The Issue Did Respondent, Ricoh Americas Corporation, (Ricoh), discriminate against Petitioner, Tamara Gleason (Ms. Gleason), because of her gender by demoting her? Did Ricoh retaliate against Ms. Gleason for complaining about gender discrimination?
Findings Of Fact Ricoh is in the business of selling and servicing document imaging and output equipment, including copiers, fax machines, printers, and related supplies and services such as software, paper, and toner. Ricoh has locations across the United States. Ms. Gleason worked for Ricoh from August 2008 until she resigned on March 31, 2010. She worked in its East Florida Marketplace. That area covers the eastern part of Florida from Jacksonville to Miami. In 2008, and at all times relevant to this proceeding, Al Hines (Mr. Hines) was the East Florida Marketplace manager. His responsibilities included supervising sales personnel and meeting sales quotas. Mr. Hines has worked for Ricoh in various positions for over 31 years. He is based in Ricoh's Maitland, Florida, office near Orlando. In 2008, the organizational structure of the East Florida Marketplace consisted of two group sales managers, one in Central Florida and one in South Florida. These group sales managers reported directly to the Marketplace Manager Mr. Hines. They oversaw sales managers who in turn supervised the various account executives. Also, one sales manager in Jacksonville reported directly to Mr. Hines. The group sales managers and sales managers were responsible for supervising the sales personnel, consisting of major account executives, senior account executives, and account executives. Ricoh assigned major account executives to work with specific large client accounts. Senior account executives were more experienced sales representatives. Senior account executives and account executives were assigned territories. Daytona Beach or a series of zip codes are examples of territories. Ricoh also assigned "vertical markets" for a specific industry, such as "faith-based" institutions to an Account Executive. Ms. Gleason applied and interviewed for an account executive position in the central Florida area of the East Florida Marketplace in August 2008. Mr. Hines, General Sales Manager Cecil Harrelson, and Sales Manager Anthony Arritt interviewed Ms. Gleason. On her resume and in her interview, Ms. Gleason represented that she had 20 years of experience as a sales representative in the office equipment field. Her resume stated that she was "[p]roficient in all areas relating to sales and leasing of copiers, printers, scanners, fax machines and various software solutions. Consistently exceeded sales quota." After the interview, Mr. Hines decided to hire Ms. Gleason for Mr. Harrelson's team. Ricoh hired Ms. Gleason as a senior account executive on August 11, 2008. Mr. Hines initially assigned her to work in the vertical "faith-based" market. In September 2008, a sales manager position for the Daytona Beach/Melbourne territories, overseen by Mr. Hines, opened. Three males applied for the position. Ms. Gleason did not apply. Mr. Hines asked Ms. Gleason if she would be interested in being considered for promotion to sales manager. Although Ms. Gleason had no prior management experience and had only worked for Ricoh for two months, Mr. Hines believed that she would be good in the position and asked her to consider it. Ms. Gleason accepted Mr. Hines' proposal. On September 30, 2008, Mr. Hines promoted her to sales manager. Ricoh provided Ms. Gleason manager training. In April and May of 2009, Ricoh restructured its sales positions. Ricoh changed group sales manager positions to strategic account sales manager positions. It removed all major account executives from teams supervised by sales managers and placed them on the teams supervised by the strategic account sales managers. In central Florida, the reorganization resulted in Cecil Harrelson being moved from general sales manager to strategic account sales manager. The major account executives on Ms. Gleason's team (Mary Cobb, David Norman, and Patrick Mull) and Arritt's team (Todd Anderson and Lynn Kent) were moved onto the new team supervised by Harrelson. All of the major account executives in the East Florida Market supervised by Mr. Hines were transferred to strategic account sales manager teams. On average, the sales managers in the East Florida Marketplace each lost two major account executives due to the reorganization. Mr. Hines required all of the sales managers to hire new sales personnel to bring the number of sales personnel on their teams to expected levels. This is known as maintaining "headcount." Ms. Gleason knew of this requirement. Also it was not new. The responsibility to maintain headcount pre-existed the reorganization. From the time of her hire until early 2009, around the time that the Company reorganized its sales positions, Ms. Gleason had no issues with Mr. Hines or complaints about his management. As a sales manager, Ms. Gleason bore responsibility for supervising a team of sales personnel and for ensuring that her team members met their monthly sales quotas. In addition, Ms. Gleason was responsible for maintaining the headcount on her team. Mr. Hines assigned monthly sales quotas for sales managers. He based the quotas on the types of sales representatives on each team. The monthly quota for major account executives was $75,000. For senior account executives, the monthly quota was $40,000. The monthly quota for account executives was $30,000. Mr. Hines conducted bi-monthly two-day sales meetings with all of the sales managers and office administrators to discuss their sales progress. Managers were expected to discuss their completed and forecast sales. Mr. Hines required managers to stand before the group to report on their progress and discuss any issues with quotas or goals based on month-to-date, quarter-to-date, and year-to-date expectations. Mr. Hines also considered "sales in the pipeline," or anticipated sales, to help determine sales trends for the next 90 days and in evaluating sales personnel. In addition, Mr. Hines conducted weekly sales calls with the sales managers to review their sales progress. During the calls, sales managers were to identify which sales they believed had a strong, "95 percent chance," of closing. Mr. Hines also discussed the performance of each individual sales representative on a manager's team during the calls. The discussions included examination of reasons for non-performance. Around the time of the reorganization, Mr. Hines transferred Senior Account Executive Tina Vargas in the Ocala territory from Mr. Arritt's team to Ms. Gleason's team. Mr. Hines made this transfer, in part, to help Ms. Gleason achieve her headcount and sales quotas. At the time of the transfer, Vargas expected to complete a large, one-time $320,000 sale on which she had been working. Mr. Hines anticipated that this sale would help Ms. Gleason achieve her sales quotas. Ms. Vargas was not located in the Daytona Beach/Melbourne territory. But Mr. Hines expected that Ms. Vargas would require minimal supervision because she was an experienced sales representative. Other managers also supervised sales representatives in multiple or large territories. For example, Cecil Harrelson supervised sales representatives in four areas. They were Orlando, Melbourne, Daytona, and Gainesville. Sales Manager Derrick Stephenson supervised a substantially larger geographic area than Ms. Gleason. His area reached from Key West to West Palm Beach. After the reorganization, Ms. Gleason's sales productivity declined. She also was not maintaining her headcount. The other Sales Managers experienced the same problems initially. But they recovered from the changes. Ms. Gleason never did. For the seven-month period of April through October, Ms. Gleason's record of attaining her quota was as follows: April - 35% or $70,867 in sales May - 196% or $385,452 in sales (Due to Ms. Vargas joining the team with a pending sale; 23% without Ms. Vargas.) June - 31% or $61,136 in sales July - 8% or $12,948 in sales August - 12% or $19,521 in sales September - 11% or $18,261 in sales October - 23% or $36,811 in sales During that same period, Ms. Gleason was the lowest performing sales manager in July (19 points less than the next lowest), August (14 points less than the next lowest), September (33 points less than the next lowest), and October (6 points less than the next lowest). She was the second lowest in June when Mr. Comancho was the lowest with 25% attainment compared to Ms. Gleason's 31%. The attainment percentages for all of the sales managers varied. Each had good months and bad months. After April and May, Ms. Gleason, however, had only bad months. For the months June through October, Ms. Gleason was the only sales manager who did not achieve 50% attainment at least twice, with two exceptions. They exceptions were Mr. Comancho and Mr. Rodham. Mr. Comancho chose to return to an account executive position after Mr. Hines spoke to him about his performance. Mr. Rodham joined Ricoh in October and attained 52% of quota that month. In addition to steadily failing to meet 50% of her quota, Ms. Gleason failed to maintain a full headcount for the same period of time. No male sales managers in Ricoh's East Florida Marketplace had similar deficiencies in meeting sales quota. There is no evidence that any male sales managers in Ricoh's East Florida Marketplace had similar failures to maintain headcount. There is no evidence of sales manager productivity or headcount maintenance for any of Ricoh's other markets. Ms. Gleason tried to improve her headcount by hiring additional sales personnel. She conducted a job fair with the assistance of Ricoh's recruiter. They identified 19 applicants for further consideration and second interviews. Mr. Hines reviewed and rejected all 19. They did not meet his requirement for applicants to have outside sales experience and a history of working on a commission basis. Ms. Gleason was aware of Mr. Hines' requirements. But she interpreted them more loosely than he did. Mr. Hines helped Ms. Gleason's efforts to improve her headcount by transferring four sales representatives to her team. At Ms. Gleason's request, Mr. Hines also reconsidered his rejection of one candidate, Susan Lafue, and permitted Ms. Gleason to hire her. Still Ms. Gleason was unable to reach the expected headcount. David Herrick, one of the individuals who Mr. Hines assigned to Ms. Gleason's team, had already been counseled about poor performance. Mr. Hines directed Ms. Gleason to work with Mr. Herrick until he sold something. This was a common practice with newer sales representatives. Mr. Herrick had also been assigned to male sales