the examiners and will continue until completion of the procedure or until time expires. . . . The time limit for the applanation tonometry procedure is six minutes. Farahady was unable to complete the applanation tonometry within the time allowed during the examination. She could not make the probe of the tonometer contact the patient's eye. During the procedure she advised the examiners, "Something is up with the tonometer." Farhady filled in a Candidate Comment Form and stated the following: Unable to acquire a view on tonometry. Mires were clear but fluorescent pattern not correct. It appeared like ground glass. I reapplied NAFI, but same view was seen so no grading was possible & I ran out of time. One of the examiner's noted the following on the Examiner's Comment Form: Pt. Ran out of time on tonometry--was apparently unable to see mires. Mires did not 'Flouress' well but was easily visible. Light source was close to 90 [degrees] away which may have contributed. Tonometry was repeated by this examiner without instilling new NaFl successfully by brightening the light source & bringing it to 60 [degrees]. Farhady contends that the position of the fixation device prevented her from being able complete the tonometry procedure. The fixation device can be easily moved to one side, pushed back, or folded up. If the fixation device was hindering Farhady in bringing the tonometer probe in contact with the patient's eye, Farhady could have quickly and easily moved the device out of her way. The position of the fixation device is not a defect in the tonometer equipment, which would have prevented a candidate from successfully performing applanation tonometry. Item 33a was the evaluation of whether the illumination source was a proper angle of 40 to 60 degrees. Item 33b evaluated whether the mires were the proper width. Item 33c evaluated whether the mires alignment was correct. Item 34 was the evaluation of whether the candidate obtained an accurate reading of the intraocular pressure. Farhady did not have the proper angle, did not demonstrate whether the mires were the proper width, did not align the mires correctly, and did not obtain a reading of intraocular pressure. Farhady challenged the score she received for questions 25a, 26a, 27a, 28a, 30a, and 32a, in section two of the clinical examination. These questions relate to a procedure referred to as biomicroscopy of the fundus. The scores given by the examiners for these questions were not identical. Examiner 199 did not give Farhady any points for questions 25a, 26a, 27a, 28a, and 32a. Examiner 199 noted that Farhady did not establish the proper focus with respect to these procedures. While examiner 231 did give Farhady points for procedure 25a, examiner 231 noted that Farhady had achieved only a borderline focus. Both examiners noted poor focus with respect to question 32a and did not give Farhady credit for that question. Question 25a required proper focus of nerve head. Examiner 199 noted the following on the grade sheet with respect to question 25a: Could not get it in view in left ocular. Candidate even verbalized this. For questions 26a, 27a, and 28a, examiner 199 noted that Farhady had no focus. For question 32a, examiner 199 noted, "could not/would not maintain focus." Farhady challenges the scores she received for questions 2a and 4a on section one of the clinical examination. These questions relate to visual field testing. The candidate is shown a visual field and is asked questions pertaining to the visual field. When Farhady was shown the visual field, she immediately said out loud that it was a glaucomatous loss before the examiner could read the instructions to her. The examiner said, "no" and began to read the instructions. Farhady thought that the examiner meant that it was not a glaucomatous loss. The examiner manual advises the examiners to avoid any comments which the candidate could interpret as favorable or unfavorable. For question 2a, Farhady was asked to name the visual field defect. She stated that it was arcuate scotoma. The correct answer was superior arcuate scotoma. Credit is not given for partial answers. It is important that the candidate identify whether it is a superior or an inferior arcuate scotoma in order to establish the location of the lesion so that the correct diagnosis can be made. Whether the examiner said "no" is irrelevant to the answer which Farhady gave to question 2a because she did identify that it was an arcuate scotoma. For question 4a, Farhady was asked which disease would be most consistent with the visual field defect. Farhady answered supracellar craniopharyngioma, which is incorrect. In layman's terms, a supracellar craniopharyngioma is a tumor of the pituitary gland. A visual field of a tumor of the pituitary gland is a bitemporal configuration not an arcuate configuration, meaning that Farhady's answer did not correlate in any way with the visual field defect. It was improper for the examiner to have said "no" after Farhady responded that it was a glaucomatous loss. It could have been interpreted by a candidate, as it was by Farhady, that her response was incorrect. The examiner should have told Farhady to wait until the instructions were read. Question 4a was worth 1.5 points, giving Farhady a total percent score of 71.6, which is not a passing score.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Sandra D. Farhady did not pass the clinical portion of the August 1999 optometry licensure examination and dismissing her petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 13th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Optometry Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Esquire Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Sandra D. Farhady 6404 Wiley Street Hollywood, Florida 33023
