The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's decision to reject all proposals on RFP No. 008-02 to design and build an ancillary building at the Tampa Service Office was arbitrary, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 21, 2002, Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (District), through its contracts manager, issued an Invitation to Proposal inviting interested persons to submit competitive sealed proposals on Request for Proposal No. 008-02 (RFP No. 008), which called for the design and construction of an ancillary building at its District Service Office (Tampa Service Center) located at 7601 Highway 301 North, Tampa, Florida. The proposed facility is an approximately 5,000 square foot metal building which will house the District's field staff. The last paragraph of the document provided that "[t]he District shall reserve the right to reject any or all bids/proposals received with or without cause." On May 24, 2002, the District placed an advertisement of its Invitation to Proposal in three local newspapers in Hillsborough County. The last paragraph of each advertisement also provided that the District reserved the right to reject all bids with or without cause. A mandatory pre-proposal conference was held on June 6, 2002, which was attended by various interested persons, including Petitioner, Paul J. Sierra Construction, Inc. (Sierra), a large construction firm located in Tampa, Florida. Although Sierra engages in general construction, it also has a division which specializes in projects using Butler building systems. A Butler building utilizes a combination of a metal roof with a pre-engineered structural system. At the pre-proposal meeting, Sierra requested a copy of RFP No. 008-02, which contained the general conditions for the project, nature of the services required, insurance requirements, and evaluation procedures. Section 1.13 of that document provided in relevant part that "the District reserves the right to reject all proposals and not grant any award from the issuance of this RFP." Five proposals, including Sierra's, were received and opened on June 26, 2002. All proposals were reviewed and independently scored by a three-person selection committee composed of District staffers. Although Sierra's proposal of $374,038.00 was not the lowest dollar amount submitted, it received the highest numerical score of 279, edging out two other proposers who both received scores of 277. The lowest dollar proposal submitted was $337,000.00. Under the process in place, the selection committee then referred the results of its evaluation to a three-person Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (Committee), comprised of the Governing Board's chairman, Mr. Ronnie E. Duncan, the Governing Board's vice-chairman, Mr. Thomas D. Dabney, II, and the treasurer of the Governing Board, Watson L. Haynes, II. The Committee was delegated the authority to reject any proposal without further action by the District's Governing Board; however, approval of a proposal had to be confirmed by the Governing Board. Committee members Duncan and Dabney are developers with extensive experience in construction while Mr. Haynes has a background in accounting. The Committee was formed in late 2001 for the purpose of achieving more efficiencies in the construction process, particularly in light of a newspaper's criticism of the money spent by the District while renovating Building 2 at its Brooksville office. The Committee was not obligated to accept the selection committee scoring. Rather, the Committee had a duty to make the ultimate decision as to how taxpayer dollars are best spent. The Committee met on July 30, 2002, to consider the results of the evaluation. Mr. Haynes was not present. The two other members voiced concerns regarding the cost of Sierra's proposal, which was more than $74.00 per square foot. For that reason, the Committee continued the decision on awarding the contract to its next meeting on August 28, 2002. It also requested the staff to determine how costs on the project could be reduced. On July 31, 2002, Sierra contacted the District's contract manager, Steven M. Long, by telephone and was told that Sierra had received the highest ranking from the selection committee, but that the Committee had postponed a decision until its next meeting because of concerns over the cost of the project. On August 28, 2002, the Committee reconvened. Due to a personal conflict, Mr. Haynes was not present. By a 2-0 vote, the Committee determined that because of the cost concerns, all proposals should be rejected, and that the 5,000 square foot ancillary building should be combined with two other projects being undertaken at the Tampa Service Center under a single construction manager to reduce costs and realize other benefits. This decision was conveyed by telephone to Sierra on September 1, 2002. On September 3, 2002, formal Notice of Rejection letters were sent to all five proposers. On September 5, 2002, Sierra filed its Notice of Protest. This was followed by a Formal Written Protest filed on September 12, 2002, in which Sierra contended that the Committee's decision was arbitrary. The Tampa Service Center is a branch office of the District and includes office, technical, maintenance, and garage facilities with accompanying parking and roadways. Existing Building 1 is outdated, crowded, and inadequate and must be replaced. It will be demolished once the new Building 1 is constructed. Although the District initially decided that the new building would need 30,000 square feet, it later determined that the approximately 5,000 square feet needed to house District field staff could be separated out as an ancillary building from Building 1 and built as a metal building. A preengineered metal building was selected since it would be cheaper and faster to build, and some of the field staff could be moved out of the crowded existing Building 1 to the ancillary building while new Building 1 was being constructed. In addition to the construction of the new Building 1 and the ancillary building, the District intends to re-roof existing Building 2, demolish Building 1, re-route traffic flow, install security gates, improve parking, improve the stormwater system, and install new landscaping. As a general rule, as a project gets larger, there are economies of scale that result in cost reductions because the cost per unit becomes less as a greater quantity is purchased. In deciding to reject all proposals, and combine all of the work at the Tampa Service Center, the Committee considered the following advantages to having a construction manager supervise the entire project: It would reduce potential confusion by better coordinating the number of contractors and subcontractors on the job and create a more efficient work flow. Task coordination is essential for safety since District employees and members of the public will have continuing access to the Tampa Service Center while all components of the project are under construction. There will be considerable underground construction work for the installation of electrical lines, telephone lines, computer cabling, water lines, fire protection water service lines, sewer lines, irrigation lines, and stormwater lines. Improved coordination reduces duplication and the possibility of putting recently completed work