The Issue Whether, on January 14, 1997, the Department of Health (Department or DOH), approved an alternative drainfield system for Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc. (PTI), consisting of a 9- pipe system on an equivalency of one linear foot of PTI's system to two square feet of mineral aggregate or one linear foot of PTI's system to three square feet of mineral aggregate.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc. (PTI), formerly Plastic Tubing, Inc., was originally formed in Florida in 1974. PTI manufactures plastic drain pipe and the fittings that accompany such pipe. Many of its products and processes are patented. In conjunction with its business, PTI has developed several alternative drainfield systems that utilize plastic tubing or corrugated pipe in lieu of a standard subsurface system made with mineral aggregate for septic tank drainfields. An alternative drainfield system substitutes pipe, or other materials, for aggregate (gravel or rock) used in traditional systems. Before installation in the State of Florida, PTI was required to obtain approval for its alternative drainfield system from the Department. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 10D-6.049, effective January 3, 1995, amended November 19, 1997, and February 3, 1999; and replaced with Fla. Admin. Code R. 64E- 6.009. The Department was, at all times relevant to this administrative proceeding, the state agency authorized to approve the use of alternative systems (to standard subsurface systems) in the State of Florida. Approvals of alternative systems were based on the Department's analysis of, in part, plans prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Florida and submitted by applicants. See Rule 10D-6.049.1 Septic Tanks and Drainfields "Alternative system" means "any approved onsite sewage treatment and disposal system used in lieu of, including modifications to, a standard subsurface system." Rule 10D- 6.042(3). "Standard subsurface drain field system" means "an onsite sewage system and disposal system drain field consisting of a distribution box or header pipe in a drain trench or absorption bed with all portions of the drain field side walls installed below the elevation of undisturbed native soil (see Figure 3)." Rule 10D-6.042(45). The primary purpose of any on-site septic tank system, and ultimately, the septic tank drainfield, is the storage and dispersal of wastewater until the soil can accept it. In other words, a drainfield is a transmission device that takes water and other liquids from a septic tank to the ground. Liquids leave the septic tank into the drainfield which is designed to store the liquid before letting it flow into the ground or soil. Mineral aggregate provides a conducive medium to spread and temporarily store the effluent. Storage capacity refers to the amount of effluent coming out of a septic tank that will be stored in the aggregate or aggregate alternative, here the pipes, until the ground will accept the effluent. Filtrative surface area refers to the openings (in the pipe or aggregate) that allow the water/effluent to leave the storage area and enter the soil. In the case of mineral aggregate, the openings between the aggregate provide an exit for the water/effluent into the soil. With respect to PTI's pipe product, the water leaves the holes in the pipes and travels through voids created from the ridges and valleys of the pipes and enters the soil. An alternative system is evaluated by how the alternative system compares in function (storage capacity and filtrative surface area) to mineral aggregate. In November 1998, the Department defined "reduction" for the first time to mean any change in the actual bottom area size of the drainfield or a change in the footprint of a drainfield. For example, if a product system is 33-inches wide, it would have a reduction because it is less than 36 inches wide. Prior to November 1998, reduction referred to a reduction in linear feet, rather than total trench area or footprint. Thus, if 80 feet of an alternative product could function as well as a 100-foot trench of aggregate, a reduction of 20 feet would occur. PTI did not ask for a reduction in drainfield linear footage, and in particular, regarding the 9-pipe system. The Approval Process On or about April 21, 1995, PTI submitted a letter to the Department which apparently requested approval "to utilize both the 9-pipe and 13-pipe configurations in lieu of mineral aggregate material in septic tank drainfield systems." (Petitioner Exhibit 2.) This letter is not part of the final hearing record, but is reflected in the Department's May 24, 1995 letter from Paul Booher, P.E., to Fred Atchley, on behalf of PTI.2 (The quoted language is from the May 24, 1995 letter.) In the May 24, 1995, letter, the Department requested PTI to provide additional information to assist the Department in its evaluation of PTI's request. In part, the Department stated that there are three mechanisms that affect the performance of the infiltrative surface, i.e., chemical, biological, and physical, and that "[b]iological, and perhaps other physical (soil size) considerations, affect the performance of drainfield systems." By letter dated July 7, 1995, PTI's engineer, John E. Garlanger, Ph.D., P.E., a principal with Ardaman & Associates, Inc., provided PTI, to the attention of Mr. Atchley, a letter/report which responded to the Department letter of May 24, 1995. Dr. Garlanger stated in part: "As requested, Ardaman & Associates, Inc. has prepared cross-sectional drawings showing the dimensions associated with the installation of a 9- pipe and 13-pipe Rockless Drain Field System (PTI System) in both mound trench and subsurface trench drain field system." In addition to the letter/report, Dr. Garlanger provided a drawing labeled "Installation Guidelines Multi-Pipe Rockless Drain Field System Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc.," File No. 95-104. (Joint Exhibit 1.) The July 7, 1995, drawing depicts the 9-pipe system and 13-pipe system. The 9-pipe system consists of nine four- inch diameter corrugated polyethylene pipes. Four pipes are placed on top of five pipes and one of the four pipes is a distribution pipe. The nine pipes are bundled together, are 8.63 inches in height and 23.25 inches in width, and depicted within a two-foot wide trench. Note 4 of 6 on the drawing indicated that the "ACTUAL WIDTH OF BOTH 9-PIPE AND 13-PIPE SYSTEMS AFTER PLACEMENT IN THE TRENCH IS GREATER THAN SHOWN BY UP TO 10 % DUE TO SPREADING OF THE PIPES WITHIN THE BUNDLES." (The same drawing also illustrates the 13-pipe system with six pipes placed on top of seven pipes and bundled. The 13-pipe system is 8.63 inches in height and 32.375 inches in width and depicted within a three-foot wide trench. Note 4 is also referenced. (Joint Exhibit 1.)) Dr. Garlanger provided six notes to the July 7, 1995 drawing, as follows: 1.) STORAGE VOLUME BENEATH BOTTOM OF 0.75- INCH DIAMETER PERFORATIONS IN DISTRIBUTION PIPE FOR 9-PIPE SYSTEM IS GREATER THAN 1180 in3/ft (5.1 gal/ft) [1190 in3/ft (5.2 gal/ft)] AND FOR 13-PIPE SYSTEM IS GREATER THAN 1690 in3/ft (7.3 gal/ft) [1710 in3/ft (7.4 gal/ft)]. THIS COMPARES WITH A STORAGE VOLUME OF 660 in3/ft (2.8 gal/FT) FOR CONVENTIONAL 2-FOOT WIDE AGGREGATE-FILLED TRENCH AND 1000 in3/ft (4.3 gal/ft) FOR A CONVENTIONAL 3-FOOT WIDE AGGREGATE-FILLED TRENCH. 2.) TOTAL AVAILABLE STORAGE VOLUME WITHIN 9-PIPE SYSTEM IS 1985 in3/ft (8.6 gal/ft) [2070 in3/ft (8.9 gal/ft)] AND WITHIN 13-PIPE SYSTEM IS 2910 in3/ft (12.6 gal/ft) [2980 in3/ft (12.9 gal/ft)]. THIS COMPARES WITH A TOTAL STORAGE VOLUME OF 1185 in3/ft (5.13 gal/ft) [1200 in3/ft (5.2 gal/ft)] FOR 2-FOOT WIDE, 12-INCH DEEP AGGREGATE SYSTEM AND 1790 in3/ft (7.75 gal/ft) [1800 in3/ft (7.8 gal/ft)] FOR A 3-FOOT WIDE, 12-INCH DEEP AGGREGATE SYSTEM. 3.) THE BOTTOM AREA AVAILABLE FOR FILTRATION IS GREATER THAN 160 in2/ft FOR THE 9-PIPE SYSTEM AND GREATER THAN 220 in2/ft FOR THE 13-PIPE SYSTEM. COMPARABLE BOTTOM AREAS FOR AGGREGATE SYSTEMS ARE 100 in2/ft FOR A 2- FOOT TRENCH AND 150 in2/ft FOR A 3-FOOT TRENCH. 4.) ACTUAL WIDTH OF BOTH 9-PIPE AND 13-PIPE SYSTEMS AFTER PLACEMENT IN THE TRENCH IS GREATER THAN SHOWN BY UP TO 10% DUE TO SPREADING OF THE PIPES WITHIN THE BUNDLES. 5.) PERFORATIONS [IN DISTRIBUTION PIPE] ARE SPACED 4" ON CENTER. PERFORATION AREA IS 2.65 in2/LINEAL FOOT. 6.) EITHER OF THE UPPER PIPES IN THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE BUNDLE MAY BE USED FOR THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE. THE LOWER PIPE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE. [THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE SHALL BE MARKED WITH A REFERENCE LINE TO ORIENT THE PERFORATIONS. THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE SHALL BE COUPLED BETWEEN EACH BUNDLE TO PROVIDE A CONTINUOUS LENGTH OF PIPE.] (The language appearing in brackets appears in the revised drawing, Joint Exhibit 2, submitted by PTI with Dr. Garlanger's December 8, 1996, letter, DOH Exhibit 4.) In his July 7, 1995 letter to PTI, Dr. Garlanger, in responding to Mr. Booher's letter of May 24, 1995, stated in part: Explain how the pipe bundles fulfill the requirement for a 12-inch deep drain field? Paragraph 10D-6.056(3)(e) requires the mineral aggregate material have a total depth of at least 12 inches and that the distribution pipe have a minimum of six inches of aggregate under the pipe. The purpose of the aggregate is to provide a highly conductive medium to spread and temporarily store the wastewater above the infiltrative surface between loading cycles. Twelve inches of mineral aggregate in a 2- foot wide trench can store approximately 5.25 gallons of wastewater per foot. Deducting the dead storage below the perforations in the distribution pipe, the total available storage in a conventional 2- foot wide trench drain is 5.13 gallons per foot and in a conventional 3-foot wide trench is 7.75 gallons per foot. The height of the 9-pipe and 13-pipe systems is 8.360 inches. The distance from the bottom of the trench to the bottom of the perforations in the distribution pipe is 4.836 inches. The total available water storage in a 9-pipe system after deducting the dead storage is 8.60 gallons per foot and in a 13-pipe system after making the same deduction is 12.58 gallons per foot. In both cases, the total available storage is greater for the PTI system. [See Note 2 above.] Note that the total available water storage capacity below the bottom of the perforations in the distribution pipe is also greater for the PTI System than for the aggregate system: 5.1 gal/ft for the 9-pipe system compared to 2.8 gal/ft for a conventional 2-foot wide trench and 7.3 gal/ft for the 13-pipe system compared to 4.3 gal/ft for the conventional 3-foot wide trench. [See Note 1 above.] Because the thickness of aggregate below the pipe is less than the minimum requirement of 6 inches, we are concerned about the distribution of the effluent over the infiltrative surface, especially since the sidewalls are such an integral part of the operation of the system. The hydraulic conductivity of both the aggregate system and the bundled pipe system is several orders of magnitude higher than that of the in situ sand that underlies the drain field. In both cases, but certainly for the PTI System, water flowing out of the perforations in the distribution pipe can spread out evenly across the infiltrative surface. The depth to which the water rises above the infiltrative surface depends primarily on the inflow rate and the hydraulic conductivity of the organic mat that forms on the bottom of the trench. Because of the differences in porosity between the two systems, the water increases in depth faster in the aggregate system than in the PIT System. However, the ultimate depth of water for a given inflow rate will be roughly the same for both systems, i.e., when inflow equals outflow. The only difference between the two systems is in the volume of water that is stored in the trench during each loading period; the PTI System stores more. There should be no significant difference in the effect of the sidewalls on the infiltrative capacity of the two systems. The effect of increasing sidewall seepage on the overall hydraulic performance of a drain field system is not large. For a 2-foot wide trench, increasing the sidewall seepage by raising the water depth from 5 to 6 inches increases the peak infiltration rate by less than 7 percent. The corresponding increase for a 3-foot wide trench is less than 5 percent. State the area per lineal foot of bundle that constitutes the infiltrative surface. The surface area at the bottom of the trench that is available for filtration of suspended solids in the effluent is greater than 160 in2/lineal foot for the 9-pipe system and greater than 220 in2/lineal foot for the 13-pipe system. This compares with 100 in2/lineal foot for a 2-foot wide aggregate-filled trench and 150 in2/lineal foot for a 3-foot wide aggregate-filled trench. [See Note 3 above.] (The underlined portions are inquiries made by Mr. Booher. The language in brackets refers to the "Notes" mentioned above.) DOH Exhibit 3 is a copy of Dr. Garlanger's July 7, 1995, letter, which also contains Mr. Booher's comments of August 14, 1995. It is noted that Dr. Garlanger discusses the calculations which appear in Notes 1, 2, and 3, in that portion of Dr. Garlanger's letter/report recited above. Mr. Booher also made notations on the July 7, 1995, drawing, with respect to, among other things, the Notes. Material here, beside Note 3, Mr. Booher wrote "Gravel Shadow? @ .35% open." (Joint Exhibit 1.) Mr. Booher also noted on Dr. Garlanger's July 7, 1995, letter/report "disagree" and other notations with respect to Dr. Garlanger's explanation under the subject discussed in Note 3 above, and under the heading "State the area per lineal foot of bundle that constitutes the infiltrative surface." (Emphasis in original.) (See Finding of Fact 16, p. 13.) On October 15, 1996, Mr. Booher requested additional information from Mr. Atchley, as follows: Per our conference call yesterday please provide the following for approval of the rockless pipe drainfield: A written request. Drawings showing the distribution and void pipe locations. Indicate the pipe bundle configurations. If you intend to use the notes on drawing 95-104 titled "Installation guidelines-Multi-pipe rockless drainfield system" please fully include and explain the calculations, including drawings with the areas calculated shown by shading. Explain comparison calculations. For example, gravel percent voids used, effective