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Daniel R. Young, operated My Barber Shop at 17 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida. Young was issued barbershop license number BS 0006466 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Barbers' Board, in 1978, and has operated the shop continuously since that time. Petitioner is required to conduct annual inspections of barber shops to ensure that such barber shops are in compliance with applicable sanitation regulations, and that services are being provided by licensed personnel. Accordingly, an agency inspector (J. Robinson) visited respondent's shop on July 11, 1985 and February 12, 1986, for the purpose of conducting a routine annual inspection. An inspection report from each visit has been received into evidence as petitioner's exhibits 5 and 6. Agency regulations (Rule 21C-22.01, F.A.C.) require that implements used by a barber in cutting hair, such as combs, brushes, razors and scissors, be washed or cleaned, wiped free of hair, and then sanitized before being used on another customer. This requires first washing the implement in a detergent or wiping it with alcohol, and then sanitizing the same under one of several methods prescribed in the rule. These methods include the use of formaldehyde tablets, a quarternary ammonia solution (barbicide), and an ultra-violet light. After being sanitized, the implements must be placed and kept in a "clean, closed cabinet until next ready for use". A closed cabinet is one that is shut tightly on all four sides so that the implements inside are protected from hair that has been cut. If an ultra-violet light is used, Subsection (8)(b) of the same agency rule, requires that the implements be sanitized in the following manner: Placed in an ultra-violet ray sterilizing cabinet bactericidal 2536A radiation for a period of 15 minutes, or for a period as recommended by the manufacturers of such radiation lamp, sufficient to equal the germicidal and organism destruction of a 2 percent carbolic acid solution, or its equivalent. However, subsection (8)(c) provides the following alternative: (c) Cleansed and prepared for use by any other method that shall be the equivalent in germicidal or organism destructive effort, as provided in subsection (8)(a) above. During the course of Robinson's inspection on July 11, 1985, she cited respondent for three violations of agency rules. These included (a) "implements not cleaned after use on each customer", (b) "implements not stored in covered, sanitized area", and (c) "ultra-violet light not being used correctly to effect sanitation". After the inspection was completed, Robinson met with respondent a few weeks later to discuss the violations. a repeat inspection was conducted by Robinson on February 12, 1986. She found the previously cited violations uncorrected. The issuance of an administrative complaint followed. At the time of the inspections, respondent's shop had five stations (chairs). There were a total of three wells in the counter which was located behind the chairs. Each well was shaped in a square design approximately 18" to 20" by 18" to 20" and was eight inches deep. At the top of the rear ledge (lip) of the two wells were ultra-violet lights covered with a shade. A photographic depiction of the same is found in petitioner's exhibit 3. One well had no ultra-violet light. While observing the employees, Robinson noted that after cutting a customer's hair, they were not first wiped clean with alcohol. The employees were then placing the used implements at the front of the well, or almost a foot away from the ultra-violet light. According to the inspector, this distance, when coupled with the fact that the lights had shades over them, was too far from the light's rays to permit adequate sanitation. This opinion was based upon a telephone conversation with a product specialist for North American Lighting. It was further based upon the supposition that Young used a type A light as referred to in the rule. Since the wells were not covered, hair from the customer then receiving a haircut was dropping into the well where the implements were being sanitized. One employee (S. Littleford) had no ultra- violet light at her station, and was supposed to be using a barbicide in lieu of a light to sterilize her implements. However, she did not sanitize