at risk for damage. By working with the architect and the construction manager, the District could use value engineering to reduce costs. Value engineering would allow the District to look at creative ways to reduce costs by substituting similar, less expensive items for more expensive items. Because the District is exempt from paying state sales tax, the District would save the 7 percent sales tax since the construction manager sets up accounts with vendors directly for the District. The District would also save the contractor's percentage markup that typically encompasses the 7 percent sales tax when it has to be paid. The construction manager system produces a better selection process and cost savings since the construction manager can be required to obtain at least three proposals for each of the sixteen divisions of labor. There will be benefits of accountability and uniformity from having only one person or entity responsible for any problems encountered. In addition, the following savings could be realized through economies of scale by including the ancillary building in the larger project and under a construction manager: mobilization; demobilization; site work; excavation for foundation; concrete for foundation; rough-in electrical work; rough-in plumbing; fire protection service line; electrical lines; water lines; computer cabling lines; plumbing; electrical; insulation; drywall; floor tile; ceiling grid; ceiling tiles; doors; air conditioning system; painting; landscaping; irrigation sprinkler system; paving work; stormwater system; and one project manager. At the same time, when the earlier decision was made to separate the construction of the ancillary building out from the rest of the Tampa Service Center project to save time and money, the Committee believed that the ancillary building would obtain its utility and communication services from an existing, adjacent building. After later learning that this was not the case, and that the scope of the work for the ancillary building had expanded to require considerable underground site work for its new utility and communication services, the Committee realized that the cost and other benefits originally intended had been lost. Finally, new Building 1 is only sixty feet from the ancillary building and will require considerable underground site work for its new utility and communication services. Therefore, the Committee concluded that it made more sense to combine the construction of the new Building 1 and the ancillary building to achieve cost savings and efficiencies in the installation of utility and communication services and to reduce other overlapping aspects of the Tampa Service Center project. Given the foregoing considerations, the Committee's decision to reject all proposals was not arbitrary in any sense. While it is true that the precise amount of savings to be realized cannot be quantified, the greater weight of evidence shows that some savings can be achieved, and that the Committee's decision was based on facts, sound reasoning, and logic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order rejecting all proposals on RRP 008-02. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Stephen H. Kurvin, Esquire 7 South Lime Street Sarasota, Florida 34237-6105 Stephen O. Rushing, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
The Issue Whether Respondent knowingly submitted an inaccurate timesheet for April 4, 2018, as charged in the agency action letter dated May 11, 2018.
Findings Of Fact ECUA is a public utility that provides water, wastewater, and sanitation services to customers in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties. ECUA’s mission statement specifies that the Board and employees of ECUA “are committed to providing the highest quality service” and that “ECUA will always provide cost- effective services.” The Manual sets forth the terms and conditions of employment with ECUA. The Manual specifies that: Overtime work should be for emergency or unforeseen situations and to solve problems which are not a part of the daily activities. Supervisors are expected to use overtime work sparingly and employees should respond when called upon. Overtime and compensatory time authorization will be established by the supervisor with the approval of the department director. During the relevant time period, ECUA employed Mr. Boyd as an Industrial Plant Mechanic I. On June 26, 2012, Mr. Boyd signed a document acknowledging that a copy of the Manual was available to him in his supervisor’s office, via ECUA’s intranet, in ECUA’s Human Resources Department, and via compact disc upon request. Mr. Boyd also acknowledged on June 26, 2012, that it was his “responsibility to read the entire Manual/Handbook and to comply with the plans, guidelines, directives, and procedures contained in the Manual/Handbook and any revisions to it.” As an Industrial Plant Mechanic I, Mr. Boyd works under the supervision of a senior mechanic. He normally begins his workday by reporting to the Central Wastewater Reclamation Facility (“CWRF”) at 7:00 a.m. and is dispatched to assigned worksites. He uses an ECUA truck to travel to and from those sites. Mr. Boyd has a 30-minute lunch break for which he is not compensated. He is also allowed one 15-minute break in the morning and another in the afternoon. Mr. Boyd’s typical workday ends at 3:30 p.m. With a 30-minute lunch break, that amounts to an eight-hour workday. In April of 2018, ECUA needed to replace all of the diffusers at its Bayou Marcus Water Reclamation Facility (“the BMWRF”). Mack H. Weeks, ECUA’s Plant Maintenance Manager at the time, had supervisory authority over Mr. Boyd. Shortly before April 4, 2018, Mr. Boyd mentioned to Mr. Weeks that he wanted to stop at the BMWRF on April 4, 2018, prior to reporting to the CWRF, in order to see if the water level had decreased to a point where the diffusers in question were visible. According to Mr. Boyd, that information would enable him and the three other members of his four-person work crew to ascertain what parts they needed to complete the repair. However, there was no benefit for Mr. Boyd to stop at the BMWRF prior to reporting to the CWRF.3/ At 6:32 a.m. on April 4, 2018, ECUA’s security system recorded Mr. Boyd passing through a gate at the BMWRF. Mr. Boyd took a picture of a portion of the BMWRF a few minutes later. The security system at the CWRF recorded Mr. Boyd entering the facility at 7:13 a.m. on April 4, 2018. Mr. Boyd traveled back to the BMWRF with Kevin Spinks, an ECUA co-worker, in an ECUA work truck that had been assigned to Mr. Spinks. Carl Ayliffe and another ECUA employee were the remainder of the four-person work crew assigned to that job, and they traveled to the BMWRF in a separate ECUA truck. The tank at the BMWRF was on-line by 3:00 p.m. on April 4, 2018. Every ECUA truck has a global positioning system that enables ECUA to know precisely where each truck is at virtually any given point in time. The GPS on Mr. Spinks’ truck was not functioning because the antenna had been disconnected. However, the GPS on Mr. Ayliffe’s truck was functioning and recorded that he was done working at 4:29 p.m., on April 4, 2018.4/ Rather than returning his truck to the CWRF, Mr. Ayliffe drove the truck to his home because he was on call that night. A camera at the back gate of the CWRF recorded Mr. Spinks returning his truck at 5:07 p.m. on April 4, 2018. ECUA’s security system recorded Mr. Boyd using his employee badge to enter the CWRF through the southeast shop door at 5:09 p.m. on April 4, 2018. In consideration of a need to gather any belongings and/or complete paperwork, Mr. Boyd’s work on April 4, 2018, should have ended at approximately 5:30 p.m. on April 4, 2018. On April 16, 2018, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Spinks, and Mr. Ayliffe submitted timesheets indicating that they each worked eight regular hours and three overtime hours on April 4, 2018. Ultimate Findings The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that there was no benefit to Mr. Boyd stopping at the BMWRF on April 4, 2018, prior to reporting for work at the CWRF. The greater weight of the evidence also demonstrates that his stop at the BMWRF was unauthorized by anyone who supervised Mr. Boyd. As a result, Mr. Boyd’s stop at the BMWRF on April 4, 2018, was an attempt to accumulate unnecessary overtime pay. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Mr. Boyd began his workday at 7:13 a.m. on April 4, 2018, and his workday should have ended at approximately 5:30 p.m. after he reported back to the CWRF at 5:09 p.m. Given that Mr. Boyd was entitled to a 30-minute, unpaid lunch break, the undisputed evidence indicates that he worked 9.75 hours on April 4, 2018, rather than the 11 hours indicated on his timesheet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Executive Director of the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority find that Robert D. Boyd, II, violated Section B-3, attendance records; Section B-13 A (4), conduct unbecoming an ECUA employee; Section B-13 A (13), falsification of records; and Section B-13 A (33), violation of ECUA rules or guidelines or state or federal law. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 17th day of September, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Hans Steiner is the owner and operator of Am-Swiss Coffee Shop, which is located in the lobby of an office building in Miami, Florida. There are no bathrooms on the lobby floor of that office building. The nearest bathrooms to the coffee shop are located on the second floor of the office building, and the bathroom facilities in that building are kept locked. Petitioner has placed signs within the coffee shop indicating the location of the bathrooms and the manner in which the keys will be issued. Petitioner's coffee shop has access from the street and, therefore, can be open even when the offices in that building are closed. Petitioner's patrons include employees and visitors from that office building, from the office building next door, and the public. Petitioner's coffee shop is not incidental to another occupancy. A patron wishing to use the toilet facilities while at the coffee shop would first obtain a key and would then exit the restaurant establishment, travel down a hallway approximately 20 feet, take an elevator to the second floor, and then travel approximately another 20 feet to where the bathroom facilities are located. Petitioner holds a license as a take-out facility but has been refused an eat-in license due to the location of the toilet facilities. The management of the office buildings is responsible for maintaining and cleaning the bathrooms, not Petitioner. Rule 10D-9.028 is incorporated into Rule 10D-7 13.027(5), Florida Administrative Code. Footnote No. 10 of Rule 10D-9.028(21)(o) requires an eating establishment to have toilet facilities on the same floor as that establishment. The relevant portion provides as follows: All toilet rooms shall be of easy and convenient access to both patrons and employees, and shall be located on the same floor of the premises served and under the responsible direction of the management of the premises served. Rule 10D-9.028 became effective on January 1, 1977, and was most recently amended in 1981. The substance of the rule was contained in former rule 10D-9.08 which was amended in 1976. Toilet facilities have been required to be located on the same floor as the eating establishment since at least 1976. Patrons of eating establishments may need to use the restroom while at the establishment. Some patrons such as the elderly, infirm, handicapped, pregnant women, and small children may have greater need of restroom facilities. They may have more difficulty finding the toilet facilities and may experience bladder or bowel failure in the eating establishment if the facilities are not accessible. Patrons of eating establishments may become ill at the establishment and need to vomit. Some types of food poison or food allergy cause persons to vomit within a few moments from ingesting that food. If facilities are not immediately accessible, patrons may vomit in the eating establishment. The presence of vomit, urine, or feces in an eating establishment creates a health hazard. It is more difficult for patrons to locate a restroom which is on a different floor from the eating establishment than one which is on the same floor. Washing of hands is the single most important step that can be taken to prevent the spread of bacteria in the food service context. It breaks the fecal-oral chain by preventing germs on hands from being ingested through the mouth. Readily-accessible handwashing facilities for both employees and patrons are important to the prevention of the spread of disease-causing bacteria. There are sound health reasons for requiring toilet facilities to be on the same floor as the eating establishment. In addition to all of the health reasons, it is more convenient for patrons to have restrooms on the same floor as the floor on which the eating establishment is located.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation, pursuant to its decision to procure certain sewer line cleaning equipment, issued an Invitation to Bid to potential vendors of such equipment. The specifications in that Invitation to Bid which are at issue in this proceeding concern the specified ability of the machine being proposed to vacuum gutters while being driven or, that is, in motion. The other specification at issue was that the machine had to be a standard production model with five of such machines in service for one year prior to May 1988. The sewer line cleaner specified had to have a nine cubic yard capacity. The bids were received, including that of Vac-Con, Inc. and Jet Vac Sanitary Service. The bid results were posted on June 3, 1988, noticing the Department's intent to award the contract for the nine cubic yard sewer line cleaner to Vac- Con, Inc. Jet Vac Sanitary Service timely filed a formal protest of that intended bid award on June 17, 1988. The Petitioner's formal protest was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings and duly came on for hearing. The Petitioner is contending that the Vac-Con model V290 storm sewer line cleaner does not meet the specifications in the Invitation to Bid because it will not vacuum gutters while in motion in the configuration set forth in Vac-Con's published specifications for its standard models. It asserts, in conjunction with this argument, that the alternative configuration proposed by Vac-Con would in effect render this a nonstandard production model of which Vac- Con has not had five in service prior to May 1988, which would