managers. Mr. Hines asked Ms. Gleason and Mr. Herrick to bring him business cards from their sales visits. He often did this to verify sales efforts. After Mr. Hines reviewed the cards, he threw them in the trash. But he first confirmed that Ms. Gleason had the information she needed from the cards. Mr. Hines often threw cards away after reviewing them to prevent sales representatives providing the same card multiple times. Ricoh's Human Resources Policy establishes a series of steps for disciplinary action. The first is to provide an employee a verbal warning. The next two steps are written warnings before taking disciplinary action. Mr. Hines gave Ms. Gleason a verbal warning about her performance. He spoke to her about improving sales production and headcount. Ms. Gleason's performance did not improve despite her efforts. Later, Mr. Hines gave Ms. Gleason a written warning in a counseling document dated August 31, 2009. The document stated that her performance had not been acceptable. The counseling memorandum directed Ms. Gleason to reach 65% of her quota. It also said that she was expected to maintain a minimum of seven people on her team and work in the field with her sales representatives at least four days a week. Finally the memorandum advised that failure to perform as directed would result in "being moved to sales territory." Around the end of August 2009, Mr. Hines began counseling Israel Camacho, a male, about his performance. Mr. Comancho decided to return to an account executive position. In September Ms. Gleason achieved 11% of her quota. She also did not maintain her headcount. September 24, 2009, Mr. Hines gave Ms. Gleason a second written counseling memorandum. It too said that her performance was unacceptable. The memorandum required her to produce 80% of her quota and maintain a minimum of seven people on her team. It also cautioned that failure to meet the requirements would result in "being moved to sales territory." Ms. Gleason acknowledges that she understood that if she did not perform to the expected levels that she could be demoted. After the written warning of September 24, 2009, Ms. Gleason's performance continued to be unacceptable. For October, Ms. Gleason had $23,811 in sales for a total attainment of 23% of quota. Again, she did not maintain her team's headcount. Sometime during the June through October period, Mr. Hines criticized Ms. Gleason's management style, saying that she "coddled" her personnel too much. He also directed her to read the book "Who Moved My Cheese" and discuss it with him and consider changing her management style. Mr. Hines often recommended management books to all managers, male or female. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. Gleason is the only person he required to read a recommended book and discuss it with him. Mr. Hines' comments and the reading requirement were efforts to help Ms. Gleason improve her performance and management. During the June through October period, Ms. Gleason yawned during a manager meeting. She maintains that Mr. Hines' statement about her yawn differed from the words he spoke to a male manager who fell asleep in a meeting. The differences, she argues, demonstrated gender discrimination. They did not. In each instance Mr. Hines sarcastically commented on the manager's behavior in front of other employees. He made no gender references. And the comments were similar. Sometime during the June through October period Mr. Hines also assigned Ms. Gleason to serve in an "Ambassador" role. "Ambassadors" were part of a Ricoh initiative to develop ways to improve the customer experience. There is no evidence that males were not also required to serve as "Ambassadors." And there is no persuasive evidence that this assignment was anything other than another effort to improve Ms. Gleason's management performance. Also during the June through October period Ms. Gleason proposed hosting a team building event at a bowling alley. Someone in management advised her that the event could not be an official company sponsored event because the bowling alley served alcohol. Again, there is no evidence that males were subjected to different requirements or that the requirement was related to Ms. Gleason's gender. During this same period, Ms. Gleason received written and oral communications from co-workers commenting on her difficulties meeting Mr. Hines' expectations. They observed that she was having a hard time and that they had seen Mr. Hines treat others similarly before discharging them. Nothing indicates that the others were female. These comments amount to typical office chatter and indicate nothing more than what the counseling documents said: Mr. Hines was unhappy with Ms. Gleason's performance and was going to take adverse action if it did not improve. On November 12, 2009, Ms. Gleason sent an email to Rhonda McIntyre, Regional Human Resources Manager. Ms. Gleason spoke to Ms. McIntyre that same day about her concerns about Hines' management style. Ms. Gleason said she was afraid that she may lose her job and that she was being set up for failure. Ms. McIntyre asked Ms. Gleason to send her concerns in writing. Ms. Gleason did so on November 13, 2009. Ms. Gleason's e-mail raised several issues about Mr. Hines' management. But Ms. Gleason did not state in her email or her conversations that she was being discriminated against or treated differently because of her gender. Ms. Gleason never complained about gender discrimination to any Ricoh representative at any time. On December 1, 2009, Mr. Hines demoted Ms. Gleason from sales manager to senior account executive. He assigned her to work on Mr. Arritt's team. Ms. Gleason had no issues with Mr. Arritt and no objection to being assigned to his team. Mr. Hines has demoted male sales managers to account executive positions for failure to attain quotas or otherwise perform at expected levels. The male employees include Ed Whipper, Kim Hughes, and Michael Kohler. In addition, Mr. Comancho was the subject of counseling before he chose to return to an account executive position. After Mr. Hines demoted Ms. Gleason, he promoted Diego Pugliese, a male, to sales manager. He assigned Mr. Pugliese the same territory that Ms. Gleason had. When Mr. Hines assigned Ms. Gleason to Mr. Arritt's team, Mr. Hines instructed Mr. Arritt to give Ms. Gleason two territories with substantial "machines in field" (MIF) to buttress Ms. Gleason's opportunity to succeed in her new position. Mr. Arritt assigned Ms. Gleason the two territories that records indicated had the most MIF. Ms. Gleason asserts that the preceding account executives maintained the records for the area poorly and that the new territories had no greater MIF than other areas. That fact does not indicate any intent to discriminate against Ms. Gleason on account of her gender. In January 2010, after Ms. Gleason's demotion, Mr. Harrelson invited Ms. Gleason to attend a non-company sponsored, employees' poker party. She had been invited to other employee poker parties and attended some. Mr. Harrelson withdrew the invitation saying that Mr. Hines was attending and that Mr. Harrelson thought Ms. Gleason's presence would be uncomfortable. Mr. Harrelson did not say that Mr. Hines had made this statement. And Mr. Harrelson was not Ms. Gleason's supervisor. Nothing about the exchange indicates that Ms. Gleason's gender had anything to do with withdrawal of the invitation. The incident seems to be based upon the natural observation that Mr. Hines might be uncomfortable socializing with someone he had recently demoted. After her demotion, Ms. Gleason asked Mr. Arritt to go with her on a "big hit" sales call. Ms. Gleason claims that Mr. Arritt told her that Mr. Hines told him not to go on sales calls with her. That may have been Mr. Arritt's interpretation of what Mr. Hines said. Mr. Hines had told Mr. Arritt that because Ms. Gleason was an experienced sales representative Mr. Arritt should focus his efforts on the less experienced sales representatives on his team. This was a reasonable observation. There is no evidence indicating that Mr. Hines treated Ms. Gleason differently in this situation than he had similarly experienced males. Ms. Gleason brought this issue to Ms. McIntyre's attention. The issue was resolved. Mr. Hines told Mr. Arritt that if Ms. Gleason wanted more assistance then Mr. Arritt should attend meetings with Gleason and provide any other assistance she believed she needed. Ms. Gleason had no other issues with Mr. Hines during the remainder of her employment. On March 31, 2010, Ms. Gleason submitted a memorandum stating that she was resigning "effective immediately." There is no evidence of derogatory or harassing comments by Mr. Hines or any other Ricoh representative toward Ms. Gleason referring to gender. There is no evidence of sexually suggestive comments or actions by a Ricoh representative. There also is no evidence of physically intimidating or harassing actions by any Ricoh representative.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations deny the Petition of Tamara A. Gleason in FCHR Case Number 2010-01263. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kimberly A. Gilmour, Esquire 4179 Davie Road, Suite 101 Davie, Florida 33314 David A. Young, Esquire Fisher & Phillips LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1250 Orlando, Florida 32801 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received on a contract to deliver food and supplies to the public school cafeterias in Broward County.