her cutting implements in any manner between customers. Respondent attributed the violations to a "misinterpretation of rules and regulations". He pointed out that he has had the same type of equipment for ten years and has never before been cited for a violation. Young uses a type C ultra-violet light which is permissible under the agency rule so long as it "is the equivalent in germicidal or organism destructive effect" as is provided in subsection (8)(a) of the rule. Young contends the type C light is superior to the bactericidal type A light referred to in the rule, and that a proper amount of light was emitted to sanitize the implements even though they were placed almost a foot away from the covered light. This contention was based upon a telephone conversation with a technical support employee of General Electric Company, and technical literature forwarded by that person to Young. Respondent has subsequently removed the shades and repositioned the ultra-violet lights in the wells so that they are closer to the front.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 21C- 22.01(1)(e) and (8)(d), Florida Administrative Code, and that he be fined $500, to be paid within thirty days after a Final Order is rendered in this proceeding. The remaining charge should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 18th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2581 Petitioner: Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 3. Partially covered in finding of fact 6. The remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant since Robinson did not testify that implements were piled-up, or scissor blades unexposed, or the implements were not turned over. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being hearsay. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected as being irrelevant. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David R. Young 187 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Florida Barbers' Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This cause arose as an action pursuant to Section 120.56(2), Florida Statutes, challenging the validity of the amendment to Rule 59U-16.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, proposed and published by the Board of Opticianry on February 14, 1997. The issues are: Do Petitioners have standing to bring this rule challenge? Is the following proposed amendment of Rule 59U- 16.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, pursuant to Sections 120.52(8)(c) and (8)(e), Florida Statutes? A sponsor must be an optician who is licensed under Chapter 484, F.S., for no less than one (1) year, a physician or an optometrist licensed in this state, whose license is not subject to any current disciplinary action; must be actively engaged in the practice of the qualifying profession; and must provide the equipment set forth in Rule 59U-10.007 on the premises of any establishment in which apprentices are trained. (Amended language underlined) Are Petitioners entitled to attorney's fees, pursuant to Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact All persons seeking to be licensed as opticians in Florida must first pass a minimal qualifications licensure examination. Before being qualified to sit for this examination, one of the following courses of preparation provided in Section 484.007, Florida Statutes, must be met. In relevant part, this section provides that one must have (1) received an associate degree, or its equivalent, in Opticianry from an accredited educational institution; (2) be an individual who is licensed to practice the profession of Opticianry in another state, territory, or jurisdiction, who has actively practiced for more than three years; or (3) come from a state or jurisdiction which is not licensed and have actively practiced in that state, territory, or jurisdiction for more than five years immediately preceding application; or (4) be an individual who has completed an apprentice program consisting of 6,240 hours of training under the supervision of an optician, a physician, or an optometrist licensed under the law of this state. Respondent Board of Opticianry published on February 14, 1997 a proposed change to Rule 59U-16.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, as set out below. The underlined language is the only substantive change: 59U-16.002 Qualifications for Apprentices and Sponsors. Apprentices and sponsors for apprenticeship programs must meet the following qualifications: No change. A sponsor must be an optician who is licensed under Chapter 484, F.S., for no less than one (1) year, a physician or an optometrist licensed in this state, whose license is not subject to any current disciplinary action; must be actively engaged in the practice of the qualifying profession; and must provide the equipment set forth in Rule 59U-10.007 on the premises of any establishment in which apprentices are trained. Specific Authority - 484.005 F.S. Law Implemented - 484.007(1)(d)4. F.S. The parties' Amended Prehearing Stipulation agreed that, Petitioners did not