gravel depth, percent assumed for gravel shadowing and how determined, percent used for pipe shadowing and how determined. If the distribution pipes are of different material than the void pipe please so indicate. Reference the applicable ASTM standard for all materials. Below item 6, the following handwritten note (by Mr. Booher) appears: "Fred-Don't get optomistic [sic]-we are attempting to define 'gravel equivalent.'" (Joint Exhibit 5.) In response to Mr. Booher's October 15, 1996, request for additional information, on December 8, 1996, Dr. Garlanger provided a two-page letter, and Attachment 1 to Mr. Atchley. Attachment 1 provided "Calculations for Storage Volumes and Infiltration Areas for Multi-Pipe Rockless System and Conventional Gravel Drain." Material here, Attachment 1 contained a summary of Dr. Garlanger's conclusions (and the actual calculations) comparing PTI's multi-pipe system, 9-pipe and 13-pipe, to 24 and 36-inch wide gravel-filled trenches, regarding three parameters: storage volume below holes in the distribution pipe; filtration area; and total storage volume in the system. The specific calculations and illustrations are provided, including "area and volume calculations," in Attachment 1 on pages 1-10. (DOH Exhibit 4 and Joint Exhibit 4.) Dr. Garlanger also provided comparison calculations responding to item 4 in Mr. Booher's October 15, 1996 letter (see Finding of Fact 18) as follows: Explain comparison calculations. For example, gravel percent voids used, effective gravel depth, percent assumed for gravel shadowing and how determined. The comparison calculations are presented in Attachment 1. The gravel porosity was calculated based on a typical dry density for loosely placed FDOT No. 57 stone of 110 pcf and a specific gravity for limestone of 2.8, resulting in a calculated porosity of approximately 35 percent. For a conventional gravel-filled trench, the area available for filtration was calculated as the total area of the gravel times porosity, i.e., the percent assumed for gravel shadowing was 100-35=65 percent. For the multi- pipe rockless drain, the contact between the bottom of each pipe and the ground surface was taken as 2 inches per lineal inch of pipe which provides sufficient bearing area to support the overburden pressure. Computation of equivalent storage in the gravel assumed a minimum of 6 inches of No. 57 stone beneath the invert of the pipe and a distance of 0.83 inches from the invert of the pipe to the bottom of the drain holes. (Emphasis added.) (Mr. Booher's request is underlined before Dr. Garlanger's response.) Dr. Garlanger also provided a drawing labeled "Installation Guidelines Multi-Pipe Rockless Drain Field System Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc.," File No. 95-104. This drawing reflects general revisions of October 11, 1995, and December 6, 1996, to the original drawing dated July 7, 1995, which accompanied Dr. Garlanger's July 7, 1995, letter to Mr. Atchley. See Findings of Fact 14-15. Six "Notes" were presented in the December 6, 1996, drawing revisions, with some changes made to Notes 1, 2, 5, and 6 which do not appear to be material. See Finding of Fact 15. No changes are made to Notes 3 and 4. Material here, Note 3 pertains to "the bottom area available for filtration" and Dr. Garlanger's calculations showing the 9-pipe system comparing more favorably (equal to or greater) to a 24 and 36-inch (two and three feet wide, respectively) wide aggregate (gravel) trench without any changes in response to Mr. Booher's August 14, 1995, comments and October 15, 1996, request for additional "comparison calculation" and explanation regarding "gravel shadowing." (Notes 1-3 are derived from the calculations appearing in Attachment 1, pages 1-9.) Dr. Garlanger's submissions indicated that one linear foot of the 9-pipe system is equal to or greater than three square feet of gravel. Also, the representation that the 9-pipe system fits within a 24-inch trench does not relate to equivalency. See Finding of Fact 36. Dr. Garlanger's December 8, 1996, letter, with Attachment 1, and the revised drawing, were forwarded to Mr. Booher with a cover letter from Mr. Atchley, dated December 11, 1996. Mr. Atchley stated in his letter: Enclosed are the drawings and calculations you requested. The "numbers" add up favorably. I look forward to your response and anticipated approval based on this information. Please notice the difference in volume (total capacity), porosity and filtrative surface area. Based on these calculations we could justify a reduction of up to 40%. However, we do not wish to apply for any reduction at this time. We do ask that the bed installation constraint be removed from our acceptance letter. There seems to be more and more bed type installations even though the FAC 10D-6 clearly states that a trench system is the preferred method. Consequently, we will be requiring that certified installers of our systems employ a method of back filling that will insure against collapse of any part of the system. This method would also have to provide within reason, a guaranty against operating any equipment onto the drain field area until sufficient cover has been established. After 10 to 12 inches of cover has been established we ask them to mark the bed area with stakes and flagging to serve as a warning to other sub-contractors such as the sod installers and the finished grade tractor operator. If there are any questions please call me at (407) 298-5121. (On January 13, 1997, Mr. Atchley also sent Mr. Booher a similar letter, but also included some additional data regarding 1996 sales, including but not limited to average system size per square foot, the number of active installers, installations per month.) On January 14, 1997, Mr. Booher issued the following approval letter to Mr. Atchley: Dear Mr. Atchley: We have reviewed the engineering drawings dated 07/07/95 with revision 2 dated 12/06/96 and data prepared and sealed by Ardaman & Associates dated December 8, 1996, and received in this office on December 16, 1996. Your request for alternative drainfield system approval letters dated December 11, 1996, and January 13, 1997, have also been reviewed. The PTI nine pipe bundle and PTI thirteen pipe bundle Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield Systems are hereby approved for use in the State of Florida. We have concerns about the total effective sidewall contact surface area, especially when systems are installed with no fall. We also have concerns regarding the structural integrity of the pipe bundle systems when used in large bed applications. Nevertheless, approval is granted based on the design and recommendations submitted by your professional engineer for which he is solely responsible; the comparative data versus a standard drainfield system; and the satisfactory performance in Florida of similar PTI Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield System installations. Except as herein noted, all systems shall be installed in accordance with sections 381.0065-381.0067 Florida Statutes, and all rules in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). All installations shall be sized and installed meeting all rules in Rule 10D-6, FAC and shall also meet the following conditions: All licensed septic tank contractors who are going to install these systems shall be field instructed by certified employees of PTI on the proper installation and backfilling requirements of the systems prior to installation. Prior to the first installation in each county, contact the local Health Department to provide hands on training for the county health department staff. Both the 9 and 13 pipe bundle systems can be installed in subsurface, filled, or mound trench or bed systems. In bed systems the maximum centerline to centerline spacing of the distribution pipe shall be 36 inches. The distribution piping may be used to house low pressure distribution networks. A copy of the applicable limited warranty shall be provided to each homeowner/builder. Department approval of any alternative system application or any other type system does not guarantee or imply that any individual system installation will perform satisfactorily for a specific period of time. The individual system design engineer or the registered septic tank contractor if an engineer didn't design the system is primarily responsible for determining the best system design to meet specific wastewater treatment and disposal needs and to address the specific property site conditions and limitations. If you have any questions please call us at (904) 488-4070. (Emphasis added.) This letter was accompanied by a facsimile sheet which indicated, in part, that the Department intended to "notify the 67 counties within the week." On January 29, 1997, Mr. Booher authored an Interoffice Memorandum which was issued from John Heber, Chief, On-Site Sewage Program, Mr. Booher's supervisor at the time, to the County Health Department Director/Administrator. (Joint Exhibit 11.) This Interoffice Memorandum provided in part: The PTI 9 pipe and 13 pipe "Multi- Purpose Rockless Drainfield Systems" have both been given alternative systems approval for use in Florida. The systems are to be installed in accordance with drawing file number 95- 104 dated 07/07/95, revision 2 dated 12/06/96, copy attached. Except as hereby noted, systems shall be installed in accordance with sections 381.0065 - 381.0067, Florida Statutes, and all rules in Chapter 10D- 6, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The following conditions apply: The 9 pipe system shall be rated at 1 linear foot equals 2 square feet of drainfield area. The 13 pipe system shall be rated at 1 linear foot equals 3 square feet of drainfield area. The 9 pipe and 13 pipe bundle systems may be installed in subsurface, filled or mounded trench or bed applications. Dosing will be acceptable when used to overcome a gravity situation. Pressurized systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Please be reminded that certain pressurized dosing systems must be designed by engineers registered in the State of Florida. For designs requiring the use of smaller diameter pipe (either screw joint or glue joint), the 9 pipe and 13 pipe systems distribution pipe shall house the pressurized pipe system. All licensed septic tank contactors who are going to install these systems shall be field instructed by certified employees of PTI on the proper installation and backfilling requirements of the systems prior to installation. Prior to the first installation in each county, contact the local Health Department to provide hands on training for the county health department staff. A copy of the applicable limited warranty shall be provided to each homeowner/builder. Department approval of any alternative system application or an other type system does not guarantee or imply that any individual system installation will perform satisfactorily for a specific period of time. The individual system design engineer (or the registered septic tank contractor if an engineer does not design the system) is primarily responsible for determining the best system design to meet specific wastewater treatment and disposal needs and to address the specific property site conditions and limitations. If you have any questions, please call me or Paul Booher, P.E., at (904) 488-4070, or SC 278-4070. (Emphasis in original.) On March 13, 1998, the Department issued a document entitled "Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Alternative Drainfield Products." This document describes several product names including PTI's product as follows: "PTI 'NPRDS' 9 ea.- 2-tier 13 ea.-2-tier." The engineer of record is listed as Ardaman and Associates, and the type of permit issued is referred to as "Alternative Status" along the same line as "PTI 'MPRDS"" and "No reduction in area" along the line "9 ea.-2 tier." Mr. Everson may have seen this chart prior to seeing the November 27, 2000, chart mentioned below. But, the mention of no reduction would have been consistent with his understanding that reduction referred to a reduction in linear feet and PTI did not request a reduction in linear feet. On November 27, 2000, an employee of the Department prepared a similar chart which included a description of product names and included the same PTI product. However, under the heading "Type of Permit Issued and Sizing Criteria," the following language appears: PRODUCT NAME DESCRIPTION SUBMISSION DATE APPROVAL DATE CPHU NOTIFICATION DATE ENGINEER OF RECORD TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED and SIZING CRITERIA *** *** *** *** *** *** PTI "MPRDS" 9 ea.-2 tier 12/06/96 12/14/96 01/15/97 Ardaman and Associates 1 linear foot of product = 2 sq ft of mineral aggregate 13 ea.