The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her position as a Media Specialist or otherwise disciplined for alleged violation of Section 231.09, and 231.36(6), F.S., as set forth in the Petition dated June 13, 1983. This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by William T. McFatter, Superintendent of Schools for the Broward County School System, on June 13, 1983, that seeks to dismiss Respondent, Antionette Pauline, a media specialist in the public schools of Broward County, Florida. In five (5) Counts, the Petition alleges as follows: That on May 4, 1983, the Respondent grabbed Steven Richardson, a fifth grade student at Nob Hill Elementary School, by the arm and forcibly pushed said student against or into a classroom door approximately three (3) times, which action constitutes misconduct in office in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Administrative Rules, and School Board policies; That on May 4, 1983, the Respondent took Steven Richardson's media center pass and pulled on the front of teacher Verda Farrow's blouse in the presence of said student and forcibly jammed the pass down the inside front of the teacher's blouse, which action constitutes misconduct in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Administrative Rules, and School Board policies; That on February 16, 1983, the Respondent was directed to cease from verbally attacking teachers, and that she again verbally attacked Verda Farrow on May 4, 1983, which action constitutes gross insubordination and/or willful neglect of duty in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Administrative Rules, and School Board policies; That during the 1981-1982 school year, the Respondent had several other encounters with faculty and students at Sunrise Middle School and that during the school year 1982-1983, the Respondent had several encounters with the faculty at Nob Hill Elementary School, the result of which would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Respondent to recover and be an effective librarian, which actions constitute misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty and/or incompetency, in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Administrative Rules, and School Board policies; and That the Respondent has violated the Code of Ethics by failing to practice her teaching profession with the highest ethical standards by failing to protect the student, Steven Richardson, from unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, by failing to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or safety, and/or by making false or malicious statements about her colleagues, which actions constitute misconduct in office in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Administrative Rules and School Board policies. Respondent denied the allegations in the Petition and requested an Administrative Hearing. Thereafter, eighteen (18) witnesses were called by the Petitioner, five (5) witnesses were called by Respondent, and forty (40) exhibits were offered into evidence. The deposition testimony of Ernest M. Roberts was accepted as a late-filed exhibit. Further, ruling on the admissibility of the polygraph examination conducted upon Respondent was deferred. The testimony of the polygraph examiner, his chart, and rebuttal testimony were offered by proffer, subject to a continuing objection as to its admissibility, without stipulation, in an Administrative Hearing. Proposed Recommended Orders containing findings of fact have been submitted by the parties and considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. When the parties' findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence introduced at the final hearing, they were adopted and are reflected in this Recommended Order. To the extent that the findings were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been either rejected, or when possible, modified to conform to the evidence. Additionally, proposed findings which were subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary have not been adopted.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, was employed by the Broward County School Board commencing with the school year 1960-61. She was originally employed as a librarian in an elementary school and, thereafter, held several positions, including Media Specialist (librarian) with the Broward County Migrant Program and the State Department of Education, Florida Migratory Section. She presently holds a Master's Degree in library science which she received in July of 1975. In 1977, the Respondent obtained a position at Dillard High School and was promoted to the position of Head Media Specialist. At the conclusion of the school year 1980-81, the Respondent was administratively transferred by the Area Superintendent to Sunrise Middle School, where she remained as a media specialist for that school year, when she was again administratively transferred by the Area Superintendent to Nob Hill Elementary School for the school year 1982-83. Following the incident which occurred on May 4, 1983, Respondent was transferred to the staff of the Director of Learning Resources of the Broward County School System for the remainder of school year 1982-83. Thereafter Respondent was suspended pending the results of this hearing. During her tenure at Dillard High School, the Respondent incurred several problems with the staff and the principal wherein complaints were received from teachers who were not utilizing the media center, and from students who felt they were being treated unfairly. The Respondent had a problem interacting and communicating with white people and as a result, became ineffective. When Amos Bonner, the principal at Dillard High School, concluded that Respondent's effectiveness had been impaired, he brought the matter to the attention of the Area Superintendent, William Dandy. Consequently, the Respondent was administratively transferred to Sunrise Middle School. During the school year 1981-82, while assigned to Sunrise Middle School, the Respondent incurred similar problems with the faculty and students at that school. Her principal, Nick Gancitano, found her to be defensive, negative, and communicated with the faculty, students and administration in a negative way. Students were not using the library, and there was a dramatic decrease in the number of books being circulated from the previous year. As the problem seemed to get progressively worse, throughout the year, her principal concluded that her overall effectiveness as a Media Specialist was impaired. Principal Gancitano, who was charged with the responsibility for evaluating the performance of the Respondent in accordance with her job description, concluded that the Respondent lacked the "ability to work with principals, teachers and other appropriate educational leaders in order to design learning experiences and to recommend