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Invitation to Bid On September 28, 2000, the Board issued ITB 21-076B for procurement of “Mainline Foods and Supplies for Cafeterias.” Through this solicitation the Board sought to let a four-year contract, renewable for two additional one- year periods, pursuant to which the successful bidder would deliver food and supplies to the approximately 192 public school cafeterias in Broward County, Florida. Sysco is the incumbent supplier of foods and supplies for the Board’s cafeterias. The ITB listed and described the desired foods and supplies in two separate sections, Section 5.09 and Section 6.02. Bidders were required to bid on each of the 186 individual items listed in the Product Bid Sheets that comprise Section 5.09. In contrast, bidders were instructed not to quote prices for the 130 items listed in Section 6.02; rather, the ITB provided that “[t]he awardee, once selected, shall submit to the [Board] product costs and selling prices for items in Section 6.02.” This protest focuses on particular specifications of the Product Bid Sheets in Section 5.09 and is not concerned with Section 6.02. The Product Bid Sheets in Section 5.09 were composed of tables consisting of eight columns and, in total, 189 rows — one row for each item and three empty or "open" rows requiring no response. The first three columns, from left to right, set forth information that identified each item sought. At each row, Column 1 contained the “Sequence Number” that the Board had assigned to each product “for tracking purposes.” Column 2 in each row contained a description of the product to be purchased. So-called “approved brands” for each item were listed in Column 3. The ITB identified “approved brands” in several ways. The most specific identification was by brand name and product code or number, for example “Tony’s 78642.” This form of identification designated a particular manufacturer’s particular product. The term “approved branded product” will be used herein to refer to this type of specific product identification in Column 3. For many items, an approved brand was identified by manufacturer’s name only, without an accompanying product code, e.g. “Lykes ________.” The ITB instructed bidders that “[i]f a code number, name, or color is not listed by [the Board] along with an approved brand[,] the bidder shall enter the code by the brand in the space provided.” (ITB, Section 5.03.) In this Recommended Order, the term “brand-only approval” will denote a brand approval that lacked a specific product code. Finally, the ITB identified a large number of approved brands in Column 3 of Section 5.09 by the term “Distributor’s Choice,” meaning the distributor’s brand of choice. Bidders were instructed to “enter, in the space provided, the brand and code” when quoting a Distributor’s Choice. (ITB, Section 5.03.) For 84 of the 186 items listed in the Product Bid Sheets, the approved brands in Column 3 were identified exclusively as Distributor’s Choice.1 Thus, for nearly half of the Section 5.09 items, the bidder needed to select a brand and product that fit the specifications set forth in Column 2. For another 15 items, Column 3 contained brand-only approvals, meaning that the bidder was required to select an appropriate product from the approved manufacturer’s line. Brand-only approvals were combined with a Distributor’s Choice option in Column 3 for ten additional items. Consequently, there were 109 items — 59% of the total — on which the bidders were not given the option of bidding an approved branded product. Conversely, for 23 items Column 3 listed just one approved branded product, leaving the bidders no alternative but to bid on a particular manufacturer's particular product. Similarly, for 26 additional items, at least two approved branded products were listed, giving bidders a choice but not requiring them to compare the specifically designated brand- name products with the product descriptions in Column 2. In sum, bidders were obligated (and entitled) to bid an approved branded product on at least 49 items. There were 28 items for which Column 3 combined an approved branded product (or products) with either a brand- only approval (or approvals) or a Distributor’s Choice option.2 Accordingly, a bidder could, in theory, have quoted prices on as many as 77 approved branded products. At the other extreme, a bidder could have bid 137 items for which it had selected brand, product code, or both. Of the 186 items listed in Section 5.09, four are at the heart of the instant dispute. Ignoring for present purposes the sequences above and below the at-issue items, these four were described as follows in the first three columns of the Product Bid Sheets:3 1 SEQ NO. 2 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 3 APPROVED BRANDS 1009 Breakfast Pizza (F). Crust topped with cheese, gravy, scrambled eggs and bacon. Minimum size 3 oz. to meet 1 meat/meat alternate plus 1 bread serving. CN Label. Tony’s 63564 Nardone’s 80MSA-100 Size of portion oz. 1036 Pizza, French Bread, Southland Bagel Pepperoni (F): 50-50 8953S Mozzarella blend. Minimum Prestige 30215 5.45 oz. to meet 2 oz. Nordone’s _________ meat/meat alternative and 2 KT Kitchen ________ bread servings. CN label. Size portion oz. 1037 Pizza, Mexican Style (F). Tony’s 63669 Minimum 5 ounces to meet 2 Nordone’s 100MA oz. meat/meat alternate and 1 KT Kitchens 01476 ½ bread serving. With or w/o VPP. CN label. Size portion oz. 2010 Pancake and Sausage (F) Pancake batter around a link sausage on a stick. 2.5 oz. State Fair 70601 Leon’s 28002 Foster Farms 96113 Minimum weight to meet 1 oz. meat/meat alternative and 1 bread serving. CN Label. Size of portion: oz. Other provisions of the ITB are relevant to this protest as well. Section 7 of the General Conditions of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: AWARDS: In the best interest of the School Board, the Board reserves the right to withdraw this bid at any time prior to the time and date specified for the bid opening; to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received; to accept any items or group of items unless qualified by bidder; to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this invitation unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case the bid sheets shall be noted “BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY.” All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. Section 1.03 of the ITB’s Special Conditions stated in pertinent part as follows: AWARD: A contract shall be awarded IN ITS ENTIRETY to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder (See Section 4.01) with the lowest initial product cost plus fixed fee and meeting all specifications terms and conditions of the bid. It is necessary to bid on every item on the Product Bid Sheets (Section 5.09) in order to have your bid considered for award. Product costs shall be stated in the spaces provided in the Product Bid Sheets (Section 5.09). All items shall have an individual cost. Failure to state the individual cost for an item shall result in disqualification of bid submitted. Bidder shall carefully consider each item for conformance to specifications. Any item that does not meet the specifications shall be disqualified. Section 1.10 of the ITB stated as follows: INTERPRETATIONS: Any questions concerning any condition or requirement of this bid shall be received in the Purchasing Department in writing on or before October 11, 2000. Submit all questions to the attention of the individual stated in Section 1.37 [sic] of this Bid. If necessary, an Addendum shall be issued. Any verbal or written information which is obtained other than by information in this bid document or by Addenda shall not be binding on the School Board. Section 1.12 of the ITB stated as follows: BRAND STANDARDIZATION: The specified brands and product numbers listed on the Product Bid Sheets have been approved by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department and bids shall be accepted only on these approved items, except where “Distributor’s Choice” is indicated. If a bidder wishes to have an item placed on this approved list for future bidding, the bidder shall furnish Food and Nutrition Services Department samples of the item for testing purposes. If approved, the Food and Nutrition Services Department shall include the new item on the future list of approved items. In the event that any approved item supplied under this bid does not prove satisfactory, that item shall be removed from the approved list until such time as correction is made to the satisfaction of the Food and Nutrition Services Department. Section 1.13 of the ITB stated as follows: PRODUCT NUMBER CORRECTIONS: If the product number for the brand specified on the Product Bid Sheets is: a) no longer available and has been replaced with a new updated number with new specifications, the bidder should submit complete descriptive literature on the new product number; or b) incorrect, the corrected product number should be noted on the Product Bid Sheets, in the space provided. Section 1.35 of the ITB stated as follows: INFORMATION: Any questions by prospective bidders concerning this Invitation to Bid should be addressed to Mr. Charles High, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Department, (954) 765-6107 who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the Bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mr. High nor any employee of [the Board] is authorized to interpret any portion of the Bid or give information as to the requirements of the Bid in addition to that contained in the written Bid Document. Questions should be submitted in accordance with Special Condition 1.10. Interpretations of the Bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, shall be communicated to bidders only by written addendum. Section 2.03 of the ITB stated as follows: ADDING AND DELETING ITEMS: Food and non- food items utilized by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department may be subsequently added, deleted or transferred from or to the lists in Sections 5.09 and 6.0, individually or in groups, at the discretion of SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department Section 5.02 of the ITB provided in pertinent part as follows: COLUMN 2: (Product Description) This column provides bidder with descriptions of the products to be purchased, including portion or serving sizes or grades and standards, as may be applicable. Bidders should fill in the information wherever indicated on portion, serving size, etc., and provide manufacturers’ certificates of grades or compliance whenever “CR” is shown. If there is a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved brands in Column 3, compliance with approved brands shall prevail. [W]hen evaluating bids, [staff] may request that a bidder furnish, within three days of request, further confirmations of grades and standards, copies of specification sheets, and other product data, as may be required. (Underlining supplied). For ease of reference, the underlined sentence above — which will prove pivotal — will be called the "Reconciliation Clause" in this Recommended Order. Section 5.03 of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: COLUMN 3: (Approved Brands*) Prior to acceptance of a bid, all bid brands are subject to review by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department for compliance with the bid product requirements. If a code number, name, or color is not listed by SBBC along with an approved brand; the bidder shall enter the code by the brand in the space provided. Whenever quoting a “Distributor’s Choice”, a bidder shall enter, in the space provided, the brand and code. Whenever an approved brand, other than “Distributor’s Choice”, is listed, the bidder should indicate in Column 3 the brand bidding, (circle the brand). IMPORTANT: Some of the codes listed may be