request a public hearing pursuant to the Florida Administrative Weekly notice. A Notice of Additional Public Hearing scheduled for May 16, 1997, was published on April 18, 1997, Volume 23, No. 16, Florida Administrative Weekly. At that hearing, the Board of Opticianry discussed and approved an amendment to proposed amendment to Rule 59U- 16.002. At formal hearing, counsel for the Board represented that the Board had voted to amend the challenged proposed rule so that it would not restrict persons who had completed more than one year of opticianry practice out of state prior to passing the Florida Opticianry licensure examination from acting as sponsors of apprentices within their first year of Florida practice; however, the Board would not withdraw the challenged rule as published and would not publish/file a Notice of Change until a Final Order is entered on the instant challenge. The Board's position was that this vote did not constitute a stipulation of invalidity, arbitrariness, capriciousness, or overreaching its statutory authority. According to the Board, this representation was made only because the Board would not be putting on evidence to support certain portions of the rule language, as published. Nonetheless, Sam Jones, licensed optician and Board member, testified, on behalf of the Board, that new Florida licensees from out of state could not properly sponsor apprentices for at least one year because they "need a little more exposure" to Florida laws and rules before teaching others and because some other states have no licensure criteria at all and no continuing education requirements. The Petition challenges the ability of the Board to require that opticians be licensed for at least one year prior to serving as apprentice sponsors, alleging that the Board lacks statutory authority to promulgate such a rule and that the proposed change is arbitrary and capricious and not based on appropriate factual or legal justification. Petitioner Lenscrafters, Inc. is a corporation that does business in the State of Florida, offering optical services and goods to the public. Lenscrafters hires employees to work as opticians, as well as hiring other unlicensed store employees. Petitioner Sanjiv Matta is Lenscrafters' Regional Trainer of Operations and apparently Lenscrafters' primary Florida employment recruiter. He also locates coaches for Lenscrafters' training programs. He has been a licensed optician in Florida for more than one year. He does not currently sponsor an apprentice. Lenscrafters and Mr. Matta allege that they will be substantially affected because the proposed rule amendment will reduce the number of available sponsors, which will in turn reduce the number of apprentices, which will in turn reduce the number of available employees now and the number of available licensed opticians in the future. As a subset of this alleged chain of unavailability of sponsors, apprentices, and employees generally, Petitioners claim great difficulty will arise in attempting to coordinate apprentice work hours with sponsor work hours. Lenscrafters has 64 stores in Florida. Each store is staffed by opticians, but there is often an independent optometrist next door. Lenscrafters employs approximately 200 opticians in Florida, with an average of three opticians working in each of its stores. Approximately 25 of the 200 opticians employed by Lenscrafters in Florida have been licensed for less than one year. These 25 were among the 60 new employees hired by Lenscrafters last year. Some of the licensed opticians Lenscrafters hires unilaterally elect to serve as sponsors to other employees who would like to obtain their opticianry license by completing an apprenticeship program. However, according to Mr. Matta, it would not be "integrity based" for Lenscrafters to urge or encourage optician employees to take on sponsorship. Lenscrafters provides the optometric equipment used by sponsors and apprentices in its employ. Although Lenscrafters provides programs to help all its employees, including apprentices, achieve expertise in fitting and adjusting eyeglasses and provides situational training, equipment training, training tests, performance tests, and lending libraries, it has no specific apprenticeship program, as such, in place. Some of Lenscrafters' programs assist apprentices in attaining credit hours towards licensure. Some supplement the apprentice program requirements. The primary purpose of Lenscrafters' programs is to educate and train its employees for servicing its customers. The ultimate testimony of Mr. Matta that there currently are three opticians employed by Lenscrafters who have been licensed in Florida for less than one year and who are also currently serving as sponsors was anecdotal at best and at worst was speculative and self-contradictory of prior testimony. Lenscrafters currently has 66 apprentices in its employ in Florida. Pursuant to Board rules, each sponsor may oversee two apprentices and any apprentice may have both a primary and a secondary sponsor. Credit hours in the apprentice program are only