Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a certified electrical contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. EC0000971. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the sole qualifying agent for AAA Quality Electric, Inc. (hereinafter "AAA"), a California corporation with its principal office located in Riverside, California. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a permanent resident of the State of California. By Order of Emergency Suspension of Licensure entered on September 12, 1990, by the Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation, Respondent's license as a certified electrical contractor in Florida was summarily suspended. At the time, Respondent held either master's licenses or contractor's licenses in 21 states and held hundreds of city licenses. Between January, 1989 and June, 1990, AAA operated in 11 states. During that time period, AAA had as many as 65 people working in the office in California, with as many as 85 electricians in the field. During that time period, AAA had as many as 14 electricians working in the State of Florida. AAA only hired electricians who possessed either a journeyman's or a master's license in the jurisdiction where they worked since that level of licensure enables that electrician to work without direct, on-the-job supervision. AAA advertised when a position was open and administered to job applicants an examination which AAA considers equivalent to a journeyman's examination. To be hired, one needed to pass the examination. AAA would also require that a new employee provide AAA with his or her license number or a copy of his or her current licensure. AAA also employed area supervisors and regional supervisors. Respondent was available to any of the journeymen or masters working for him either by telephone or by sky pager at all times. If anyone doing an installation had a problem, that person could contact Respondent to discuss the problem with him. Respondent's permit-pulling policy was to pull a permit whenever one was required. He had on file, in the various jurisdictions, letters allowing one of his employees to pull permits under his State of Florida license number. For example, in Pompano Beach, which is located in Broward County, Respondent had on file a letter allowing Bill Mopis to pull permits under Respondent's license even though Mopis held a master's license in Broward County and could pull permits under his own license number. By the time that Petitioner suspended Respondent's license to practice electrical contracting in the State of Florida, Respondent had changed his permitting policies so that a permit was pulled for any type of work performed in the State of Florida. AAA advertised in newspapers and in telephone directory yellow pages. When a request for service was made, one of the journeymen or master electricians employed by AAA would be dispatched to the work location. AAA in California was aware of which employee had been dispatched to perform which job. On the day following the job, AAA would call the customer to make sure that the customer was satisfied by the work that had been performed. In March, 1989, Anna and Rudolf Reider contacted AAA pursuant to an ad in the telephone directory yellow pages and requested that an electrician come to their residence to install a ceiling fan. The residence was located in Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida. Terry Stewart, who holds a master's license from Broward County, responded to their call. When he arrived, Mrs. Reider explained to him that she also wanted a wall outlet which was located behind her bed in a different room to be moved a few feet to the side in order to make it accessible. Stewart took down a light fixture from the ceiling and replaced it with a ceiling fan. He also moved the wall outlet located in the master bedroom by running conduit along the wall and mounting a metal outlet box on the wall in the outlet's new location. Stewart charged the Reiders $391.30, which represented the rate of $46.50 per 1/2 hour plus materials. He also applied a senior citizen discount of 10% to the labor portion of the bill. The hourly rate charged by Stewart was that rate which was quoted over the telephone by AAA to Mrs. Reider when she placed the service call and is in accordance with the labor rate reflected on the work order. The Reiders were satisfied with the ceiling fan installation and with the price charged by Stewart. Although Mrs. Reider had shown Stewart an electrical installation located on her porch, which installation is a pipe with wires inside, and told him that was what she expected, and although she admits that she knew that the new wall outlet would not look the same as the other outlets in the room because there had to be an exposed pipe on the wall, she and her husband were dissatisfied with the appearance of the wall outlet extension in their bedroom. Mrs. Reider subsequently contacted AAA, and Stewart returned her phone call. He advised her that he was willing to come back to her residence and change the appearance of the installation by using a smaller pipe, but he would need to charge her $46.50 for the return service call. Mrs. Reider was unwilling to pad any additional monies for Stewart to return and has never had that work accomplished. Both the ceiling fan and the extended wall outlet work properly. Stewart did not obtain a permit before performing the electrical work. There was no licensure barrier to Stewart obtaining a permit and the inspections that attend the obtaining of a permit since at the time Respondent was licensed by Petitioner, AAA had an occupational license to perform work in Broward County, and no occupational license was required for the City of Pompano Beach since AAA did not maintain an office within that municipality. When Stewart completed the job, he gave the Reiders a 5-year extended warranty, and both Mr. and Mrs. Reider signed the work order authorizing the work and payment therefor, and acknowledging satisfactory completion of the work. The Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Pompano Beach believes that an electrician, to work without supervision, must be either a journeyman or a master electrician, which Terry Stewart was. The City of Pompano Beach has taken no action against AAA for failure to pull a permit for the Reider job. Although the Chief Electrical Inspector believes that a permit is required for any electrical work performed within the City of Pompano Beach, as provided in the City's permitting ordinances at Section 301.1(e), Section 301(b) (2) sets forth exceptions to the permitting requirements and provides that: No permit shall be required, in this or any of the following Sections, for general maintenance or repairs which do not change the Occupancy and the value of which does not exceed Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00) in labor and material. ... At the time that AAA performed the work at the Reider residence, the ad which appeared in the yellow pages portion of the telephone directory did not contain Respondent's license number. The City of Pompano Beach has adopted the South Florida Building Code which adopts the National Electrical Code. The National Electrical Code provides that the bonding jumper is to be a green wire or the wire is to be left bare. In the receptacle installed by Stewart, a white wire was used for the bonding jumper. That violation of the National Electrical Code is easily remedied by stripping the white wire bare or by substituting a green wire. Such work is covered under the warranty given by AAA to the Reiders. Although the 1990 National Electrical Code prohibits the use of outlet boxes as the sole support for a ceiling fan and