-2 tier 1 linear foot of product = 3 sq ft of mineral aggregate On February 26, 2001, the Department issued a similar chart which contained the same information regarding PTI as the November 27, 2000, chart, which appears above. All of the charts were designed to provide guidance to the local health departments regarding the alternative drainfield systems approved in the State of Florida and the ratings, e.g., equivalency, assigned to each. See Findings of Fact 26-28. The November 27, 2000, and February 26, 2001, charts described PTI's 9-pipe system approved by the Department on a one-to-two square foot equivalency to mineral aggregate. In late 2000, while working with a Department representative on an industry presentation, Mr. Everson, vice president of PTI, discovered the November 27, 2000, chart mentioned above. Mr. Everson believed this representation to be incorrect and reported it to Michael Maroschak, the president of PTI. Discussions transpired between representatives of PTI and the Department. Ultimately, the Department implicitly decided that the Department had approved PTI's 9-pipe system, consistent with these charts. On March 18, 2003, the Department advised PTI in writing that it "stands by its previous decisions on the matter." PTI then filed its Petition challenging this agency action. Resolution of the Controversy PTI has developed various pipe configurations to serve as alternative drainfield systems. PTI requested the Department to approve its 9-pipe and 13-pipe bundle Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield Systems in or around April of 1995. The 9-pipe system is the subject of this proceeding. As early as May 1995, the Department understood that PTI requested approval to utilize both PTI's 9-pipe and 13-pipe configurations in lieu of mineral aggregate material in septic tank drainfield systems. Over the course of over a year and a half, in support of its approval request and in response to questions posed by the Department, PTI, by and through Dr. Garlanger, PTI's registered Professional Engineer, submitted an engineering drawing (signed and sealed), as revised, and specific specifications and calculations to indicate that one linear foot of the 9-pipe system compared favorably, on paper, with a conventional three-foot wide, 12-inch deep (three square feet) aggregate system. The Department raised questions regarding PTI's proposal to which PTI, and specifically Dr. Garlanger, responded. During the approval process, the Department raised issues related to "gravel shadowing" and Dr. Garlanger's calculations regarding the "bottom area available for filtration." See, e.g., (DOH Exhibit 3, p. 2; Joint Exhibit 1.) Dr. Garlanger responded to these inquiries. See, e.g., (DOH Exhibits 3 and 4; Joint Exhibits 1 and 2.) Dr. Garlanger has been a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Florida since 1974 and has served as vice-president for Ardaman & Associates and chief engineer since 1975. He was accepted as an expert in the areas of hydrology, hydro-geology, and geotechnical engineering. Dr. Garlanger prepared and signed and sealed the engineering drawings and all comparative data submitted by PTI with its approval request. Dr. Garlanger's engineering drawings, including the "Notes" as revised, and calculations indicated favorable (equal to or greater than) comparisons of one linear foot of PTI's 9- pipe system with two and three square feet of aggregate (gravel). The fact that the 9-pipe system fits within a 24-inch or two-foot wide trench does not affect its equivalency to three square feet of aggregate (gravel) with respect to the three parameters in Notes 1-3 and in the calculations referred to in Attachment 1. See Finding of Fact 22. During the final hearing, the Department, consistent with written comments made during the approval process, suggested that the "gravel shadowing" or "a shadowing technique" that occurs with alternative systems to compare their infiltrative surface area (bottom area available for filtration) to aggregate, has never been used by the Department "as an evaluator." Mr. Booher3 explained that this technique "reduces the size of the actual area, the length times the width of the drain field [sic], by a cross sectional area of interrupting gravel, saying the actual absorption area is reduced as a result of the gravel that is sitting on the infiltrative surface and reduces the total area, absorptive area, to about one-third of the actual total area. And that's what [he] disagree[s] with." Mr. Booher also stated that he would not approve a 9- pipe system at a three square-foot equivalent because of biological loading. He explained his position in some detail. In the May 24, 1995, letter to PTI, the Department stated that it was "interested in verifying that the drainfield environment will support aerobic treatment over the long term." This question expressed the Department's concern regarding "biological loading and problems that can develop. Dr. Garlanger responded to this inquiry and his explanation was accepted by Mr. Booher "because everyone claims it." See (DOH Exhibit 3; Petitioner Exhibit 2, p. 3.) The Department also contended that it did not approve PTI's request because PTI did not ask for a "reduction." Mr. Booher explained during the final hearing that Dr. Garlanger's drawings (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2) referred to "the 9-inch pipe and the 24-inch trench and the 13-inch pipe and the 36-inch trench because that note 4 says that if you put them in accordance with this document, then you will be a full 24-inch, 9-inch, 24-inch equivalent and 36-inch, 13-pipe equivalent" and that he "needed to restrict [his] review to no reduction in area." Mr. Booher also commented on Note 3, for which he disagreed during the approval process. It did not matter to Mr. Booher that Dr. Garlanger used "the shadow masking technique because [PTI] was not asking for any reduction." He considered Note 3 as "just more information, as opposed to an evaluation for determination of the sizing." In other words, according to Mr. Booher, the Department's approval letter of January 14, 1997, did not address the idea of using the 9-pipe system in a 36-inch trench" because PTI "asked for no reduction." 4 The Department's position is also based, in part, on Mr. Atchley's cover letters of December 11, 1996, and January 13, 1997, in which Mr. Atchley, referring to Dr. Garlanger's drawings and calculations, that "[b]ased on these calculations we could justify a reduction of up to 40%. However, we do not wish to apply for any reduction at this time." The weight of the evidence indicates that the reference to the "40%" pertains to the 13-pipe system, which would have been a large reduction, and not the 9-pipe system. The 9-pipe system qualified for only a minimal reduction which was not requested. Also, PTI did not request a reduction in linear feet. There is a conflict in the evidence regarding what PTI requested. Mr. Atchley opines that PTI did not request approval of the 9-pipe system such that one linear foot of product is equivalent to three square feet of aggregate. Mr. Booher agrees and also opines that the Department did not approve this configuration. Mr. Everson takes the opposite view as does Dr. Garlanger. The conflict is resolved in PTI's favor. While Mr. Booher's comments appearing of record, regarding PTI's request for approval and the Department's approval, and which were explained more fully during the final hearing, are credible, the fact remains that the Department granted approval "based on the design and recommendations submitted by [PTI's] professional engineer for which he is solely responsible; the comparative data versus a standard drainfield system; and the satisfactory performance in Florida of similar PTI Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield System installations." (Joint Exhibit 6.) The Department did not take exception in its approval letter, as it did during the final hearing, to PTI's submissions by Dr. Garlanger, PTI's professional engineer.5 Dr. Garlanger's submissions and his explanation of his submissions are credible. The weight of the evidence indicates that PTI requested approval for and the Department approved PTI's 9-pipe system on an equivalency of one linear foot of product to three square feet of mineral aggregate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order concluding that Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc.'s 9-pipe bundle Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield System, such that one linear foot of PTI's 9-pipe system is equivalent to three square feet of mineral aggregate, is approved for use in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 11th day of December, 2003.
Findings Of Fact It was Stipulated by the parties that the Petitioner timely filed a notice of protest and formal written protest (if section 120.53(5), Fla. Stat. (1986) is applicable) and timely filed a petition for formal administrative hearing. The Petitioner did not receive a written notice of the recommended award of the District as intended by paragraph 9 of the General Conditions of the second invitation for bids, and it did file a notice of protest with seventy-two hours of receiving notification of the District's decision to award the contract to Mid America as intended by paragraph 10 of the General Conditions, P. Ex. 3. It was Stipulated by the parties that the substantial interests of the Petitioner are at stake in this proceeding. The Department of Water Resources is involved in groundwater studies throughout the nineteen Florida counties that comprise the District, and is responsible for the District's drilling program. In the past, the District's waterwells have been in the 500 to 800 foot range, and have been constructed of 4, 6, and 8 inch casing. The Water Resources Department is currently constructing a regional groundwater monitoring network in the nineteen counties. The underlying geological formations differ greatly from county to county, and several water tables often have to be Penetrated before the well reaches the Floridan acquifer. To maintain mud circulation, it is often necessary to case off portions of the well from water table to water table. Moreover, wells are often in unconsolidated formations, and casing is needed to provide support for the hole, Particularly in the upper portions of the well. For these reasons, the District plans to construct step or telescoping wells in the regional groundwater monitoring network. The District expects that it will need to set 16 inch casing in the first eighty feet of some of these wells. In about 1984, by competitive bids, the St. Johns River Water Management District (the District) leased a Speedstar 15-III drill rig from Mid America Drilling Equipment, Inc. This rig was a Size larger than the drill rig that is the Subject of this formal administrative hearing, and had been manufactured in 1978. The District was satisfied with the performance of the larger Speedstar drill rig, and had very few problems with it. District staff became familiar with the operation of the rig. As the lease neared the end of its term, the District began to explore the question whether it should continue to lease, or should purchase its own rig. A member of the District Board Suggested that the District consider acquisition of a rig over a period of years by lease-purchase. This suggestion was adopted by the Department of Water Resources of the District. Due to his familiarity with the Speedstar rig, Mr. Munch decided to use that rig as a basis for bid specifications, but to use the next smaller size, a Speedstar SS-135. Mr. Munch copied the specifications from a Speedstar SS-135 specification sheet as the specifications for the first invitation for bids. Mr. Munch has had no education in engineering or in drill rig design. He has a degree and field work experience in geology, and is a licensed water well contractor. He has been a project manager on projects when outside contractors set 16 inch casing in wells as deep as 2,000 feet, but he has not personally set a 16 inch casing. P. Ex. 1 is the first invitation for bids and specifications for the invitation for bids, as well as the bid of the Petitioner, the George F. Failing Company. This invitation for bids was published on or about August 26, 1986. The invitation for bids provided six bid blanks providing six bid alternatives. The bid blanks appeared as follows: One Year Lease $ /month, renewal $ /month Two Year Lease-purchase $ /year, buy-out $ Three Year Lease-purchase $ /year, buy-out $ Four Year Lease/purchase $ /year, buy-out $ Five Year Lease/purchase $ /year, buy-out $ * * * Suggested Purchase Price $ Less 3 percent for payment in 20 days Four bids were received pursuant to this invitation for bids, including the Petitioner's bid and the bid of Mid America Drilling Equipment, Inc., P. Ex. 7. The four bids were opened on September 11, 1986. Mid America was the only bidder that bid a one year lease with an option to renew. Mid America, the Petitioner, and G & R Machine and Welding, Inc., were the only bidders to bid a lease-purchase. The Petitioners bid was $163,565.00 as an outright purchase price for a Failing model CF-15 and, relevant to the second bid, $5,432.00 per month for a three year lease-purchase, with the rig owned at the end of the three year lease period with no further buy-out payment. The Petitioner did not bid a one year lease. P. Ex. 1. Mid America bid $179,823.00 as an outright purchase price on a Speedstar SS135, and $56,340.00 per year for a three year lease-purchase, with a buy-out price of $61,920.00. Mid America also bid a one year lease at $6,125 per month, with a renewal at $5,288.00 per month. P. Ex. 7. Robert Schenk is the District's Director of the Division of General Services, and as such, Mr. Schenk was responsible for District Purchasing and evaluation of the bids received pursuant to the invitation of bids. Mr. Schenk Prepared an analysis of Several of the bids, including G & R Machine, Mid America, and the Petitioner. P. Ex. Mr. Schenk testified that he felt that the Mid America bid was unclear because of the total amount of the bid calculated over the years. He Said that he considered the Mid America bid for a three year lease-purchase to be ridiculous and out of line because it was $50,000 greater than the outright purchase bid. The bid of the Petitioner for a three year lease- purchase was about $32,000 higher than its bid for an outright purchase. P. Ex. 8. G & R Machine also bid a Speedstar SS-15. Mid America's three year lease-purchase bid was about $35,000 higher than the G & R Machine bid for the same three year lease-purchase. ($230,940.00 compared to $195,664.32.) P. Ex. 8. The bid of Mid America was also high compared to the bid of G & R Machine for a four and a five year lease-purchase, but was comparable for a two year lease-purchase and for an outright purchase. The bid of the Petitioner was $16,000 lower than the Mid America or G & R Machine bids for an outright purchase, was $31,000 lower than the G & R Machine bid and $34,000 lower than the Mid America bid for a two year lease-purchase, and was Slightly higher than the G & R Machine bid on all other bids. The bid of the Petitioner was substantially lower than the Mid America bid on all bids analyzed on P. Ex. 8. Although the Mid America bid was high, it was not an unclear bid. The bid of Mid America was clear and unambiguous. P. Ex. 7. Mr. Schenk thought that the Petitioner's bid was the clearest bid received in the first invitation for bids. Apparently on the same day as the bid opening, which was September 11, 1986, Mr. Schenk had one of his assistants telephone Mid America to ask that it clarify its bid. In response, on the same day as the bid opening, September 11, 1986, Mid America sent the District a letter, P. Ex. 9, which effectively lowered its bid for a three year lease-purchase by $36,612.00. This letter was ultimately not considered by the District in the evaluation of the bids. On September 23, 1986, four staff members of the Department of Water Resources, including Mr. Munch and Barbara A. Vergara, Director of that Department, recommended by memorandum to Mr. Schenk that the Mid America bid for a Speedstar SS-135 for an outright purchase price of $179,823.00 be accepted. These staff members were of the opinion that the drill rig bid by the Petitioner "did