educational media suited to specific instructional objectives, and to stimulate effective utilization of media" and, further, lacked the "ability to inspire and gain the respect of staff and students." Michael Galbreath and James Rupp, fellow teachers at Sunrise Middle School, related incidents where children were crying out of frustration and upset with the experiences that they encountered in the library. It reached the point that Mr. Galbreath would not take his classes to the library. Instead, he would sneak into the library or would purchase books from his own financial resources, for classroom use, so the children would not have to enter the library. Mr. Galbreath testified that the Respondent's attitude was belligerent and intimidating, and that other classroom teachers had also refused to take their children to the library. He concluded that the Respondent's effectiveness as a Media Specialist was impaired and that, as a direct result of her severe problems in dealing with people, the Respondent was incompetent. Mr. Rupp testified that the Respondent was "standoffish" and that she didn't really want to relate to everyone that was at the school. He was also aware that children were not utilizing the library facility towards the end of the year and he concluded that her effectiveness as a Media Specialist was "null and void." During the school year 1981-82, these complaints were brought to the attention of the Area Superintendent, William Dandy, who requested an investigation. He had received complaints from parents and from teachers concerning the Respondent. Because of her inability to discharge her required duties at Sunrise Middle School, at the conclusion of school year 1981-82, Respondent was again administratively transferred this time to Nob Hill Elementary School. While at Nob Hill Elementary School during school year 1982-83, Respondent again involved herself in altercations with other faculty members. Susan Reynolds, a fellow teacher at Nob Hill Elementary School, testified that Respondent threatened to "choke her" and that as a result of the comment, she was intimidated and afraid of the Respondent. She called this to the attention of Ernest Roberts, the Principal at Nob Hill. The Respondent also had a confrontation with Verda Farrow, which resulted in Mr. Roberts directing the Respondent to cease from verbally attacking and accusing teachers of "talking about you" and "spying on you." On May 4, 1983, Steven Richardson, then a fifth grade student of Verda Farrow's went to the library with a pass to check a bibliography. The Respondent was reading to a kindergarten class and for no justifiable reason she determined that Steven Richardson's attempt to gain her attention was disruptive. She took Steven Richardson to the office and discovered that Mr. Roberts was out of the building. Thereafter, she took the student to Verda Farrow's classroom to discuss the matter with her. During the conversation that ensued outside the classroom door, the Respondent grabbed Steven Richardson by the arm and attempted to push him into the door approximately three times. Respondent also grabbed Mrs. Farrow by the dress, pulled her dress loose, and stuffed the library pass down the front of Mrs. Farrow's dress. This incident was witnessed by Steven Richardson and several of the students in the classroom at the time, three of whom testified at the Hearing. Following the incident on May 4, 1983, a Police Report was filed, and school security conducted an investigation of the alleged incident. Faculty members, upon becoming aware of the incident, boycotted the library and several parents, who became aware of the incident, wrote unsolicited letters requesting that their children not be sent to the library. Arthur Rose, President of the Nob Hill Elementary School P.T.O. Advisory Committee, became aware of the situation and received phone calls at his office and his home from parents who were concerned regarding their children. Mr. Rose believes that he and the parents with whom he spoke had concluded that Respondent's effectiveness as a Media Specialist had been impaired. The parents were desirous of having the Respondent removed from the school and they feared for the safety of their children. Following the investigation by school security, the Respondent was transferred on a temporary basis to the staff of the Director of Learning Resources by Benjamin F. Stephenson, Associate Superintendent for Personnel. This was not an existing position. The Respondent denied ever touching Steven Richardson. The Respondent admits that the position of Media Specialist, or librarian, is in some respects more difficult than the position of a classroom teacher, in that a classroom teacher is only responsible for dealing or communicating with one class of students, while a Media Specialist must effectively communicate with three or four hundred children a day. The Respondent also agrees that a librarian must have good communication skills among faculty members. To corroborate the Respondent's contention that she did not grab Steven Richardson and push him into the door, the Respondent submitted to a private polygraph examination conducted by Robert Rios, who concluded that the Respondent did not attempt deception when asked whether she grabbed Steven Richardson by the arm and pushed him into the door on May 5, 1983. He concluded that the reliability of this polygraph examination should have at least equal weight to eyewitness testimony. In rebuttal to the proffered testimony of Mr. Rios, his polygraph examination chart and findings were reviewed by Carl Lloyd, investigator and polygraph examiner for the State Attorney's Office in Broward County, Florida, and the individual under whom Mr. Rios served an internship. Mr. Lord had previously supervised Mr. Rios in conducting twenty or thirty polygraph examinations, and has reviewed his charts in one hundred fifty to three hundred cases. Mr. Lord concluded, based upon the pre-test and test procedures utilized, that the validity of the test conducted upon Respondent was less than fifty (50%) percent. Mr. Lord further testified that in the State of Florida, polygraph examinations are only admissible in Court upon stipulation of both parties. The purpose of the stipulation is to ensure that the subject is testable, that there is a testable issue, and that the pre-test and test procedures utilized result in conclusive and reliable findings.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent be dismissed from employment by the School Board of Broward County. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of January, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1985 COPIES FURNISHED: William S. Cross, Esquire 4540 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Ronald W. Houchins, Esquire 3075 W. Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 103 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 William T. McFatter Superintendent of Schools Broward County School System 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