provides an exception from that requirement, the evidence is unclear as to the requirements of the National Electrical Code in force at the time the work was performed. Within the electrical trade, taking down an existing light fixture and replacing it with a ceiling fan and moving a wall outlet are considered to come within the definition of repair and maintenance work. Accordingly, the work performed by AAA at the Reider residence was excluded from permitting requirements both by definition and by cost. Mary Scalza is the owner of Rub-A-Dub Laundromat in West Palm Beach. Early Saturday morning, on June 2, 1989, she experienced a breaker box "blowout", which incapacitated 14 of her washing machines. She located AAA's ad in the yellow pages of the telephone directory and called. AAA quoted her the price for emergency, weekend repairs, and she agreed. Terry Stewart responded to the call. When he arrived at Rub-A-Dub, he saw that the breaker box was located between two rows of washing machines on the floor and next to the overflow drain. He advised Scalza that the location of the box was a code violation, and the box had to be relocated. He told her the approximate cost of doing so but told her that she would have to call AAA to verify with the Company what the cost would be. She told him that the cost of relocating the box was too expensive and implored him to effectuate some repair so that her machines would be operable as soon as possible. Stewart explained to her the dangerous nature of the location of the box but agreed to effectuate a temporary repair. Stewart was unable to replace the entire breaker box; rather, he replaced all inside parts, using the old box. Although Scalza denies that Stewart told her he was simply effectuating a temporary repair until Monday morning when he could obtain the proper parts from a parts supply company, the work order signed by Scalza conforms with AAA's policies regarding temporary repairs. Specifically, the work order provides that no guarantee was given for the work. It is clear that Stewart did return to Rub-A-Dub Monday morning, and Scalza refused to let him touch the breaker box. When Stewart finished his temporary repair on Saturday afternoon, he submitted to Scalza a statement in the amount of $892.10. She gave him a check for $600.00 and paid him the balance in cash. When Scalza's husband came to the laundromat, he became very angry about the amount of the bill. On Monday morning, Scalza contacted the electrical inspector for the City of West Palm Beach, who came to the laundromat, looked at the work that had been accomplished, and "red tagged" the job due to the location of the breaker box. Scalza did not advise him that it was simply an emergency temporary repair. Scalza stopped payment on her check and contacted AAA, advising them not to return to complete the job. When an emergency repair is effectuated in West Palm Beach, it is Permissible for the permit to be pulled on the next business day. Since AAA was fired from the job on the next business day, AAA did not apply for a permit. Instead, AAA sent Stewart back to Rub-A-Dub to refund to Scalza the cash portion of her payment to AAA and to remove the parts Stewart had used for which Scalza would not pay. Scalza gave Stewart the parts which AAA had supplied which had already been removed by the other electrical company hired by her to do the work. That subsequent company did pull a permit for the work at Rub-A-Dub and did relocate the breaker box, which apparently Scalza authorized that company to do. The electrical inspector for the City of West Palm Beach agrees that the responsibility for pulling the permit on the Rub-A-Dub job was that of the subsequent company that effectuated the repairs and not the responsibility of AAA which had been fired from the job before it could pull a permit on Monday, the next business day following the emergency repairs effectuated over the weekend. Petitioner's witnesses agree that if the work done by AAA was a temporary repair for a few days, then the work that was accomplished by Stewart was, in fact, a safe, temporary repair. Further, it is a "judgment call" as to whether an electrician is required to bring electrical service up to code requirements, regardless of the nature of the work an electrician has been called upon to do. Further, anything involving water is always a "judgment call." Even Petitioner's expert would consider effectuating repairs to the breaker box in the location it was in when Stewart came to Rub-A-Dub if the box was completely enclosed and weatherproofed. No evidence was offered as to whether the box was completely enclosed and weatherproofed. Alton F. LaBrecque is an employee of AAA. He holds a journeyman's license from Pinellas County. Pinellas County and Hillsborough County have a reciprocal agreement regarding licensing, i.e., as long as a person holds a journeyman's license from one of those counties, he is not required to obtain a journeyman's license to work in the other county which is on the other side of the bridge. It is the practice in both Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties that if a journeyman who is licensed in one of those counties shows his card to an inspector from the other county, that is all that is required by the inspector of the other county to insure himself that the journeyman is properly licensed. The City of Tampa, which is in Hillsborough County, allows Hillsborough County to regulate licensing. If a person is licensed to work in Hillsborough County, then he is also licensed to work within the City of Tampa. At all times material hereto, AAA had an occupational license to work within the limits of the City of Tampa. On September 26, 1989, Heidi Bekiempis contacted AAA to request that someone come to her residence in Tampa to replace a dimmer switch. Alton LaBrecque responded to that call. When he arrived at the Bekiempis residence, Mrs. Bekiempis also advised him that certain lights within the house were flickering. LaBrecque replaced the dimmer switch which had been completely burned. It is LaBrecque's practice to involve the customer in the work that he is doing as much as possible so that they understand what is being done and why. When he checked the breaker box, he noticed that there were loose connections within the breaker box. He had Mrs. Bekiempis "running around the house" turning lights on and off while he tightened wires and checked the breakers. LaBrecque tested each breaker in the box with a digital meter and then with an infrared tester. Using the two different pieces of equipment, he tested both the line side and the load side of the breakers while they were carrying a full load. He discovered that three single-pole 20-amp breakers and one double- pole 60-amp breaker were consuming electricity as it passed across the breakers. Manufacturer specifications allow a breaker to consume up to .029 volts. The four breakers in question were each consuming one volt which is equal to 120 watts. He understood that the implication of the fact that those breakers were "hot" and consuming electricity meant that they would not trip properly and there was a danger of wires burning or even a fire starting. He also understood that a bad breaker had been the cause of the dimmer switch burning. Although his work order completed at the time indicated that a breaker was only giving off 87-93 volts and he testified at the final hearing that each of the breakers was consuming one volt, even the one volt consumption testified to at the final hearing was sufficient to show that a dangerous condition existed and the breakers needed replacing. Even though Mrs. Bekiempis denies authorizing the replacement of the circuit breakers, she does admit that LaBrecque