The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner, Nu Way Drywall, LLC, was in violation of the workers' compensation requirements of Sections 440.107 and 440.38, Florida Statutes (2007),1 by failing to secure workers' compensation coverage for its subcontractors and/or employees of its subcontractors; and (2) if yes, what penalty should be assessed against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On April 15, 2008, Germaine Green, a compliance investigator for the Department, conducted a random compliance check of a work site where an office building was under construction. The work site was located at 698 South Tamiami Trail in Osprey, Florida. During the compliance check, Ms. Green observed three men hanging metal framing for the interior walls. One of the men at the work site identified himself as Ted Webb and told Ms. Green that he was in charge of the framing work being done and that the other two men working with him were his sons. Mr. Webb told Ms. Green that his company, Ted Webb, Inc., had workers' compensation coverage through an employee leasing company, Howard Leasing. Ms. Green telephoned the leasing company and was told that the contract with Ted Webb, Inc., had been terminated or had lapsed in December 2007. Ms. Green then checked the Department's computerized database known as Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS). The information maintained in CCAS allowed Ms. Green to determine whether Mr. Webb or his sons had workers' compensation coverage or exemptions from such coverage. After checking CCAS, Ms. Green determined that Mr. Webb and his company did not have workers' compensation coverage and that Mr. Webb and his employees had no exemption from such coverage. Upon making this determination, Ms. Green issued a Stop-Work Order. Mr. Webb advised Ms. Green that Nu Way Drywall, LLC ("Nu Way"), had subcontracted with him or Ted Webb, Inc., to perform the framing services at the work site. Under Florida law, a subcontractor that does not have workers' compensation coverage becomes the "statutory employee" of the contractor that hired the subcontractor. Upon being told that Mr. Webb was working for Nu Way, Ms. Green checked CCAS to determine if that company had active workers' compensation exemptions for any of its employees. Ms. Green's review of CCAS revealed that Nu Way had an exemption for only one person, Alex Rivera, the managing member of the company. Ms. Green contacted Mr. Rivera to determine whether he had received documentation that Mr. Webb had workers' compensation coverage prior to Mr. Webb's beginning work on the Osprey project. Mr. Rivera reported that he had received information in the past that indicated that Mr. Webb had workers' compensation coverage. However, Mr. Rivera told Ms. Green that he had obtained information regarding Mr. Webb's workers' compensation coverage before Mr. Webb began work on the subject work site. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Nu Way had workers' compensation coverage through an employee leasing company, Employee Leasing Solutions. However, when Ms. Green called the leasing company, she was advised by someone with the company that Mr. Webb and his two sons were not listed on the employee roster for Nu Way. Therefore, they were not covered by Nu Way's workers' compensation coverage. Employee leasing companies provide workers' compensation coverage for their clients, but coverage is provided only to employees that the client company specifically identifies. Because Mr. Rivera could not provide proof that Mr. Webb and his sons had workers' compensation coverage pursuant to Chapter 440, Ms. Green issued a Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only ("Stop-Work Order") to Nu Way on April 15, 2008. The Stop-Work Order was posted at the work site and served on Mr. Rivera on April 16, 2008. On the day that Ms. Green served the Stop-Work Order on Mr. Rivera, she also served on him a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request for Business Records"). The Request for Business Records requested that Mr. Rivera provide the business records of Nu Way to the Department so that it could determine the employer's payroll for the period of April 17, 2005, through April 16, 2008, for the calculation of the penalty provided in Subsection 440.107(7). In response to the Department's Request for Business Records Documents, Mr. Rivera provided Nu Way's business records, which included Nu Way's canceled checks. In auditing the business records, Ms. Green discovered that in addition to making payments made to Ted Webb, Inc., in 2006 and 2008, Nu Way had also made payments to two other companies that did not have valid workers' compensation coverage for their employees when they worked for Nu Way. According to its business records, Nu Way paid Santis Drywall and Construction (Santis) $36,890.00 between July 28 and August 11, 2006, and paid Hernandez Chico Drywall (Hernandez) $260,972.50 between March 17 and April 28, 2006. During the time period Nu Way made those payments to Santis and Hernandez, neither of those companies had valid workers' compensation coverage. After auditing Nu Way's business records, Ms. Green prepared a spreadsheet that included the payments made to uninsured subcontractors or companies during the relevant time period of April 17, 2005, through April 16, 2008. Ms. Green calculated the penalty by dividing the payroll for each uninsured subcontractor by 100 and then multiplied that number (the dividend) by the "approved manual rate" for drywall work for the year in question. Each product of 1/100 of the payroll and the approved manual yielded the "evaded premium" that Nu Way should have paid for each uninsured subcontractor in the years in question. The amount of the "evaded premiums" were then multiplied by 1.5 and then added together to determine the total penalty amount. Applying the formula prescribed in Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Ms. Green determined that the total penalty assessment against Nu Way was $76,215.95. On April 17, 2008, Mr. Rivera was served with the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which showed that the total penalty assessment against Nu Way was $76,215.95. That same day, Mr. Rivera, on behalf of Nu Way, entered into an agreement with the Department to pay ten percent of the penalty assessment in one lump sum payment and to make 60 interest-free payments for the balance. After Mr. Rivera signed the agreement, the Department issued an Order of Conditional Release from the Stop- Work Order ("Order of Conditional Release"). The Order of Conditional Release allowed Nu Way to resume work at the work site, subject to his complying with the terms of the agreement. When Ms. Green served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Mr. Rivera, she discussed the penalty assessment with him and also allowed him to review the spreadsheet for accuracy. Mr. Rivera reviewed the spreadsheet, but did not find any errors. In preparing for this hearing, Ms. Green reviewed the spreadsheet and discovered that she had mistakenly included some payments made by Nu Way. By mistakenly including certain payments on the spreadsheet, the payroll amount used to calculate the penalty assessment was higher than it should have been. After discovering the mistake discussed in paragraph 20, Ms. Green prepared a new spreadsheet, which did not include the payments that had been mistakenly included in the initial spreadsheet. Ms. Green then recalculated the penalty assessment and properly determined the corrected penalty assessment to be $72,963.77. The Department prepared a Proposed Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment showing that the correct penalty assessment for Nu Way is $72,963.77. As of the date of this proceeding, the Department had not served the Proposed Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Mr. Rivera. However, at hearing, Mr. Rivera indicated that he did not object to this amendment as it reduced the penalty assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order: Finding that Petitioner, Nu Way Drywall, LLC, failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for its employees in violation of Subsections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a penalty of $72,963.77 against Nu Way Drywall, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 28th day of October, 2008.
Findings Of Fact On May 23, 1978, the Department of Environmental Regulation received Petitioner's application for activities in waters of the State of Florida. According thereto, Petitioner desired to construct approximately 225 feet of riprap seawall and to dredge a channel 50 feet wide by 1,250 feet long in order to provide access for a proposed marina. The application recited that the project involved dredging 3,670 cubic yards of material, and further advised Respondent that the planned motorboat fueling facilities will meet all prevailing codes and regulations, and that an approved holding tank for sewage pump-out will be installed. On May 30, 1978, Respondent forwarded to Petitioner its completeness summary form itemizing the additional information needed in order to determine the merits of Petitioner's application. In Response thereto, Petitioner provided additional information and assured the Respondent that the remainder of the information required would be forthcoming. On June 14, 1978, the Department again requested additional information from the Respondent, some of which information had been previously requested in the May 30, 1978, completeness summary. On September 11, 1978, the Department again wrote to Petitioner requesting the information requested by it on June 14, 1978. Petitioner responded to the most recent correspondence on September 25, 1978, by advising why some of the information had not yet been provided and requesting the Respondent to delay his application in order that he might continue to attempt to obtain the required information. On December 20, 1978, the Department again wrote to the Petitioner requesting the information previously requested on May 30 and June 14 and advising Petitioner that it would issue an intent to deny the application unless Petitioner contacted the Department by January 4, 1979. On January 29, 1979, Respondent received from Petitioner a new application for activities in waters of the State of Florida. This application obviously involved the same project, except that the channel to be dredged is widened to 100 feet and the amount of material to be dredged is increased to 11,700 cubic yards. The information regarding the planned motorboat fueling facilities and the approved holding tank for sewage pump-out remain the same. This application was considered by the Respondent to be a revision of the original application, rather than a new application, for the reasons that some of the required documents were already on file and the filing of a new application would require a new application fee. An additional completeness summary was forwarded to the Petitioner, although possibly not until March 26, 1979. Petitioner was again advised on July 3, 1979, as to the need for additional information, and Petitioner returned that form letter and requested an additional 30 to 45 days to complete his application. On August 6, 1979, Respondent received Petitioner's response to its July 3, 1979, request, and on October 29, 1979, the Respondent again advised Petitioner of additional required information. On April 7, 1980, Respondent directed additional correspondence to Petitioner. On April 8, 1980, the Department completed Its biological and water quality assessment, which assessment contained the recommendation that the project be denied as proposed. On July 2, 1980, Respondent forwarded to Petitioner its intent to deny the project. During the entire time period described above, discussions regarding information needed by the Respondent occurred between Jeremy Craft, one of Respondent's administrators, and both the Petitioner and the Petitioner's engineer. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner's application was still not complete. Curtis Kurer, a former employee of the Department of Environmental Regulation, performed an on-site inspection on April 4, 1980, as part of the biological and water quality assessment of Petitioner's project as revised by the January 29, 1979, application filed by the Petitioner. His report extensively analyzes the adverse impacts expected from Petitioner's dredging activities and placement of a marina at the project site. His conclusion is that the project, as proposed, be disapproved. On October 23, 1980, the Respondent received a copy of the report of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, which report also concluded that the application for permit should be denied because of the adverse environmental effects of Petitioner's project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security illegally rejected Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive.
Findings Of Fact Fred Boozer, Sr., (Boozer), the Petitioner, owns Boozer Properties, a family business which includes a building at 2235 South Babcock Street, Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The building is currently occupied by staff of the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security (LES) and other tenants. In south Brevard, LES staff also occupies another building in Palm Bay. Because of staff expansion and the need to co-locate its offices, LES issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Lease No. 540:0904 on January 28, 1992. The RFP had been previously advertised but was successfully challenged on issues unrelated to the issues in this proceeding. The January 1992 RFP sought approximately 11,474 to 11,818 square feet of office space. The RFP also specified that 95 off-street parking spaces be provided for the exclusive use of LES employees and clients. The spaces were to be suitably paved and lined, and under the control of the bidder. The RFP advertised a pre-proposal conference on February 4, 1992. No bidder attended, and no objections to the RFP were filed. Six responses were received on the February 28th deadline, one of which was immediately determined to be nonresponsive. The remaining bid proposals were evaluated, and Boozer's bid, offering his Babcock Street site, and 95 parking spaces, received the highest points from the evaluation committee. During a recent LES bidding process for office space in West Palm Beach, a problem arose with a bidder's ability to provide the required parking spaces. Cognizant of this, the LES leasing manager contacted the City of Melbourne to determine whether the apparent bid winner, Boozer, could meet his obligation to provide 95 spaces. The written response dated March 20, 1992, from Dominic Mauriello, a Melbourne city planner, provides his estimation that, for the various uses in the Babcock Street building, 207 parking spaces would be required. The memo states that a site plan on file at the city planning office reflects that there are 165 spaces. The site plan attached to Boozer's bid proposal submitted to LES indicates that 175 spaces are available. LES staff person, Lynne Mobley, telephoned Fred Boozer on March 24, 1992, informing him of the memorandum from the city. He responded with a request that he be allowed twenty-four hours to provide additional information. By March 27, 1992, the LES leasing office had not received further information from Boozer. The RFP had advertised a 30-day deadline for the bid award, which deadline fell on a weekend. The agency considered that it needed to make the award on Friday, the 27th. After contacting the City of Palm Bay to assure that the next highest rated response could deliver the requisite parking spaces, a letter was sent notifying Woodlake S.W. No. 1, Ltd., (Woodlake) of its award. In a letter dated March 27, 1992, LES notified Boozer that its bid was determined nonresponsive based on the outcome of investigation and consultation with the city regarding his inability to produce the required 95 exclusive spaces. In the meantime, Fred Boozer had contacted Peggy Bray, the City's Planning and Zoning Administrator, who provided an amended estimation stating that 190 spaces would be required for the Babcock Street site, and that the site currently includes 184 parking spaces. Ms. Bray's letter, dated March 27, 1992, states that in order to provide 95 spaces for the Department of Labor, 1800 square feet of office space would need to remain vacant. The Bray letter was immediately sent by facsimile transmission to LES, and was received the afternoon of March 27th, after the award and rejection notices were sent. Boozer's building is approximately 39,000 square feet. Several tenants are month to month lessees, and another tenant is expected to move prior to the beginning of the LES lease term. Boozer is willing to keep vacant the 1800 square feet and contemplated that necessity when he submitted his bid proposal. He did not include this agreement in his written bid response, but neither did LES specifically ask, either in the bid form or at the time of the committee's site walk-through prior to the bid award. Boozer contends that he responded on the bid proposal that he would provide 95 exclusive spaces and he remains willing to provide those spaces. At hearing, Boozer disclosed that 20 additional parking spaces are located adjacent to the subject property and are available for use by HRS' County Health Services, another tenant in the Babcock Street building. The spaces would reduce by 20 the spaces required by the city code, but their existence was not disclosed in the bid proposal as they are not part of the attached site plan. Boozer's onsite parking spaces range from one-half to one foot short of the eleven-feet width required by the city code. No evidence was presented with regard to any pending or contemplated enforcement action, and LES did not base its decision on this defect. LES did base its decision on a good-faith reliance on the communication by a member of the City of Melbourne planning staff. Even when that initial communication was corrected by the planning administrator, the number of spaces available were still less than needed for LES purposes and to comply with the City's code. LES did not anticipate, nor was it informed prior to bid award, of Boozer's ability and willingness to keep space vacant to comply with his commitment to provide 95 parking spaces to LES.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that a final order be entered dismissing Petitioner's protest of intended bid award. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-2372BID The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 9. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. The testimony of Ms. Mobley is that she did not receive the message. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraphs 8 and 9. Adopted in paragraphs 10 and 13. Rejected as unnecessary. 10-13. Adopted in paragraph 11. Rejected as unsubstantiated by competent evidence. Adopted by implication in paragraph 5. Rejected as irrelevant, except as to Intervenor's spaces, which is adopted in paragraph 8. 1718. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. 3. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4-5. Adopted in paragraph 4. 6-7. Adopted in paragraph 5. 8. Adopted in paragraph 6. 9. Adopted in paragraph 7. 10-11. Adopted in paragraph 8. 12. Adopted in paragraph 10. 13. Adopted in paragraph 12. 14. Adopted in paragraph 9. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Adopted in substance in paragraph 3. 3. Rejected as unnecessary. 4-5. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 9. 15-16. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Preliminary Statement. 19-28. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard M. Swerbilow, Esquire Post Office Box 541271 Merritt Island, FL 32954-1271 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, FL 32399-2189 Jack Spira, Esquire 5205 Babcock Street N.E. Palm Bay, FL 32905 Alan Taylor Elizabethan Development Corporation 245 Avenue O S.W. Winter Haven, FL 33880 Frank Scruggs, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn Chief Legal Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact In March, 1992, the Department of Labor and Employment Security ("Department") issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Submittal ("RFP") seeking to lease approximately 21,033 square feet of office space in Pinellas Park, Florida. The RFP specifies that "approximately" 130 off-street no charge parking spaces were required for the exclusive use of the employees and clients of the Respondent. The RFP states that "[p]arking space must be under the control of the bidder and be suitably paved, lined, and bumper pads installed." The Department received two bids in response to the RFP; one submitted by Hart-Land Ext., Inc., ("Petitioner") and the other submitted by Resolving, Inc. Both bids were signed by James Hartley, as Vice President of the respective corporations. The Department initially determined that, on the basis of the representations contained in the bids, both bids were responsive. An evaluation committee determined that the bid submitted by the Petitioner was the lowest and best bid. On the basis of the evaluation, the Department awarded the bid to the Petitioner by letter dated May 13, 1992. Subsequent