The Issue Whether Respondent, Claude Paul ("Respondent" or "Ms. Paul") committed the violations as alleged in the November 18, 2018, Petitioner's, Miami-Dade County School Board ("the School Board") action letter; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Ms. Paul began her employment with the School Board in 2008 as a substitute teacher. Since then, she was employed at several different schools. Starting in February 2016, she was assigned to Miami Park. Prior to the instant case, Ms. Paul had no prior discipline. Ms. Paul's employment with the School Board is governed by Florida law, the School Board's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade. Circumstances Giving Rise to Ms. Paul's Discipline The proposed discipline is based upon conduct occurring on September 5, 2018, as a result of an altercation between an 11 year-old student, J.B., and Ms. Paul while he was an Emotional and Behavior Disturbed (EBD) student in her fifth grade class. Ms. Paul had J.B. as a student the prior year for fourth grade. Due to his frequent disruptiveness, Ms. Paul placed J.B. at a desk in the back of the class facing a wall during most of his fourth grade year (2017-2018 school year). September 5, 2018, was at the beginning of the 2018-2019 school year. On that date, J.B. was talking to another student and did not stop when asked to do so repeatedly by Ms. Paul. Ms. Paul told J.B. she was moving his desk to the back of the class. As Ms. Paul approached his desk, J.B. dropped his pencil case and bent down to pick it up. Believing Ms. Paul was going to physically restrain or move him, as he stood up, J.B. slapped Ms. Paul once or twice on the face and called Ms. Paul a "bitch." The witnesses' recollections of what happened next diverge. According to J.B., Ms. Paul grabbed his arms and twisted them up high behind his back. It hurt immediately and he was "sad and mad at the same time." She then took him to the adjacent room of Clinician Kawine Clermont where Ms. Paul then slapped J.B. in the face after sending Ms. Clermont to check on the students in Ms. Paul's class. J.B. laid on a mat in Ms. Clermont's classroom. He had difficulty getting up and complained that his arms hurt. He was then escorted from Ms. Clermont's room by Antranique Andrews, Miami Park Security Monitor, and Claribel Garcia, Assistant Principal, to the main office. J.B. was also given a bag of ice for his wrist while his grandmother, Linda Carter, who was called by Ms. Paul to come pick up J.B., spoke to school staff. According to Ms. Paul's final hearing testimony, she grabbed both of J.B.'s arms to keep from falling after he slapped her. He struggled to get away and they both fell to the ground. She also testified that she did not pull J.B.'s arms behind his back but rather laid him down on the floor and held his arms. This is inconsistent with her written statement given the day of the incident in which she stated, "Then he punched me. Several time [sic] in the face. I almost fell to the ground . . . I ask [sic] another student to get the mat. I hold one arm in the back, the other on the side. He lay [sic] down crying." Ms. Paul denies being alone in Ms. Clermont's room with J.B. or that she slapped him. Ms. Paul testified that she sent another student to get Ms. Clermont who then escorted J.B. to the clinician's room. The best person to corroborate Ms. Paul's recollection is Ms. Clermont, who did not testify. However, she provided a written statement in which she recited her version of the events. The statement is oddly written in the third person wherein she refers to herself as "Clinician." It states in part: Clinician was in her classroom when two students came over and reported J.B. slapped Ms. Paul. Clinician rushed over and J.B. was laying [sic] on a mat in a ball crying. Clinician had J.B. go over to her classroom. When J.B. went over to clinician classroom he layed [sic] back on mat balled up crying. The statement does not say that she, Ms. Clermont, brought J.B. over, but that she "had" him go to her classroom. This does not preclude the possibility that Respondent escorted J.B. to her room as J.B. claims. Security Monitor, Antranique Andrews, was directed by Assistant Principal Garcia to respond to Ms. Clermont's room. There she observed J.B. curled up and crying on the floor. When J.B. did not get up as directed by Ms. Andrews, she asked teacher's aide, Mr. Flowers (first name unknown) to assist. Together Ms. Andrews and Mr. Flowers got J.B. to stand up and wash his face before they took him to the office. Ms. Andrews observed red marks on J.B.'s arms and that he was upset. Ms. Andrews testified, "His arms were a little reddish. I guess you could say bruised, but red, like if you had an imprint from pressing, but that was it." When Ms. Carter arrived at school to pick up J.B., she was told that J.B. slapped Ms. Paul. She was not informed that J.B. was hurt during the altercation, although she was aware J.B. was given an ice pack because he complained of pain in his wrist. She also observed that the side of his face was red, which she first attributed to him being upset or crying. Video from a school security camera shows J.B. exiting the school while holding the ice pack on his wrist. When Ms. Carter and J.B. reached Ms. Carter's vehicle, J.B. asked for help to open the car door. J.B. was physically unable to open the door. When they arrived home, J.B. asked his grandmother to take him to the hospital because he thought his arms were broken. Ms. Carter, who was not feeling well herself, told J.B. to take a bath and go to bed. However, J.B. needed assistance with undressing because he could not use his arms. The next morning, J.B. still complained that he could not use his arms. Ms. Carter took J.B. to the emergency room at North Shore Hospital. J.B. received x-rays that revealed fractures in both arms. He was asked why he had red marks on his face and what happened to his arms. This was the first time Ms. Carter heard from J.B. what happened at school. Detective Bernise Charley, Miami-Dade Schools Police Department, was dispatched to the hospital where she interviewed J.B. and his grandmother. J.B. described how he had been slapped and physically abused by Ms. Paul while at school. She also spoke with the medical staff and took photos of J.B.'s face and arms. She personally observed red marks on the side of J.B.'s face consistent with a handprint. J.B. was transported to Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital ("Joe DiMaggio") for further evaluation and treatment. X-rays were repeated at Joe DiMaggio and revealed that J.B. suffered a spiral fracture to his right humerus (upper arm), a distal radial and buckle fracture to his left forearm, and a buckle fracture to his left