told her about the danger of a fire, and she signed the work order after completion of the job acknowledging the satisfactory completion of the work. That work order clearly reflects the replacement of the breakers, the results of LaBrecque's testing, the reason why the breakers were replaced, and an itemized listing of the costs for the replacement breakers. It is found that Mrs. Bekiempis authorized replacing the breakers. Mrs. Bekiempis paid AAA $384.00 for the work performed. The replacement dimmer switch works properly, and the Bekiempis' lights stopped flickering after LaBrecque replaced the bad breakers. Mrs. Bekiempis unsuccessfully tried to stop payment on her charge card for all of the work performed by AAA. Between September 26, 1989, and February 15, 1990, the replaced breakers and the replacement breakers were primarily in the possession of Mr. and Mrs. Bekiempis. During that time, Mr. Bekiempis gave breakers to two different electricians for testing. On February 15, 1990, he gave breakers to an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation. On February 20, 1990, the investigator gave breakers to Joe Bolesina, the Chief Electrical Inspector for Pinellas County. At some subsequent time, Bolesina marked four breakers and gave them to a clerk in his office to send to General Electric for testing. When Bolesina subsequently received breakers from General Electric, he returned them to Petitioner's investigator who retained custody of them until his deposition was taken in this case on October No explanation was offered as to how the breakers which were marked as an exhibit to the deposition of Petitioner's investigator on October 10 got to the deposition of Joe Bolesina taken on October 11 at which time the breakers were marked as an exhibit to his deposition. No explanation was offered as to who had custody of the breakers between October 11 and the time they were produced at the final hearing commencing on October 17, 1990. It is probable that the breakers that were marked at some unidentified time by Joe Bolesina are the same breakers which were admitted in evidence at the final hearing in this cause since the tags placed on the breakers by Bolesina remain on the breakers. However, there is no basis for assuming that the breakers which were replaced by LaBrecque five months before Bolesina received them and marked them were the same breakers that were replaced by LaBrecque. During the afternoon of Saturday, March 17, 1990, a tornado blew down a huge oak tree located in the front yard of the residence of Clarence Cruey in the City of Tampa. As it fell, the tree tore the entire electrical service off the front of the Cruey residence, including the meter, the riser, and the wires. The customer had no power at all. Cruey looked in the yellow pages to find an electrical contractor who would come to his residence immediately to effectuate the repair work even though it was still storming. AAA responded to his call, quoted to him its rates for 1-hour emergency service, and dispatched Alton LaBrecque and another AAA employee to perform the services. The two men worked there in the dark and in the rain for four hours, replacing Cruey's electrical service. Few of the parts were capable of being reused since they had been damaged by the tree or because they did not meet code requirements. For example, a Delta surge arrester had been used previously, and that type of equipment was, at the time, illegal in Tampa. AAA completely replaced the riser, hub, meter can, meter socket, wiring, and many other parts. At the conclusion of their work, AAA presented an itemized bill to Cruey in the amount of $2,556.17, and Cruey signed the acknowledgment that all work had been performed satisfactorily. He paid for the work by credit card but subsequently stopped payment, and AAA has been paid no monies for their labor or material regarding the Cruey job. Since the work at the Cruey residence was performed on an emergency basis on a Saturday, on the following Monday LaBrecque went to pull the permit for the work. Employees at the City of Tampa would not accept his permit application saying that he was not authorized to pull a permit for AAA and that a copy of AAA's workmen's compensation insurance was not on record with the City. Although authorization letters had been previously submitted, and although a copy of the insurance certificate had been filed with the City in January when AAA's City of Tampa occupational license was renewed, LaBrecque had AAA send additional copies of those documents to the City. When he again attempted to apply for the permit, the City advised him that they still did not have copies of those documents. LaBrecque contacted AAA and another set of documents was provided to the City. When LaBrecque returned, he was told that the documents still had not been received. When LaBrecque hand- carried another set of those documents to the City and "stuffed it in their faces," they accepted his permit application, ten days after he first applied. The permit itself was not issued for several months, and by the time of the final hearing in this cause the City had still refused to make the required inspection although Respondent had called for the inspection a number of times, including once on the record during a hearing conducted by the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa. Although refusing to make an official inspection, the Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Tampa inspected the work at the Cruey residence on an "unofficial" basis. Based upon that unofficial inspection, he concluded that AAA had replaced parts that did not need replacement and that AAA had not done all of the work for which it had charged Cruey. On July 3, 1990, the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa revoked Respondent's permitting privileges for 1 year for the work done at the Cruey residence. On August 7, 1990, the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa suspended Respondent's permitting privileges to run concurrently with the revocation entered on July 3, 1990. On September 11, 1990, based on the fact that the City of Tampa had taken disciplinary action against Respondent, the Electrical Board of Adjustment, Appeals and Examiners of Hillsborough County suspended Respondent for a period of 5 years. These two disciplinary actions are not involved in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause, and proof of them was offered by Petitioner for the sole purpose of aggravation of any penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Photographs admitted in evidence at the final hearing in this cause clearly refute the testimony given by the Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Tampa which resulted in the July 3, 1990, revocation of Respondent's permitting privileges. The photographs reveal the work done by AAA and also depict the damaged parts which were replaced by AAA since those damaged parts were still lying in Cruey's yard at the time the photographs were taken. Respondent was prohibited by the Unified Construction Trades Board from offering the photographs and other evidence in defense of the charges then pending against him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of November, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 20th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-6172 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 20, 23, and 25-27 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, 22, and 28 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 21, 24, and 29 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 4.1, 5-7.5, 7.9, 7.10, 7.13-7.16, 8, 8.1, 8.3-8.6, 8.8, 8.9, 9.0, 9.2-9.7, 9.10, 9.12-9.14, 9.16- 9.20, 10, 10.1, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6-10.19, 10.21-10.23, 12-12.8, 13.9, and 13.10 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of laws, recitation of the testimony, or argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 7.6-7.8, 7.11, 7.12, 8.2, 8.10-8.12, 9.1, 9.8, 9.11, 9.15, 10.20, 11-11.2, 13.2, 13.4-13.8, and 13.11 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 8.7 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10.2, 10.5, 13, 13.1, and 13.3 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert G. Harris, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David M. Gaspari, Esquire Adams, Coogler, Watson & Merkel Suite 1600, NCNB Tower 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-2069 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire World Executive Building, Suite 333 3500 North State Road Seven Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33319 Scott Anderson, Esquire 2033 Main Street, Suite 402 Sarasota, Florida 33427 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Floyd E. Williams be DISMISSED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1983.