obsolete or incorrect, in which case the bidder is to enter the correct code. After award, SBBC may request the awardee to obtain prices and samples for brands and codes not listed. The decision as to whether a product does or does not meet the requirements of Column 2 is at the discretion of SBBC. A bidder may be requested, prior to bid award, to furnish acceptable confirmation from a packer that a product meets the requirements set forth in Column 2. Section 5.11 of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: CN Label: When a product is CN (Child Nutrition) labeled, it is “certified” by the packer to conform to the nutritional requirements of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The label shows the contribution made by a given amount of product toward meal requirements. When CN label is noted in Column 2 of the Product Bid Sheets, it is understood that the CN label must be in place for the product to be bid. Particular Responses to the Invitation to Bid A. Sequence No. 1009 – Breakfast Pizza At Sequence No. 1009, Column 3 of the Product Bid Sheet contained two approved branded products: Tony’s 63904 and Nardone’s 80MSA-100. School Food quoted a price of $28,500 on the specifically approved Nardone’s product. In preparing its bid, Sysco obtained a product description from Nardone Bros. Baking Co. Inc. ("Nardone") for its 80MSA-100 product. Sysco believed that Nardone’s 80MSA- 100 failed to meet the product description set forth in Column 2 and therefore offered the other approved branded product, Tony’s 63564, at a price of $33,000. A third bidder, Mutual Wholesale Co. ("Mutual Wholesale"), offered to provide the approved Tony’s product at a price of $33,012.00. Sequence No. 1036 – French Bread Pepperoni Pizza The product description in Column 2 of the item listed at Sequence No. 1036 required that a CN label be in place for a product to be bid. A CN label signifies compliance with certain U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines. The Board must obey these guidelines to obtain reimbursement for its food services program from federal funding sources. School Food offered the Prestige 30215 approved branded product in its response to Sequence No. 1036 at a price of $30,750. In preparing its response to the ITB, Sysco learned that the Prestige 30215 approved branded product had been submitted for CN label approval but lacked that approval at the time of bidding. Perceiving a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved branded product in Column 3, Sysco concluded that it could not quote a price for Prestige 30215. Instead, Sysco offered to provide another approved brand, KT Kitchen’s 01093, at a cost to the Board of $36,397.50. Like School Food, Mutual Wholesale bid on the Prestige 30215 brand name product, quoting a price of $30,000. As of November 29, 2000, the approved branded product, Prestige 30215, had obtained CN approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Sequence No. 1037 – Mexican-Style Pizza In its response to Sequence No. 1037, School Food offered an approved branded product, Nardone's 100MA, quoting a price of $206,620. During its bid preparation, Sysco learned that Nardone used another code for this product — namely, "96MCSA." Sysco believed that it could not bid on "Nardone’s 100MA," even though it was an approved branded product. Thus, in its bid Sysco offered to provide another approved branded product, Tony's 63669, at a price to the Board of $229,800. In its response to Sequence No. 1037, Mutual Wholesale quoted a price of $214,020 for yet another approved branded product, KT Kitchen’s 01476. "Nardone's 100MA" is an actual product code used internally by Nardone to denote an actual, available product that is referred to externally (or "on the street") as "Nardone's 96MCSA." In other words, "Nardone's 100MA" and "Nardone's 96MCSA" refer to the same product. Sequence No. 2010 – Pancake and Sausage In response to Sequence No. 2010, School Food offered to provide an approved branded product, Leon’s 28002, at a cost to the Board of $14,858. Sysco discovered through its bid preparation research that there might be a conflict between the product description in Column 2 of Sequence 2010 and the approved Leon’s 28002 brand name product, which was unambiguously designated in Column 3, because Leon’s 28002 consisted of a "frankfurter" wrapped in a pancake, and Sysco did not consider a "frankfurter" to be a "link sausage."4 As the Board has conceded, unless a bidder knew the products well or made a comparison of the approved branded products to the product description in Column 2, it would not have perceived the possible conflict between that description and the approved Leon’s 28002 brand name product listed in Column 3. Around October 20, 2000, Sysco notified the Board of its concern regarding Sequence No. 2010. In so doing, however, Sysco failed to comply with Section 1.10 of the ITB, which required that questions about the bid specifications be submitted in writing on or before October 11, 2000. In violation of Section 1.10, a Sysco employee named Elaine Blaine, who was responsible for preparing Sysco's bid, left a telephone message with the Board's Purchasing Agent, Charles High, inquiring about Leon's 28002 and letting him know that, in Sysco's opinion, this approved branded product did not match the description in Column 2 of Sequence No. 2010. Mr. High returned Ms. Blaine's phone call on or around October 24, 2000, leaving a message on her voice mail to the effect that Leon's 28002 was not the correct item and advising that another brand name product, Leon's 28012, should be bid in its place. As Section 1.35 of the ITB made plain, however, Mr. High had no authority whatsoever to render an opinion such as this. Although Mr. High's communication with Ms. Blaine was improper, it had no effect on the competitive process. Clearly, Sysco could not reasonably have relied on Mr. High's unauthorized opinion, and anyway it did not do so. Thus, in short, while Mr. High's irregular contact with Ms. Blaine cannot be condoned, his ex parte advice to Sysco fortunately conferred no competitive advantage on any bidder and hence was immaterial. In the end, Sysco offered another approved branded product, State Fair 70601, in lieu of Leon's 28002, quoting a price of $20,111. Mutual Wholesale also bid on State Fair 70601, quoting a price of $20,119.50. Issuance of Addenda and Submission of Bids The Board issued two addenda to the ITB. Addendum No. 1, among other things, inserted the code number for the approved KT Kitchen’s brand name product listed in Column 3 for Sequence No. 1036, and it also changed the approved Foster Farms branded product listed in Sequence No. 2010. The addenda made no other changes to either Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, or 2010. On October 31, 2000, the Board opened the four bids that it had received in response to the ITB. Bids were submitted by Big Bamboo, Inc., Mutual Wholesale, Sysco, and School Food. Big Bamboo, Inc. failed to submit a complete proposal and thus its bid was disqualified as non-responsive. The remaining bids, which were determined to be responsive, offered, respectively, the following total annual contract prices: Mutual Wholesale $9,757,284.86 Sysco $9,656,770.21 School Food $9,263,170.42 Accordingly, School Food was the lowest bidder, its bottom line beating the closest competitor by nearly $400,000 per year. On November 9, 2000, the Board's Purchasing Department posted its recommendation that the contract be awarded to School Food. The Sysco Protest of the Recommended Award On November 13, 2000, Sysco timely filed a notice of intent to protest the recommended award to School Food. Sysco timely filed its formal written protest with the Board on November 22, 2000. Pursuant to rule, a Bid Protest Committee comprised of three administrators is required to meet with a bid protester in accordance with Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, to attempt a resolution of the protest by mutual agreement. By rule, the Bid Protest Committee has been delegated the agency’s authority to perform this function. Consequently, pursuant to School Board Policy 3320 and Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, a Bid Protest Committee convened on December 1, 2000, in an attempt to mutually resolve any disputed issues arising out of Sysco's protest. Despite the fact that the thrust of Sysco's protest was an attack on the responsiveness of School Food's bid, School Food was not invited to attend the December 1, 2000, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, which apparently was not conducted as a public meeting. A court reporter was present, however, and the transcript of the committee's December 1, 2000, meeting is in evidence. The Bid Protest Committee restricted its review of the procurement to consideration of whether the ITB suffered from defective specifications in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, even though Sysco’s protest had raised broader issues concerning the responsiveness of School Food's bid. At the December 1, 2000, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, a Board employee named Raymond Papa, whose title is Supervisor of Field Services for Food and Nutrition Service, made the following representations concerning the sequence numbers in question: 1009 (Breakfast Pizza). Mr. Papa claimed to have erred by listing Nardone's 80MSA-100 in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1009. This approved branded product, Mr. Papa told the committee, should have been identified in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1008, which is also a breakfast pizza but has a different product description. 