to the bid award, the Petitioner submitted several differing site plans to the Department. The site plans indicated various amendments to the configuration of parking spaces available. None of the plans indicated that there would be less than 130 parking spaces available for use by Department personnel. The Department suggests that the revisions of site plans raised doubts as to whether the property was under the control of the Petitioner, that such information was requested of the Petitioner and that appropriate responses were not forthcoming. Nothing in the site plans would suggest that the property was not under the Petitioner's control. The evidence establishes that sufficient information was provided by the Petitioner in response to Department inquiries related to property ownership. By letter dated August 24, 1992, the Department rescinded its award to the Petitioner. The stated reason for recission was that the Petitioner did not have control over 130 paved and lined parking spaces as the time of the bid opening. At the time the Petitioner submitted the proposal, it had the right, pursuant to an executed Contract for Sale and Purchase, to purchase the property which was identified in the proposal as the site upon which the office space was located. The contract was valid at all times material to this case. The Department accepts the existence of a valid Contract for Sale and Purchase as sufficient evidence of a bidder having control over the property proposed for use. The evidence establishes that at all times material to this case, the Petitioner controlled the property proposed for use in his response to the RFP. As to the parking requirements, the Department offered testimony asserting that the language in the RFP requires that such spaces be paved, lined, and bumper-pads installed, at the time the bid is submitted. The RFP includes no requirement, either express of implied, that the parking area proposed must be paved, lined, and bumpered at the time of bid submission. The Petitioner's response to the RFP met the parking requirements set forth therein. The Department asserts that because the parking spaces were not lined, it was unable to determine the number of spaces available in each area proposed for parking. The Department had ample opportunity to inspect the property proposed in the Petitioner's bid, and in fact, such inspections did occur. The Department reviewed site plans, floor plans, physically inspected the structure and had full access to the property. The fact that the parking spaces were not lined or bumper-padded at the time of bid submittal would have been obvious. Further, the RFP seeks to have "approximately" 130 spaces available. Of the 130 spaces the Petitioner said would be available, 118 spaces were paved at all times material to this case. The remaining 22 parking spaces were located in an unpaved area which would have been paved prior to the date upon which the Respondent would have occupied the building, at which time all 130 spaces would have been lined and bumper-padded also. Therefore, even if the agency's position that the RFP required paved spaces at time of bid submission were supported by evidence, the Petitioner's proposal would meet the requirement. Subsequent to the award of the project, the Petitioner closed the contract for sale in escrow and placed $150,000 in trust to close the sale. The Petitioner employed a general contractor, obtained completed floor plans, mechanical plans, electrical and plumbing plans for the structure, performed roof repairs and purchased new air conditioning equipment. At the request of Department's representatives, the Petitioner also made arrangements for additional parking spaces beyond the 130 spaces previously proposed, with the additional spaces being located off-site and across the street from the office space. The total cost of these actions is approximately $179,600. The purchase of the property and incurrence of related costs was done in good faith and in reliance upon the award of the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order awarding proposed lease 540:0921 to Hart-Land, Ext., Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 24th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-5748BID The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected as to reference of difficulty in determining availability of parking spaces, not supported by greater weight of evidence. Measurement would have established whether space was adequate. There is no evidence that it was not. 6-9. Rejected as to inference that submission of amended site plans was inappropriate, not supported by greater weight of evidence. There is no evidence that the agency rejected the proposal based on the amendment of site plans, irrelevant. As to the amendment of site plans being indicative of a lack of 130 paved spaces, rejected immaterial. 11. Rejected as to determination that such spaces were not available on property controlled by the Petitioner, not supported by credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley Gooding, Acting Secretary Suite 303, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn Chief Legal Counsel Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 William H. Walker, Esquire NCNB Bank Building, Suite 403 501 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Edward Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's operation of an overweight truck over the low-limit bridge involved herein is a violation and if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Transportation was the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutes involving commercial carrier and truck vehicle weights on covered vehicles operated on the streets and highways of this state. It does so through its Office of Motor Carrier Compliance staffed with uniformed certified law enforcement officers who have the authority to conduct random safety and compliance inspections of commercial vehicles being operated in this state. The parties agree that on August 8, 1991, Respondent, P.J. Constructors, Inc. was prime contractor to the Petitioner, Department of Transportation for the removal and replacement of a highway bridge over the Florida Turnpike where it intersects with Hood Road in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. At the time in issue, Respondent was operating a 1981 MAC tractor trailer low boy on which it was transporting a piece of heavy construction equipment. At the time in issue, Officer Neff stopped the vehicle for crossing over this bridge which was clearly posted as having a maximum weight limit for tractor trailers of 15 tons, (30,000 pounds). Following standard Department weighing procedures measuring weight at each axle and combining those weights to arrive at a total, and using portable Department scales which are calibrated every 6 months for accuracy, Officer Neff determined the vehicle weight at 54,800 pounds. This was 24,800 pounds over the legal weight and resulted in a penalty assessment of $1,240.00 at 5 per pound of overweight. The approaches to this bridge were clearly marked at several locations with signs indicating the maximum weight permitted for this type vehicle was 15 tons. These signs were located at sites which were far enough away from the bridge to give a driver ample notice of the restrictions and ample opportunity to turn around or to take an alternate route over roads situated between the signs and the bridge. In addition to the signs, however, earlier the same day, as warnings were issued to users of the bridge who were going to a construction site on the other side, Respondent's driver was specifically told of the bridge's low limits and advised of an alternate route to avoid it. Admittedly, the alternate routes would be longer than the route over the bridge, but no evidence as presented by either party as to how much the difference was. Respondent's General Manager, Mr. McAllester, claims the signs were not in position on the two occasions he visited the site during the bid process in February or March, 1991. He cannot say that he knew where the signs might have been located (away from the site), but avers only that he did not see any. However, officer Neff specifically checked to see that the signs were in place before issuing the citation on August 8, 1991 and it is, therefore, found that the signs were properly in place on that date. Mr. McAllester also urges in the alternative, however, that even if the signs were in place, as contractor on the bridge replacement project, the terms of the bid specifications, which directs contractors from operating equipment in excess of the maximum weights set out by law, exempts the contractor where the existing road or bridge is to be removed as a part of the work included in the project. The bridge in issue here was removed and replaced as a part of the project on which Respondent was contractor and the current bridge has no limit. Mr. McAllester admits that when the instant citation was issued, Respondent had no special permit to cross the bridge with an excess load. Once the citation was issued, however, Respondent quickly retained an engineer to do a structural analysis of the bridge in issue. Based on that analysis, Respondent thereafter sought and obtained permission to cross the bridge with an overload provided all other traffic was stopped on Hood Road while the excessively laden vehicle was on the bridge so it would be the only vehicle thereon at the time, and provided that vehicle kept to the center of the road while on the bridge. Subsequent to the citation and before the permit was issued, Respondent did not operate any excessively laden vehicles on the bridge. Respondent admits that at the time the citation was issued, there was traffic operating both on the Turnpike and on Hood Road. Therefore, a potential danger to the public existed. Nonetheless, traffic was maintained on both roadways throughout the entire project without incident. None of the weight limits or a need to maintain weight standards was discussed at the pre-bid conference, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assessing a civil fine in the amount of $1,240.00 against the Respondent. P.J. Constructors, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1992. Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Foster McAllester Vice President and General Manager P.J. Constructors, Inc. 4100 S.W. 70th Court Miami, Florida 33155 Ben G.Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel ]Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the decision of Respondent, the Florida Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), to award the contract contemplated in its Invitation to Negotiate No. 1819-01 ITN TR, e-Payment Collection and Processing Services, to Intervenor, NIC Services, LLC (“NIC”), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the solicitation specifications; if so, whether that decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious; and whether Petitioner, PayIt, LLC (“PayIt”), has standing to protest DFS’s decision.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Claims at Issue DFS, through Florida’s Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), is authorized to contract with vendors that process and collect electronic payments by credit card, charge card, debit card, and funds transfer (“e-Payment services”). § 215.322(4), Fla. Stat. DFS issued Invitation to Negotiate No. 1819-01 ITN TR (“ITN”) to procure a new contract for those services. NIC, headquartered in Olathe, Kansas, is an e-Payment services company focusing exclusively on government procurements. NIC is the intended recipient of the e-Payment services contract. PayIt, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, is also an e-Payment services company focusing exclusively on government procurements. DFS eliminated PayIt from negotiations after the first round. PayIt timely protested the intended award after receiving DFS’s notice of intent to award the contract to NIC. PayIt raises the following four claims: DFS did not make an appropriate best value determination by failing to: (A) consider vendor pricing before eliminating seven vendors during negotiations; (B) understand the pricing of the five remaining vendors before determining that NIC provided the best value to the State; and (C) consider whether making multiple awards would result in the best value to the State; DFS made the following material changes to the ITN during negotiations that improperly gave NIC a competitive advantage: allowing NIC to propose different pricing structures for individual agencies; (B) allowing NIC to waive the limitation of liability and parent company guarantee terms; and (C) allowing NIC to propose pricing based on a promise of exclusivity; DFS violated Florida law and the ITN by awarding the contract to NIC, a non-responsive vendor; and DFS violated Florida law and the ITN by failing to conduct the procurement in a transparent manner by: (A) holding a public meeting where no meaningful discussion occurred as to the reasons the negotiation team members voted in favor of an award to NIC; and (B) failing to prepare a short plain statement detailing the basis of its decision prior to awarding the contract to NIC. E-Payment Services and the ITN DFS is the state agency in charge of procuring contracts for and managing the processing and collection of e-Payment services, which include credit card, debit card, e-Check, and ACH transfer payments made in person via a point-of-sale device (“POS”), over the phone, or online. All state agencies and the judicial branch are required to use the e-Payment services vendor(s) with whom DFS has contracted unless otherwise approved. Local governments may choose to use the vendor(s), too. Approximately 20 state agencies and 95 other government entities use the e-Payment services contract. Each agency has unique needs depending on the type and number of transactions. The Department of Transportation (“DOT”) processes about 80 percent of the State’s e-Payment transactions per year, whereas the Department of Revenue (“DOR”) processes the largest dollar amounts per transaction. Some agencies have more web-based transactions while others have more POS transactions. In 2019, the State processed 1.7 billion transactions in e-Payments totaling about $52 billion. Bank of America (“BOA”) is DFS’s current e-Payment services vendor and its contract expires in 2021. BOA generally provides the services needed, but it uses subcontractors to manage different platforms utilized by the government entities, which has created continuity and reliability issues. BOA also replaced its dedicated team in Tallahassee with employees in Tampa and Orlando, which DFS believes has reduced the level of service it expected. DFS began the competitive procurement process in early 2018 to ensure a smooth implementation of a new e-Payment services contract. In March 2018, DFS conducted a business needs analysis and chose to use an ITN so it could negotiate with multiple vendors to meet the goals of the e-Payments program and provide the best value to the State. DFS wanted the best solution, not the lowest price. That is why it decided against an invitation to bid (“ITB”), as an award would have to go to the lowest bidder rather than the one with the best solution. DFS also decided against a request for proposals (“RFP”), as it could not define the specific services needed. DFS drafted the ITN over three to five months. DFS relied on its own experience, but also received input from DOT, DOR, and other agencies that utilize the contract so it could accommodate their needs and preferences. Based on that process, DFS finalized its primary needs and desires. Specifically, it wanted a single company that would: (1) perform all of the required services, in part to avoid difficulties it experienced by the current vendor’s use of subcontractors and multiple platforms; (2) provide customization to individual agencies and meet their customer service needs, including a year’s worth of data migration to the new platform, at least 15 participant-defined fields, and a dedicated team in Tallahassee; (3) provide contactless-capable POS devices, of which there are currently 600-800 in use; provide interactive voice response software (“IVR”) in at least English and Spanish so that individuals could make payments over the phone, which is consistently used; (5) have experience implementing a contract of this magnitude, given the billions of transactions and dollars processed each year; and (6) ensure the best value to the State. In November 2018, DFS issued the ITN. The ITN specifications detailed the procurement process, the selection methodology, and the award. Numerous sections of the ITN reflected the preferences just discussed, including 1.2 – Solicitation Objective, 1.3 – Background, 1.4 – Questions Being Explored, 1.5 – Goals of the ITN, 3.5.2 – Mandatory Criteria, 3.5.4 – Business References, 3.6.1 – Narrative on Experience and Ability, 3.6.2 – Respondent’s Proposed Solution, and 4.6 – Selection Criteria. The Solicitation Objective stated that DFS intended to make a single award using the Standard Contract, though it reserved the right to make multiple awards or no award at all. The ITN attached the Standard Contract, including a Statement of Work and Standard Terms and Conditions with several provisions of particular relevance: (1) Guarantee of Parent Corporation - requiring the vendor’s parent company (if any) to guarantee the vendor’s obligations under the contract; (2) Limitation of Liability – limiting DFS’s liability for any claim arising under the contract to the lesser of $100,000 or the unpaid balance of any compensation due for the services rendered to DFS under the contract; and (3) Nonexclusive Contract – providing that the contract would not be an exclusive license to provide e- Payment services, as DFS could contract with other vendors to provide similar or the same services. The ITN made clear that vendors had to notify DFS in their responses of any exceptions they had to the Standard Contract or its attachments. The ITN noted that the terms of the Statement of Work, the conditions, costs, different price adjustments, and related services may be negotiated, and required vendors who successfully negotiated such terms and conditions to submit a revised Statement of Work and attach it to their best and final offer (“BAFO”). The ITN also gave DFS discretion to negotiate and finalize terms with the vendor to whom it decided to award the contract. The ITN process involved three phases: solicitation, evaluation, and negotiation. DFS assigned Amy Jones as the procurement officer. She became the sole point of contact during the procurement process. The Solicitation Phase During the solicitation phase and prior to submitting responses, potential vendors could submit questions about the ITN. In response to 90- plus questions, many of which concerned pricing, DFS published answers to the following questions, among others, in a written document (“Q&A”): In response to a question as to whether DFS was open to a more simplified transaction pricing approach that provided a standard/blended rate across all card types and authorization levels, it clarified that it was interested in potential options that may exist and expected responses to propose the solution/approach the vendor believed provided the greatest value to the State. DFS confirmed that if the vendor did not charge a per transaction fee, it should enter a “0” on the spreadsheet but include the cost in the Total Fees. In response to questions concerning the ability to negotiate the terms of the Statement of Work, the contractual documents, or the Guarantee of Parent Corporation, DFS again confirmed that it reserved the right to negotiate the Standard Contract and that vendors had to fully describe any exceptions to such terms in their responses. In response to a question concerning the effective date, DFS indicated that it would be the date of contract execution, which should be in June 2019, but depended on the length of the ITN process. In response to a question as to the start date, DFS stated that the Project, defined in the Standard Terms and Conditions as the activities required to transition all agencies from the current vendor’s platforms to the new vendor’s platforms, should begin immediately upon contract execution. The Evaluation Phase DFS set the deadline for responses and the evaluation stage ensued. The ITN required each response to include three volumes: (1) Response Qualification Documents; (2) Technical Response; and (3) Price Response. The Response Qualification Documents had to contain financial documentation, including three years of audited financial statements, a completed business reference form, and a signed mandatory criteria certification, among others. The Technical Response had to include a narrative on the vendor’s experience, ability, proposed solution, any value-added services offered, any proposed exceptions to the terms and conditions in the Standard Contract, the requisite bond, and a security audit. The ITN stated that a vendor may be rejected if its “past performance, current status, or [r]esponse do not reflect the capability, integrity, or reliability to fully and in good faith perform the requirements of a contract.” The ITN, thus, gave DFS authority to reject a vendor regardless of its price if it could