not meet all of the bid Specifications due to slight manufacturing differences." But they were also of the opinion that "[t]hese differences may not be critical to the performance and capabilities of the equipment." P. Ex. 10. The staff comparison of the Mid America bid and the Petitioner's bid included calculations for rental costs due to the differing delivery times of the equipment, and calculated that the Mid America bid had a net cost of $184,435 compared to the Petitioner's bid having a net cost of $182,013. Attached to the staff recommendation of September 23, 1986, was a comparison of the three drill rigs by specifications. The comparison used the incorrect specification sheet for the Mid America rig, and thus contained the following errors: the rig bid by Mid America had a single sheave, 3 part block, not a double sheave, 4 part block; the rig also had a working hook load of 20,000 pounds, not 32,700 pounds. Two to four days after September 11, 1986, (the date of the letter from Mid America changing its bid for a three year lease-purchase) Robert Auld, the Florida Branch Manager for the Petitioner, learned that such a letter had been requested, written, and received by the District, and called District staff to protest. Mr. Schenk thereafter apparently concluded that solicitation and receipt of the bid change from Mid America had been procedurally erroneous because he testified that as a result of all of the discussion and criticism that surrounded that event, on the second invitation for bids he concluded that he was procedurally unable to contact any of the bidders to request clarification of bids, even though he then thought that the Petitioner's bid was unclear. Mr. Schenk decided to reject all the bids from the first invitation for bids before Mr. Auld's telephone call. P. Ex. 15, p. 10. But he did not communicate this decision to the staff of the Department of Water Resources before they wrote their memorandum that was initiated through the chain of command on September 23, 1986. Mr. Schenk initially decided to reject all of the bids because the bidders had not all bid on all of the requested alternatives. Later, other reasons for rejection of all of the bids became apparent. Another major reason for rejection of all of the bids was because the specifications were drawn from the Speedstar SS-135 specifications, and unfairly eliminated the Petitioner's rig. Mr. Auld admitted that the Failing CF-15 did not meet the specifications of the first invitation for bids because the Failing CF-15 did not have an 8 1/2 inch rotary table, but was of the opinion that it met all other specifications. Mr. Schenk also rejected all of the bids because of the irregularity of having solicited and received the bid change from Mid America. On October 1, 1986, the District informed all bidders that the bids were all rejected and that the purchase would be again advertised for bids. No protest was filed concerning the first invitation for bids, and it was ruled during the formal administrative hearing that the foregoing facts are admissible as explanatory of the basis for the second invitation for bids, and not as a basis for challenge to the first invitation for bids. Mr. Munch then drafted specifications for the second invitation for bids. This time, he Specified "Speedstar SS-135 or equivalent." Mr. Munch had determined from his experience with the rented Speedstar that the Speedstar SS-135 was capable of fulfilling the needs of the District for drilling. His intention was to allow bids for other types of drill rigs that were the equivalent of a Speedstar SS-135. Ms. Vergara defined the term "equivalent" to mean no differences between a Speedstar SS-135 and the alternative drill rig with respect to doing work in the field that needs to be done by the District. At some time before the second invitation for bids was advertised, or at least before the second bids were filed, the District became Primarily (though not exclusively interested in receiving bids on a three year lease-purchase of a drill rig. Both the Petitioner and Mid America knew this before they prepared their second bids. P. Ex. 3 is the second advertisement for bids and was published on November 6, 1986. The advertisement asks for bids on a "lease-purchase of One Rotary Drill Rig." The attached sheet marked "specifications" stated that what was sought was a "[b]id for purchase or one year lease of a new Speedstar 135 rotary drill rig or at least the equivalent equipment with the following options." Following that were eight technical specifications. The second invitation for bids also specified the following: "Bidder must indicate any and all exceptions to specifications. "Bid shall be awarded to the lowest qualified, responsible bidder whose bid meets all specifications in the Invitation to Bid, including delivery, price and other factors most advantageous to the District." All bidders were to bid using the bid blank attached to the invitation for bids. The bid blank was different from the first invitation for bids apparently with the intent to make bid comparisons easier. The bid blank provided the following alternatives for bids: Purchase Price $ Lease Price $ /Month, first year (renewable) $ /Month, second year (renewable) $ /Month, third year One year guarantee non-routine, major maintenance and repair on lease equipment (renewable annually for term of leased $ . Make and Model of Equipment . Manufacturers Warranty . (minimum of 6 months or 1000 hours) Delivery days (from date of order) Delivery Charges $ . Location of Maintenance Services . Since the District was then "primarily" (but not exclusively) "interested in" a three year lease-purchase, the bid blank form was incomplete and unclear. Paragraph A) of the bid blank form clearly provides for a bid for an outright purchase only, not a "lease-purchase." And Paragraph B) provides only for a lease without any mention of purchase; Paragraph B) asks for a price by month for the first year, with the notation that the lease is renewable (apparently at the option of the District, a lease price by month for the second year, with the notation again that the lease is renewable (at the option of the District), and a lease price per month for a third year, with no mention of any further renewability. Paragraph B) says nothing about purchase of the drill rig, ownership at the end of the lease term, or the buy- out price at the end of the lease term. Moreover, the rest of the invitation for bids is similarly incomplete and unclear. Although the first page of the invitation for bids states that bids were requested on a "lease-purchase" of one rotary drill rig, the specification sheet attached to the invitation stated the specification that the bid should be "for purchase or one year lease...." P. Ex. 3 (E.S.). The specification said nothing about a three year lease-purchase. P. Ex. 3, the second invitation for bids, was sent to all entities that had submitted a bid in response to the first invitation for bids. These included five companies that were Speedstar SS-135 dealers and the Petitioner. Only two bids were received in response to the second invitation for bids, one from Mid America and one from the Petitioner. The second Mid America bid is P. Ex. 11. The Petitioner's second bid is P. Ex. 4. The bids were opened on November 20, 1986. The opening was attended by Ron Owens, President of Mid America, and Robert Auld. Mr. Schenk announced that the Petitioner was the apparent low bidder. Mr. Schenk may have only intended his announcement of apparent low bid to have been with relationship to the bid for outright purchase. A bid tabulation sheet was prepared. P. Ex. Mr. Schenk also announced that the recommendation by the staff to the District Board as to which company should be awarded the contract would be made at the next Board meeting. At that time, the next Board meeting was January 14, 1987. The Petitioner's bid, typed on the bid blank required by the District, provided in pertinent part the following: Purchase Price $146,976.00 Lease Price $ NO BID /Month, first year (renewable) (OWNED AT END OF SECOND YEAR) $6,885.00 /Month, second year (renewable) (OWNED AT END OF THIRD YEAR) $4,592.00 /Month, third year One year guaranteed non-routine, major maintenance and repair on lease equipment (renewable annually for term of lease) $NOT AVAILABLE Make and Model of Equipment FAILING MODEL CF-15 Combination Drill GEORGE E. FAILING COMPANY standard Manufacturers Warranty warranty policy will apply, extended for 9 months (minimum of 6 months or 1000 hours) Delivery 120 days (from date of order) Delivery Charges $ NO CHARGE Location of Maintenance Services GEORGE E. FAILING COMPANY 2101 Starkey Road Largo, Florida 33541 Mid America Submitted its bid on the bid blank form as follows: Purchase Price $179,823.00 Lease Price $5,241.00 /Month, first year (renewable) $5,241.00 /Month, Second year (renewable) $5,241.00 /Month, third year (SEE CONDITIONS BELOW) One year guaranteed non-routine, major maintenance and repair on lease equipment (renewable annually for term of lease) $3,000.00 per year Make and Model of Equipment Speedstar SS-135 Manufacturers Warranty 6 months or 1000 hours (minimum of 6 months or 1000 hours) Delivery 21 days (from date of order) Delivery Charges $ Included/No Charge Location of Maintenance Services Ocala, Florida * * * CONDITIONS #1. If the lease is written for a guaranteed 36 month period, there will be a purchase option available at the end for $1.00 #2. If the lease is written as a yearly renewable lease and runs 3 consecutive years there will be a purchase option available after the 36th payment for $8,092.00. The bid of Mid America was for a Speedstar SS-135, and thus complied with the specifications in that respect. The bid of Mid America was clear and enable the District to understand what its annual budgetary obligations might be should the alternatives in the bid be accepted. The Mid America bid provided the following three alternatives: Outright purchase for $179,823, which was $32,847 more than the bid of the petitioner of $146,976. Payment of a total of $188,676 over a three year period plus an additional payment of $8,092 at the end of the lease if the lease were to be written as yearly renewable for 3 consecutive years, for a total cost of $196,768. Payment of a total of $188,676 (plus a $1 buy-out option) over a three year period if the lease were to be written for a guaranteed 36 month period. This is the alternative ultimately accepted by the District. After publication of the second invitation for bids, but before the opening of those bids, Ms. Vergara appeared before the District Board to explain the manner in which the invitation for bids had been drafted. In particular she explained that the invitation used a "brand name or equivalent" specification. She further advised the Board that the staff recommended the Speedstar SS-135 as the equipment most capable of handling the drilling needs of the District, and that any equipment purchased must be at least equivalent to the Speed star SS-135. At some time before the opening of the second set of bids, Mr. Munch and his supervisor, Ms. Vergara, traveled to the offices of Mid America and inspected a Speedstar SS-135. The owner and President of Mid America was Present to explain the design advantages of the Speedstar SS-135. He was a Salesman, and had no background in engineering or drill rig design. None of the District staff visited the Petitioner's place of business to inspect a Failing CF-15. Mr. Munch and Ms. Vergara did not see a Failing CF-15 until preparations began for the formal administrative hearing. In a deposition prior to the formal hearing, Mr. Schenk testified under oath that the staff had already decided that they wanted a Speedstar SS-135 rather than a Failing CF-15 based upon the report of Ms. Vergera to the District Board. In a deposition prior to the formal hearing, Mr. Munch testified that he was never asked which rig he would rather have, that the issue was Strictly a cost decision, that he probably would have had no objection to purchase of the Failing CF-15 had it been cheaper than the Speedstar SS-135, and that the Failing CF-15 would probably have done the job needed by the District to be done. On December 12, 1986, Mr. Schenk sent a memorandum to the District Board concerning the purchase of the rotary drill rig. The memorandum advised the Board that the District had received two bids. It then presented five alternatives for the Board to consider. All of the bid alternatives (alternatives 1 through 4) related to the Mid America bid on the Speedstar SS-135, and presented all of the options bid by Mid America. None of the bid alternatives related to the petitioner's bid. The District Board was not advised as to the comparative purchase prices bid by the two bidders (the Petitioner's price being $32,000 less than Mid America's), it was not advised as to the two interpretations of the three year option in the Petitioner's bid, and it was not advised that under the second interpretation of the Petitioner's three year lease-purchase bid, the Petitioner's bid had a net cost, after accounting for delivery time, that was $9,529 less than the Mid America bid. (See finding of fact 60.) Mr. Schenk thought that paragraph B), as modified by the "CONDITIONS" placed on the bid by Mid America, presented an option to "renew" the lease monthly at $5,241 per month, for an annual cost of $62,892. Evidentially, then, Mr. Schenk thought that the word "renewable" pertained to renewal by month. P. Ex. 15, p. 2, para. 2. With respect to this option, nothing is mentioned about purchase. Mr. Schenk also treated the word "renewable" to be intended to be exercised annually, resulting in a three year lease (renewable annually). The differing use of the word "renewable" came as a result of the modifications placed on the bid form by Mid America. The District Board chose option 3, which was condition number 1 on the bid blank submitted by Mid America, (a guarantee 36 months lease with a purchase option of $1.00) with the addition of the words "Subject to the availability of funds." The Second invitation for bids had Stated in Paragraph 3 of the third page that "all lease-purchase agreements must include a nonappropriation of fund Paragraph as required by Florida Statutes." Thus, the condition that the lease be "guaranteed" was modified by the District consistent with the specification of the invitation for bids relating to the appropriation of funds. On the day of the District Board meeting approving a lease-purchase with Mid America, January 14, 