represent a departure from the bid specifications and thus result in a non-responsive bid. The Respondent, however, contends that the alternative configuration proposed by Vac-Con is merely an options package to an existing standard production model machine and thus is in conformance with the specification. The Respondent has been advised by Vac-Con that the V290 machine will perform as specified and that at least five machines have been so configured and have been in service for the required one year or greater period. It is stipulated that Jet Vac Sanitary Service was the next lowest bidder after Vac-Con and has standing to protest the Intent to Award. Jet Vac was a responsive bidder. It is also stipulated that the configuration of the model V290 depicted in Vac-Con's promotional material itself will not meet the specifications set forth in Respondent's Invitation to Bid. The dispute is whether the Vac-Con machine, as optionally modified, as proposed by Vac-Con, meets the specification concerning the machine being a standard production model. In response to the Invitation to Bid, Vac-Con, Inc. submitted a bid for its Vac-Con model V290. It accompanied that bid with a written statement of the model specifications which coincided with the specifications required by the Invitation to Bid. It specified, that is, that it would comply with the requirement that the vehicle be able to vacuum gutters while being driven in motion. Jet Vac in turn submitted a bid which was responsive, but it was not the lowest bid. Vac-Con, Inc., in other bids submitted in the past year as well as in its advertising literature, describes the V290 model of sewer line cleaner as one in which the vacuum compressor is driven by the truck engine, that is the engine which provides the motive power to the vehicle. In order to operate the vacuum compressor as described in that literature, the rear axle of the truck has to be disengaged, with the result that the unit cannot vacuum and drive at the same time. This configuration of the V290 model which has the vacuum being operated by the truck engine or chassis engine, is the normal type of unit offered by Vac-Con in its vehicle demonstrations and literature, as recently as one week prior to trial. In order for the V290 to comply with the bid specifications at issue, it must be reconfigured so that the vacuum compressor is run by an auxiliary engine and not the motive power engine. The power available to operate the vacuum compressors which vacuum trash from gutters and so forth, would be reduced from the chassis engine which, in the normal configuration of that model, operates the vacuum compressors. The reconfiguration whereby the vacuum compressors would be run off the auxiliary engine, and not the motive engine, would require a reversal of the V-belt drives used by the normal unit. This alternate configuration would be obvious to the casual observer. The intent of the term "standard production model" in the specifications at issue is to ensure that a machine purchased will have ready availability of manufacturer's replacement parts out of stock. This serves to prevent the purchaser from having to do development work on new models which are not in standard production runs and do not have inventories of spare parts in the manufacturer's stock as yet. Because the alternate configuration of the unit, whereby it would vacuum while moving, running its vacuum equipment off of its auxiliary engine, requires new engineering and reevaluation of the power of the V290's auxiliary motor, the specification language requiring a "standard production model" and requiring that five such units be operational in the field, requires in this instance that five units in the alternate configuration at issue be found to have been in satisfactory field service for one year. The written description submitted by Vac-Con, Inc. in response to the bidding documents, describes a machine which complies with the specification requiring the ability of the machine to vacuum while it is in motion. That description was specially prepared for purposes of this bid. Indeed it is not a machine represented, at the time of the bid, in the company's advertising literature, catalog data or other published brochures and like sources of information in order to verify that indeed Vac-Con did have five units in the alternative configuration in satisfactory service. The Department's representative, Mr. Burt, telephoned individuals whose names had been supplied him by Vac-Con as being persons who could verify that the alternative, which could vacuum in motion with the vacuum blower run off the auxiliary engine, was indeed in service. Using these names supplied him by Vac-Con and names of persons some of those people in turn gave him, who had such altered machines operating in satisfactory service, Mr. Burt telephoned each of the individuals whose names had thus been furnished by Vac-Con and its customers. He thus confirmed that there were indeed at least five units in service in the field, for at least one year, which had the ability to vacuum gutters while in motion, with the vacuum equipment being operated by the auxiliary engine on the machine. The Department has a policy of relying upon the representations of its suppliers. It does not inspect each piece of equipment before it writes a purchase order after awarding a bid. It instead reserves the right to reject any piece of equipment that does not meet specifications, after purchase. The Department does not wish to get into an adversary relationship with its suppliers and, in turn, vendors typically do not want an adversary or unfavorable relationship with the Department and do not want future disqualifications from bidding based upon any lack of integrity or misrepresentations in responding to bid specifications. Accordingly, the representations made on the bidding document have historically been quite accurate and have a high degree of probability of reliability. Hence, the Department has not, in the exercise of its discretion, followed a policy of physically inspecting each piece of equipment and independently verifying its existence or capabilities. It rather has effectively, in the past, relied upon the vendor's representations regarding the capacities or capabilities of equipment. In fact, the Department has neither the staff nor the time to make any further pre-award investigations, especially due to the nationwide market and indeed, to some extent, international market, in which it seeks to procure equipment of all sorts. In any event, being satisfied that the equipment would perform as represented and verifying that at least five such configured machines were in active field service for a year or more, the Department concluded that, in the exercise of its discretion, that the specifications had been adequately responded to and that the award should be made to Vac-Con as lowest, most responsive bidder. Insufficient proof to the contrary was offered at the hearing.