not fully perform the contract. The Price Response detailed the pricing requirements and confirmed that vendors had to complete an Excel spreadsheet provided by DFS. The spreadsheet had sheets for POS pricing, tiered pricing, non-tiered pricing, additional tiered pricing, and additional non-tiered pricing. All fees and pricing for each category, including credit card usage fees, had to be listed and additional rows had to be added if necessary. Tiered pricing represented the transaction-based services whereas non-tiered pricing represented the unit-based services. Pricing had to reflect the cost of the services as described in the Statement of Work. Any additional services had to be included in either the tiered or non-tiered pricing sheets depending on how they would be charged. The tiered and non-tiered sheets automatically populated a summary sheet based on a flat fee-per-transaction model, which would be used to compare the vendors’ pricing. Although the spreadsheet had to be completed as directed, the ITN did not prohibit more detailed explanations as to pricing elsewhere in the response. The Q&A also made clear that DFS encouraged alternative pricing arrangements. DFS received responses from 13 vendors, including BOA, Govolution, Alacriti Payments, NIC, PayIt, Fidelity Information Services (“FIS”), JetPay, JP Morgan, Official Payments, Point & Pay, Suntrust, Hancock Whitney, and Wells Fargo. As the ITN required, many of the vendors listed exceptions to the Standard Terms and Conditions and Statement of Work in their responses. NIC noted that it wanted to revise the language of the limitation of liability term and strike the parent guarantee term in its entirety, among other exceptions. PayIt chose not to list any exceptions in its response. Ms. Jones conducted an administrative review and identified deficiencies with ten of the responses, including PayIt’s. Ms. Jones did not deem NIC’s response deficient. Of particular relevance here, NIC listed four states and two federal agencies as business references to highlight its experience with payment processing services. NIC noted that these partners represented a small sample of the more than 50 governmental agencies that use its payment processing platform. NIC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NIC, Inc., which has a number of other subsidiaries. Of the agencies listed in its response, NIC has contracts with only two of them. Although the other agencies listed have entered into contracts with NIC-related entities, NIC owns the payment-processing platform and provides e-Payment services to all of the agencies through those related entities. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, NIC accurately listed its experience providing the same e- Payment services at issue here in the states listed in its response. Ms. Jones notified the deficient vendors and gave them an opportunity to cure.1 At the end of the cure period, Ms. Jones deemed all but one vendor (Alacriti Payments) responsive, though the ITN authorized DFS to reconsider responsiveness and responsibility at any time during the procurement. Ms. Jones also reviewed the Price Responses and realized that the spreadsheet formulas had issues that could render the pricing information inaccurate. Several vendors utilized percentage-based pricing per transaction while others put text in the fields. Because the tiered pricing sheet formula only could use fees expressed in dollars and cents, the use of percentages or other text resulted in inaccurate pricing information and rendered the spreadsheet practically meaningless for scoring the Price Responses. 1 As explained later, PayIt’s responsiveness and responsibility (or alleged lack thereof) are not relevant considerations because it challenges the fundamental fairness of the process and seeks a re-bidding. However, for purposes of a complete record, PayIt’s deficiency concerned its failure to include three years of audited financial statements. Upon receipt of the deficiency notice, PayIt timely submitted audited financial statements for 2016 and 2017 (2016 was its first year being audited) and an unaudited financial statement for 2018. PayIt informed DFS that it would submit the audited 2018 statement in April 2019 once the auditors were finished. DFS waived this deficiency as a minor irregularity and moved PayIt on to negotiations. Although PayIt never ultimately submitted the 2018 audited financial statement, DFS ended negotiations with it on other grounds, as detailed below. For instance, PayIt utilized a percentage fee per credit card transaction. When it included the percentage in the tiered pricing spreadsheet, the spreadsheet automatically converted the percentage to pennies and inaccurately reduced its pricing for credit card transactions. NIC also utilized a percentage fee per credit card transaction. Instead of including the percentage in the spreadsheet, it included an “N/A” notation in the description column, which resulted in $0 being calculated for credit card fees in the spreadsheet. Although the Q&A instructed vendors to use $0 if they “would not charge a per-transaction fee for different card types and authorization levels,” it required them to provide “instead a total cost for Total Fees.” NIC failed to include the total fees that it would charge for credit card transactions elsewhere in the spreadsheet, resulting in a tiered pricing sheet that included fees only for ACH transactions and inaccurately reduced its total pricing. That said, NIC explained elsewhere in its response that it charged percentage fees for credit card transactions and described generally how those fees would apply. DFS did not issue deficiency notices to PayIt, NIC, or any other vendor as to the Price Response. However, because the spreadsheet could not accurately depict pricing for many of the vendors, making it impossible to accurately score this component during the evaluation phase, DFS had to make a decision. It could reject all bids and start over, create a revised spreadsheet that could suffer from similar formulaic errors, or issue an addendum that removed consideration of pricing from the evaluation phase. DFS chose the latter because it would allow for and encourage vendors to use creative pricing without having to start the procurement process over. It issued Addendum 4, which confirmed that pricing would not be scored or considered during the evaluation phase. Instead, technical scores would be utilized to establish a competitive range and pricing would be addressed in the negotiation phase. Although Addendum 4 noted that the Price Response would be used, it deleted the form’s instructions and confirmed that vendors did not need to resubmit it. The weight of the credible evidence showed that this decision was reasonable; it ensured that all vendors were treated fairly and equally when it came to pricing, were not excluded from negotiations simply because the spreadsheet was too rigid to accurately score their pricing, and it allowed all vendors to address and answer questions about their specific pricing during negotiations. Addendum 4 provided the requisite notice about filing a specifications challenge within 72 hours. No vendor filed such a protest. Ms. Jones sent the remaining 12 responses to the evaluation team for a qualitative review. The evaluation team reviewed the responses against the evaluation criteria and completed score sheets for each vendor. The scores ranged from 66 to 99 out of 141 possible points. Ms. Jones reviewed the scores to establish a competitive range of vendors that appeared reasonably susceptible to an award. Because there was no natural break in the scoring, Ms. Jones included all 12 vendors within the competitive range and DFS commenced negotiations with all of them. The Negotiation Phase The negotiation team included Jennifer Pelham, Teresa Bach, Tanya McCarty, and Rick Wiseman, who collectively have substantial experience in negotiating contracts, procurement, and e-Payment services. The team also invited subject matter experts, including individuals from the three largest users, DOT, DOR, and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (“DHSMV”), to participate in the negotiation and strategy sessions and provide their input. The ITN required the team to conduct the negotiations and make an award recommendation after determining which vendor presented the best value to the State in accordance with the following Selection Criteria: The Respondent’s articulation, innovation, and demonstrated ability of the proposed solution to meet the Department’s Solution goals and the requirements of this ITN; Experience and skills of the Respondent’s proposed staff relative to the proposed solution; and The Respondent’s pricing and overall cost to the State. The ITN gave DFS substantial discretion. It could eliminate vendors from further consideration, end negotiations at any time and proceed to a contract award, or reject all responses and start the process over. It could request clarifications and revisions to any vendor’s response (including BAFOs) until it believed it had achieved the best value. It could negotiate different terms and related price adjustments if it believed such changes provided the best value. And, it could arrive at an agreement with a vendor and finalize principal terms of the contract. The team conducted its first round of negotiations with the 12 vendors. Prior to the meetings, the negotiation team closely reviewed the vendors’ responses and prepared agendas with questions as to their ability to fully perform the required services, their proposed solutions, and their pricing models, among other things. The agendas asked the vendors to explain their pricing and each had that opportunity during their presentations. The team met immediately after each presentation to discuss the vendor, its ability to meet the Statement of Work and provide all of the required services, its experience, and any other issues that arose during the presentation. The team conducted a strategy session after the first seven presentations to discuss the same issues and tentatively decided with which vendors to move forward. The team conducted a similar strategy session after the final five presentations. Despite responses indicating otherwise, it became clear that several vendors did not fully understand or appreciate the scope of the required services. Several vendors also lacked the capability or demonstrated ability to perform all of the required services. Based on the presentations and strategy discussions, the team ended negotiations with seven vendors—i.e., BOA, JP Morgan, Govolution, Point & Pay, Suntrust, Hancock Whitney, and PayIt—for the following reasons: PayIt – did not offer