1036 (French Bread Pepperoni Pizza). Mr. Papa informed the committee that Prestige 30215 was approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture but did not have a CN label "at this time." 1037 (Mexican Style Pizza). Mr. Papa advised the committee that there seemed to be some confusion arising from the ITB's use, in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1037, of the Nardone's product code 100MA, which was the manufacturer's internal code for the approved branded product, instead of the more common "street number" (96MCSA) used in the company's literature. Mr. Papa further explained: "Apparently that code [referring to 100MA] would have given me the right product" — in fact, it would have, see Paragraph 33 above — "but it needs more clarification on my part." 2010 (Pancake and Sausage). Mr. Papa pointed out the purported conflict between the product description in Column 2 of Sequence 2010 and the approved Leon's 28002 brand name product identified in Column 3. He claimed to have been seeking a pancake with a sausage inside, not a frankfurter, asserting that the two meat products were substantially different. The Board’s counsel informed the committee that the specifications for Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 had created sufficient confusion to adversely affect the competition. He urged the committee to remedy this purported confusion by voting to reject all bids so that the contract could be re-advertised with revised specifications. The committee was not asked to consider the Reconciliation Clause of Section 5.02 of the ITB. The three members did not discuss this provision. It is reasonable to infer, and the trier of fact so finds, that the committee paid no attention to the Reconciliation Clause in weighing the merits of staff's recommendation to reject all bids. With little discussion, the three-member Bid Protest Committee voted unanimously to rescind the recommendation to award School Food the contract and to reject all bids on the ground that the specifications were defective and hence that revisions were needed to "level the playing field." A revised recommendation to reject all bids was posted on December 12, 2000. School Food's Protest of the Rejection of All Bids On December 15, 2000, School Food timely filed its notice of intent to protest the Board's preliminary decision to reject all bids. This was timely followed by a formal written protest, which was filed with the Board on December 22, 2000. The revised recommendation posted on December 12, 2000, accurately announced the Board's intention to reject all bids. As noted in School Food's formal bid protest, however, the revised recommendation erroneously stated that the action was taken because “no acceptable bids were received.” To remedy this problem, a corrected revised recommendation was posted by the Board on January 12, 2001. It stated that the rejection of all bids was “due to inaccuracies within the bid specifications.” On January 16, 2001, School Food timely notified the Board of its intent to protest the corrected revised recommendation. Thereafter, on January 24, 2001, School Food timely filed its formal protest of the corrected revised recommendation to reject all bids. School Food posted a bid protest bond in the amount of $5,000 in accordance with School Board Policy 3320. This bond is conditioned upon School Food's payment of the Board's litigation costs should the Board prevail. Pursuant to School Board Policy 3320 and Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, the Board's Bid Protest Committee conducted a meeting with School Food on February 9, 2001, in an attempt to mutually resolve any matters in dispute. The Bid Protest Committee was composed of two persons who had participated in the December 1, 2000, meeting and a third member who had not attended that earlier meeting. Sysco received advance notice of the February 9, 2001, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, and its lawyer was permitted to attend as a witness. These courtesies, tellingly, had not been extended to School Food in connection with the committee meeting that had been held on December 1, 2000, to discuss the original Sysco bid protest. As before, a court reporter was present, and the transcript of the February 9, 2001, meeting is in evidence. The Bid Protest Committee was again informed of staff's opinion that the ITB contained defective specifications in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037 and 2010. At the February 9, 2001 meeting, the Board's counsel argued vigorously in support of the decision to reject all bids. For the most part, his argument was an expanded version of that which had been advanced in favor of rejection at the December 1, 2000, meeting. More emphasis was placed, the second time around, on the concern that the supposedly defective specifications would or might, in some cases, result in the Board not receiving the food items that it had desired. Once again, the committee was not asked to consider the Reconciliation Clause of Section 5.02 of the ITB. And once more, the committee members did not discuss this provision. It is reasonable to infer, and the trier of fact so finds, that the committee failed to take account of the Reconciliation Clause in weighing the merits of staff's recommendation that the previous decision to reject all bids be adhered to. By a vote of two to one, the Bid Protest Committee upheld the recommendation to reject all bids. The contemporaneous comments from the members in the majority, together with other evidence introduced at hearing, reveal that the committee was persuaded that the field of play had been tilted by the purportedly defective bid specifications; its decision clearly was based on a desire to “level the playing field.” Ultimate Factual Determinations All of the purported deficiencies in the bid specifications fall squarely within the operation of the ITB’s plain and unambiguous Reconciliation Clause which, to repeat for emphasis, provided as follows: If there is a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved brands in Column 3, compliance with approved brands shall prevail. (ITB, Section 5.02.)5 There is no evidence that the Reconciliation Clause misrepresented the Board's true intent or was the product of a mistake. The administrative law judge has determined as a matter of law that the Reconciliation Clause is clear and unambiguous; therefore, as a matter of fact, it manifests the Board's intent that a Column 2 description must yield to the identification of an approved branded product in Column 3 in the event of conflict between them. By providing in clear terms a straightforward, easily applied, bright-line rule for resolving the very type of conflict that the Board now urges justifies a rejection of all bids, the ITB reasonably ensured that no such ambiguity or uncertainty would imperil the competitive process. No reasonable bidder could possibly have been confused by the unambiguous Reconciliation Clause. All bidders, of course, were entitled to protest the Reconciliation Clause, and any other bid specifications, within 72 hours after receiving the ITB. See Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes; see also ITB, Section 1.21. None did. If Sysco believed, as Ms. Blaine testified, that it could not bid on certain approved branded products listed in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, then its belief was unreasonable. Confusion that is objectively unreasonable in fact, as Sysco's was, is not evidence of deficiencies in the bid specifications or of a breach in the integrity of the competitive process. In sum, the purported "deficiencies" upon which the Board based its intended decision to reject all bids are not deficiencies in fact. Thus, the Board's professed reason for starting over — that flaws in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 put bidders to the Hobson's choice of either risking disqualification by bidding on an approved branded product that did not strictly conform to the description in Column 2 or offering a higher-priced product meeting the Column 2 description — is factually unfounded and illogical.6 It should be observed, also, that, in view of the unambiguous Reconciliation Clause, the approved branded products upon which School Food bid in response to Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 are conforming goods in every respect. That is, School Food did not "mis-bid" these items. Indeed, the Board having identified specific approved branded products; having instructed bidders that "bids shall be accepted only on these approved items, except where ‘Distributor's Choice’ is indicated," see ITB, Section 1.12; and having made clear, in the Reconciliation Clause, that any conflict between an approved branded product and a product description shall be resolved in favor of the approved branded product, it would be arbitrary and capricious to disqualify School Food's bid for non-responsiveness in connection with these items. See Footnote 6, supra. The evidence regarding which particular products the Board truly wanted to purchase in connection with the sequences at issue is in conflict. On the one hand, there is the ITB itself, which is strong evidence of the Board's desires. As a written expression of the Board's intent, the ITB gives voice not merely to the opinions of one person, but rather speaks for the whole Board as an organization. (The latter point is underscored by Section 1.35, which plainly stated that no single employee of the Board was authorized unilaterally to interpret the ITB.) The ITB's reliability is further enhanced by the fact that it was prepared before the bids were opened, before it was known that the incumbent vendor was not the apparent low bidder, before the first protest was filed, and before this administrative litigation commenced. On the other hand, there is Mr. Papa's testimony that he made mistakes in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, listing approved branded products that, in hindsight, he claimed should not have been listed. Casting doubt on Mr. Papa's credibility, however, is the fact that he did not discover these so-called mistakes until after the Sysco protest helpfully brought the matters to his attention. Also, in deciding how much weight to give Mr. Papa’s testimony, the trier paid particular attention to the picayune nature of the purported conflicts in the specifications. Indeed, it is seriously debatable whether there really were any conflicts in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010.7 Additionally, having observed Mr. Papa’s demeanor and having given thoughtful consideration to the substance of his testimony, the trier of fact formed the distinct impression that this witness was a bit too anxious to grasp at a plausible excuse — even these hyper-technical “conflicts” — to scuttle the process and do it over. In weighing Mr. Papa's testimony, the trier has factored in a discount for reasonably inferred bias. Further, Mr. Papa's testimony was premised on the view that Column 2 expressed the Board's true intent, taking priority over Column 3 in cases of conflict. To fully credit Mr. Papa's testimony would require that the Reconciliation Clause be turned on its head — which, incidentally, would constitute an impermissible material change in the bid specifications.8 There is absolutely no basis in this record for doing that. In resolving the conflict in the evidence regarding which goods the Board really wanted, the trier of fact has considered the totality of circumstances and has chosen to give the greatest weight to the plain and unambiguous Reconciliation Clause in the ITB which, when read in conjunction with the clear