wrist. The injuries were determined to be consistent with the incident with Ms. Paul as described by J.B. J.B. and Ms. Carter were subsequently asked to meet with the Department of Children and Families ("DCF") and the University of Miami Child Protection Team on September 13, 2018, to review the incident. J.B. and his grandmother were interviewed separately and each described the incident. Dr. Joan V. Alvaranga's report states: J. is an 11 year old boy with fractures of the right humerous and left wrist which are consistent with the report he provided. In addition, J. had red marks on his face, which had resolved by the time of the CPT evaluation, which he reported he sustained when the teacher slapped him on the face. In my medical opinion, this case represents child physical abuse. Deviation from Appropriate De-Escalation Techniques Craig Siegel, District Chairperson for the Clinical Art Therapy Department and lead trainer for Safe Crisis Management, testified that teachers are provided training by the school district in a variety of techniques to safely de-escalate a potentially violent situation and to protect themselves and others. Ms. Paul completed Safe Crisis Management training in December 2016. Teachers are taught that they are to use non- physical intervention strategies first to de-escalate a threatening situation. These include, but are not limited to: talking; evading; blocking; escaping to a "safe zone;" and summoning help. Physical restraint is to be used only as a last resort if the student poses an imminent risk of serious injury or death to themselves or others. The physical techniques taught to teachers are designed to contain the student in the safest manner possible and reduce the risk of injury. Only the least amount of force necessary is to be used. The approved restraint methods do not include twisting a child's arms behind their back or slapping them in the face. Although Ms. Paul certainly had the right to protect herself when slapped in the face by J.B., it strains credulity to assert that a slap from a then 75-pound, 11 year-old boy, posed an imminent risk of serious harm or death such that it was necessary to apply enough force to break this child's arms in multiple places. No other adult witnessed the altercation, but they all saw J.B. curled up on the floor crying. J.B. was hurt badly enough that he was initially unable to get up off the floor without assistance, red marks were immediately seen on his arms and face, and he needed an ice pack for his wrist while still at school. J.B.'s story, that Ms. Paul twisted his arms behind his back and forced him to the floor, has remained consistent. No evidence was presented to suggest that J.B. received his injuries at the hands of anyone other than Ms. Paul. Regardless of whether Ms. Paul slapped J.B. or not, it is clear that she exceeded all bounds of reasonableness in her initial restraint of J.B. in reaction to him slapping her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding Claude Paul guilty of misconduct in office and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 20th day of November, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Claude A. Paul 6113 Southwest 33rd Street Miramar, Florida 33023 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, D. J. Haycook Construction Company (Haycook) was the lowest responsive bidder for an elementary school procurement project known as Elementary School "X," let by the Volusia County School Board and whether the Petitioner should have been awarded the contract.
Findings Of Fact On June 13, 2003, the School Board of Volusia County authorized the issuance of a request for proposal for the construction of a new elementary school known as Elementary School "X." The proposed new school would be located in Orange City, Florida. The school board issued an advertisement for the construction of Elementary School "X" and had it published. The project architect for the Board prepared the solicitation documents constituting a "Phase III specifications" manual and three addenda. The advertisement stated that "the school board expressly reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive informalities therein, and to use sufficient time to investigate the bids and the qualifications of the bidders." Section 00430 of the solicitation required that all bidders list the name of the subcontractor for each type of the 12 areas of construction work for Elementary School "X" as follows: 'For each type of work' below, list the name of the subcontractor. List only one name on each line and only one subcontractor for each type of work. Various 'type of work' sub-contracts may have more than one subcontractor (re: roofing; metal roofing and membrane roofing), list each subcontractor accordingly. Use additional sheets, if required. Additionally, Section 00430 provided: The term subcontractor as used herein shall be defined in 2001, Florida Statute 713.01(27) - subcontractor means a person other than a materialman or laborer who enters into a contract with a contractor for the performance of any part of such contractor's contract. The deadline for submission of proposals in response to the solicitation was August 6, 2003. On August 6, 2003, Haycook's bid proposal and that of the second and third lowest bidders were opened and read by the members of the school board's staff. Haycook listed itself as performing or "self-performing" in areas of earthwork, masonry, concrete, and structural steel on the required list of subcontractors form pursuant to section 00430 of the solicitation. Subsequently, the project architect began to investigate the bids for the project. This was done through correspondence and direct contact between Haycook, the project architect, Mr. Daimwood, and the school board staff. This process began on August 8, 2003. As part of the evaluation process the architect verbally requested documentation from Haycook to verify its past and present abilities to self-perform in the four areas of earthwork, concrete, masonry, and structural steel, as well as by letters dated August 12, August 15, and August 25, 2003. Haycook responded to these information requests by letters of August 11, 13, and 28, 2003. The bid documents for the school project included the bidding and contractual conditions, general conditions, technical specifications, and the drawings listed on pages 10D-1 to 10D-2. In order to have a responsive bid a bidder was required to comply with the bid documents when submitting its bid. The relevant bid documents at issue in this dispute are Section 0020, "invitation to bid," Section 00100, "instruction to bidders," Section 00300, "bid form," and Section 00430, "list of subcontractors." The bid documents also required each bidder to deliver a bid bond in the amount of five percent of its bid to accompany the proposal. After acceptance of the lowest responsive bid, and issuance