IVR in Spanish, as required; claimed experience with POS devices, but failed to answer questions about that experience or about the specific types of equipment it could offer; failed to follow the agenda and answer specific questions/concerns raised by the team; experience limited to web and mobile, rather than POS or IVR; limited experience with individual agencies in states, but not an entire state contract, and only had been in business for a few years; lacked adequate resources and staff to handle the contract at the time, with only a promise to hire more staff later. BOA – did not offer IVR; could not provide all requested services, so BOA proposed two contracts with other entities, which would cause additional administrative difficulty. JP Morgan – lacked an understanding of the Statement of Work or the ITN; lacked a detailed implementation plan; could not offer participant defined fields for agencies to customize the platform or the required data migration; offered only a piecemeal solution relying on the current vendor to continue providing services. Govolution – lacked an understanding of the Statement of Work or the ITN; only offered payment technology, but lacked the ability to provide the processing component; lacked a detailed implementation plan; could not offer the required data migration. Point & Pay – lacked experience with both government contracts and contracts of the scope, complexity, and scale of this contract; focused more heavily on payment technology, rather than processing. Suntrust - lacked an understanding of the Statement of Work or the ITN; offered only a piecemeal solution relying on the current vendor to continue to provide services; could not provide data migration for the 15 participant fields needed for agency customization; lacked a plan to replace POS devices. Hancock Whitney - lacked an understanding of the Statement of Work or the ITN, including that the contract included SunPass or that local governments had to be converted during the implementation period; could not provide required data migration or 15 participant fields needed for agency customization. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the team asked the vendors to discuss their pricing and considered it, but reasonably decided to end negotiations with these seven vendors—who could not offer all of the required services, lacked an understanding of the required services or a solid plan for providing them, failed to follow the agenda and provide the specific information requested, or lacked sufficient experience—consistent with the ITN and Florida law. The team continued negotiations with NIC, FIS, Official Payments, JetPay, and Wells Fargo. The team created agendas for the second round of negotiation sessions so that it could delve deeper into the vendors’ ability to perform all of the required services, their unique solutions for doing so, and their pricing. The team created a chart to conduct a side-by-side comparison of the vendors’ experience, their individual solutions, and their ability to provide the requisite services and value-added services. Although not required by the ITN, the team also created a chart listing the five vendors’ prices for the required services to try to do an apples- to-apples comparison. However, doing such a comparison remained a challenge because of the vendors’ different pricing structures. But, the team generally understood what the vendors charged for the services, including that Wells Fargo and FIS had cheaper transaction fees than NIC. After the second round, the team ended negotiations with JetPay and Wells Fargo for the following reasons: JetPay – Did not meet the information transfer requirements, forcing agencies to undergo extensive programming efforts to switch over; lacked experience with contracts of this size and scope; would not commit to a dedicated staff in Tallahassee. Wells Fargo – Did not use a single platform and had a multi-vendor solution; lacked a plan for replacing POS devices; could not meet the requirements for data migration or copies of batch files for processing payments that agencies requested; elaborate and extensive pricing. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the team understood and considered the vendors’ pricing, but reasonably decided to end negotiations with JetPay and Wells Fargo—two vendors who lacked the demonstrated ability and experience to perform all of the required services of the ITN— consistent with the ITN and Florida law. The third round of negotiations continued with FIS, Official Payments, and NIC. The team met with each vendor again to obtain additional information about their ability to provide all of the required services, their solutions, and their pricing. In order to focus more closely on pricing, the team provided the vendors with past monthly invoices for DOT, DOR, and DHSMV and each completed the invoices based on their own pricing. This exercise allowed the team to understand the total cost to the State that each vendor would charge based on the services currently provided by BOA and compare those total costs both amongst each other and with BOA. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the team reasonably decided to do this pricing exercise only with these three vendors because they were the only ones that it believed at the time were reasonably susceptible to an award. Nothing in the ITN required the team to conduct this pricing exercise with all vendors, much less those who already had been reasonably eliminated for failing the other two selection criteria. After the third round, the team ended negotiations with Official Payments for several reasons. First, it could not commit to a deliverable for next-day settlement of transactions, which BOA currently provided to agencies. Second, some of its references confirmed that it had not implemented the number, level, and complexity of services required by the ITN. Third, it offered to provide only one representative in Tallahassee who only had one year of experience with e-Payments. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the team reasonably decided to end negotiations with Official Payments consistent with the ITN and Florida law. The team continued negotiations with FIS and NIC. It met with both vendors, checked their references, and reviewed their pricing exercises. The team understood that FIS offered lower prices than NIC, but decided to end negotiations with FIS for the following reasons distinct from price: FIS had no contactless payments or IVR services currently available and the team remained concerned that it had never implemented these services before. Although FIS promised to make those services available later in 2020, the team preferred (and, based on the language of the ITN and its answers in the Q&A, believed that the ITN required) that vendors be able to provide the services on the date they signed the contract to ensure implementation could begin immediately and the transition run smoothly. The team had concerns about FIS’s ability to live up to its promises, as it twice delayed meetings during negotiations and its references noted a lack of responsiveness to issues and implementing new services. FIS only offered one representative in Tallahassee and, at that, only during the implementation period. PayIt argues that the team misunderstood how much cheaper FIS was than NIC and ignored merchant fees during the pricing exercise. The weight of the credible evidence showed otherwise. PayIt contends that the team misunderstood FIS’s price because a spreadsheet it utilized contained an error as to FIS’s fee per transaction, which rendered FIS’s costs lower than the team realized. However, the team already knew that FIS’s prices were generally lower than NIC’s and the testimony confirmed that the error had no effect on their decision. Indeed, the team utilized the spreadsheet merely as a tool. It also cannot be ignored that, although NIC charged higher fees per transaction, FIS charged fees for monthly maintenance and equipment replacement, and charged hourly fees for customization development, which NIC offered for free. More importantly, based on the weight of the credible evidence, the team reasonably chose to eliminate FIS from negotiations despite its lower price because it fell short on the other two selection criteria—demonstrated ability and experience to meet the requirements of the ITN—and the team acted within its discretion under the ITN and Florida law in doing so. The team continued negotiations with NIC and solicited a BAFO only from it because no other vendor was reasonably susceptible to an award. NIC submitted its BAFO in December 2019. Consistent with its initial response, NIC proposed adjustments to the limitation of liability term and removed the parent guarantee term, and it attached those changes in its proposed Standard Terms and Conditions, as the ITN required. Although NIC understood that it would be the single awardee, its proposed Standard Terms and Conditions included the original non-exclusivity provision, making it clear that DFS was not granting NIC an exclusive license to provide the e-Payment services at issue. The BAFO also included a pass-through plus pricing model, which NIC proposed back in July 2019 during the pricing exercise. This pricing model passed through banking and merchant fees, reduced its fees per transaction from its original proposal, and included a discounted fee for DOT transactions. These adjustments generated significant savings to the State as compared to what the State currently pays BOA, which is exactly why DFS encouraged vendors to propose creative pricing in the ITN and the Q&A. PayIt argues that the team irrationally ignored merchant fees associated with credit card transactions during the pricing exercise, which would be a pass-through cost to the State. However, the weight of the credible evidence showed otherwise. Unlike processing fees (charged by NIC) and interchange fees (charged by the credit card company), merchant fees are charged by the intermediary that provides security and tokenization for the credit card transaction. Although the sample invoices submitted by FIS, Official Payments, and NIC during the pricing exercise did not itemize merchant fees, the total cost shown on the invoices included those fees. Thus, the team understood how the merchant fees would impact the total cost to the State, even if they did not understand exactly what those fees were. More importantly, agencies have the option to pass through merchant fees to the customer through a convenience fee and many of them do just that. In fact, agencies charged approximately $8.3 million in convenience fees in 2017-2018. By passing those fees through to the