The Issue What if any, disciplinary action may be taken against Respondent based on alleged violations of Florida Statutes Section 489.531(1) (practicing electrical contracting or advertising one's self or business organization as available to engage in electrical or alarm system contracting without being certified or registered), and Section 455.227(1)(q) (engaging in the practice of unlicensed electrical contracting after previously being issued an Order to Cease and Desist from the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting.)
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed nor had he ever been licensed to engage in electrical contracting in the State of Florida. Mr. George Hammond lives in Inverness, Florida in a single family dwelling with a detached garage. The house is serviced with a water well and electrical pump. On July 25, 2006, Mr. Hammond notified a long-time friend, Dennis Himmel that he had problems with his well and could not get water into his home. Mr. Himmel temporarily ran a wire between the well and garage so Mr. Hammond could get water, and suggested Mr. Hammond hire an electrician to do the permanent work. A few days later, Mr. Hammond told his friend, Craig Zeedick, that his well had been hit by lightening and someone was fixing it. Mr. Zeedick went to Mr. Hammond's house and observed Respondent kneeling down and making an electrical connection with the junction box. Respondent had stripped off the wire connections and made the wire nut connection. A boy was with Respondent, and the boy was burying an electrical cable to the well. The cable in the ground had no tubing or protection around it. At Mr. Hammond's request, Mr. Zeedick counted out approximately $947.00 in cash to Respondent for the electrical work. Sometime in August 2006, Mr. Himmel observed the work done at Mr. Hammond's home. He phoned Respondent to complain because the wire from the garage to the well was buried only four inches underground with no conduit (protective covering) over the wire into the garage. Respondent returned and covered the wire with conduit but then the pump did not work. Later, Respondent corrected the wire box connection, blaming the problems on Mr. Himmel. At some point in these machinations, Respondent succeeded in flooding Mr. Hammond's garage with water. Amy Becker, a license inspector with the Citrus County Building Division performed an investigation of the electrical contracting work done by Respondent at Mr. Hammond's residence, and took photographs. At that time, Mr. Hammond pointed out electrical wiring running from the well to the garage, and Ms. Becker observed there was a conduit and some plastic tubing. Ms. Becker then checked Respondent's licensing status, and found him to be unlicensed as an electrical contractor by either the State or Citrus County. She notified Petitioner, as the State licensing agency. On December 13, 2006, Ms. Becker cited Respondent for unlicensed contracting in wiring the water well pump at Mr. Hammond's residence. Respondent appeared before the County Board on December 13, 2006, and signed the citation signifying he wanted an administrative hearing. On January 24, 2007, Respondent, represented by counsel, was present for testimony before the Board, and the Board upheld the citation against Respondent. Respondent paid the citation on May 29, 2007. Respondent admitted to Petitioner's Investigator, Sharon Philman, during a telephone interview, that he had run wire from Mr. Hammond's garage to the well pump, for which work he charged approximately $940.00. On or about February 13, 2007, Petitioner issued a Cease and Desist Order against Respondent. The instant complaint/case followed. Petitioner put on no evidence concerning a prior 2005 case against Respondent.1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes, on one occasion, and assessing Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00 therefor, as permitted by Section 455.228(2), Florida Statutes. Finding Respondent not guilty of having violated Section 455.227(1)(q) as pled in Count II of the Administrative Complaint herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of contractors in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.42 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent does business under the name South Florida Construction Group. At no time relevant to this proceeding has Respondent or his business entity been registered or certified to perform electrical contracting or any other contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent holds only an occupational license from the City of North Miami. The residence owned by the homeowners (the subject property) sustained roof damage as a result of Hurricane Wilma in October 2005. The homeowners planned to replace their damaged roof after their insurance claim had been processed. In the interim, temporary repairs were made to the roof by a roofing contractor the homeowners located through a local Home Depot, Inc., store. This roofing contractor was identified only as the Home Depot roofing contractor. The homeowners were dissatisfied with the work of the Home Depot roofing contractor. In early August 2006, Mrs. Ugokwe mentioned at a beauty salon that the Home Depot roofing contractor had failed to prevent her roof from leaking. Shortly thereafter, Respondent learned of the homeowners’ dissatisfaction with the Home Depot roofing contractor. On August 9, 2006, Respondent visited the subject property and told the homeowners that he was a general contractor. Respondent gave them his business card that contained Respondent’s name, address, telephone number, and fax number. In addition, the business card contained the name “South Florida Construction Group” underneath which were the words “State Certified General Contractors” and the following license number “CGC 1510133.” The business card advertised the following services: “Home Improvement & Repairs, New Building Construction, Residential & Commercial Pools, Asphalt Paving & Sealcoating [sic], Site Development & Drainage, and Notary Public Service.” The homeowners believed Respondent to be a licensed general contractor. Respondent and the homeowners discussed Respondent performing work on the damaged roof, including placing blue tarp on the roof (the tarp work) to prevent further leaks until the re-roofing could be completed. They also discussed the subsequent re-roofing of the property. Respondent estimated that the re-roofing would be between $30,000.00 and $33,000.00. After inspecting the subject property, Respondent told the homeowners, among