of the contract award, a bidder was required to deliver a payment and performance bond in the amount of 100 percent of the contract price. There is no dispute that Haycook has a bonding capacity of 18 million dollars for a single project and 35 million dollars for aggregate projects and the bonding capacity is not in dispute. The invitation to bid documents require that bidders be required to hold a current Certificate of Pre-Qualification issued by the school board at the time of bid opening. Haycook at all material times hereto held a Certificate of Pre- Qualification and was licensed to perform all work called for by the bid documents including, among others, self-performance of earthwork, concrete work, masonry, and structural steel. The three bids received were in the amounts as follows: (1) D. J. Haycook Construction Company: a base bid of $7,599,000.00; Alternate One, $189,000.00; Alternate Two, $48,800.00; Alternate Three, $21,000.00; (2) Mark Construction Company of Longwood, Florida: base bid of $7,657,000.00, Alternate One, $221,000.00; Alternate Two, $50,000.00; Alternate Three, $20,000.00; (3) Clancy and Theys Construction Company of Orlando, Florida: base bid of $7,840,000.00; Alternate One, $230,000.00; Alternate Two, $50,000.00; Alternate Three, $21,000.00. Section 00430 required each bidder to furnish a list of subcontractors defined as quoted above in the bid form. Section 00430 of the bid form also permitted a bidder to list itself as a subcontractor. The form provides: "A contractor may not list himself as performing a type of work unless he is self- performing and is a Florida licensed contractor for that type of work". Haycook was properly licensed at the time of bidding, and at all relevant times, to self-perform in the four areas of earthwork, structural steel, masonry, and concrete at issue in this case. After the bids were opened and examined, Mr. Daimwood, the architect evaluating bids for the school board, requested that Haycook furnish a list of past projects where it had self- performed earthwork, structural steel, masonry, and concrete work. Haycook provided a list of examples of prior projects for which it had self-performed work in those areas on August 11, 2003. The list included five projects for earthwork, four projects for structural steel, seven projects for masonry, and seven projects for concrete. Thereafter, on August 12, 2003, the architect requested additional information regarding self- performance of work in the four areas at issue. Haycook provided the architect with the requested additional information on August 13, 2003, including a list of each project, the total cost of each project, the completion dates, as well as contact persons with their telephone numbers and including copies of qualifications of the subcontractors listed on Haycook's subcontractor list. On August 25, 2003, the architect requested Haycook payroll records and workers compensation information for two of the listed projects of those Haycook had provided, that for Goldsboro Elementary School and Eustis Elementary School. On August 28, 2003, Haycook sent a letter to the architect explaining that on the Goldsboro job the earthwork was self-performed by a combination of supervising and directing the work with salaried employees, with leasing of labor from an employment service, and hiring of labor by the cubic yard with a cap on the activity. Haycook also explained that structural steel work on the projects was self-performed by a combination of supervising and directing the work with salaried employees, leasing of labor from an employment service, hiring of labor paid by the foot to erect specific components of the job, as well as using salaried employees for the performance of specific activities, and including purchasing of fabricated materials and then hiring crew labor and equipment on an hourly basis to erect them. In the August 28, 2003, letter Haycook also explained, with respect to the self-performed masonry work on both the Eustis and Goldsboro jobs, that those areas of work were self- performed by purchasing fabricated material, supervising and directing the work with salaried employees, hiring labor by the unit price (for instance by the block) to lay the block, and hiring labor from an employee leasing service for specific activities as to those jobs. Haycook also explained in the August 28, 2003, letter that a combination of the methods and means of performing delineated above and in that letter would be used for the activities listed on the subcontractor list on the relevant bid form for Elementary School "X". Haycook explained that it had priced and used its own costs for the activities listed on the bid form to arrive at the bid price for Elementary School "X". Enclosed with the August 28, 2003, letter from Haycook were copies of its purchase orders and cost journals for the Goldsboro School, concerning earthwork, masonry, and structural steel activities and its vendor purchase orders and cost journals for the Eustis Elementary School's masonry work done by Haycook. The enclosures with the August 28, 2003, letter showed that Haycook had purchased the materials, performed the work with its own employees, and performed work using additional outside labor in the areas of structural metals, prefabricated structures, earthwork, cast-in-place concrete, structural steel erection, and masonry work. Haycook also provided its proposals used on the Goldsboro project which consisted of concrete labor and structural steel labor. The architect interpreted the term "self-performance" to mean labor with the contractor's own employees only. Based upon that restrictive interpretation, he concluded that he had not found adequate information demonstrating Haycook's having "self-performed" these types of work previously. Additionally, the architect opined that Haycook's intended self-performance on Elementary School "X" project at issue, in the four work areas in dispute, "is in our opinion, a subcontractor format." Uncontroverted evidence adduced at hearing established that Haycook has extensive public school construction experience. The Petitioner's President, Dennis Haycook, has built more than 35 public schools and Haycook's project manager, Reed Hadley, who is assigned to the Elementary School "X" project, has built over 25 school projects. Dennis Haycook was also a principal of Mark Arnold Construction Company in the past, which was one of the largest public school contractors in Florida. In the past 10 years, with his own company, the Petitioner, Haycook, has built numerous school projects including the Goldsboro school which was a $7,000,000.00 project. The Goldsboro, Eustis, and other Haycook-built schools referenced during the hearing and in the evidence were all projects that were built within the authorized budget, were timely, and were of quality construction. The Board ultimately rejected Haycook's