customer, they are not costs borne by the State. Because it is up to the agency to choose whether to pass through such fees, it is impossible to determine whether and to what extent the State will be responsible for those fees and how much they would cost the State. The Best Value Determination The team reviewed NIC’s BAFO and determined that it represented the best value to the State. The weight of the credible evidence established the following justifications for that decision: NIC was the only vendor that could provide all of the required services and exceed them, including contactless payments, POS devices, IVR in 21 languages, and next-day settlement with midnight cut-off so payments would be disbursed to the agency within one business day. NIC had over 25 years of government experience with states as large as Florida and had the demonstrated ability to perform all services effectively and immediately. NIC owned a single proprietary platform designed specifically for government entities with over 200 configurable elements that agencies could tailor to their own individual needs. NIC proposed a dedicated four-person team in Tallahassee for the duration of the contract, which was important due to the number of agencies utilizing the contract and the number of moving parts. NIC had a detailed project management plan for implementing the services to the agencies and local governments. NIC offered value-added services exceeding those required by the ITN, such as free replacement of all POS devices, a yearly device allowance, a mobile platform, and payment through text messages, among others. Although the team understood that choosing NIC may be more expensive than FIS, it determined that it was willing to pay more for a better solution that exceeded all of the ITN’s requirements from a more established vendor. The team did not want Florida to be a test case and it had confidence that NIC was battle-ready on day one. Given the importance of this billion- dollar contract and the number of agencies involved, the weight of the credible evidence showed that the team reasonably made this determination. The team’s almost year-long effort culminated in a public meeting on January 3, 2020. At that point, the team had conducted over 30 negotiation sessions with vendors, many of which spanned an entire day, and held over 100 strategy sessions averaging around four to six hours each. At the meeting, Ms. Pelham reviewed the selection criteria and each team member voted in favor of NIC. Although the team members did not detail the reasons for their vote at the meeting, they had spent hundreds of hours meeting with vendors and strategizing about their capabilities, solutions, and pricing, and discussing these issues at length during the strategy sessions. It is true that the team was to arrive at its recommendation by “discussion” during a public meeting, but the ITN did not define that term or require a specific level of detail. In any event, the failure to provide such details during the meeting resulted in no prejudice to any other vendors, all of whom already had been reasonably eliminated from negotiations. After the meeting, Ms. Pelham drafted a memorandum recommending the award to NIC. The memorandum confirmed that NIC provided the best value to the State based on its price and the selection criteria. Although the memorandum did not provide a more detailed explanation, the ITN contained no such requirement. Instead, the ITN stated that the negotiation team would make an award recommendation after determining which vendor presented the best value in accordance with the selection criteria and that the CFO or his designee will make the final determination based on that recommendation. Mr. Fennell, the deputy CFO, was tasked with making the final decision. As the deputy CFO of a large agency, he must rely on the advice of the division directors, deputies, and bureau chiefs who oversee the day-to-day operations of the divisions within his purview; this procurement was no different. Based on his confidence in the team and Mr. Collins, who had been involved throughout the ITN process, participated in some of the strategy sessions, and provided high-level updates to Mr. Fennell about the progress of the procurement, Mr. Fennell approved the team’s recommendation. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, DFS did not contravene the ITN, let alone in a material or prejudicial way, through the process by which it recommended the award. The negotiation team followed the dictates of the ITN by holding the public meeting, at which the selection criteria were reviewed and the team voted for the recommended action, which was then set forth in the team’s memorandum. Mr. Fennell complied with the ITN by making a final decision based on the memorandum and the confidence he had in the negotiation team’s recommendation. On January 13, 2020, DFS issued its notice of intent to award the contract to NIC. Upon receipt thereof, PayIt timely filed its bid protest. Assuming that DFS and NIC are successful in this protest, they will execute the contract. Thereafter, DFS will create a contract file, place the contract in it, and confirm that it contains a short plain statement explaining the basis for the award, as required by section 287.057(1)(c)5., Florida Statutes. The contract itself is often sufficient to meet this requirement. Based on the weight of the credible evidence and the language of the statute, the undersigned finds that DFS has no obligation to create such a file or prepare the statutory statement until the contract is signed, which cannot occur until this protest is finally resolved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services issue a final order dismissing PayIt, LLC’s Amended Formal Written Protest Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO 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 6th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Brittany B. Griffith, Esquire Department of Financial Services Office of the General Counsel 200 East Gaines Street, Room 612B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) James A. McKee, Esquire Foley & Lardner LLP 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Eduardo S. Lombard, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Alexandra Akre, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Eugene Dylan Rivers, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Erik Matthew Figlio, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Mallory Neumann, Esquire Foley & Lardner LLP 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Marion Drew Parker, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) John A. Tucker, Esquire Foley & Lardner, LLP One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Leamington (Petitioner herein), is a road maintenance and construction contractor doing business since approximately 1985. John Hummell is Petitioner's President and is responsible for all bids submitted for contract awards. Petitioner contracts primarily with the Florida Department of Transportation (Respondent herein). Since 1985, Petitioner has entered into approximately forty-one (41) contracts with Respondent. Petitioner was one of seven bidders on State Job #17030-3536, Contract E-1706, let by Respondent in District I. Respondent notified Petitioner of its decision to award the bid to the second lowest bidder, Simco, by notice posted on April 19, 1993 stating that Leamington's bid was rejected because it was considered not to be responsible and was not in the best interest of the Department (to contract with Leamington). The work in question involves the repairs of the bridge located at SR- 789 at Little Ringling Causeway west of Sarasota in Sarasota County. The work entails removal and replacement of silicone sealant on the bridge deck and replacement and rejacketing of piling with grout epoxy. The bid tabulations revealed that Petitioner's bid was approximately $500.00 less than that of the second lowest bidder, Simco, Inc., of Sarasota. The Department has a procedure called the "district contracts procedure". Part of the procedure calls for the awards committee to review bids and determine who the bid should be awarded to. The awards committee, which was chaired by Glenn Ivey, the District Director of Operations, reviewed the bid submitted for project E-1706. The awards committee voted unanimously to reject Leamington's bid on Contract E-1706. The decision to reject Petitioner's bid, by the awards committee, was based on Petitioner's performance on its more recent Department contracts. Specifically, the awards committee considered projects E-1649, for sidewalk repair in several counties; contract E-1545, a concrete repair job in Lakeland; and contract E-1652, a roadway shoulder repair job. Leamington's contract on the concrete repair job (E-1545) was rated as being poor when Leamington was, in effect, asked to leave the job. Based on Leamington's poor workmanship and difficulties encountered on that contract, Respondent terminated work on the contract after approximately sixty percent (60 percent) of the work was completed. The remainder of that project was completed by another contractor. Specifically, Job No. E-1545 called for Petitioner to remove and replace portland concrete slabs on Memorial Boulevard in Lakeland. Petitioner failed to restore the concrete slabs to a smooth surface, making it necessary for Respondent to have the slabs ground such that motorists had a smooth driving surface. After several warnings, Respondent cancelled the project and, as noted, approximately forty percent (40 percent) of the work was completed by another contractor. Another project reviewed by the awards committee was Contract E-1652, a roadway shoulder repair contract. On that project, Petitioner was advised that the shoulder had to be graded at a certain angle and was shown, by several of Respondent's engineers, the proper manner in which to accomplish the task. Petitioner failed to grade the shoulder at the correct angle as requested. Petitioner also routinely failed to provide proper traffic control during the performance of Contract E-1652 and frequently disputed Respondent's employees advice as to work instructions and ways to eradicate the poor workmanship on that project. Additionally, Petitioner failed to use skilled workers and did not have ample equipment on the job to perform the work on Contract E-1652. Initially, Petitioner had limited equipment at the beginning of the work on Contract E-1652. After Petitioner received a letter from Respondent advising that there wasn't adequate equipment to complete the project, Petitioner obtained additional equipment. The Department terminated Petitioner's