designations of approved branded products in Column 3 at the sequences in question, makes manifest the Board's intent. This clear provision speaks for itself and proves that the Board, as an entity, made a reasoned and conscious decision to deem approved branded products in Column 3 of the Product Bid Sheets to be the goods intended for purchase in those instances where a Column 2 product description might suggest a different desire. Neither Mr. Papa's testimony nor any other evidence persuasively calls into question the reliability and credibility of the Reconciliation Clause as an accurate expression of the Board's intent. Thus, under the evidence presented, the following items are approved branded products that, as a matter of fact, the Board wanted to purchase: Nardone's 80MSA-100, Prestige 30215, Nardone's 100MA, and Leon's 28002. Moreover, if the Board decides that one or more of these approved branded products are not what it wants after all, it has the right, pursuant to Section 2.03 of the ITB (see Paragraph 17, supra), to arrange for the purchase and delivery of different products. The argument of the Board and Sysco that the Board's exercise of its right to add and delete items would constitute an impermissible material alteration of the bid specifications is, in the context of the present circumstances, plainly wrong in fact and illogical. To explain why this is so, let us stipulate that it would be arbitrary for the Board, say, to delete several items from each bidder's proposal because, for example, one or more bidders had mis-bid those items, and then to re-tabulate the bids to determine which bidder would now be the low bidder.9 Similarly, it would be arbitrary for the Board, under the guise of adding items, to designate as approved branded products certain non-conforming goods offered by a bidder as Distributor's Choices, thereby allowing a bid that otherwise would be disqualified to be considered responsive. As a final example, it would be arbitrary for the Board to delete an approved branded product from the product list and use such deletion as the basis for disqualifying a bidder that had quoted the now-deleted item. Each of these hypothetical situations involves a material change to the specifications on which the bidders based their proposals, which is not allowed, for good reason. It is a different kettle of fish, however, for the Board to add or delete items after making an award to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITB. When the bids are judged pursuant to the rules clearly spelled out in advance in the ITB — which would not be the case in the examples set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph — there is simply no change in the specifications, material or otherwise. In the instant case, therefore, if the Board awards the contract to School Food and decides that it does not want a hot dog pancake for Sequence No. 2010, then all it need do is delete Leon's 28002 from the product list and add the desired Leon's product or require the distributor to deliver one of the remaining approved branded products.10 Nothing about that course of action requires or effects a change in the bid specifications. To the contrary, all of the bidders were notified, upon entering this competition, that such post- award additions and deletions of product were possible. All of the bidders, moreover, could have quoted a price for the hot dog pancake, which was unambiguously designated as a conforming product. If the hot dog pancake were a less expensive item, then Sysco could have and should have bid on it. Put another way, if School Food secured a competitive advantage by bidding on the lower-priced approved branded product, it was a legitimate advantage under the plain rules of the contest — rules that applied equally to all. In a nutshell, the Board is in no reasonable danger of receiving a food product that it does not desire to purchase. The Board's preliminary decision to reject all bids is not supported by facts or logic. Indeed, the Board's analysis of the situation failed to account for the Reconciliation Clause — a clearly relevant factor. When the Reconciliation Clause is considered, together with the rest of the evidence in the record, the following become clear: The ITB's specifications were clear and unambiguous. The competitive playing field was level. The Board will obtain the goods that it intended to purchase. At bottom, the Board's decision here cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is arbitrary.11
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board award the contract advertised in the subject ITB to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITB. It is further recommended that the Board, pursuant to its own rules, return School Food’s protest bond and, in the Final Order, award School Food the costs Petitioner has incurred in prosecuting this matter. If a dispute arises concerning the amount of such costs, the matter may be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 31st day of May, 2001.
Findings Of Fact The Authority is an agency of the State of Florida which, pursuant to memorandum of agreement with the State of Florida, DOT, has the authority to acquire right-of-way services and other contractual services relating to the development of that part of the Florida Turnpike known as Northwest Hillsborough Expressway (the Expressway). Kaiser is an Ohio corporation authorized to do business in Florida and has its principal place of business in Oakland, California. Colan is a Florida corporation which has its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On December 4, 1990, the Authority issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the provision of right-of-way acquisition services for development of the Expressway. The request for proposals is titled "Request For Proposal, RFP- THCEA-R/W-90-001, Right-of-Way Negotiation, Relocation Assistance, Property Management and Asbestos Related Activities" (the RFP). Responses to the RFP were due on January 8, 1991. Timely responses to the RFP were filed by both Kaiser and Colan. Proposals were also submitted by Moreland Altobella, ROW Consultants, TransAmerica Energy, and Universal Field Services. The RFP stated that the proposals would be evaluated both on technical merit and on price, with the final ranking of the proposals to be determined based on the separate scoring of eleven separate technical and substantive areas added to a single score for price. On January 29, 1991, Kaiser received notice of the Authority's decision to award to Colan the contract for right-of- way acquisition services for the Expressway. Kaiser's proposal was ranked second by the Authority's evaluation committee, which consisted of William McLean, Dale Patten, Norris Smith, David May, and Ray Speer. The Expressway will come under the Turnpike Authority of the Florida Department of Transportation who is funding the project with state issued bonds. The Respondent is acting as the agent for the Florida Department of Transportation in carrying out this project. In submitting its Technical Proposal (exhibit 2) Colan listed Byron Cherkas as a CPA subcontrator to do Business Damage Reports. Colan also listed two additional CPAs from the firm of Dwight Darby & Co. in Tampa, one listed to do Business Damage Reports and one to do Business Damage Reviews. Although Colan had used Cherkas on previous right-of-way acquisitions to do Business Damage Reports, Colan had no agreement with Cherkas to perform this service when this proposal was submitted. Although Petitioner contends this made Colan's proposal nonresponsive, the Authority took the position that Cherkas was only a backup CPA and the proposal was responsive. There was no need to list additional CPAs and listing Cherkas did not make the proposal nonresponsive any more than it would have been nonresponsive had Cherkas' name had not been added. Petitioner further contends that Colan's proposal was nonresponsive because Colan would not be able to complete this contract in the fifteen months allotted based upon the scheduled contained in the proposal. The schedule [exhibit 2 (D.2)] showing the time for submission of the condemnation packages to the Authority in the tenth month of the project is clearly too late for the land acquisitions involved to be completed by the contract expiration date. This, however, does not make the bid nonresponsive. Colan, upon receiving the contract and agreeing to complete the project in the time allotted, is required to do so under the terms of the contract. The RFP provides for frequent meetings and reports from the successful bidder regarding the progress of the acquisition and modifications of schedules as needed. Furthermore, the Authority is not bound by the schedule contained in exhibit 2 and has no intention of allowing Colan to wait until the tenth month of the contract period to commence the preparation of the litigation documents. Colan acknowledges that waiting until the tenth month to commence suit preparation is unreasonable if the project is to be completed on time, and contends that a clerical error was made in preparing this schedule. Colan's president testified that Colan will comply with any reasonable schedule1 suggested by the Authority, and suit preparation will commence much earlier than the tenth month into the contract period. Petitioner's witness opined that the other companies submitting proposals did not fully understand the scope of the work involved, nor did the persons preparing the RFP. Petitioner's bid of nearly $5 million for this project is nearly $3 million higher than the lowest bid, and approximately $2.4 million higher than Colan's bid, and $1.5 million above the second highest bid. A more reasonable interpretation of the six proposals submitted would be that Petitioner grossly overestimated the scope of the work or overpriced its proposal. The RFP clearly established the scoring system to be used in evaluating the proposals. Five evaluators scored each proposal and the scores awarded are contained in exhibit 7. It is significant that Kaiser's average score in every category except price is higher than Colan's score. Colan received a total averaged score of 83.1 while Kaiser received an average score of 82. All five of the members of the Technical Review Committee who were involved in this RFP testified in these proceedings. All read the pleadings filed in this case and heard most of the testimony presented by Kaiser's witnesses. All testified that, after having heard the testimony and read the pleadings, if they rescored all of the proposals as of the date of the hearing their scores would be substantially tie same as the scores originally given to these proposals. Some of these scorers reduced the score given to Colan in the categories of production control, property management and/or past performance because of the schedule in Colan's proposal which indicated suit preparation would begin in the tenth or eleventh month of the project. The man hours required to accomplish the suit preparation aspects of this RFP are basically the same regardless of when this task is commenced. Accordingly, scheduling these tasks in the latter part of the contract period gave Colan no price advantage in the proposal submission.