1987, the District entered into a contract with Mid America for the lease-purchase of a Speedstar SS-135. SJRWMD Ex. 3. The lease agreement contains a Paragraph allowing the District to terminate the lease upon nonappropriation of funds, Subject to certain conditions. Id., para. 11. In February, 1987, Mr. Auld learned at a trade show in Orlando that the District had awarded the contract to Mid America. Mr. Auld called Ms. Mildred Horton, the Assistant Executive Director of the District, to ask for the reasons why his bid was not accepted. Ms. Horton wrote a letter to Mr. Auld dated February 17, 1987, Setting forth the reasons for the award to Mid America and attaching two amortization Schedules, one for each bid. The letter and attachments is P. Ex. 6. Ms. Horton stated that the Schedules attached were the only ones in existence, to her knowledge. None of the reasons given by Ms. Horton for the rejection of the Petitioner's bid could have been known prior to the opening of the bids. The amortization schedules attached to Ms. Horton's letter had been prepared by Mr., Schenk. The schedule for the Petitioner's bid showed a total cost over a three year period of $224,344, which resulted in an effective interest rate of 31 percent compared to the outright purchase price on the Petitioner's bid of $146,976. The schedule assumes that the Petitioner's bid was for a monthly payment of $6,885 for two years followed by a monthly payment of $4,592 in the third year. P. Ex. 6. Mr. Schenk testified that he considered the possibility that the Petitioner's bid for a three year lease purchase was $4,592 per month for 36 months, and prepared an alternative amortization table based upon that possible interpretation as well as the amortization table attached to the letter sent to Mr. Auld by Ms. Horton described above. P. Ex. 12. Mr. Schenk concluded, however, that the Petitioner's bid should be interpreted as a bid of $6,885 per month for two years and $4,592 for the third year, for a total cost of $224,344. He testified that it was confusing that the Petitioner's bid did not contain a price for the first year, but he also concluded that the price of $6,885 placed on the second line of paragraph B) of the Petitioner's bid was intended to be a price for both the first year and the second year. He further testified that the Petitioner's bid may have been more understandable had the word "renewable" been stricken on the bid form. Finally, he testified that he disregarded the additions to the Petitioner's bid form because these were "alterations" to the form, but considered the additions to the bid form by Mid America because these were only "additions." As discussed above, after the Second invitation for bids was published, the District was Primarily interested in receiving bids for a three year lease-purchase. The bid blank in the second invitation for bids, however, failed to provide a clear method for bidders to bid that option. Paragraph B) of the bid blank drafted by the District was defective because it did not in any manner state that a purchase (a transfer of ownership) was included in the "lease" for which a price was being asked, because it failed to state whether the District wanted bids on a one year lease- purchase, a two year lease-purchase, a three year lease-purchase, or only a lease for those periods of time, because the word "renewable" was susceptible of being interpreted as renewal from month to month as well as from year to year, as so construed in Mr. Schenk's December 12, 1986 recommendation to the District Board. Paragraph B) was also defective because it failed to provide a place to show the price of the purchase option at the end of the lease, or zero if there were to be none. Without the "CONDITIONS" attached to the Mid America bid, the filled-in blanks of Paragraph B) on the bid form only resulted in a bid on a lease. Mr. Schenk recognized this as he construed Paragraph B) of the form as only asking for a lease bid when he informed the District Board of option number 2 in his memorandum of December 12, 1986. P. Ex. 13. Since the bid form was defective, it was foreseeable that bidders would have to have added additional words to the bid form to make it sensical. It was also foreseeable that different bidders would take different approaches in trying to draft additions to the form to enable them to bid all critical aspects of a lease that included a purchase at the end of the lease. The bid of the Petitioner should have been construed with this foreseeability in mind. In particular, the failure of the Petitioner to place a price on the first line of paragraph B) (relating to the first year) coupled with the placing of a price at the second year line and the third year line, and the addition of the words "owned at end of second year" and "owned at end of third year" should have been construed as the Petitioner's attempt, like the attempt of Mid America, to cure the ambiguities in the bid form. As discussed above, without such words, a price in the first line of paragraph B) of the bid form would have only been a bid for a renewable lease for one year, with no purchase option. The District argues that it did not ask for a bid on a two year lease-purchase, and that the Petitioner's attempt to bid on that as well as on a three year lease-purchase caused confusion. But the problem is that the bid form, as discussed above, did not ask for any purchase associated with a lease, and asked for prices for a lease that could have either a one, two or three year term based upon the option to renew. It was not unreasonable, then, for the Petitioner to have bid a two year lease-purchase. The interpretation of Petitioner's bid as a bid for a total cost of $224,344 over three years is not reasonable. The interpretation of the Petitioner's bid as providing for a total cost of $224,344 over three years results in an interest cost of 31 percent, a rate of interest that is facially unreasonable. But more important if, as assumed in that interpretation, the District were to enter into a contract with the Petitioner at a monthly charge of $6,885 per month for two years, it would own the Failing drill rig at the end of the second year. This is so because the Same line that contains the price ($6,885) also has the added words "owned at end of second year." If it owned the rig after two years, the District Surely would not continue leasing it for the third year at $4,592 per month. Payment of $6,885 for 24 months would cost a total of $165,240, which reasonably compares to Petitioner's outright purchase price of $146,976, plus the cost of paying over a two year period. Since it was more reasonable to construe line two of the Paragraph B) of the Petitioner's bid form as a bid for a two year lease-purchase, the third line should have been given the same construction, that is, to construe the price placed on the line as the price each month for the entire period (here, three years) with ownership automatic at the end of the term. The reasonable interpretation of line 3 of Paragraph B) of the Petitioner's bid is for a lease-purchase for three years at $4,592 per month, for a total cost over three years of $165,312, the rig then being owned by the District at the end of 36 months with no buy-out cost. The reasonableness of this interpretation is further supported by the fact that payment of $165,312 on a machine that cost $146,976 to buy outright results in an interest rate for payment over three years of 7.9 percent, which is a normal and usual interest rate that would be expected in a competitive bid. P. Ex. 12. Mid America's bid offered to deliver in 21 days, while the Petitioner offered to deliver in 120 days. Since the District was then renting drilling equipment at $4,612 per month, it would potentially have incurred about one month extra rental ($4,612) on the Mid America bid, and $18,448 for four months extra rental on the Petitioner's bid, or an additional cost of $13,836 on the Petitioner's bid. Including this cost of rental during the potential delivery period, the net cost of the Petitioner's three year lease-purchase bid was $183,760, and the net cost of the Mid America bid alternative that was accepted by the District was $193,289. Thus, with respect to the bid actually accepted by the District, the Petitioner's bid was $9,529 less than the bid of Mid America. During the formal administrative hearing, it appeared from the evidence that the District relied upon the following additional issues, other than price, as the reasons for selection of the Mid America bid: One year guaranteed non-routine, major maintenance and repair on the lease equipment, renewable annually for the term of the lease. A manufacturers warranty of at least 6 months or 1,000 hours. The delivery date. The location of the maintenance Services. All of the foregoing were bid specifications printed on the bid form. P. Exs. 11 and 4. Of these, only the issue of non-routine maintenance was mentioned in the letter of Ms. Horton to Mr. Auld on February 17, 1987. P. Ex. 6. Mid America bid $3,000 per year for non-routine maintenance. The Petitioner Stated on its bid form that this item was "not available." Non-routine maintenance is needed only at the end of the warranty Period. In the industry, its is well understood that non-routine maintenance normally does not apply and is not Purchased until the end of the warranty period. The District had not purchased the non-routine maintenance at the time of the formal administrative hearing. The prices quoted in the bids, pursuant to the invitation for bids, were to have been fixed only for 90 days. Thus, it is uncertain whether the $3,000 bid of Mid America for non-routine major maintenance would still hold. The term "non-routine, major maintenance and repair" was not further defined by the bid form. Although the Petitioner did not bid on non-routine maintenance, it did offer a one year warranty which was six months beyond the minimum specified by the District. Thus, for this six months period only, the Petitioner effectively provided a free non-routine maintenance offer at least to extent of the warranty. But the Petitioner failed to offer non-routine major maintenance for the 24 month period following the first year of the lease. Both bidders complied with the specifications with respect to the manufacturer's warranty, but the Petitioner offered a warranty that was better by six months. The District Board was incorrectly advised that the Petitioner's warranty was only for 90 days (and thus not in compliance with specifications). P. Ex. 13. The delivery date was considered during the hearing only with respect to the cost of rental of equipment until the new rig would be delivered, and thus was an element of net cost discussed above. The Petitioner's delivery date caused its bid to have an additional rental cost of $13,836 as compared to the Mid America bid, but the Petitioner's total net cost still was lower than the Mid America bid, as discussed above. The Petitioner's location of maintenance services was Largo, Florida, and Mid America's location was Ocala, Florida. Mid America's location is approximately 100 miles closer to Palatka than the Petitioner's location. The difference is a difference of about 4 hours in travel time, roundtrip, or only two hours for delivery of a part. Mr. Schenk testified that this factor carried only "some weight." Mr. Schenk did not know how often maintenance at the seller's location might occur, what percentage of maintenance might be in the field rather than in the seller's shop, or the problems that might occur from lack of a part. From the testimony of Mr. Winchester, who was the only rig expert who testified, and the testimony of Mr. Munch regarding the leased Speedstar rig, it appears that maintenance on the rig for major problems should not occur very often, if at all, and that many problems can be corrected in the field. In most cases, parts will have to come overnight by bus. It is inferred that a part from Ocala will arrive no sooner by overnight bus than a part from Largo by overnight bus. Thus, the closer location of the Mid America shop is of little importance on this record. The February 17, 1987, letter from Ms. Horton to Mr. Auld Stated that the failure of the Petitioner to bid on a one year lease was one of the reasons for not accepting the Petitioner's bid. As discussed above, the District was primarily seeking a three year lease-purchase, not a one year lease, and communicated this to the two bidders. Indeed, it was the existing one year lease that prompted the desire by the Board to explore a purchase over time. The District did not enter into a one year lease with Mid America, either. Thus, a bid on a one year lease was not a material or substantial part of the bid specifications. Specification number 2, listed as a desired option, was that the drill rig have a five speed transmission. The Speedstar SS-135 had a five speed transmission, thus giving it a lower first gear, and the Failing CF-15 did not. There is no evidence that the Petitioner could have have offered a five speed-transmission. On the other hand, there is no evidence that a four speed transmission would not effectively meet the needs of the District. The only evidence was that the five speed transmission would have a lower first gear, but there was not substantial evidence that the District would encounter drilling circumstances needing only the lower gear of the Speedstar SS-135. When the rotary table is retracted on the Speedstar SS- 135, the opening is 18 inches in diameter, thus allowing the Speedstar SS-135 to set 16 inch casing. The Speedstar SS-135 otherwise marginally has the power and related mechanical ability to drill and set 16" casing, particularly lighter PVC casing, to depths of 80 feet in about six hours. Drilling the first 80 feet in six hours is very slow in comparison to the normal operation of either the Speedstar SS-135 or the Failing CF-15, and would be more a matter of use of the mud pump to wear away the soil rather than actually drilling the hole. However, the Speedstar SS-135 is in fact being used in Florida by other owners to drill and set 16 inch casing. When the rotary table is retracted on the Failing CF-15, the opening is 14 1/2 inches in diameter, and thus the Failing CF- 15 does not have any capacity to drill or set 16 inch casing. If the District had chosen the Failing CF-15, in those cases in which it needed to drill and set 16 inch casing, it would have to contract out to a larger drill rig to drill and set such casing. In all other respects the Speedstar SS-135 and the Failing CF-15 are functionally equivalent machines, and are considered to be equivalent in the industry. For the most part, the design differences explained by Mr. Munch with respect to the video tape of views of both machines were not differences causing the machines to be not functional equivalents, except as discussed above. The recommendation of the staff of the District to purchase the Speedstar SS-135 would probably have been the same, based upon factors other than price, had the staff considered the bid of the Petitioner to have been $9,529 less than that of Mid America for a three year lease-purchase, as discussed in finding of fact 60. While the District entered into the process of obtaining bids for the drill rig with a preference for a rig capable of performing like the Speedstar SS-135, it did not intend to favor the Mid America Company over the Petitioner, nor did it act in bad faith. At all times relevant to these invitations for bids and award of the contract, the District did not have rules governing purchasing of commodities or governing the notification to interested persons concerning the procedures for contesting a proposed purchase. It did not have any policy or rule requiring that the lowest bid be accepted without consideration of other factors. It did have written policies, SJRWMD Exs. 1 and 2, providing for the following: Purchases in excess of $5,000 must be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation no less than ten days prior to bid opening. The District Purchasing Director may withdraw the entire proposal, and may reject all bids or parts of bids, if the District's interest will be served by that action. Departments or Divisions of the District submitting requisitions must do so with items described in such terms to allow unrestricted bidding and to afford full opportunity to bid to all qualified bidders. Any purchase order made contrary to the provisions of the purchasing policies shall be of no effect and void.