other things, that an electrical connection to a pump on their drain field needed to be repaired. Respondent testified that the electrical connection had been damaged when he backed his truck up while attempting to remove some debris from the subject property. At the meeting on August 9, 2006, Respondent and the homeowners agreed that Respondent would perform the tarp work. On August 11, 2006, the homeowners paid Respondent a down- payment of $50.00 cash for the tarp work. On August 12, 2006, Respondent’s crew completed the tarp work. On August 13, 2006, the homeowners paid Respondent the sum of $659.28 for the balance of the materials and labor for the tarp work. The total amount paid for the tarp work was $709.28. On August 13, 2006, after he received payment for the tarp work, Respondent produced a building permit application, which he had Mrs. Ogokwe sign in blank. Respondent explained that he had not finished his proposal for the complete re- roofing and that he wanted her to execute a blank permit to expedite the permitting process. On August 14, 2006, Respondent presented a signed permit application to the building department of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pertaining to the re-roofing of the subject property. Ms. Ugowke’s signature had been notarized. When Respondent presented the permit application to the building department, the contractor’s name was listed as F L Construction, Inc. The qualifying contractor’s name was listed as being Charles Lennox with the contracting licensing number CGC 1510133. That was the same number listed on Respondent’s business card. The value of the work was listed as being $6,200.00. On the morning of August 15, 2006, Respondent returned to the subject property with a person Respondent told the homeowners was an electrician. Mrs. Ugokwe asked Respondent how much the repair of the electrical connection would cost before the purported electrician started to work. Respondent told her not to worry since he would add the cost of the electrical work to the cost of re-roofing the subject property. The electrical repair had been made by the time Mrs. Ugokwe returned to the subject property after work that evening. On August 16, 2006, Respondent informed the homeowners that he had secured a building permit and that he had his proposal for the re-roofing. On August 17, 2006, Respondent delivered a package to the homeowners that contained his proposal and the building permit. Respondent’s proposal for the re-roofing was in the total amount of $39,672.92. The homeowners considered this proposal to be unacceptable. On the building permit Respondent gave to the homeowners, the name of the contractor (F L Construction, Inc.) had been covered with white-out and the name South Florida Construction Group had been inserted as the name of the contractor. The building permit was not otherwise altered. On August 19, 2006, Respondent presented the homeowners with a revised contract for the total price of $33,000.00. Mrs. Ugowke confronted Respondent about the discrepancy between the revised proposal ($33,000.00) and the value of the work reflected on the building permit ($6,200.00). Mrs. Ugowke also confronted Respondent about the white-out on the building permit. The homeowners refused to sign the second proposal. Respondent became angry and demanded immediate payment of $750.00 for the repair of the drain field electrical connection. Mrs. Ugokwe counter-offered to pay $150.00, a sum she believed to be fair after her husband priced the cost of the materials used in the repair. Respondent refused to take the counter-offer. By invoices dated August 22 and September 4, 2006, Respondent billed the homeowners for work that included the electrical work. Each invoice was on South Florida Construction Group’s form invoice. Each invoice reflected the general contractor’s license number CGC 1510133, which is Mr. Lennox’s number. Both invoices included a charge of $1,209.28 for installation of “new blue top, nails and labor” although the homeowners had already paid Respondent $709.28 for the same job. The homeowners refused to pay the invoices. Respondent sued them and placed a lien on the subject property in the amount of $3,839.82. In his claim of lien, Respondent affirmed under oath that he furnished the following services to the homeowners: re-roofing, electrical, and repairs. Respondent’s civil suit was dismissed on the merits. Even after that action, Respondent refused the homeowners’ request to remove the lien from their property. On September 15, 2006, Mr. Lennox sent all his sub- contractors a letter asking them to immediately stop using his contractor license number without his express permission. Respondent signed the bottom of the letter acknowledging receipt thereof, even though Respondent was not a sub-contractor. Respondent’s business primarily consists of finding customers for contractors. He deals with a customer, but has a contractor, such as Mr. Lennox, perform the work Respondent’s company has contracted to do. Had the contract with the homeowners in this proceeding gone through, Respondent intended to obtain payment from them, by having F L Construction, Inc., do the actual work. Petitioner has incurred investigative costs in the amount of $277.52. This figure excludes any costs associated with attorney’s time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that finds Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2006). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 and assess investigative costs against Respondent in the amount of $277.52. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2008.
The Issue The issue whether Respondent violated subsections 489.533(1)(m)3., and/or 489.533(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2010),1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner or DBPR). At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Steven Scott Clark, was a certified alarm systems contractor one, holding Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board's License Number EF1255. As a licensed contractor, Clark was the person who possessed the required skills, knowledge, and experience to be responsible for an alarm systems business or, in other words, to serve as its qualifying agent.2 Clark was the qualifying agent for E.A.S. Industries (E.A.S.), d/b/a A.B. Fire Systems (A.B. Systems). On January 23, 2006, A.B. Fire Equipment, Inc., (A.B. Equipment) submitted a proposal, signed on its behalf by Dick Sorbye, for work on fire alarm equipment at Crosswinds Apartment at 1300 N. Ocean Boulevard in Pompano Beach (Crosswinds). None of the three license numbers listed on the proposal is the same as Clark's. A.B. Equipment is not a licensed or qualified alarm contractor. Below the name of A.B. Equipment, which is checked on the proposal form, is the name of "A.B. Fire Systems/ALARM DIVISION" which is, in fact, the same company as A.B. Systems. The proposal for a total contract cost of $6,610.00, included the following language: We hereby propose to furnish the material necessary for completion of the following: Repair wiring short and replace the following devices. 