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an act of discrimination in employment based on age, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on December 11, 1951. She was employed by Respondent from 1977 until December 27, 1999, at which time Respondent terminated her. During the entire term of her employment, Petitioner has served as an outside sales representative. As an outside sales representative, Petitioner was typically assigned a territory within which she was to serve existing advertisers and develop new advertisers. Petitioner often helped customers prepare their advertisements and plan and budget their advertising campaigns. While employed with Respondent, Petitioner helped train Mr. Fine, who has been employed with Respondent for nearly 13 years. Mr. Fine is currently the National Advertising Director, but, during the time in question, served as the Broward Advertising Sales Manager, and, as such, he supervised Petitioner. He served as the Broward Advertising Sales Manager from September 1998 through February or March 2000. While Broward Advertising Sales Manager, Mr. Fine supervised eight sales representatives. Mr. Fine found that Petitioner was strong in persuasiveness, but weak at times when she displayed a negative attitude and sense of entitlement to her job and her way of doing her job. She also treated customers inconsistently. In February 1999, Mr. Fine disciplined Petitioner for her handling of an internal fax that the Broward office received from an employee of Respondent in another office. The fax was addressed to a member of management and contained salary information about five persons in the office. Petitioner happened to find the fax and revealed its contents to her coworkers before delivering it to the addressee. When Mr. Fine reprimanded Petitioner for her actions, she denied any wrongdoing. Next, Mr. Fine began receiving complaints from various of Petitioner's customers, mostly over a relatively short period of time. A marketing person at the Swap Shop complained that Petitioner was brusque in dealing with her. Another customer representative mentioned that Petitioner had criticized one of her coworkers in suggesting that the customer place all of its business with Petitioner. A similar situation arose with another customer, to whom Petitioner claimed that its outside sales representative handled only smaller accounts. A representative of the Florida Philharmonic Orchestra requested that Mr. Fine assign it a new outside sales representative because Petitioner raised her voice and talked down to its young, inexperienced marketing person. On June 29, 1999, Mr. Fine sent a memorandum to his supervisor, Donna Sasser, who was then Advertising Director. The memorandum describes Petitioner as "dynamite" and expresses concern as to when she "will blow and who she will hurt." At the time, Mr. Fine was concerned that Petitioner's actions might undermine morale among the other staff for whom he was responsible. Ms. Sasser advised Mr. Fine to communicate to Petitioner specific expectations in terms of job performance and customer interaction in particular. Mr. Fine met with Petitioner and detailed his problems with her job performance and his expectations for improvement. By memorandum dated July 30, 1999, Mr. Fine memorialized the meeting, including specific customer complaints, and warned that Petitioner's job "will end, even within the next few weeks, if you are unable to achieve the following: no additional customer complaints, monthly goals [met] on a consistent basis; positive, collaborative attitude with co-workers, customers, and managers; [and] acceptance of responsibility for what goes well and what does not go well." Petitioner resisted Mr. Fine's criticism. By memorandum dated August 22, 1999, she defended her actions by pointing to shortcomings elsewhere within Respondent. Significantly, the memorandum does not address the complaints about brusque, discourteous treatment of employees of customers. At this point, Mr. Fine, who was a young manager, was legitimately concerned about whether Petitioner's attitude would undermine his ability to do his job. Mr. Fine resolved to assess over the next three to six months whether Petitioner met the goals that he stated in the July 30 memorandum. In late October 1999, a representative of the Cleveland Clinic complained about Petitioner's handling of its account. The complaints included Petitioner's "flip attitude" and "lack of professionalism." Two months later, Mr. Fine received a more serious complaint because it involved a loss of revenue to Respondent and the advertiser. Due to some miscommunication, Respondent published the wrong advertisement for a customer. When the customer's representative telephoned Petitioner and complained, she blamed someone at the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel, who had supplied her the wrong advertisement for publication. When she did not call him back on the day that she had promised, the customer representative called Respondent, complained about the poor handling of the account, noted the reduction in advertising from his company over the past year as compared to the prior year, and requested a different outside sales representative. Mr. Fine consulted with Ms. Sasser and Janet Stone, the Human Relations specialist assigned to advertising. The three agreed that Respondent should terminate Petitioner. Their decision was submitted through four levels of management--up to the level of Publisher--and each level approved the decision before it was implemented. On December 27, 1999--six days after the receipt of the last complaint--Mr. Fine and Ms. Stone met with Petitioner and told her that she had been terminated. At the hearing, Petitioner presented evidence of a contemporaneous complaint about age discrimination that she had made to a Human Relations specialist who had since left the employment of Respondent. Respondent contested this assertion, but Petitioner's August 22 memorandum states that, as a "female over 40 I feel the harassment and stress that you have been putting on me is totally unnecessary." Although not a formal complaint concerning age discrimination, this memorandum is an early mention of Petitioner's age within the context of harassment. Based on the testimony of coworkers, Mr. Fine was a high-pressure manager, given to yelling, but he did not make age-related comments to Petitioner. Even if Petitioner had timely made comprehensive complaints about age discrimination, the record in this case does not support her claim that her termination was due to age discrimination. Mr. Fine hired two outside sales representatives over 40 years old, and the only other outside sales representative whom he fired was under 40 years old. More importantly, he treated employees the same without regard to age. Most importantly, Petitioner's job performance provided Mr. Fine with ample reason to fire her. Without regard to the quality of the support that Petitioner received, customer satisfaction is paramount in advertising. In a competitive environment, Mr. Fine justifiably sought satisfaction of all customers, not just favored customers. Mr. Fine could not reasonably allow Petitioner to continue to treat discourteously representatives of advertisers, regardless of the merits of her claims of inadequate support. Past evaluations suggest that interpersonal relations was never Petitioner's strength. Despite an obvious talent at advertising sales and considerable experience, Petitioner's frustrations with the perceived incompetence of her coworkers and customers' employees weakened her interpersonal skills beyond a critical point, so that her other strengths no longer offset this important deficit.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jan Hall-Szugye 3834 Panther Creek Road Clyde, North Carolina 28721 Ellen M. Leibovitch Adorno & Yoss, P.A. 700 South Federal Highway, Suite 200 Boca Raton, Florida 33432
The Issue Are the February 13, 2014, letters of Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division), requiring totalisator reports to "identify the Florida [permitholder] in reports as both host and guest when applicable," statements that amount to a rule, as defined in section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes (2013).1/
Findings Of Fact Florida permits and regulates betting on greyhound racing,2/ jai alai games,3/ quarter horse racing,4/ and harness racing.5/ The Division is responsible for administration of Florida's statutes and rules governing this betting. JKC and OPKC are separate, individually permitted facilities. Jacksonville Greyhound Racing owns and operates both the JKC and the OPKC. It is not, however, a party to this proceeding. The betting system is a pari-mutuel system. This "means a system of betting on races or games in which the winners divide the total amount bet, after deducting management expenses and taxes, in proportion to the sums they have wagered individually and with regard to the odds assigned to particular outcomes."6/ Each race, contest, or game is an "event."7/ The aggregate wagers called "contributions" to pari-mutuel pools are labeled "handle." § 550.002(13), Fla. Stat. An "intertrack wager" is "a particular form of pari-mutuel wagering in which wagers are accepted at a permitted, in-state track, fronton, or pari-mutuel facility on a race or game transmitted from and performed live at, or simulcast signal rebroadcast from another in-state pari-mutuel facility."8/ The JKC offers intertrack wagering at its permitted facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. It does not offer live events. The OPKC offers intertrack wagering and wagering on live events conducted at its permitted facility in Orange Park. The Racetracks are host tracks when they transmit live greyhound racing to other in-state and out-of-state facilities for off-track wagers.9/ They are guest tracks when wagers are made at their separate permitted locations on pari-mutuel races or games conducted at third-party facilities.10/ Florida statutes and the Division's rules require detailed reports from permitholders to the Division and other permitholders, including