earned when the apprentice works under a sponsor's supervision. Board rules would permit Lenscrafters' 200 opticians to sponsor 400 apprentices if each licensee had two apprentices. The proposed change in the rule would allow 175 Lenscrafters' opticians to sponsor 350 apprentices. Simple mathematics shows that Lenscrafters has between 33 and 66 optician employees who serve as apprentice sponsors, primary or secondary. Clearly, Lenscrafters currently employs many more non-sponsors than sponsors. Section 484.011, Florida Statutes, allows any employee of an optician to perform any of the functions an optician performs, as long as the acts are performed under the direct supervision of the optician. Lenscrafters allows apprentices to perform more tasks than other unlicensed employees. Lenscrafters considers apprentices to have greater expertise, employee commitment, and career commitment than other unlicensed employees. Lenscrafters pays apprentices more than other unlicensed employees. Lenscrafters and Mr. Matta believe that apprentices who have worked in Lenscrafters' stores and trained on Lenscrafters' equipment will eventually provide a pool of trained opticians for hire or promotion. However, Lenscrafters submitted no statistical data to confirm this "belief" expressed by Mr. Matta, and based on the ratio of available sponsors to apprentices which was developed at formal hearing, this "belief" constitutes pure speculation. It could be just as beneficial for Lenscrafters to train non-apprentices at a lower salary. Intervenor Odette Gayoso has been involved in opticianry for 15 years. She has an Associate of Arts (AA) degree in Optical Science and has been licensed as an optician in Puerto Rico since 1991. Ms. Gayoso is employed as an optician by Lenscrafters. She has been a licensed optician in Florida since December 1996. Therefore, at the time of formal hearing, she had been Florida- licensed for less than one year. Under the proposed rule amendment, she would be unable to act as a sponsor for five more months. Ms. Gayoso does not sponsor an apprentice currently, although the current rule permits her to do so. She has never applied to be a sponsor. No apprentice currently wants her as a sponsor. In the past, two Lenscrafters employees needed sponsors, but both left Lenscrafters' employ before any agreements concerning sponsorship were reached. Ms. Gayoso feels she is qualified to sponsor an apprentice and that she would derive satisfaction from teaching one. The parties' Amended Prehearing Stipulation stipulated that POF had standing to intervene. POF put on no evidence of standing. Mr. Matta and Ms. Gayoso testified that they recruit for Lenscrafters. Ms. Gayoso is an assistant retail manager in a single store. Mr. Matta recruits state-wide. Only Mr. Matta testified that, in his experience, there is a shortage of qualified opticians available to be hired. Only Mr. Matta testified that due to the Board's rule requirement of direct supervision it was difficult for him to match apprentices' work hours with those of their sponsors. Ms. Gayoso did not corroborate Mr. Matta's perception that it is difficult to match apprentices' work hours with those of their sponsors. Although she could see how that could be, it apparently was not a problem in her store where the optician/manager sponsored two apprentices and where another optician who had been employed less than 90 days was prohibited by Lenscrafters from acting as a sponsor. The fact that Lenscrafters prohibits some of its licensed opticians from sponsoring apprentices undermines Lenscrafters' position that the proposed rule change alone would undermine apprentices locating willing sponsors. Mr. Sam Jones perceived no shortage of licensed opticians, only a shortage of licensed opticians he would care to hire in his establishment. The Board office receives approximately 86 calls about the apprenticeship program each month. The Board has never received a call concerning a prospective apprentice's inability to find a sponsor. There are currently approximately 2,500 actively licensed opticians in Florida. Of these 2,500 licensees, 174 were licensed last year. This number of annual new licensees has stayed relatively stable for many years. Of 544 current apprentices in Florida, only 27 currently have sponsors of less than one year licensure. The statistics show that many more potential sponsors are available both state-wide and within Lenscrafters' Florida operation than there are those who want to be apprentices. Under the current rule, only those licensees who are currently under disciplinary action are precluded from being sponsors. Under the proposed rule, and excluding any disciplinary concerns, only the 174 new admittees could not be sponsors for one year. A year later, those 174 could become sponsors. So in effect, the only licensees who could not be sponsors each year are the newest licensees, while each year the total number of potential sponsors grows respectively. Of course, the number of eligible physicians and optometrists who could also serve as sponsors