9 weather proof horn strobes @ $95.00 ea. -- $855.00 A horn strobe is the small red rectangular-shaped, wall-mounted device which emits the siren sound and flashes a strobe light when a fire alarm is triggered. Because A.B. Equipment is not a licensed fire alarm contractor, it subcontracted with A.B. Systems, based on a verbal agreement, to perform work at Crosswinds. Employees of A.B. Systems wear shirts identifying them as employees of "A.B. Fire Systems." Crosswinds is located within 500 feet of the ocean and, because of that, regularly experiences substantial salt corrosion of metal. Horn strobes have metal parts and must be replaced regularly due to corrosion. As required in the proposal, half of the total contract cost or $3,305.00 was paid by Crosswind's representative on January 24, 2006, to A.B. Equipment. The receipt from A.B. Equipment with the same date has the name of A.B. Systems on the form and Respondent's license number next to that name. On January 31, 2006, Crosswinds issued a check for $1,650.00 to A.B. Equipment. The back of the first check was stamped for deposit in the account of E.A.S., the parent company of A.B. Systems. Another check designated "final payment" in the amount of $1,655.00 was dated February 8, 2006, but it was not deposited until March 9, 2006. That check was apparently held up by the then-president of the Crosswinds Board, Patricia Abujar, who questioned the need for an inspection of the alarm system by the fire department. Once the check was tendered, it was deposited, as directed by hand-written instructions on the back of the check, in the same account number as that for E.A.S. On February 28, 2006, Crosswinds received an invoice that had three license numbers on it, including Clark's. The invoice from A.B. Equipment was for an additional $704.90 for replacement of wires, a conduit, and the panel that was damaged by a shortage. The damage was caused by a construction company that was simultaneously making repairs at Crosswinds. Crosswinds had sustained substantial damage from Hurricane Wilma in October 2005. On February 28, 2006, Crosswinds also received an invoice from A.B. Equipment for one additional corroded horn strobe for $95.00 plus $5.70 for the sales tax. The invoice was identical to the one for damage by the construction company and also included Clark's license number. On March 15 and 18, 2006, respectively, Clark and Oakley Blevins, who was then the Crosswinds Board president, signed a City of Pompano Beach Building Permit Application for an after-the-fact permit for the replacement of a fire alarm panel at Crosswinds. Until the panel had to be replaced, no permit had been required. On the line on the form for the name of the contractor, "A. B. Fire Systems, Inc." was crossed out and the name "E.A.S. IND." was written. The application was not accepted by the building department until October or November 2006. The City delayed receipt of applications and issuance of permits because it was inundated after the hurricane. In the meantime, on October 6, 2006, Clark returned to Crosswinds in response to a service call. At the time, he replaced a corroded horn strobe, as he had done on an ongoing basis since beginning work at Crosswinds in 2004. Clark had a disagreement with Blevins, apparently over who from A.B. Systems would be providing service to Crosswinds in the future and over where a worker parked a company truck. Clark never returned to the site. A City of Pompano Beach document dated November 20, 2006, entitled "Plan Review Corrections Report," was transmitted by facsimile from A.B. Systems to Crosswinds' representative on December 14, 2006. Having last had a fire alarm inspection in February 2006, Crosswinds received a proposal dated February 19, 2007, from another company, Bass Fire & Security Systems, Inc. (Bass), to "trouble shoot and repair fire alarm system short program, test and certify" for $340.00. The work by Bass would qualify as the annual inspection for 2007. On March 30, 2007, Bass billed Crosswinds $726.05 for replacement of an outdoor horn strobe. In addition to trip and labor charges, there was also a charge for a mini-monitor module, a device used to identify each "pull station" that will cause a shortage if it becomes defective. Crosswinds paid Bass for its inspection work and subsequent repairs in a single check in the amount of $1,086.45 on April 10, 2007. Bass, on April 6, 2007, offered to "replace (seven) [corroded] weatherproof horn strobe units @ $89.00 ea[ch], [with] installation labor and misc[ellaneous] hardware" for a quoted total cost of $1156.00 plus tax. For that, Crosswinds paid Bass $1225.36 on April 23, 2007. On May 27, 2008, Crosswinds was inspected by a City fire inspector who noted on his report that it was an inspection of a new fire alarm system and that "A.B. Fire System is unlicenses [sic] contractor" and "Note ESA Industries Inc. will be the only person on jobsite to complete the test." On June 5, 2008, Crosswinds received anther quote from Bass to "make necessary repairs for fire dept. final inspection" for a total of $1905.00 plus tax. The quote included a "change of contractor fee [for the] (Pompano Beach Building Department)" and installation of a horn strobe on the first floor breezeway. Clark was still listed with the City as the only authorized alarm systems contractor at Crosswinds. Following City-mandated procedures, then-president of the Crosswind Board, Cheryl Deats, notified Clark by certified letter of a change of contractors in June 2008. She received no response from Clark. Deats testified that she believes that Clark's company, A.B. Systems performed work incompetently or negligently prior to having obtained a permit, causing financial harm to Crosswinds in the amount of $2,311.81 (1,086.45 plus 1,225.36) that it had to pay Bass to make repairs before time for the next inspection. Other than Deats' assumption that the work done by Bass was the result of Clark's company's negligence or incompetence, there is no evidence to support that finding. In fact, the evidence tends to support a finding that work done in March and April 2007, more than a year after Clark's work, was necessitated by corrosion due to the proximity of Crosswinds to the ocean. There is no evidence that the Crosswinds' Board was deceived and not aware that Clark was the subcontractor working on the fire alarm system. Regardless of whether they knew the name of his parent company, E.A.S., at least two previous Board presidents had direct interactions with him and saw his employees wearing shirts identifying A.B. Systems.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint filed on June 3, 2010, against Steven Scott Clark, d/b/a E.A.S. Industries, Inc., d/b/a A.B. Fire Systems. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 4th day of January, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provision of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended, as more specifically alleged in Counts One through Four of the Administrative Complaint dated August 10, 1992 and the First Amendment of the Administrative Complaint, dated November 9, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joseph B. Smith is the holder of a registered electrical contractor's license, number ER 0007369, issued by the State of Florida. During the month of May, 1981, the Respondent obtained an electrical permit for work on apartments located at the corner of Stockton and Forbes Streets, in Jacksonville, Florida. The work was contracted for by Ronnie D. Norvelle. Gary Moore performed the electrical work on the project. Neither of these men was employed by or under the supervision of the Respondent. On March 3, 1982, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville, Florida, directed that a letter of reprimand be placed in the Respondent's permanent record. The basis for the action taken by the Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville, Florida, was the violation of Section 950.111(a), Code of Ordinances of the City of Jacksonville.