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter its final order that the bid of the George E. Failing Company pursuant to Bid Number 87-01, second call for bids, dated November 6, 1986, was properly rejected because it did not meet all specifications of the invitation to bid. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1987. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL 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 28th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1606BID The following are rulings upon findings of fact proposed by the parties which have been rejected. The numbers correspond to the numbers used by the parties. Findings of fact proposed by the George F. Failing Company: 2. The third sentence is rejected because Mr. Munch chose the Speedstar SS-135 as a basis for the Specifications due to his familiarity with the leased drill rig of the same make. 6. Not relevant. 19 and 20. Mr. Auld's testimony that a manufacturer's warranty on a 1985 truck would be less inclusive that on a 1987 truck was hearsay, and cannot support a finding of fact as to that point. Thus, those portions of these proposed findings concerning a 1985 truck are irrelevant. 36. Ms. Vergara did not testify that the planned monitoring wells would be 2,000 feet deep. 38. Subordinate to finding of fact 71. 45. Rejected by finding of fact 42. Rejected by finding of fact 50. There is no evidence that the Speedstar SS-135 bid by Mid America was a display model. The delivery date of the Speedstar SS-135 is not in evidence. Findings of fact proposed by the St. Johns River Water Management District: 4. There is no evidence as to the depths of the proposed monitoring well network, and thus a finding of fact that the depth will be 1000 feet cannot be made. 8. The existence of a buy-out price in the first Mid America bid did not cause the bid to be unclear. 12. The fourth sentence, as to what the District thought the second bid blank "should" contain, is not supported by the evidence. The last sentence is rejected because it is not clear that the bid blank was a "renewable lease-purchase in one year intervals." See findings of fact 34, 55, and 56. 14. The evidence is that the Speedstar SS-135 can set 16 inch casing, not 17 1/2 inch casing. The findings concerning the failure of the Petitioner's bid to give the District the option of being able to "exit the lease" in one year is rejected because that option was securely provided in the invitation for bids, so securely so that it was construed by the District to be an implicit part of the Mid America bid that ultimately was accepted by the District. See finding of fact 50 concerning the non-appropriation of funds condition. Additionally, the findings concerning the inability of the District to construe the bid of the Petitioner to know its first year fiscal obligations are rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 56 through 58. The second sentence is rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 34 and 55. The last sentence is rejected by these findings of fact as well; the ambiguity was created by the bid form, not by the bidders. These findings of fact have essentially been rejected by findings of fact 34 and 55. Further, the word "renewable" was not inconsistent with ownership at the end of a two year period because the word "renewable" could be given the construction given it by Mr. Schenk, renewable from month to month. See finding of fact 49. 22 and 23. Rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 34 and 55 through 58. These proposed findings of fact are essentially correct as a matter of law, but are not facts. These findings of fact are rejected by findings of fact 34 and 55 through 58. 27. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact (4) is rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 66. 29. Subordinate to finding of fact 71. 32. While these Proposed findings are true and have been Substantially adopted, the proposed findings are not relevant in view of the stipulations contained in findings of fact 1 and 2. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Henry Dean, Executive Director St Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32078-1429 Linda M. Hallas, Esquire 9455 Koger Boulevard, Suite 209 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32078-1429
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered septic tank contractor. He is licensed locally to install septic tanks in Lee and Collier counties, where he has installed 250-450 septic tank systems in the past 15 years. He has been a septic-tank contractor for 25 years. He has a good record for performing septic-tank services. In November 1995, Respondent performed work for Charles Allen on Marco Island. The work consisted of drainfield repairs and a septic-tank pumpout. Respondent performed the drainfield repairs and pumped out the liquids from the tank, but failed to pump out the solids from the bottom of the tank. Unaware that the solids had not been removed, Mr. Allen paid Respondent the $1500 price on which they had agreed for all of the work. Three months later, Mr. Allen's septic tank backed up, dumping sewage in his home. This happened late at night, and Respondent was unable to come right over to repair the system. Mr. Allen thus contacted another contractor, who, for $205, pumped out at least eight inches of solids, which were causing the sewage to back up into the house. Since the repairs, Mr. Allen has had no other problems with his system. It is evident that Respondent failed to remove the solids in November, as three months are insufficient time for this kind of build-up and Mr. Allen's system has worked fine since the failure in February. In March 1996, Respondent performed repair work to a drainfield in Bonita Springs. Petitioner rejected the work for final approval on March 27, 1996. The grounds for rejection were that the drainfield was installed 4.8 inches too low, a large amount of the drainfield aggregate was sinking into the drainfield replacement material, and Respondent had added an extension onto the existing drainfield, rather than replace the entire drainfield, as the repair permit had required. Petitioner's inspector informed Respondent of the rejection on March On April 3, the inspector drove by the site and found that Respondent had covered the repaired system without having first called for a reinspection. Circumstances unknown to Respondent, the homeowner, and Petitioner at the time of initial permit rendered almost the entire plan for this repair job unfeasible. Among other factors was the fact that the drainfield was planned for a front yard, sandwiched between a driveway and a landscaped area. Also, Respondent discovered deficiencies in the original drainfield once he uncovered it. However, Respondent was not justified failing to call for a reinspection before covering the system. Respondent was irritated with Petitioner's representative for failing to come immediately to inspect the work, but this is no excuse for covering the repaired system with dirt prior to obtaining a reinspection. Shortly before the final hearing, Respondent dug up the system, installed an entirely new drainfield, and completed the repairs in a satisfactory fashion.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $1000 against Respondent for a false payment statement and failure to call for reinspection prior to covering a system. ENTERED on October 10, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 10, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Attorney Michael F. Kayusa Post Office Box 6096 Fort Myers, Florida 33911 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner should take disciplinary action against Respondents for the reasons alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact On behalf of his brother, Mr. Howell Parish, who lives in Orange Park, Florida, Mr. James A. Parish contracted with Respondents to restore efficient of operation the septic tank system at 5469 Soundside Drive in Santa Rosa County, premises owned by Howell Parish. Respondents agreed to make the restoration by providing a fiberglass approved tank with a fiberglass lid, install a new drain field and haul in dirt to build up a low area of the existing drain field. Respondents undertook repair activities but without a permit. Respondents did not obtain an inspection of their work after they had finished. On June 10, 1992, after the repairs were supposed to have been done, James Parish paid Respondent Harmon for the job with a personal check in the amount of $1,498.48. On the same date, Respondent Harmon signed a receipt for payment. The receipt shows as work performed, "Demucking and Installing one 1050 Gal Tank & 200 Sq.' Drain Field." Ms. Jo Ann Parish, spouse of Howell Parish, reimbursed James Parish for the work done on Soundside Drive. Shortly thereafter, the septic tank "caved in and the waste was boiling to the surface." (Tr. 16.) Howell Parish met with Larry W. Thomas, Environmental Health Supervisor for the Santa Rosa County Health Department, to discuss the situation. Following the meeting, Mr. Parish called Respondent Harmon and told that him that the problem needed to be straightened out and that he should contact Mr. Thomas promptly because his license could be in danger. Respondent promised to correct the problem and to reimburse Mr. Parish for the job but he did neither. He did not contact Mr. Thomas either. Mr. Thomas, on behalf of the County, investigated the site of the septic tank repair. He found that Respondents had installed a broken fiber glass tank when fiberglass tanks are not allowed at all in Santa Rosa County because of their structural inadequacy. In addition to the tank being cracked, it had a cracked lid. Another hole in the tank that should have been covered with a lid was covered with a piece of plywood. The plywood was kept in place by dirt fill. The drain field did not meet the minimum standards required by the County. Most significantly, it was installed beneath the water table. There was a laundry discharge pipe which was not connected to the tank as required. The site of the septic tank repair by Respondents was a sanitary nuisance. The broken condition of the tank allowed raw sewage to overflow. The drain field was emptying raw sewage directly into ground water. The laundry discharge was discharging into the ground rather than being hooked up to the septic tank. Mr. Parish was forced to hire another septic tank service to restore the system to good working order. The work, performed by Bettis Septic Tank Service, was billed to Mr. Parish at a cost of $6400.00.