bid on Elementary School "X" because of the architect's interpretation concerning "self-performance," i.e. that all work must be performed by employees on Haycook's payroll. The bid documents did not define "self-performance," nor do the bid documents require that labor used must be on the contractor's payroll in order for his performance to constitute "self-performance." Haycook's witnesses were consistent in their testimony as to the definition of "self-performance": "self-performance," as customarily used in the construction industry, includes the contractor's purchasing of materials, performing part of the work with its own labor force, providing other labor not on the contractor's payroll, and directly supervising the work with the contractor's supervisory personnel. The term "subcontractor" is defined in the custom and usage of the construction industry, however, to mean someone or an entity that provides all labor, material, and equipment necessary to do the complete operation, as well as all supervision. It is more of a "total turn key operation." A subcontractor provides everything necessary to finish the work, including supervision, and then merely answers to the general contractor in terms of responsibility for the quality of the job and its timeliness. The school board's witnesses, expert and otherwise, gave interpretations of the concept of self-performance which were somewhat conflicting. Mr. Daimwood, the architect, opined that self-performance requires the contractors to use employees on its own payroll and make direct payment of workers' compensation for such employees. His opinion was that anything else would be a subcontractor relationship and not self- performance. He later testified, however, that paying labor not actually on Haycook's payroll could still constitute self- performance. Patricia Drago, of the school board staff, testified that if a contractor uses 10 employees on his payroll and uses 10 non-employees, this would be self-performance. If such a contractor has 10 employees and uses 11 non-employees, she was not sure whether this would constitute self-performance. Allen Green testified that self-performance of an area of work requires the majority of that work to be performed by the contractor's own employees, while other work could be performed by contract labor. He later changed his definition to require a contractor to have all employees on the payroll in order to self-perform. In other testimony, however, Mr. Green opined that if a contractor supplemented his labor with a couple of additional masons and paid them by the piece, then he would no longer be self-performing. At still another point in his testimony he added that it would be dependent upon the stage of the project as to whether the contractor's use of contract labor is self-performing or subcontracting. He felt that if the contractor adds some additional masons near the end of a job, as opposed to the beginning, then he could still be self- performing. Gary Parker is the Director of Facilities for the Lake County School Board. He testified that from his perspective, self-performance required the use of employees on the contractor's payroll. This definition, however, was not consistent with Lake County's course of conduct with the job that Haycook performed. Mr. Parker acknowledged that there had been no complaints by the architect or anyone else associated with the Eustis school project where Haycook listed itself as self-performing for masonry work, even though Haycook had retained a different entity to perform masonry labor (although not supply materials or supervision). Scott Stegall, the Director of Capital Outlay for the Seminole County School Board, testified that self-performance would require a contractor to perform all work without the use of outside contractors, including labor. Yet Mr. Stegall acknowledged that Haycook listed itself as self-performing masonry work on the Goldsboro school project and used a firm or entity known as Webber and Tucker to perform some masonry work, and that the Seminole County School Board had no dispute with this approach. Mr. Stegall's evaluation form for Haycook had stated that Haycook did not improperly substitute any subcontractors from the submitted list in that project. He later changed his definition of self-performance to acknowledge that a contractor could bring in laborers individually to perform without a "formal contract"; these informal labor contracts would not take it out of the self-performance category according to Mr. Stegall. The evidence concerning the Lake County District's and Seminole County District's experience as to the Eustis school project and the Goldsboro school project with Haycook's performance, including Haycook's approach to self-performance, was satisfactory in terms of pricing and the quality and timeliness of the work performed. The perceived fear by the Respondent that Haycook's performance might be substandard or that it might "bid shop" amongst potential subcontractors, after the bid opening, if Haycook did not list all subcontractors on the bid response, and self-performed in the manner Haycook described in its evidence, has not been shown to have occurred with regard to any of Haycook's past projects. There has been no demonstration by preponderant evidence that the use of only subcontractors listed or named in the bid response has resulted, in itself, in a lower price or better performance for the public by a contractor situated as Haycook. The architect testified that one method of defining "self-performance" is to determine whether the entity performing work was a subcontractor as defined by the bid documents. If the work is not being performed by a subcontractor, then it is being performed by the general contractor or self-performance. As the term is used in the construction industry, a subcontractor generally furnishes materials, installs the work, and supervises its own work. The bid documents define subcontractor as follows: "subcontractor means a person other than a materialman or laborer who enters into a contract with a contractor for the performance of any part of such contractor's contract." Preponderant, credible, and substantial evidence was presented by Haycook to show that Haycook's use of the term "subcontractor" was an entity that furnishes the materials, provides the labor, and the supervision, and undertakes the entire responsibility for that type or phase of the work. When a general contractor hires contract labor only, this excludes what is occurring from the definition of subcontractor, since the definition of subcontractor prevailing in this proceeding based upon the bid documents, takes out of that subcontractor definition "a materialman or laborer." The preponderant credible evidence shows that when Haycook purchases materials and provides the labor, whether or not the labor is on Haycook's payroll, which Haycook