would not fall below the current number and would continue to grow respectively year by year. Florida has two junior colleges with an Opticianry AA degree program. These colleges graduate approximately 60 opticians per year. Approximately half of the successful opticianry licensure examinees come from the AA program, and half come from the apprentice program. There is a 90 percent first time pass rate on the examination. The number of apprentice program examinees who fail on both the initial examination and "retake" examinations is higher than for AA degree holders. Since 1991, the Board has been concerned that the apprenticeship route has not been adequately educating future opticians and ensuring the safety of their public practice after licensure even if they were being adequately prepared to pass the standardized minimal qualifications examination. The Board consulted no empirical data for formulating its rule as published, but it held between nine and 12 Board meetings which included discussions on upgrading the apprenticeship program. Board members reported information from nationally recognized professional associations and reviewed a national trend whereby more states are requiring licensure and more states are phasing out apprenticeship programs. Some Board members took the minimum qualifications licensure examination so that they could understand what was involved and how the examination could be improved and report back to the Board. Board members heard reports from staff and investigators on reasons more disciplinary cases were not prosecuted. These Board meetings were open to the public and solicited public input. Some were referred to as "workshops," although they might not meet the generally understood Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, definition of "workshop." In 1996, a bill to amend Chapter 484, Florida Statutes, so as to require optician licensees to have three years of licensure before becoming sponsors did not pass into law. The Board viewed the one-year rule amendment as a more conservative step than requiring three years of licensure for sponsorship. All witnesses agreed that an experienced optician knows more about the practice of opticianry than a newly licensed optician. Lenscrafters' witnesses contended that newly licensed opticians were more enthusiastic sponsors and more able to teach what would be required on the licensure examination. Sam Jones was one of the Board members who retook and passed the current licensure examination. On behalf of the Board, he stated that the teaching of how to pass the licensure examination did not equate with teaching the practice of opticianry. In drafting the rule challenged herein to apply to all new optician licensees regardless of which of the four alternative routes they had taken to licensure, the Board viewed the new one-year requirement as constituting an internship akin to the internship required of other health care professionals. The new rule does not require physicians and optometrists to be licensed for one year before acting as a sponsor. In not applying the one-year requirement to physicians and optometrists, but only to opticians, the Board considered that licensed physicians and optometrists already had clinical experience in excess of licensed opticians. The parties stipulated that the Board is authorized to make such rules as are necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public as it relates to the practice of opticianry and is authorized, "to establish administrative processing fees sufficient to cover the cost of administering apprentice rules as promulgated by the Board."
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Antonio V. Mallo, is a certified general contractor in Florida and has been issued license number CGC004868, issued as an individual. (Exhibit 1, TR 21.) During times material hereto, Respondent was a certified general contractor in Florida practicing under the subject reference license as an individual. On October 26, 1984, Robert Golden contracted with Magic Eye Remodeling for the construction of an addition to his home situated at 19701 Northeast 12th Court, North Miami, Florida for the sum of $36,000. The contract price included the cost for labor and materials for a "turn key" job. (Testimony of Robert Golden and Jose Garcia, TR 25, 110, Exhibit 3 and TR 24.) As stated, the contract called for the construction of the entire project including air conditioning, electrical work, tile and bathroom fixtures. (Testimony of Jose Garcia, Exhibit 3, TR 112.) Magic Eye Remodelers was not licensed to perform contracting in Florida. Luis Valido, president of Magic Eye, and Jose Garcia, an employee of Magic Eye, negotiated and signed the contract with Magic Eye and Golden. (Testimony of Garcia and Golden, TR 21, 22 and 112, Exhibits 1 and 2.) Although Valido and Garcia had discussions with Respondent at the time Magic Eye was negotiating a contract with Golden, Respondent was not signatory to the Golden-Magic Eye Contract. (Testimony of Robert Golden, TR 34.) On November 6, 1984, Respondent