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding the contract for Florida DOT Bid Number MY3188B5 to Vac-Con, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Heath William B. Singleton Jet Vac Sanitary Services Post Office Box 186 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32070 Bruce A. Campbell, squire Senior Litigation Attorney Office of General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Kaye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact In December, 1993, Suwannee Farms, through one of its partners, Robert Wight, applied to the Department of Environmental Protection for a wastewater treatment facility permit to be constructed on part of its property in Suwannee County, Florida. The Department of Environmental Protection requested clarification or amendment of the initial application. Suwannee Farms amended its initial application and the Department determined that the applicant had provided reasonable assurances of compliance with Florida Statutes and the Department's rules and regulations. The permittee listed on the initial application is Robert Wight. Suwannee Farms is a partnership consisting of Robert Wight and Joseph Hall. The permit is to be issued in the name of Suwannee Farms. Issuance in the name of the partnership is within the scope of the Department of Environmental Protection's authority. On January 25, 1994, the Department issued its Intent to Issue the permit. The intent to issue provided in part: Pursuant to Section 403.815, F.S. and DER Rule 17-103-150, Florida Administrative Code, you (the applicant) are required to publish at your own expense the enclosed Notice of Intent to Issue Permit. The Notice shall be published one time only within 30 days, in the legal ad section of a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected. For the purpose of this rule, "publication in a news- paper of general circulation in the area affected" means publication in a newspaper meeting the requirements of Sections 50.011 and 50.031, F.S., in the county where the activity is to take place. Where there is more than one newspaper of general circulation in the county, the newspaper used must be one with significant circulation in the area that may be affected by the permit. If you are uncertain that a newspaper meets these require- ments, please contact the Department at the address or telephone number listed below. The applicant shall provide proof of publication to the Department, at Northeast District Office, 7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite B-200, Jacksonville, Florida 32256-7577, within seven (7) days of the publication. Failure to publish the notice and provide proof of publication within the allotted time may result in the denial of the permit. The Notice Of Intent to Issue was published in the Gainesville Sun on February 5, 1994. Proof of publication was timely filed with the Department. The Gainesville Sun is a daily newspaper printed in Alachua County, Florida. The paper is available for purchase by the general public in Suwannee County, Florida and is sold to the general public at newspaper racks. Additionally, the Sun is available to residents of Suwannee County, including the area of the proposed project, through subscription and delivery via newspaper carrier "tubes." The Gainesville Sun is the only newspaper of general circulation delivered on a daily basis to homes in the area affected by the proposed permit. The Gainesville Sun contains national, state and local news stories, including local events in Suwannee County. Additionally, the Sun contains a legal ad section. The information in the Sun is of a public character and of interest and value to the residents of Suwannee County.dd The Sun has been published for more than a year in both Alachua and Suwannee Counties. At least twenty-five percent of the words in the Sun are in the English language and is entered as second class mail at the post office. There is no question that the Gainesville Sun meets the legal requirements of the Department for publication of Notices of Intent to Issue Permits in Suwannee County. Therefore, publication of the Intent to Issue Permit for the proposed wastewater facility involved in this case was appropriate. Through discovery and after an order compelling such answers, the Petitioner listed her objections to the issuance of the permit generally as noncompliance with nitrate level regulations, noncompliance with fencing regulations, noncompliance with set-back regulations and noncompliance with excessive noise and odor regulations. The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the proposed wastewater treatment facility and land application meet the requirements of Florida Statutes and the Department's rules in the areas specified by the Petitioner as well as other areas of the statutes and rules. Suffice it to say that Petitioner offered no evidence which even remotely demonstrated that the Suwannee Farms permit did not meet these requirements or in some way failed to reasonably assure the Department that the requirements for a wastewater treatment permit with rapid rate land application would be met. Indeed, the only evidence in this case demonstrated that the technology proposed for the wastewater plant and rapid rate land application has been in use for a long time and has historically either met or exceeded the Department's requirements for nitrates (not to exceed 12 milligrams per liter), noise, odor and fecal coliform. There was no evidence submitted that would cause one to conclude that the technology for this facility would not perform as it has in the past at other locations. The plans of the facility clearly show adequate fencing and that the percolation ponds will be set-back at least 500 feet from any wells and at least 100 feet from any property line. Both fencing and pond location meet the requirements of Florida Statutes and Departmental rule. Given these facts, Petitioner has shown its entitlement to a construction permit for its proposed project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a Final Order granting the application of Suwannee Farms for a wastewater treatment facility and rapid land application permit. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 4th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2800 1. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen C. Bullock P. O. Box 447 Jacksonville, FL 32201 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Assistant General Counsel D E P 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Frederick L. Koberlein P. O. Drawer 2349 Lake City, FL 32056-2349 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary D E P 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel D E P 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to Petitioner, Palafox, LLC (“Petitioner” or “Palafox”), and against Respondent, Carmen Diaz (“Respondent”), in the underlying administrative matter as a sanction pursuant to section 120.595, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida limited liability company and was the applicant for the Permit challenged in Case No. 19-5831. Respondent is the owner of Lot 18, Block A, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision, and was the Petitioner in Case No. 19-5831. Petitioner was represented by the firm of Carlton Fields, P.A. (“the Firm”), in Case Nos. 19-5831 and 20-3014F. Petitioner’s counsel and paralegal with the Firm spent 392.4 hours litigating both the underlying substantive case and entitlement to attorney’s fees, for a total of $123,763.50 in fees, broken down as follows: Name Hours Rate Subtotal W. Douglas Hall 171.8 $382.50 $65,713.50 James E. Parker-Flynn 197.4 $270.00 $53,298.00 Christine Graves .3 $382.50 $ 114.75 Kimberly Pullen 22.9 $202.50 $ 4,637.25 The hourly rates shown above were discounted by approximately 10 percent of the standard rates charged by the Firm at the time this matter originated. Furthermore, over the course of representing Palafox in this matter, the Firm discounted a number of its bills as a courtesy because of the amount of time required to litigate the matter and to adjust for potential overlap among attorneys working on the case. Those courtesy adjustments totaled $7,437.45. Applying that discount to the total fees shown above, the total amount of attorney’s fees incurred by Palafox in litigating this matter is as follows: Total Unadjusted Attorney’s Fees $123,763.50 Less Courtesy Adjustments $ 7,437.45 Total Adjusted Attorney’s Fees $116,326.05 In addition to attorney’s fees, Palafox incurred the following taxable costs and expenses: Court Reporter - Diaz Depo. $ 564.28 JSB-Advantage Court Reporters - Carswell Depo. $ 1,032.48 Phipps Reporting - DOAH Transcript -Day 1 $ 1,605.67 Phipps Reporting - DOAH Transcript -Day 2 $ 542.52 WSource Group, LLC (1/8/20-1/27/20) $ 3,987.50 WSource Group, LLC (2/6/20-2/20/20) $ 9,652.50 Total Taxable Costs $ 17,384.95 Additionally, Palafox is seeking the costs incurred by its expert, Mr. Varn, up through and including the final hearing. Mr. Varn’s hourly rate for his work on this case was $250, and, including the final hearing, he spent 9.8 hours on the case. The total cost for his services was $2,450.00. Palafox is seeking a total of $136,161.00 in fees and costs. Mr. Varn testified that both the rates charged by Palafox, and the hours Palafox’s counsel spent on the matter, were reasonable and consistent with the rates charged and time spent for similar work by other attorneys in the area. His opinion was supported by detailed time records kept by Palafox’s counsel, who confirmed that the fee statements were reviewed and periodically adjusted as necessary to account for potential overlap and duplication of effort among the attorneys working on the case, or if it appeared the bill simply needed to be reduced. Respondent stipulated that Mr. Varn is an attorney with sufficient qualifications to render an opinion regarding the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees to be awarded to Palafox in this proceeding. Respondent did not object to the rates charged by the Firm, and did not challenge any of the Firm’s time entries, fees, or costs. The number of hours set forth above by the attorneys and the paralegal working on this case were reasonable, the rates charged were reasonable, and the costs expended by Palafox were reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Carmen Diaz, pay to Palafox its reasonable attorney’s fees and taxable costs in the amount of $136,161.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas D. Fugate, Esquire Nicholas D. Fugate, P.A. Post Office Box 7548 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 James E. Parker-Flynn, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Brett J. Cyphers, Executive Director Northwest Florida Water Management District 81 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333-4712 W. Douglas Hall, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jefferson M. Braswell, Esquire Braswell Law, PLLC 116 Northeast 3rd Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
The Issue Whether the Petitioner owes sales and/or use tax as set forth in the Respondent's Notice of Decision dated May 12, 2008, and, if so, the amount that is owed.
Findings Of Fact The following facts were included in the stipulation of facts included in the parties' Joint Prehearing Statement: Bests is a domestic corporation headquartered in Broward County, Florida. Bests is a cleaning and maintenance company. The company contracts with customers to clean non-residential buildings only. The majority of the customers are government agencies and state colleges. The company hires subcontractors for some of the services such as pressure cleaning, window cleaning, grounds maintenance and landscaping. The Department is the agency of state government authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida. § 213.05, Fla. Stat. (2008).1 The Department is authorized to prescribe the records to be kept by all persons subject to taxes under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Such persons have a duty to keep and preserve their records, and the records shall be open to examination by the Department or its authorized agents at all reasonable hours, pursuant to Section 212.12(6), Florida Statutes. The Department is authorized to conduct audits of taxpayers and to request information to ascertain their tax liability, if any, pursuant to Section 213.34, Florida Statutes. On October 3, 2005, the Department initiated an audit of Bests to determine whether Bests was properly collecting and remitting sales and use tax to the Department. The audit period was from September 1, 2002, through August 31, 2005. The audit determined liability existed in four areas2: Exhibit A01 - cleaning contracts for which documentation supporting the claimed exempt nature of the transaction could not be produced; Exhibit B01 - paper products and hand soaps purchased by Bests in performance of the facility custodial service contract with Florida Atlantic University; Exhibit B02 - items purchased by Bests for general use in the operation of its business, such as office supplies, automobile and truck expenses, repair and maintenance to equipment, computer services, etc. Only the amount assessed in Exhibit B01 is at issue. On July 26, 2006, the Department sent Bests its Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes ("NOI"), with schedules, showing that Bests owed to the Department additional sales and use tax in the amount of $195,540.35, penalty in the amount of $41,885.11, and interest through July 27, 2006, in the amount of $41,514.08, making a total assessment in the amount of $285,939.54. Additional documentation was provided by Bests, resulting in revisions to the NOI. On January 16, 2007, the second and final revised NOI was issued. The amount of sales and use tax due had been adjusted to $47,473.46 and interest in the amount of $12,536.88. The penalty amount was waived in its entirety. On January 25, 2007, the Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment. Bests timely filed a written protest of the Department's proposed assessment. On May 12, 2008, the Department issued the Notice of Decision ("NOD") in response to the protest by Bests, sustaining the assessment in its entirety. By check dated July 9, 2008, Bests remitted $12,500.00 to the Department to be applied to the assessment found in Exhibits A01 and B02. The following facts are based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding: On May 1, 2003, Florida Atlantic University issued a Request for Proposal ("RFP") for facility custodial services at its Boca Raton, Florida, campus. Section 5 of the General Conditions of the RFP, advised that it was "a public corporation of the State of Florida [that] does not pay Federal Excise or Sales taxes on direct purchases of services."3 Florida Atlantic University has been considered a tax-exempt entity for the purposes of this proceeding. Section 3.0.0 of the RFP described the scope of work covered by the RFP, and, in general, required