then directly supervises, this, by definition, is not a subcontractor situation under the definition of that concept in the bid documents themselves. The bid documents provide no definition for self- performance, but simply contain the following requirements: "a contractor may not list himself as performing a type of work unless he is self-performing and is a Florida licensed contractor for that type of work." Therefore, if a contractor meets these two requirements, he is responsive to this specification concerning when subcontractors should be listed or need not be listed in the bid response. Haycook meets both of the two requirements for self- performing. Haycook's definition of self-performing work is consistent with and does not conflict with the definition of "subcontractor," which excludes materialmen and laborers. Haycook's expert witness, Mr. Harold Goodemote, is a general contractor with 20 years experience, including 8 years as a project engineer and chief estimator for Foley and Associates Construction Company for many public school projects in the Orlando, Melbourne, and Daytona Beach area. Mr. Goodemote is also Vice-President of "Coleman-Goodemote" which has been in existence for approximately 10 years and has built projects worth multi-millions of dollars for Daytona Speedway related entities. It was established through Mr. Goodemote's testimony that it is customary in the construction industry to self- perform work by the contractor's purchasing of materials and using the contractor's own employees, along with "third party labor," to complete work under the direct supervision and control of the general contractor. The testimony of Mr. Reed Hadley and Mr. Haycook likewise establishes that it is common practice in the construction industry to self-perform work in the manner in which Haycook has performed it in the past. For example, both the Lake County and Seminole County School Boards allowed Haycook to list itself as self-performing where Haycook purchased masonry materials and used contract labor to install the masonry materials and components. "Bid shopping" is a practice whereby a contractor submits a bid for a project and, after winning the bid, goes to its subcontractors or even to new subcontractors, not considered in the bid process, and attempts to get lower prices from them, versus the prices the contractor had when it submitted its bid. This allows more profit to be built into the job for the contractor or, if the contractor artificially bid low in order to get the job, tends to allow the contractor to restore profit to the job for itself. The school board's rationale for requiring pre-bid opening listing of subcontractors is to prevent bid shopping after the bid is awarded in order to protect the competitive integrity of the bidding process. The listing of subcontractors is a practice of the Volusia County School Board and some other school boards in Florida. Ms. Drago, in her testimony, acknowledged that a substantial number of school boards in Florida do not require a list of subcontractors to be provided with bid proposals, and she acknowledged that this does not mean that those school boards' bid processes lack credibility and competitive integrity. She was unaware of any examples in the Volusia County School Board's experience where a contractor listed itself as self-performing and then shopped subcontractors after the bid opening to obtain a better price. The preponderant evidence of record does not establish that this has been the case with Haycook or other contractors on past Volusia County School Board jobs. This is in accord with Mr. Haycook's testimony, who described the detrimental effects such a practice could have on future relationships between a contractors and subcontractors in terms of having them available for later jobs, if a contactor became known for "beating down" subcontractors' prices. If a contractor had a reputation for engaging in that practice, in the future subcontractors' bids to that general contractor would likely be higher, if he could get their bids, and this might result in that contractor having difficulty rendering bid proposals that were low enough to have a chance of being successful. The bid documents give the school board the right to determine if each subcontractor listed by the bidders is qualified to perform the work and if not, to reject that subcontractor and require a replacement subcontractor. It is noteworthy that neither the architect nor the school board rejected Haycook as being unqualified to perform the work in any of the areas in which Haycook, in effect, listed itself as the subcontractor. The bid documents do not provide that the school board may reject "sub-subcontractors" engaged by a subcontractor, nor does the school board examine the history and capabilities of sub-subcontractors that a subcontractor intends to use. Once a subcontractor is acceptable to the Board, there is no further review to determine what means, methods, and procedures the subcontractor uses to perform the work. The subcontractor can contract out all of the work to sub-subcontractors who are actually performing the work, and the Board might not even be aware of it. Therefore, its method or rationale of listing subcontractors and then investigating the subcontractors is no guarantee of ensuring quality of work. In fact, the more areas of work that the general contractor does itself, the more direct control over performance the school board would have. The school board apparently uses a different approach in the instance where a general contractor lists itself as a subcontractor for one or more types of work, i.e. is self- performing. The Board's practice in that situation requires the general contractor to list each contractor who may perform parts of the work. Therefore, the general contractor must list each contractor who will perform the work in each area while this standard is not applied to listed subcontractors. The bid documents do not disclose to bidders the school board's unwritten definition and interpretation of "self- performance." They do not reveal that under the Board's interpretation a contractor must self-perform only with employees on its payroll; that a pre-qualified contractor licensed to perform work in a given area must prove that it has self-performed such work in the past with its own employees only; that general contractors will be treated differently from subcontractors on the subcontractors list, as to the listing of contract labor, and that even though the term "subcontractor" in the bid documents excludes "materialmen" and "laborers," the school board still considers contract labor as a subcontractor or subcontracting, that must be listed for self-performance work. Haycook has substantial experience in bidding and performing work on public school projects, as does Mr. Haycook himself, with both Haycook and a prior company with which