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number ER 0007369 held by the Respondent, Joseph B. Smith, be revoked. THIS ORDER ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joseph B. Smith 6335 Park Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting and electrical contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Lamar "Marty" Campbell was not licensed nor had he ever been licensed to engage in contracting as a State Registered or State Certified Contractor in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. Mr. Campbell readily acknowledges that he has not had training or education in construction or contracting and has never held any licenses related to any type of construction or contracting. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Johnston Handyman Services did not hold a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. Respondent, Lamar Campbell, resides in Gulf Breeze, Florida. After Hurricane Ivan, he and his roommate took in Jeff Johnston, who then resided in Mr. Campbell's home at all times material to this case. Mr. Johnston performed some handywork in Respondent's home. Mr. Johnston did not have a car, a bank account, or an ID. Mr. Campbell drove Mr. Johnston wherever he needed to go. At some point in time, Mr. Campbell drove Mr. Johnston to obtain a handyman's license in Santa Rosa County. Mr. Campbell did not apply for the license with Mr. Johnston and Mr. Campbell's name does not appear on this license. The license is in the name of Johnston's Handyman Services. Mr. Campbell is a neighbor of Kenneth and Tracy Cauley. In the summer of 2005, which was during the period of time when Mr. Johnston resided in Mr. Campbell's home, the Cauleys desired to have repairs done on their home to their hall bathroom, master bathroom, kitchen and laundry room. With the help of Mr. Campbell and others, Mr. Johnston prepared various lists of repairs that the Cauleys wanted performed on their home. In August 2005, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Campbell went to the Cauley's home and the proposed repairs were discussed with the Cauleys. There are documents in evidence dated August and October, 2005, which the Cauleys perceive to be contracts for the repairs to be done in their home. However, these documents are not contracts but are estimates, itemizing both materials and labor. The documents have the word "Estimate" in large bold type at the top and "Johnston Handyman Services" also at the top of the pages. The list of itemized materials includes electrical items, e.g., light fixtures and wiring. Also in evidence are documents dated August and October, 2005, with the word "Invoice" in large bold letters and "Johnston Handyman Services" at the top of the pages. Both Mr. and Mrs. Cauley acknowledge that Mr. Johnston performed the vast majority of the work on their home. However, at Mr. Johnston's request, Mr. Campbell did assist Mr. Johnston in working on the Cauley residence. Between August 5, 2005, and October 11, 2005, Mrs. Cauley wrote several checks totaling $24,861.53. Each check was written out to Marty Campbell or Lamar Campbell.1/ Mr. Campbell acknowledges endorsing these checks but asserts that he cashed them on behalf of Mr. Johnston, who did not have a bank account or identification, and turned the cash proceeds over to Mr. Johnston. Further, Mr. Campbell insists that he did not keep any of these proceeds. The undersigned finds Mr. Campbell's testimony in this regard to be credible. Work on the project ceased before it was finished and Mr. Johnston left the area. Apparently, he cannot be located. The total investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $419.55 regarding the allegations relating to Case No. 06-2764, and $151.25 regarding the allegations relating to case No. 06-3171, for a total of $570.80.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a fine of $1,000 for a violation of Section 489.127(1), Florida Statutes; imposing a fine of $500 for a violation of Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, and requiring Respondent, Lamar Campbell, to pay $570.80 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 9th day of March, 2006.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Department of Management Services (“DMS"), acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. MSFM-13002020 (the "ITB") to Intervenor Future Computer Systems, LLC ("FCS").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Jere Lahey, the procurement officer and contract manager for the Jacksonville office of DMS? Division of Real Estate Development and Management, coordinated with Stuart Piccolo, an engineering specialist in the same office, to develop the ITB specifications for the replacement of four existing Edwards fire alarm panels in four buildings at the Mary L. Singleton Regional Service Center in Jacksonville. The panels, which have been installed in the buildings since their construction approximately 20 years ago, have become obsolete for maintenance purposes. Lacking funding to replace the entire fire alarm system, DMS decided to replace the main control panel in each of the four buildings, retrofitting the systems to work with the updated controls. Mr. Lahey testified that he and Mr. Piccolo decided that the specifications should be for a design-build project. The General Scope of work identified in the ITB was as follows: Replace existing Edwards Systems Technology IRC-3 fire alarm panels in four different campus buildings with Edwards Systems Technology EST-3 panels including minor upgrades defined in Design Criteria Documentation. It is understood in the industry that the EST-3 product can only be installed, programmed and operated by a company that is certified by the manufacturer, Edwards. Mr. Lahey identified three EST-certified companies in the Jacksonville area. He testified that DMS relied on Edwards? certification process in the belief that Edwards would not certify a company that lacked the ability to install its products. On September 4, 2013, DMS released the ITB to the three EST certified companies in the Jacksonville area: Jacksonville Sound, FCS, and Milton J. Wood Fire Protection, Inc. (“Wood”).2/ The ITB listed a construction estimate of $100,000.00. Jacksonville Sound and FCS submitted bids on the project. Wood withdrew from the solicitation prior to the bid opening, citing a conflict. DMS opened the bids on October 23, 2013, and found both bids responsive to the criteria set forth in the ITB. The ITB specified that DMS would make a single award to the low bidder. FCS was the low bidder, with a bid of $29,980.00. Jacksonville Sound?s bid was $36,855.00. The ITB provided that “Bids must be submitted in full in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents consisting of Technical and Non Technical Design Criteria Specifications.” The referenced Design Criteria Specifications were titled, “Design/Build Bid Scope for Replacement of „Like Kind Equipment?