tables of wagers, pool data, and winnings.11/ These reports are generated by "totalisators." A totalisator is "the computer system used to accumulate wagers, record sales, calculate payoffs, and display wagering data on a display device that is located at a pari-mutuel facility."12/ The Division's Form DBPR-PMW-3570 requires host permitholders to report intertrack wagering "handle" by guest on a monthly basis. The host permitholders must sign and attest to the accuracy of the information submitted in the form. Also, Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-7.023(2) requires generation of reports for each pool within each contest to be printed immediately after the official order of finish is declared. On March 9, 2012, the Division issued a letter to AmTote International ("AmTote"), a licensed totalisator company, and copied Jacksonville Greyhound Racing, notifying AmTote that Florida permitholders and the Division would need a breakdown of the handle of the Racetracks in order to pay appropriate purses, taxes, or other liabilities. It sent a similar letter to other totalisator companies. This was an effort to be accommodating and flexible. The letter concluded: "Please continue to provide handle information broken down by source, which is required by rule to all those in the state of Florida who have been users of that information in the past." The Racetracks rely upon AmTote to provide their totalisator services. Between March 2012 and March 2014, AmTote commingled the Racetracks' wagering data into a single "community," reporting all wagering as coming from the OPKC in order to reduce interface fees paid for the totalisator service. The guest track wagering data and reports exchanged with the other totalisator companies from the Racetracks show up on the AmTote settlement files as OPKC. The reports do not differentiate between wagers made at each of the Racetracks. Before March 1, 2012, AmTote segregated wagering data as coming from either JKC or OPKC. During the two years reported by the Racetracks as a single community, the Racetracks separately provided Florida host tracks a supplemental report breaking down the sources within the common community. The Racetracks provided these supplemental reports--via email or other means--to assist Florida host tracks with reporting requirements. They did not provide them simultaneously with the other reports and data. There were frequently errors that had to be identified and corrected. In an effort to be flexible and work with the Racetracks, the Division tolerated this method of reporting for two years. But it created problems for both the Division and for the other permitholders in the state. On February 13, 2014, the Division prepared and issued correspondence to AmTote, as well as the two other Florida totalisator companies, announcing that it intended to require proper reporting of the data required by rule, including reports of each permitholder. The letter states: This letter is to address the issue of proper and complete identification of each individual permitholder in totalisator reports. Rule 61D-7.024(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires all Florida pari-mutuel permitholders to use an electronically operated totalisator. Rule 61D-7.023(9), F.A.C. states in part, ". . . Each report shall include the permitholder's name . . .," and Rule 61D-7.024(4), F.A.C. states in part, ". . . reports shall be kept logically separate . . . ." Further, Rule 61D-7.023(1), F.A.C. states, "The totalisator licensee shall be responsible for the correctness of all tote produced mutual accounting reports. " In accordance with Florida Administrative Code, the division requires each permitholder to be properly and uniquely identified by totalisator reports provided to the division and to the permitholders. In addition, the totalisators are responsible for the correctness of all tote produced mutual accounting reports. Reports provided after February 28, 2014 must properly identify the Florida Permitholder in reports as both host and guest when applicable. Improper identification of permitholders will be considered a violation of the Florida Administrative Code. On March 11, 2014, AmTote began segregating wagering data from the Racetracks in compliance with the February 13, 2014, letter. The Racetracks will incur additional financial costs if AmTote ends the reporting of all wagering data as coming from OPKC for purposes of reports provided to other totalisator companies licensed in Florida and begins segregating their wagering data by individual permitholders. These costs stem from additional interface fees incurred outside the regulatory jurisdiction of Florida. The only evidence of these costs is the testimony of Matthew Kroetz, vice-president of Operations for Jacksonville Greyhound Racing. The testimony of Mr. Kroetz about the cost of the required change is confusing because he mingles assumed costs for a third closed track as if it were reactivated and operational. Bayard Raceways is that track. The Racetracks' parent company owns it. But the likelihood and timing of that reactivation is speculative. In addition, Bayard is not a party to this proceeding. Neither is the parent company. Mr. Kroetz' testimony establishes that the current cost for the two petitioners is a total of $1,500 per month. He projects that costs for reporting, as the letter requires, would be $4,500 per month for the two Petitioners and the track that may reopen in the future. That testimony is unrebutted and consistent with his testimony that the recurring fees for all three tracks would total over $50,000 annually. It is accepted as accurate. But the $3,000 increase from $1,500 to $4,500 per month is not due solely to the reporting requirement. It is also due to lumping in the non-active track. The evidence does not support including that track, the opening of which is speculative. The monthly fee for the two operating tracks is $1,500 divided by two or $750. Subtracting that, as the current cost for an existing track, from the $3,000 increase, lowers the estimated increase to $2,250. Dividing that by three gives the increased monthly cost per track, or $750 per track. This results in the projected annual cost increase for each of the Racetracks of $9,000. Although Mr. Kroetz testified in summary that the changes would result in an increased cost of "about a thousand dollars per month per facility," that testimony is not persuasive. It is inconsistent with the more detailed testimony relied upon above and would require the improbable and unsupported conclusion that the monthly increase would be more than the existing fees.
Findings Of Fact According to respondent's stationery, Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, MacTavish Furniture Industries is one of six operating divisions of Aaron Rents, Inc., a (Georgia) corporation headquartered in Atlanta. Respondent regularly employs more than 15 people in Florida: The MacTavish Furniture Industries plant in Quincy has 60 to 100 employees each shift. When petitioner Wayne Warren, who is black, began working for MacTavish Furniture Industries in Quincy, Florida, on April 10, 1981, his job was to place lumber on a conveyor belt. He was paid minimum wage. After four or five years he moved to the warehouse, also known as the "trim and pack" department. Mr. Warren received a raise of $0.25 per hour when he went to work at the warehouse, where his chief responsibility was operating a Zimmerman suction lift. He used a boom to transfer furniture, inter alia, between a conveyor belt and the "finishing line." When the line was not operating, his duties sometimes included packing furniture and cleaning up. If, as sometimes happened, petitioner reported for work intoxicated, singing loudly and getting in fights, he was sent home, and somebody else had to fill in. A drunken lift operator created unnecessary danger. Aside from the suction lift itself, saws, routers, and other equipment in the vicinity posed hazards for a person not fully in command of his faculties. Clarence O'Neal, the black man who was Mr. Warren's immediate supervisor, "eased him out" on several occasions to his sister's house so he could sober up in safety. But on March 27, 1989, petitioner was unwilling to leave work. When Mr. O'Neal saw petitioner (after he heard "a commotion 1,000 feet away"), he ordered that the line be shut down, and directed petitioner to leave. Mr. Warren replied, "Kiss my ass," and Mr. O'Neal discharged him on the spot. Despite this outburst and recurring bouts with alcohol, Mr. Warren was (and remains) popular with his supervisors and co-workers alike, black and white. Several people urged that he be rehired, including Johnny O'Neal, the black finishing foreman who has known petitioner all his life, and Viola Bell. In April of 1989, Hershel Shepard, the white plant superintendent who had hired petitioner originally, agreed to rehire him. At least before his original termination, petitioner's pay and responsibility did not increase as rapidly as some co-workers, but the evidence did not show disparities on account of race. Mr. Warren returned to work at the same wage he had left. Before a plant-wide "blanket" raise of $0.20 per hour in May of 1990, he had already received a raise of $0.25 per hour. As people were clocking in at about 7:25 a.m. on March 26, 1990, Willie Frederick, a night watchman whose shift was ending, concluded that petitioner Warren had been drinking heavily. He had to pay close attention to make out what petitioner was saying, and petitioner "just couldn't balance himself." Another co-worker, Lonnie MacMillan of Gretna, could smell alcohol and told Mr. Warren not to go into the factory in his condition. Petitioner persisted noisily, punching in his time card, and eventually attracting Hershel Shepard, who told him he was "in pretty bad shape" and "better go home and get straightened up." When Mr. Warren insisted he could work, Mr. Shepard asked Mr. Frederick to take him home, and told Mr. Warren to go home so he "wouldn't have to fire him." At this point, Mr. Warren placed his hand on Mr. Shepard's chest and said, "OK, fire me, mother fucker." Mr. Shepard obliged. C. J. Wilford filled the vacancy Mr. Warren's departure created. Like the man who now holds the job, Mr. Wilford, who has since died from a gunshot, was black.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, recommended that the FCHR deny the petition for relief. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Wayne Warren Route 5, Box 76-B Quincy, FL 32351 Keith C. Groen 1100 Aaron Building 3001 North Fulton Drive Atlanta, GA 30363-0001 Ronald M. McElrath, Exec. Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