work under Contract E-1652 because Petitioner had approached the contract deadline for completion and due to of the numerous problems the Department experienced with Petitioner in getting the work completed acceptably. Bobby Cranford, the Assistant Maintenance Engineer for the Petitioner's Sarasota Maintenance Unit, recommended that Petitioner not be awarded any more roadway shoulder repair contracts based on the difficulties experienced by Petitioner's "poor" workmanship on contract E-1652. Another project reviewed by the awards committee was Petitioner's work performance on Contract E-1649, a sidewalk repair job which encompassed several counties. Petitioner did not have the required personnel and expertise to perform the sidewalk job correctly. Petitioner was kept informed of deficiencies and necessary corrections to correctly perform the sidewalk repair job, however, the proper repairs have not been made. The Respondent introduced a composite of twenty-three (23) photos showing the extent of the problems Petitioner needed to correct the sidewalk repairs with notes as to the corrective action that was needed. Specifically, Petitioner used little expansion joint materials and no edging tools were utilized on the project. Similar problems were found throughout the four county area in which Petitioner was engaged on the sidewalk project. By letter dated May 13, 1993, Respondent advised Petitioner of the numerous problems on contract E-1649. Specifically, Petitioner's President was told of visual inspections which showed substandard work on the original work as well as the work wherein Petitioner attempted to correct deficiencies which were discovered by Respondent. For example, Petitioner was advised that at 506 First and Main Streets in Wachula, there were sections of concrete sidewalk removed and scheduled for replacement with adjacent sections now damaged. Petitioner was further advised that workers had driven trucks on the sidewalk damaging several slabs not marked for replacement. Finally, Petitioner was asked to correct broken sprinklers at the work site and to resolve a claim filed by a Mrs. Campbell, which was registered with Respondent. The awards committee also relied upon an independent inspection report prepared by Bobby Cranford. That report is a forty (40) page report citing numerous deficiencies on the sidewalk repair project. Respondent requires that contractors employ english speaking superintendents at each work site to assist in communicating with its inspectors. Petitioner utilized superintendents who did not speak english and thereby created a language barrier making communication difficult with Respondent's personnel. Respondent had to monitor Petitioner's projects extensively and at a cost which increased the Department's overhead disproportionately when compared to other projects let to other district contractors. Based on a review of Respondent's work on Petitioner's recent contracts, no other contractors performing contracts in District I had a performance record as poor as Petitioner. When the awards committee made its decision to reject Petitioner's bid on the subject contract, it also relied on a memorandum from , Wally Clark, a District I attorney. In the memorandum it was concluded that Petitioner had subcontracted work to Hummell, Inc., a separate entity and that the required prior written approval of the subcontracting had not been obtained from Respondent. The investigation also revealed that the subcontractor, Hummell, Inc., had not been paid for its services (by Petitioner). An internal audit also prepared by Wall revealed that Hummell, Inc. was an unpaid subcontractor of Petitioner. The awards committee also considered allegations from Phillip Spears, a subcontractor of Petitioner, who had not been paid for work performed on Respondent's contracts. The committee also considers a newspaper article which stated that Petitioner was under investigation by local law enforcement officials for failure to pay subcontractors on the Interstate 75 project. Dennis Hall is the District Investigator for District I. Hall accompanied Wall, the author of the internal audit report, on investigations and interviews in compiling the audit report. One of the persons interviewed by Wall and Hall was Larry Zavitz. Zavitz was an inspector employed by Petitioner in excess of twenty- eight (28) years and had performed the inspection on Petitioner's sidewalk repair project under Contract E-1649. During the interview of Zavitz, he admitted to receiving a loan of $1,000.00 from John Hummell which Zavitz had not fully repaid at the time of the interview. Upon Zavitz admission of accepting the loan, he was asked and later resigned from the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's protest of the rejection of its bid on Contract E-1706 be rejected and the Department enter its award of the subject contract to the second lowest responsible bidder, Simco, Inc. of Sarasota. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 8th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Haydon Burns Building 562 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 William H. Roberts, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Michael E. Riley, Esquire 106 East College Avenue Post Office Box 10507 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was the lowest responsive bidder in Lease No. 590:1975, and therefore entitled to the contract award.
Findings Of Fact In 1988, the Department made the determination that it would not exercise its option on leased space owned by the Petitioner Dyess, in Clewiston, Florida. Bid documents were prepared by the agency for its current office space needs. Bid proposals were solicited through newspaper advertisements and personal contact with owners, developers, and realtors within the Clewiston area. The Department included Dyess in its solicitations. He was sent an Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities by the Department. This bid package contained all of the bid documents for the bid referred to as Lease Number 590:1975. The Invitation to Bid was issued by the Department for approximately 7,962 square feet of net rentable office space in Clewiston, Florida. The invitation was prepared using HRS Facilities Form R01-87. The form used by the Department for soliciting and accepting competitive proposals for the leased space was required to comply with all conditions and requirements adopted by the Department of General Services, as set forth in Rule 13M-1.015(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The Department of General Services is the agency which administers real property leasing for the State of Florida for leased space of 2,000 square feet or more in privately owned buildings. During the bidders' conference held on April 26, 1988, Mr. Michael J. Sedgwick, the agency's representative, was questioned about the agency's interpretation of the term "dry and capable of being physically measured" which is set forth on page two of the Invitation to Bid and page three of the Bid Submittal Form. Page two of the Invitation to Bid is a glossary which defines various terms used within the bid documents. The term "existing building" is defined as follows: To be considered as existing, the entire space being bid must be dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rental square footage at the time of the bid submittal. Paragraph 10 on page three of the Bid Submittal Form reiterates the definition of an "existing building" as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. The language in the bid documents which defines the term "existing building" is identical to the language in Form BPN 4136, which has been promulgated as a rule by the Department of General Services as the format for specifications for the solicitation of leased spaces by the State of Florida. In response to the request for an interpretation, Mr. Sedgwick contacted Mr. George Smith, who administers the leasing program for the Department in Tallahassee, and obtained the following definition: "Dry and measurable" consists of four things: a slab, four corners, a roof, and a valid building permit if construction is in progress. The definition given by Mr. Smith was verbally communicated to the prospective bidders who attended the conference. This definition was verbally communicated to the Petitioner by Mr. Sedgwick on April 27, 1988. The Petitioner timely submitted a bid in Lease Number 590:1975 on the Department's Bid submittal Form by May 24, 1988. On page three of this form, each bidder was required to acknowledge the bid requirements contained on that page by placing his initials in the bottom right hand corner. The Petitioner Dyess acknowledged the requirement that the proposed space must be an "existing building" at the time of the bid submittal. On May 24, 1988, the date of the bid opening, Petitioner's building did not meet the requirements of an existing building as defined within the bid documents or the Department's verbal clarification of the definition. The building did not have a roof, a slab, or a valid building permit. After the bids were opened, the District VIII Bid Evaluation Committee visited each of the proposed lease locations. When the Petitioner's proposed location was reviewed by the committee two days after the close of bids, the addition was found to consist of the following: two partially completed block walls which connected the two existing buildings. The existing buildings were still intact, but it was apparent that an expansion was taking place, and that the completed project would be one building. A slab had not yet been poured in the addition, and it was without a roof. The plans submitted to the Department with the Petitioner's bid suggested that this expansion was capable of producing the square footage required by the Department. The City of Clewiston was aware of the Petitioner's expansion project, but he was not required by this authority to have a building permit at the time the project was viewed by the committee and evaluated by the Department. The Petitioner's bid was rejected by the Department because, on the date of the bid submittal, the proposed addition was not an "existing building" as defined by the bid documents and the further verbal interpretation by the agency. The bid submitted by the Intervenor Tibbetts did not contain the complete contract for the purchase of the property. However, the right to purchase was evidenced by a document submitted with the bid. Full Disclosure Statements of Ownership are not required under Rule 13N-1.015, Florida Administrative Code, until after a bid is awarded. The property was not properly zoned at the time of the Intervenor Tibbetts' bid submittal.