that the contractor be "fully responsible for providing services called for in this RFP."4 The scope of work described for restrooms and locker rooms included cleaning, polishing, washing, dusting, mopping, and scrubbing, and, pertinent to this case, the contractor was specifically required to "[e]mpty waste receptacles and change liner," and "[r]estock dispensers: soap, paper towel, toilet tissue and sanitary napkins."5 Section 4.4.8 of the RFP specified the supplies that were to be furnished by the contractor: Services shall include all equipment, supplies and materials to include liquid hand soap of a bactericidal type, paper towels, toilet tissue, toilet seat covers, sanitary napkins, wax bags, plastic bags for waste paper baskets, all cleaners, waxes, deodorants and other cleaning materials to perform the contract services. . . . * * * Contractor shall be responsible for keeping soap, paper towel, sanitary napkin and toilet tissue dispensers adequately filled at all times. * * * SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS All product selection and usage must be approved by the Director. Minimally, the following products are used (no equivalents without the approval of the Director): Johnson Softcare Multi-fold Natural Scott Towels JRT/JRT Escort Tissue Merfin paper towel rolls . . .[6] Section 4.5.0 of the RFP specified the cleaning standards that must be met by the contractor. Pertinent to this proceeding, general cleaning standards for restrooms included the following requirements: d. Dispensers & Receptacles - All supply dispensers shall be filled. . . . Waste receptacles shall be emptied and supply dispensers shall be refilled. . . . All toilet stalls shall be furnished with toilet seat cover dispensers. The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining them and making certain that they are properly stocked at all times.[7] Finally, Section 1 of the "Special Conditions" portion of the RFP provides: Florida Atlantic University's Physical Plant Department ("Department") requires the services of a Facilities Services Contractor to provide Facility Custodial Services at a firm square foot price for cleaning services in designated buildings on FAU's Boca Raton Campus. FAU is also requesting unit prices to enable adding additional areas to the contract, and per man-hour prices for adding additional staffing services to the contract as needed.[8] Section 9(d) of the "Special Conditions" portion of the RFP provides with respect to contract service costs: "This RFP seeks firm pricing for facilities management services on both existing and future buildings. The fixed fee will be broken down as indicated on the forms. Charges for additional services will be provided on the forms as unit prices."9 The Contract Services Costs form to be submitted with proposals is found in Section 5.3.1 of the RFP, and the instructions provide: "The below listed annual fixed costs are quoted for the provision of necessary management, supervision, labor, material, supplies, equipment, vehicles, and all related items to perform the work described in the Scope of Work and Specifications contained herein and as related to the initial areas of coverage. "10 Bests was awarded the contract for custodial services at the Boca Raton campus, and Florida Atlantic University entered in the Agreement for Services, with services to begin on August 9, 2003, and end on June 30, 2006. In the agreement, Bests agreed to provide custodial services in accordance with the provisions of the RFP, and it agreed to be "responsible to provide all material, labor, equipment and supplies necessary to provide custodial and cleaning services for designated buildings on Florida Atlantic University's Boca Raton Campus."11 The agreement also provided that the total amount payable under the agreement would not exceed $3,500,000.00, with the amount "determined in accordance with the Vendor's price proposal dated May 29, 2003, incorporated and attached herein as Attachment A, and based on estimated usage." Bests calculated the total annual cost to include on the Contract Service Costs form, first, by examining the buildings included in the RFP and calculating the annual cost per square foot of providing the cleaning and maintenance services specified in the RFP. Bests separately calculated the annual cost of the paper products and hand soap to be used to fill the restroom dispensers by examining demographic data about the users of the restroom facilities, as well as the hours of usage, and added it to the annual cost per square foot of providing the services specified in the RFP to arrive at its total annual costs. Bests purchases the paper supplies and soap used to fill the restroom dispensers from a supplier, who delivers the supplies directly to the storage room at the Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton campus used by Bests to store their cleaning materials and supplies. These paper products are used by Bests to refill the restroom dispensers, as required by the RFP. The Department set forth the facts and legal grounds on which it based it assessment of use tax for the paper products and soap used to fill the restroom dispensers in the Notice of Decision dated May 12, 2008, in which it concluded "that the taxpayer is the ultimate consumer [of the paper products and hand soap] and therefore liable for use tax on all taxable cleaning supplies."12 The Department based this conclusion on the following reasoning: "As shown, the laws governing sales and use tax makes [sic] the purchaser obligated to pay a use tax at the moment taxable goods and services are purchased for its own use. Take toilet tissue, paper towels, feminine napkins and hand soap for instance. These items are purchased by the taxpayer, removed from their container by the taxpayer, then unwrapped from the original packaging and placed in service by placing them in paper towel holders or toilet tissue holders located in the area being cleaned (e.g. restroom) by the taxpayer. At no time during the term of the agreement does the taxpayer's customer know the quantity of items used, nor does the taxpayer's customer personally handle these items. The taxpayer takes issue with these items being subject to use tax because the taxpayer does not personally dispose of these items. . . . [I]t is not the ultimate act resulting in the disposal of the items that triggers the tax. It is the taxpayer's use during the cleaning process that makes the taxpayer the ultimate consumer.