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, that Respondents' certificates of registration be revoked and that the Department impose on Respondents a fine of $2000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Bozeman, III Asst. District Legal Counsel D H R S 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, FL 32501 Kenneth P. Walsh Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1208 Shalimar, FL 32505-0420 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 DAVID M. MALONEY 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 28th day of October, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant matter, registered as a septic tank contractor with the Department. In July 2002, Respondent entered into a contract with Pro Gold Investments Corp. (Pro Gold), whose president and sole owner is Emerico Kemeny Fuller. The contract provided that Respondent would install a "new septic system" for Pro Gold at 453 Blue Road in Coral Gables, Florida (Blue Road Property) for $4,600.00, a job that should have taken only a "few days" to complete. Pro Gold gave Respondent a "job deposit" of $2,300.00. In July 2003, Pro Gold, by Warranty Deed, conveyed title to the Blue Road Property to Maurits de Blank's company, Mortgage Lending Company LLC (MLC), and it also executed a Bill of Sale, Absolute and Assignments of Contracts, which read as follows: PRO GOLD INVESTMENTS CORP, as Seller, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration paid to it by MORTGAGE LENDING COMPANY, LLC, as Buyer, the receipt of which is acknowledged hereby sells, assigns, grants, transfers, and conveys to Buyer all of Seller's right, title, and interest in the following described goods, contracts and personal property: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A- PROPERTY" AND EXHIBIT "B- CONTRACTS ASSIGNED" Seller covenants and agrees that it is the lawful owner of goods, contracts, rights or interests transferred hereby; that they are free from all encumbrances, except for outstanding amounts due, if any, to those parties set forth on Exhibit "B," and that it has the right to sell, transfer and assign the goods, properties and rights set forth in the attached Exhibit "A," and the right to transfer and assign the contracts, rights or interests shown on Exhibit "B," and will warrant and defend same against the lawful claims and demands or all persons. The "attached Exhibit 'A- Property'" read, in pertinent part, as follows: (Regarding transfer of 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables, Florida, "the Real Property") (Mortgage currently in favor of Mortgage Lending Company, LLC "the Mortgage") All property rights of any kind whatsoever, whether in property that is real, fixed, personal, mixed or otherwise and whether in property that is tangible or intangible, including, without limitation, all property rights in all property of any kind whatsoever that is owned or hereafter acquired by the Company and that is associated with, appurtenant to or used in the operation of the Real Property or is located on, at or upon the Real Property and is associated with or used in connection with or in operation of any business activity conducted on, at or upon the Real Property, and including, without limitation, the following: * * * All right, title, and interest in those certain contracts and agreements [set] forth in the attached Exhibit "B," which are hereby transferred and assigned to Mortgage Lending Company LLC. Among the "contracts and agreements [set] forth in the attached Exhibit 'B,'" was the aforementioned July 2002, contract wherein Respondent agreed to install a "new septic system" for Pro Gold on the Blue Road Property (Septic System Contract). This contract was still executory. Respondent had not done any work on the site in the year that had passed since the contract had been signed. In the beginning of August 2003, Mr. de Blank met with Respondent and advised him that MLC was the new owner of the Blue Road Property and that MLC had also received an assignment of the Septic System Contract from Pro Gold. In response to this advisement, Respondent stated "he did not do assignments." Following this meeting, Mr. de Blank sent Respondent documentation supporting the assertions he had made regarding MLC's ownership of the Blue Road Property and its having been assigned the Septic System Contract. Mr. de Blank then attempted, unsuccessfully, to make contact with Respondent by telephone. He "left messages," but his telephone calls were not returned. These efforts to telephonically communicate with Respondent having failed, Mr. de Blank "decided that it may make some sense to start a letter writing program." As part of that "program," on September 8, 2003, Mr. de Blank sent Respondent the following letter: Re: 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables As background, and in chronological order: Pro Gold Investments purchased the above cited property and obtained a construction loan from our firm. One of the conditions was that all construction contracts would be assignable to our firm in the event of default. Pro Gold Investments entered into contract with your firm to install a new septic tank and drainfield at 453 Blue Road. Pro Gold Investments defaults and forfeits title in lieu of foreclosure. The deed was recorded on August 4, 2003, at Bk/Pg: 21484/4283. Not recorded but attached for your reference is an assignment of contracts to include the contract Pro Gold Investments entered into with your firm. See further attachment. The original can be inspected in my office. At this point, I request you proceed with the work as soon as practical and under identical conditions as originally agreed with Pro Gold Investments. Please call me at . . . to confirm a start date. Mr. de Blank did not receive any response to his letter. He finally was able, however, to reach Respondent on the telephone. During this telephone conversation, Mr. de Blank made arrangements to meet Respondent at the Blue Road Property to discuss Respondent's doing the work Respondent had agreed to do in the Septic System Contract. This meeting between Mr. de Blank and Respondent took place on September 11, 2003. During the meeting, Mr. de Blank went over with Respondent "what the job [was] going to be." Although Respondent indicated that he was "going to put in th[e] septic tank" per the Septic System Contract, Mr. de Blank had his doubts that Respondent would be true to his word. Following the meeting, Mr. de Blank sent Respondent the following letter: Re: 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables We met today to discuss the above referenced job. My understanding is: You will start the job no later than the first week of October and will complete the job no later th[a]n the last week of October. I will obtain a copy of the approved permit. You indicated you will not need a survey.[1] Should you change you[r] mind, you can always refer to a survey I keep on site. You will have your insurance agent mail to my address a certificate of insurance. Though not discussed: I would like a partial release of payments made to date for the job. See further the attachment. Assuming you concur, then please send a signed and notarized copy to Maurits de Blank, Mortgage Lending Company, Post Office Box 430336, Miami, Florida 33143. Note that I prefer for various legal reasons that you use the release form as provided. Once the job has been started, I would like a list of firms supplying materials to the job. Notwithstanding that he had promised Mr. de Blank that he would "start the job no later than the first week of October," by the middle of October Respondent had yet to even "pull a septic tank construction permit from the City of Coral Gables" (that was needed before any on-site work could begin).2 In an attempt to find out from Respondent what was the cause of the delay, Mr. de Blank started a "calling campaign," but Respondent neither answered the telephone when Mr. de Blank called nor returned Mr. de Blank's calls. On October 19, 2003, Mr. de Blank sent the following letter to Respondent (by certified United States Mail, return receipt requested): Re: 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables I need a firm commitment when you will start and finish septic tank at above address. If you cannot perform the work, then I will need a refund of the deposit given to your firm. Please call to discuss. The end of the month was fast approaching, and Respondent had neither contacted Mr. de Blank nor begun the Septic System Contract on-site work. After paying a visit to Coral Gables City Hall and learning that Respondent had still not even "pull[ed] a septic tank construction permit from the City of Coral Gables," Mr. De Blank found another septic tank contractor, Westland Septic Tank Corp., to do the installation work for MLC that Respondent was contractually obligated to perform. MLC paid Westland $4,400.00 to do the work. Westland completed the job some time prior to November 4, 2003. The work passed all of the necessary inspections. Upon learning that MLC had contracted with Westland, Respondent sent Mr. de Blank a letter complaining that Mr. de Blank had not given Respondent an adequate opportunity to meet his obligations under the Septic System Contract. In the letter, Respondent offered to return only $500.00 of the $2,300 down payment he had received from Pro Gold. Mr. de Blank subsequently informed Respondent that this was not satisfactory and that he wanted the "full deposit back." He added that if he did not get it, he would "go to court." Not having received any portion of the "deposit back," Mr. de Blank, acting on behalf of MLC, in mid-November 2003, filed suit against Respondent in Miami-Dade County Court. On May 14, 2004, a Final Judgment was entered in Miami-Dade County Court Case No. 0313813 in favor of MLC and against Respondent "in the amount of $1,675.00 plus court costs in the amount of $121.00." As of the date of the final hearing in this case, Respondent had not made any payments to MLC. In view of the foregoing, it is found that Respondent abandoned for 30 consecutive days, without any apparent good cause, a project in which he was under contractual obligation to complete; and his failure to go forward with the project, combined with his failure to return any of the deposit he had received, caused monetary harm to a party to whom he was contractually obligated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him therefor by fining him $500.00 and suspending his registration for 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 February, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should issue a permit to Out of Bounds, Inc. (Out of Bounds, or applicant), to construct, operate, and close a construction and demolition debris disposal facility (C&D facility) in Hernando County.
Findings Of Fact On September 8, 2008, Out of Bounds applied to DEP for a permit to construct, operate, and close an unlined C&D facility on 26 acres located at 29251 Wildlife Lane, Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida, to be known as the Croom C&D Debris Landfill and Recycling Facility. There were four requests by DEP for additional information, which was provided, and the application was complete on September 3, 2009. In 1994, a previous owner of the property was issued a permit to construct, operate, and close an unlined C&D facility on the property. That owner did not proceed with construction, and the permit expired in 1999. The Out of Bounds application was for a new permit, not for the renewal of an existing permit. Robert McCune owns property adjacent to the proposed C&D facility. He and his wife reside on the property, keep horses in stables on the property, and use the property for horseback riding business, which includes hosting public horseback riding events. Hernando SSK was formed by David Belcher and one or more others to continue the business being operated by Paige Cool when she died during this proceeding. The business is conducted on ten acres of property Cool owned approximately one mile west of the proposed C&D facility. Belcher is one of two co-personal representatives of Cool’s estate. Belcher and his wife hold a mortgage on the property. When the estate is finalized, the Belchers plan to assign their mortgage to Hernando SSK. It is not clear who will own the property after the estate is finalized, or how Hernando SSK will be authorized to continue the business on the property. Western pleasure and trail-riding horses are boarded on the Cool property, which is known as At Home Acres. The business also has access to 20 adjoining acres to the east, which are used for grazing. Access to the horseback riding trails in the Withlacoochee State Forest is conveniently located just across Wildlife Lane from the property, to the north. A manager resides in a double-wide trailer on the property, and another trailer and a barn to the east of it are leased out. There is a potable water well on the property, which is the source of drinking water for the manager and lessees. Well Setback In the application process, Out of Bounds disclosed two potable water wells within 500 feet of the proposed landfill disposal area. The application provided that those wells would be converted to non-potable use. Out of Bounds did not disclose the existence of a third potable water well, on property owned by Daniel Knox, which is within 500 feet of the proposed landfill disposal area. When the Knox well was brought to the attention of DEP, Out of Bounds admitted that the well was permitted for potable use but took the position that it was not for potable use because it was not in use, was not connected to a source of electricity, and appeared to be abandoned. Daniel Knox and his brother, Robert Knox, had the Knox well dug and permitted in 1979 in anticipation of using it as the source of potable water for a residence to be built on the property for their parents and sister. The Knoxes have not yet built a residence on the property, but it still is their intention to do so and to use the well as the source of potable water. Since its construction, the well had been maintained and operated periodically using a gasoline-powered generator so that it will be ready for use when needed. During the application process, Out of Bounds also did not disclose the existence of a fourth potable water well within 500 feet of the proposed landfill disposal area on property once owned by Larry Fannin and now owned by his daughter and son-in- law, Robert McCune. The McCune well was permitted and installed in mid-2005 while the sale of the land from Fannin to the McCunes was pending. The intended purpose of the well was to provide potable water for the use of the McCunes when they started to reside on the property. Despite this intent, and unbeknownst to the McCunes, Fannin had the well permitted as an irrigation well. In mid-2008, the McCunes began to reside on their property. At first, they resided in a mobile home. They ran pipes from the well to the mobile home to provide drinking water. Eventually, later in 2008, they began construction of a residence on the property and ran pipes from the well to the house to provide drinking water to the house. The well was being used for drinking water before the Out of Bounds application was complete. (They also use water from the well from time to time for irrigation purposes--i.e., when they host horseback-riding events on weekends, they truck water from the well to their horseback-riding arena to apply to the ground to control dust.) Groundwater flows from the disposal area of the proposed landfill to the west and southwest. The Knox and McCune wells are down-gradient of the groundwater flow from the proposed disposal area. Out of Bounds represented at the hearing that it would accept a permit condition that no C&D debris, but only clean debris, would be disposed within 500 feet of the Knox and McCune wells. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(15)-(16) and (24). However, there was no evidence of new designs, plans, or operations that would be used to meet such a permit condition. Liner and Leachate Collection Existing unlined C&D facilities in the Southwest District report various parameters that exceed groundwater quality standards and criteria. These include arsenic, benzene, iron, aluminum, nitrate, ammonia, vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, 3- and 4-methyl phenols, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Arsenic and benzene are primary (health-based) groundwater quality standards. The others are secondary standards that relate to taste, odor, and aesthetics. The likely source of the reported arsenic violations in the Southwest District is wood treated with chromate copper arsenate (CCA). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(11). Out of Bounds proposes to not accept CCA-treated wood and to use a trained “spotter” to exclude CCA-treated wood from the landfill. This is an appropriate measure to prevent arsenic violations, and is now required for C&D facilities. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.730(7)(d), (8), and (20). It was not clear from the evidence whether the C&D facilities in the Southwest District with arsenic violations accepted CCA-treated wood. Even if they did, the operational plan proposed by Out of Bounds to exclude CCA-treated wood and to use a trained spotter is not a guarantee that no CCA-treated wood will enter the landfill. A C&D facility would not be expected to dispose of material that would result in benzene contamination. The reported benzene violations suggest that unauthorized material contaminated with benzene nonetheless makes its way into C&D facilities in the Southwest District. The evidence was not clear whether a trained spotter was used at those facilities. Whether or not a spotter was used at those facilities, having a trained spotter would not guarantee that no benzene-contaminated material will enter the landfill proposed by Out of Bounds. Out of Bounds suggested that ammonia violations result from C&D facilities accepting yard trash. However, there was no evidence of a connection between acceptance of yard trash and ammonia violations. The operational plan proposed by Out of Bounds to “cover as you go” is the accepted best practice to control hydrogen sulfide odor, which comes from wet drywall. Out of Bounds suggested that its cover plan would prevent any sulfate violations, but there was no evidence to prove it. There was no evidence as to whether the C&D facility proposed by Out of Bounds would be substantially different from the other existing C&D facilities in DEP’s Southwest District. Absent such evidence, Out of Bounds did not provide reasonable assurances that its proposed facility would not cause groundwater quality violations. The site for the C&D facility proposed by Out of Bounds is internally drained. There are no surface waters onsite or within a mile of the site. There was no evidence of a surficial aquifer above the Floridan aquifer. Rainfall entering the Out of Bounds property migrates downward into the Floridan aquifer. Once in the aquifer, there is a horizontal component of groundwater water flow in a generally southwest direction, towards the Knox and McCune wells. Contaminated leachate from the proposed C&D facility would migrate with the groundwater. Out of Bounds suggests that a thick clay layer under the site of its proposed facility would prevent the downward migration of groundwater into the Floridan aquifer. There are several reasons why the clay layer does not provide the reasonable assurance of a liner that contamination from the proposed landfill would not reach the Floridan aquifer. Clay is much more permeable than a geomembrane meeting DEP’s specifications for use as a liner. The clay on the proposed site is on the order of at least a thousand times more permeable. (Out of Bounds appeared to confuse the permeability of such a geomembrane with the allowable permeability of the geosynthetic clay layer or compacted clay layer underlying the geomembrane. Cf. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.730(4)(f).) In the application process, Out of Bounds relied on the clay layer for purposes of sinkhole prevention and mitigation, not for reasonable assurance that no liner was needed. The limestone formation underlying the site is highly variable, with numerous pinnacles; for that reason, the thickness of the clay layer also is highly variable, making it difficult to excavate the proposed landfill with complete assurance that the clay layer would not be penetrated. To provide reasonable assurance for purposes of sinkhole prevention and mitigation, Out of Bounds proposed to leave or create a clay layer at least six feet thick underlying the bottom of the proposed landfill. Because the site is in an area of high recharge to the Floridan aquifer and drains entirely internally, the clay layer alone does not provide reasonable assurance that there will be no downward migration of contaminated groundwater to the Floridan aquifer. Reasonable assurance requires a liner and leachate collection system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP deny the application for a C&D facility made by Out of Bounds. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th day of December, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronda L. Moore, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 John R. Thomas, Esquire Law Office of John R. Thomas, P.A. 233 Third Street North, Suite 101 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-3818 Timothy W. Weber, Esquire Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A. Post Office Box 41100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743-1100 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's decision to reject the galvanized pipe replacement bid of Petitioner as non- responsive was erroneous, an abuse of discretion, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Expertech Network Installation, Inc., is a division of Bell Canada. Petitioner is a construction and engineering division of the parent company. It was set up to expand the parent's operations into the United States about nine years ago. Petitioner has steadily replaced its Canadian employees with U.S. employees over those years. The City is a governmental entity established under the laws of the State of Florida. By contract with the DOAH, the City has agreed to utilize Administrative Law Judges to hear, inter alia, bid protests involving the City. On May 7, 2007, the City issued Invitation to Bid No. ITB-PW060607-88. The Invitation to Bid sought bids for replacement of approximately 38,000 linear feet of two-inch galvanized pipe and associated appurtenances with 38,000 feet of four and six-inch DR18 PVC piping and associated appurtenances. The replacement would include approximately 385 service connections with Sch-80 PVC piping, all within the area known as Section 4 of the City. In addition, the scope of work included relocation of approximately 460 linear feet of eight-inch PVC water main pipe and associated appurtenances with 600 linear feet of eight-inch DR18 PVC piping and appurtenances along State Road 78. A total specification package and complete set of drawings for the aforementioned work was prepared by the City's consulting engineer, TetraTech-HAI (hereinafter "Ttech"). The specifications and drawings by Ttech were made a part of the Invitation to Bid. A pre-bid conference was held on May 16, 2007. At that conference, several issues were discussed, resulting in issuance of an Addendum to the Invitation to Bid. The Addendum was issued the same day as the conference and included the following paragraph: Will the City allow directional drilling on the galvanized pipe replacement project? No. All references to directional drillingon the galvanized pipe replacement projectare to be modified to jack & bore. All water main piping proposed to cross driveways shall be installed via jack & bore or open cut methods. Water main piping proposed to cross roadways, including long side services, shall be installed by jack & bore methods. Directional drilling is acceptable for the roadway crossings on the SR 78 Water Main Replacement portions only. Please see the enclosed revised Measurement and Payment section of the specifications (01025) and revised bid schedule. (Emphasis in original document.) The Addendum also extended the due dates for bids by one week, to June 13, 2007. No protest was filed with the City with respect to the terms, conditions or specifications contained in the Invitation to Bid and the Addendum. On Wednesday, June 13, 2007, the City opened the bids. Petitioner's bid was the low bid for the project. Its bid included a price of $1,816,224, as compared to the second lowest bidder, Guymann (whose bid came in at $1,987,561).1 The bids were then reviewed by Ttech for conformity to the Invitation to Bid. On July 31, 2007, Ttech notified the City that it was recommending approval of the Guymann bid despite Petitioner being the low bidder. The justification for that recommendation was as follows: The lowest apparent bidder on the project was Expertech Network Installation, Inc. (Expertech) with a total bid of $1,816,224.00. [Ttech] reviewed Expertech's bid package and found that the required list of at least five completed projects of the type as the Galvanized Water Main Replacement project was not included in the package. [Ttech] contacted Expertech concerning the incomplete bid package and requested that Expertech provided the required list of at least five projects completed by Expertech of similar type as the Galvanized Water Main Replacement project. The list provided by Expertech did not include any completed projects of the type as the Galvanized Water Main Replacement. On August 7, 2007, the City issued its Notice of Intent to Award, stating that the procurement division of the City would recommend award of the bid to Guymann as the most responsive, responsible bidder meeting the terms, conditions, and specifications set forth in the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest; its Formal Written Protest was timely filed on August 24, 2007, along with the required bond. There are three methods of drilling utilized for laying pipe in the ground: directional drilling, open cut drilling, and jack & bore drilling. A brief discussion of each is necessary in order to understand the dispute in this matter. Directional drilling is done utilizing a machine that is guided underground using steel rods. A person above ground with a sounding device directs the steel rods from one point to another. Directional boring is used when trenching or excavating is not practical. Directional boring minimizes environmental disruption. Jack & bore drilling (or auger drilling) is similar to directional drilling in that it has an entrance pit, and then the pipe is manually jacked along the desired path while simultaneously excavating the soil. It is often used in projects that have to go under existing roads or driveways. Open cut drilling is the old, traditional method of digging a trench in the ground and laying the pipe in the open cut. The Invitation to Bid, at page 10 of 53, included a request for each bidder to provide evidence of its experience with similar projects. Paragraph 5 asked for a list "of the last five projects of this type your organization has completed."2 Paragraph 6 asked for a list "of projects of this type that your organization is currently engaged in." The lists of projects were to be completed as set forth in a table attached to the Invitation to Bid. The table is recreated below: PROJECT YOUR CONTRACTOR REQUIRED ACTUAL NAME, TITLE CONTRACT OR SUB COMPLETION COMPLETION ADDRESS & AMOUNT DATE DATE & LOCATION PHONE # In its Bid, Petitioner provided a document entitled "Bidders Qualifications" in response to paragraph 5. The document was not on the table provided and was not entirely responsive to the information requested (i.e., it did not indicate whether Petitioner was contractor or subcontractor; there were no completion dates, and there were no contact persons). Nonetheless, the list contained eight completed projects. Those projects included two water main projects; the other six completed projects were telecommunication projects. While both types of projects would include drilling, there are distinct differences between the two. For example, water and wastewater projects require pressure testing, bacterial testing, and permitting that telecommunication projects do not. Petitioner's list also included projects that involved directional drilling. Since directional drilling was specifically prohibited in the galvanized pipe replacement project, those projects would not be deemed substantially similar in type.3 During the initial review of the bids, Ttech had specifically asked Petitioner to provide the required list of five completed projects of a similar type. In response, Petitioner submitted a list of four projects, which were listed as "Currently in Progress." Again, the projects were submitted on a form other than the table provided in the Invitation to Bid. When Ttech followed up with the project contacts, it found that there had been no open cut drilling on two of them; the other two had not yet begun. However, by the date of final hearing the projects were substantially complete. After Petitioner had submitted its list of projects, a meeting was called at the City. Petitioner was represented at the meeting along with City personnel and a representative from Ttech. Notes from that meeting, though inconclusive, seem to indicate that the requirement for five completed jobs of a similar nature was discussed. It is unclear whether Petitioner's representative was still at the meeting when this was discussed. However, it does not appear that anyone from the City or Ttech sent Petitioner a written request to provide evidence of additional work performed. Nor is there any evidence that the City or Ttech had an obligation to do so. At any rate, Petitioner did not submit any evidence of similar projects other than those discussed above. There were notes made by attendees of the meeting. None of the notes submitted into evidence was conclusive as to all issues that were discussed at that time. However, in notes relating to a telephone conversation five days later, Ttech's representative noted discussing with Petitioner the need to provide evidence of five similar projects, which means that at the time of the June 9, 2007, meeting, Ttech was still attempting to get the required list of projects from Petitioner. The projects submitted by Petitioner include directional drill excavation projects, which involved at least some open cuts (i.e., to make tie-ins at each end of the directional drill section). None of those projects was substantially similar in type to the proposed project, but did include some open cut work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the City of Cape Coral upholding its rejection of Petitioner's bid for the galvanized pipe replacement project. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 November, 2007.