obtained building permit number 84-01- 123-3 from Metropolitan-Dade County for the subject work at the Golden residence. (Exhibit 4, TR 28.) Construction commenced at the Golden residence and progressed slowly until approximately April 4, 1985 when owner Golden observed Magic Eye (its employees) preparing to leave the job. During that time, Garcia informed Golden that they had misused the construction funds advanced and could not finish the project. During that discussion, Magic Eye offered to complete the job if Golden would pay for the necessary supplies. Golden agreed to pay for the supplies. (Testimony of Robert Golden, TR 32.) During mid April, 1985, Golden contacted Michael O'Connor, Dade County code enforcement officer about his problems with Magic Eye and Respondent. O'Connor informed Golden to contact the contractor who obtained the permit, i.e., Respondent. Subsequent to that conversation and prior to June 4, 1985, Respondent was contacted by Golden. He visited Golden's home and worked on the construction project with Luis Valido. (Testimony of Robert Golden, TR 38.) This was the first contact between Golden and Respondent and the first time Respondent visited the construction site. In this regard, Golden was employed in a capacity whereby he did work early morning and late evening hours and spent all of his daytime hours on the construction site. (Testimony of Robert Golden and Jose Garcia, TR 34 and 125.) On or about June 3, 1985, all work at the project ceased and the Respondent informed Golden that Valido did not want to work there anymore since he wasn't making any money. (Testimony of Golden) Golden thereafter reported the problem to Michael O'Connor and Bob Wolfe, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation. O'Connor thereafter informed Respondent that unless he could produce a contract between himself and Golden, criminal charges would be filed by the State's attorney's office. (Testimony of Mike O'Connor, TR 166.) While at Michael O'Connor's office to sign the complaint with Petitioner, Golden was contacted by Respondent who advised that he would contract to complete the project. (Testimony of Golden, TR 40.) On or about June 12, 1985, Golden and Respondent negotiated a contract to complete the work for the sum of $39,882 of which a credit for $38,383 was given for work already performed by Magic Eye. As contracted, Respondent would receive $1500, fifty percent of which would be paid at the beginning of the tiling work and the remainder at completion of the project. Respondent performed plumbing and metal overhang work at the site after the contract was signed. (Testimony of Robert Golden, TR 41, 48 and Exhibit 6.) On July 10, 1985, Respondent notified Golden he was leaving the job because Golden failed to sign a change order to the contract and make payment as per the contract of June 12, 1985. At that time, or subsequent thereto, Respondent had not submitted a change order to the contract to Golden. Additionally, no payment was due Respondent under the June 12, 1985 contract for the tile was not ordered until September, 1985. (Testimony of Robert Golden, TR 54 and Bob Wolfe, TR 99, Exhibit 8.) When Respondent left the Golden project, the construction was sixty percent completed. Golden completed the project under an owner-builder permit. The total cost for the project was $62,804. (TR 65, 66 and Exhibit 11.) During the hearing, Respondent raised a question as to the validity of Petitioner's Exhibit number 6, claiming in essence that it had been tampered with by Golden. An examination of all the evidence introduced herein reveals that the agreement (contract) between Respondent and Golden (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) was valid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent be assessed an administrative fine of $1,000. It is further recommended that Respondent's certified general contractor's license number CGC004868 be suspended for a period of two years. Provided however that Respondent make restitution to Robert Golden in the amount of $5,000, it is then recommended that the suspension be abated with Respondent's suspension reverting to a like term of probation. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 86-1458 Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order Paragraph 22. Incorporated as modified. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Shope, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Department of Professional Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Antonio Mallo 1256 San Miguel Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mr. Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether Respondent violated Section 484.014(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in the manner alleged in an administrative complaint and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and at all times material has been, a licensed optician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DO 2390 on November 29, 1984. At all times material, Respondent has operated, or has assisted in the operation of, a business named Fast Eyes Optical, located at 8246 Jog Road, Boynton Beach, Florida 33437. On or about January 3, 2002, customer R.S., accompanied by a friend (L.E.), visited Fast Eyes Optical, where they were attended by Respondent. Both R.S. and L.E. decided they would each buy a pair of Oakley sunglasses. Respondent quoted an initial price of $634.00 per pair for the Oakley sunglasses with prescription lenses. Ultimately, Respondent agreed to sell the Oakley sunglasses for $500.00 per pair. At the time in question, the Oakley sunglasses came from the manufacturer with non-prescription lenses made from a material known as polycarbonate. Polycarbonate lenses are noted for being impact resistant. Polycarbonate lenses are more impact resistant than lenses made of a plastic material known as CR-39. Polycarbonate lenses are particularly desirable for people who frequently engage in sports or otherwise lead a very active lifestyle in which they are at greater risk of some form of impact to their eyewear. Plastic lenses made from CR-39 have better optical characteristics than polycarbonate lenses, and, from a visual acuity point of view, are a better choice material than polycarbonate. R.S. wanted to have prescription lenses in his new Oakley sunglasses. Respondent told R.S. that Respondent could put prescription lenses in the new Oakley sunglasses that would duplicate the prescription in the glasses R.S. was wearing when he came into the store, but that he would have to send off for the prescription lenses for the Oakley sunglasses. It was ultimately agree that Respondent would obtain prescription lenses for the new Oakley sunglasses and that when the new sunglasses were ready, Respondent would mail them to R.S. at R.S.'s home in Ohio.1 Using a device called a lensometer, Respondent examined the glasses R.S. was wearing when he came into the shop and determined the prescriptions that were in the lenses in those glasses. Respondent ordered lenses for the Oakley sunglasses that matched the prescriptions in the glasses R.S. was wearing that day. While R.S. was still in the shop, Respondent explained to him that Oakley did not (at that time) make prescription lenses for the frame model R.S. was buying, that the prescription lenses for the sunglasses would not be Oakley lenses, and that the lenses would be made from a plastic material called CR-39 because Respondent thought CR-39 was a better choice lens material in view of the purposes for which R.S. was buying the sunglasses.2 In due course Respondent mailed a pair of Oakley sunglasses to R.S. in Ohio. Shortly after receiving the sunglasses, R.S. went on a trip to Mexico. While in Mexico, and while wearing the sunglasses he had received from Respondent, R.S. fell down at least three different times at the same place on the same set of stairs in the same Mexican restaurant. His last fall on those stairs caused R.S. to have a bruised chin, a bruised wrist, and a broken big toe on his left foot.3 Shortly after returning from his trip to Mexico, R.S. went to an optician in Ohio and asked the Ohio optician to examine the Oakley sunglasses he had purchased from Respondent. Upon examining the sunglasses made by Respondent, the Ohio optician communicated the following conclusions to R.S.: The right lens in those sunglasses did not match R.S.'s prescription, the lenses were made from CR-39 plastic material, and the lenses were chipped.4 On March 14, 2002, the Ohio optician sold R.S. a pair of prescription polycarbonate lenses in his correct prescription for his Oakley frame, and replaced the plastic lenses that Respondent had originally placed in the Oakley frame. The Ohio optician charged $321.00 for the new lenses. The polycarbonate lenses sold by the Ohio optician were not Oakley lenses. Not long after his visit with the Ohio optician, R.S. communicated with Respondent and complained about the things the Ohio optician had told him were wrong with the lenses furnished by Respondent. Respondent told R.S. that R.S. should mail the sunglasses to Respondent and Respondent would correct any problems with the sunglasses. R.S. refused to send the sunglasses back to Respondent because he no longer had any confidence in Respondent. Instead, R.S. asked Respondent to send him a refund of approximately $300.00 to cover the cost of the lenses R.S. bought from the optician in Ohio. Respondent refused to send a refund to R.S., but repeated his offer to make any necessary corrections to the sunglasses. Respondent has a policy of not giving refunds to customers, but Respondent also has a policy of doing whatever is necessary to correct any problems with any of the products he sells.5
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Opticianry enter a Final Order concluding that the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed because the evidence is insufficient to prove the violations alleged by clear and convincing evidence. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 1st day of April, 2004.
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