-- Replace Fire Alarm Main Panels in Four Campus Buildings.” The specifications consisted of seven pages of written technical and non-technical specifications, four pages of schematic drawings of the buildings, and one page explaining the criminal background checks required of contractors and their employees. The technical specifications contained 27 paragraphs, of which only one, paragraph 7, is directly at issue in this proceeding. Paragraph 7 provided: Contractors provided with Invitations to Bid have been chosen due to their years in the industry and having a partnered relationship with Edwards Systems Technology. Contractor, upon request, shall provide evidence to support 5 years [sic] experience with performing retrofits with the specific product line as mentioned in the “Summary.” There was no section titled “Summary” in the specifications. However, there was no dispute that the “specific product line” in question was the Edwards EST-3 fire alarm panels that were discussed in the General Scope of work. See Finding of Fact 2, supra. DMS did not request that the bidders provide evidence regarding their experience with performing retrofits with the EST-3 product line. Neither bidder submitted information regarding its experience with performing retrofits with the EST- 3 product line. The issue raised by Jacksonville Sound in its formal written protest is whether the second sentence of paragraph 7 required the contracting entity to have been an EST-certified company for five years at the time of bid submission, or whether it was sufficient for the company to have been EST-certified for fewer than five years provided that the company employees actually performing the work on the project have five years? experience with performing retrofits with the EST-3 product line. EST is a controlled line, meaning that Edwards contracts with specific companies to represent the product as “strategic partners” with Edwards. Strategic partners are fully authorized by the manufacturer to sell, install, program and maintain Edwards? products, including the EST-3 product line. An Edwards strategic partner must have its technicians trained and certified in the different systems manufactured by Edwards. To install an EST system, a technician must be certified in that specific product line. Only certified technicians have the ability, via Edwards? proprietary software, to program the installed EST-3 control panel. It is undisputed that Jacksonville Sound has been an Edwards strategic partner for more than five years. It is also undisputed that FCS was a strategic partner at the time it submitted its bid, but that it had been certified for only three and one-half years. It is further undisputed that FCS currently employs individuals who have the requisite five years? experience performing retrofits with the Edwards EST-3 product line. In fact, one of those employees, Randy Kight, gained the bulk of his EST-3 experience as an employee of Jacksonville Sound before moving to FCS. Jacksonville Sound contends that the second sentence of paragraph 7 requires the company bidding on the project to have five years? experience in retrofitting the EST-3 product line. In order to have such experience, the company would necessarily have to have been an Edwards “strategic partner” for those five years. Under this reading of the ITB, FCS would be considered nonresponsive because it lacks the requisite five years as an Edwards strategic partner. DMS and FCS contend that the second sentence of paragraph 7 is directed at the employees who will actually be working on the EST-3 panels at the job site, and that the length of time a bidder has been a strategic partner is immaterial provided the bidder will be a strategic partner during the life of the contract. To support its contention, Jacksonville Sound observes that paragraph 7 references only the “contractor.” Jacksonville Sound points out that various other provisions of the ITB distinguish between the contractor and “employees,” “subcontractor employees,” “workers,” and “individuals who will be performing the work.” Jacksonville Sound argues that had DMS intended for the second sentence of paragraph 7 to apply to employees rather than the company, it would have made the distinction found in other provisions of the ITB. Mr. Piccolo, the author of the non-technical specifications, testified at the hearing. While conceding that the second sentence of paragraph 7 might have been drafted more clearly, he testified: By that statement, I kind of wanted to ensure that any individual that was working on the job site had the confidence and the knowledge to be able to perform these retrofits just because of — of the Duval County Courthouse, you know. And I hate to use that as an example because it?s a sore thumb for a lot of people. But I wanted to make sure that the job went smooth. And if there were any difficulties or trials or tribulations that we could, you know, step back a second and see that the individual that you placed on the property, how much experience does he actually have dealing with this type of work? He could have come from the security systems side, he could have come from the fire alarm side . . . . * * * Like I say, if there?s an observation that an individual doesn?t portray himself as being competent to perform the duties or the expectations of delivery, then obviously you would step back a second and say: What are the qualifications of this individual? Was he cutting the grass before he came over here? Supporting Mr. Piccolo?s interpretation is the fact that the disputed sentence contains the term, “upon request.” Before sending out the ITB, DMS was already aware of the status of the three selected companies as “strategic partners” of Edwards. This was the key piece of information that permitted a company to submit a bid on the project at all. It was immaterial to DMS whether a company had been a strategic partner for one year, three years, or ten years, because DMS was relying on the certification provided by Edwards that its strategic partners were qualified to install, program and maintain the EST-3 panels regardless of their seniority. “Upon request” indicates that DMS was reserving the right to inquire into the experience of the individuals performing the work on-site, should the need arise. This provision informed the bidders that any employee performing the work is required to have a minimum of five years of experience in retrofitting the EST-3 product line. Jacksonville Sound is unable to point to any material benefit that would accrue to DMS by virtue of its selected vendor having been an Edwards strategic partner for five years or more, as opposed to three and one-half years. The record evidence indicates that all strategic partners have the same rights and duties under their agreements with Edwards, without reference to how long they have been strategic partners. The basis for award of this bid was the lowest price. DMS did not investigate the number of years a company had been a strategic partner of Edwards or the qualifications of the personnel who would perform the on-site work. The ITB?s “upon request” provision anticipates that DMS will deal with any personnel problems as they arise during the winning bidder?s performance of the contract. By submitting their bids in response to the ITB, Jacksonville Sound and FCS made firm commitments to staffing the project in accordance with DMS? requirements. Both bidders represented that they currently employ technicians who meet the standards set forth in the ITB. If that situation changes during contract performance, the winning bidder will be responsible for securing replacement personnel who satisfy the terms of the contract. In any procurement, there is always a remote potential that the winning vendor will breach or default. DMS' contract provides remedies for such defaults. In summary, it is found that the bids of both Jacksonville Sound and FCS met the requirements of the ITB generally, and of paragraph 7 of the ITB?s technical specifications in particular. The reading of paragraph 7 urged by Jacksonville Sound was not unreasonable, but could not be said to add any performance assurances to the contract beyond the given fact that all of the bidders were required to be Edwards-certified strategic partners. DMS? reading of paragraph 7 made practical sense and gave the agency additional assurance that the personnel who work on the project will have at least five years? experience in retrofitting the specified product line.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order dismissing Jacksonville Sound and Communications, Inc.?s formal written protest and awarding the contract for Invitation to Bid No. MSFM-13002020 to Future Computer Systems, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 24th day of February, 2014.