[13] Summary The evidence establishes that the services Bests agreed to perform under the Agreement for Services with Florida Atlantic University included cleaning the restrooms in the buildings covered by the agreement, refilling the restroom dispensers, and providing the paper products and soap to be used in refilling the restroom dispensers. The evidence establishes that, taken in the context of the RFP as a whole, the purchase of the paper products and soap supplies is incidental to the main purpose of Bests agreement with Florida Atlantic University, which is to provide custodial services. The Department's contention that the paper products and soap used to refill the restroom dispensers at the Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton campus are cleaning supplies taxable to Bests is rejected. The cleaning supplies taxable to Bests are such things as mops, brooms, sweepers, cleaning agents, chemical, solvents, and rags, that it uses and consumes in performing cleaning services for Florida Atlantic University, and Bests does not contest the tax assessment on such items. Bests did not use or consume the paper products and soap, or otherwise exercise the rights of ownership over these products, simply because its employees removed them from the room in which they were stored, removed them from their packaging, and placed them in the restroom dispensers. Bests never exercised any rights of ownership over the products at issue, and the Department's contention that the taxable event in this case occurred when "the items were delivered to Bests and Bests put those items into operation" is rejected.14 First, the evidence establishes that delivery of the paper products and soap was made to a storage room on the Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton campus and that Bests left in the storage room the paper products and soap remaining at the time the Florida Atlantic University contract was complete. Second, Bests did not consume or use the products simply by placing them in the restroom dispensers. Placing them in the dispensers was part of custodial service Bests provided under the agreement with Florida Atlantic University; the mere fact that Bests was required as part of its Agreement for Services with Florida Atlantic University to purchase the paper products and soap did not render Bests the user or consumer of the products. Rather, the evidence establishes that Florida Atlantic University provided the paper products and soap for the use of its students and staff, both for sanitation purposes and for the convenience and comfort of its students and staff. Florida Atlantic University, therefore, used the paper products and soap as part of the business of operating a university, and, were it not for its tax-exempt status, Florida Atlantic University would be responsible for paying Florida's sales and use tax on the paper products and soap. Finally, the Department's contention that Bests did not "sell" the paper products and soap to Florida Atlantic University because they were not separately priced in its proposal or separately listed in the invoices submitted to Florida Atlantic University is rejected. The RFP pursuant to which Bests submitted its proposal specifically required that the total cost of providing the cleaning services and supplies, including the paper products and soap used to fill the restroom dispensers, were to be included on the Contract Service Costs form, and the evidence establishes that Bests asked Florida Atlantic University if it could invoice the paper products and soap separately and was told that they could not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order withdrawing the sales and use tax assessment against Bests Maintenance and Janitorial Services, Inc., for the audit period extending from September 1, 2002, through August 31, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 3rd day of February, 2009.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure by endorsement, pursuant to Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact On or about April 4, 2003, Petitioner applied for a certified plumbing contractor's license by endorsement. Applicants who seek a licensure by endorsement must have passed an examination that is substantially equivalent to the examination given in Florida or hold a license in another state or territory of the United States where the criteria for issuance of the license is substantially equivalent to Florida's criteria. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was licensed or certified as a plumber in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. For the purpose of his application for licensure by endorsement, Petitioner submitted information to the Board regarding the examination he took in Georgia. Petitioner was not precluded from submitting information regarding the examinations he took in Alabama and Tennessee. However, Petitioner submitted the information regarding the examination he took in Georgia because it was the one he had taken most recently. Georgia gives three different plumbing examinations and issues three different plumbing licenses. One examination is for a journeyman's license. Another examination is for a Class I restricted plumbing license. Still, another examination is given for a Class II unrestricted plumbing license. In order to obtain his plumbing license in Georgia, Petitioner successfully completed the Class I Restricted Georgia Examination (Georgia Examination). Florida issues only one certified plumbing contractor's license and that license is the equivalent of Georgia's Class II unrestricted plumbing license. To meet the examination requirement for licensure as a plumber in Florida, an applicant must successfully complete the Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors (Florida Examination or Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors). Stephen Allen, a psychometrician employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, evaluated the Georgia Examination to determine if it were substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. In determining whether the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination were substantially equivalent, Mr. Allen considered and compared the material covered; the emphasis placed on various topics; the actual content of the examinations; the general characteristics of the examination; the number of questions; the amount of time allowed to complete the examination; the weight given to various areas or categories of the examinations; and the method of measuring knowledge in the various content areas. Based on a comprehensive review and analysis of the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination, Mr. Allen properly determined that the Georgia Examination was not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. The area in which the examinations are significantly different is the isometric area or category. First, the relative weight on the isometric area of the examinations varies greatly. On the Florida Examination, the weight given to the isometric area is 31 percent. On the Georgia Examination, the weight given to the isometric area is, at most, only 6 percent. Second, the knowledge of isometrics is measured differently on the examinations. The Florida Examination requires that the candidate demonstrate knowledge of isometrics by having the candidate draw five different isometric drawings, which show the room's plumbing based on the fixtures to be installed. The five drawings are graded on legibility, orientation, flow, angles, piping, labeling, and vents. The Georgia Examination is a multiple choice examination and measures knowledge of isometrics by the candidate's selecting the correct answer from four possible answers. The Georgia Examination successfully completed by Petitioner to obtain his master plumber's restricted license is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. Petitioner is ineligible for licensure by endorsement because the examination he took in Georgia is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William Lantrip 927 Lakewood Drive Dunedin, Florida 34698-7218 Timothy Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