he was associated. Haycook had prepared a bid three or four months earlier on a prototype school project similar to Elementary School "X" and had extensive cost information obtained from its work on that project and from subcontractors, including those "bidding" Elementary School "X." Haycook maintains a large database of subcontractors and suppliers experienced in performing work and portions of the work necessary for the Elementary School "X" project, including cost information. It has a database of over 3,000 names useful in obtaining and providing labor for use on parts and subparts of any self- performed work. Prior to the bid, Haycook received the plans and specifications enabling it to determine the quantities of materials needed and the costs per unit for installing the materials and performing the necessary work. Haycook had received subcontractor bids in each of the four areas that it later determined it would self-perform (earthwork, structural steel, concrete, and masonry). Because Haycook's "takeoffs," historical pricing information and recent bid information from another Volusia County prototype school indicated that it could self-perform the work at less cost than using the bids of subcontractors in those four work areas, Haycook elected to self-perform the work and listed itself as the subcontractor in those four work areas. This was not a case where Haycook simply ran out of time to get subcontractors' bids in those four work areas and therefore simply listed itself as performing in the four work areas at issue due to time expediency. It was also not because Haycook intended listing itself as performing in the four subject work areas so that it would create an opportunity to get lower bids from unknown subcontractors after bid opening, in order to enhance its profitability and support a low bid, in terms of putting enough money in the job for itself. As general contractor for the entire project, Haycook intended to provide general supervision of the entire project including subcontractors. With respect to self-performed work, Haycook intended to supply materials and components and to directly supervise and control the means, methods, and procedures of the self-performed work with contract labor. Haycook's definition of "self-performance" for earthwork involved Haycook's renting equipment, retaining contract laborers to clear the site, place the fill (paid by the hour or by the yard), compact the fill, and grade the site. Haycook directly supervises self-performed work and schedules and manages it with Haycook's project manager and on-site superintendent. The testimony of Reed Hadley and Dennis Haycook on behalf of Haycook established that Haycook had self-performed earthwork on other projects in the same manner as described above, satisfactorily for the owners. Specific project names and other project information showing earthwork self-performance by Haycook was provided to the architect as referenced above. Mr. Haycook established that Haycook had "self-performed" earthwork on 50 to 60 percent of its projects in the past. Haycook's definition of self-performance of structural steel included engaging a licensed fabricator, as required by the bid specifications in this instance, hiring experienced labor erection crews, purchasing the materials and component parts, and directly supervising and managing the work, including scheduling of the labor crews. Haycook had performed structural steel on 10 to 15 percent of its past projects. Four examples of projects, self-performed in structural steel, were provided to the architect along with related detailed information. Haycook's self-performance of concrete work included its purchasing of materials, hiring contract labor for footings, paid by the lineal foot, and concrete slabs paid by the square foot, and directly supervising, coordinating, and scheduling the concrete work activities with Haycook's own project managers and superintendent. Haycook has self-performed concrete work on approximately 80 percent of its past projects. The architect was provided a project listing of self-performed concrete work and detailed information showing Haycook's experience in this area. Concrete work is the area of work most commonly self- performed by general contractors in the construction market area in and around Volusia County. Haycook's self-performance of masonry includes Haycook's purchasing of concrete blocks, and reinforcing steel placed within the block, hiring labor on a unit price basis to install it (as, for instance, paid by the block laid), directly supervising the work, and coordinating and scheduling the masonry work activities with Haycook's project manager and superintendent. Haycook has self-performed masonry on approximately 70 percent of its past projects. The architect was provided examples of projects listing self-performed masonry work by Haycook, as well as detailed information depicting Haycook's experience in this work area. Mr. Goodemote, as referenced above, is a local general contractor with school board project experience and is Haycook's expert witness. He established that it is common practice in the construction industry in the Volusia County area for contractors to self-perform work in the manner that Haycook had self-performed it in the past and proposes to do on Elementary School "X." He established with reference to the Board's definition of "subcontractor," which excludes "materialmen" and "laborers," that a contractor's purchase of materials and the hiring of contract labor to install the materials does not come within the definition of "subcontractor" or "subcontracting." He established that a subcontractor is the one who provides all labor, material, equipment, and supervision necessary to complete a work operation. "It's a total turnkey operation. They provide everything to finish the work." Mr. Goodemote's opinion establishes that "self-performance" of the subject work includes a general contractor hiring contract labor to perform a part of the work, because many times there are multiple vendors associated with a portion of the work, and the contractor is still directing and supervising the work and assuming all the risks associated with the work. Mr. Goodemote himself has self- performed as a general contractor and observed other contractors self-perform earthwork, masonry, concrete work, and structural steel work. He demonstrated that if a general contractor uses contract labor to perform a portion of the work, it still remains a "self-performance" by the general contractor, and that the laborers do not have to be on the contractor's payroll in order for the work to constitute self-performance, according to the general practice and usage in the construction industry. When requested by the architect to provide examples of past projects that it had self-performed in the four subject work areas, Haycook listed five projects as to earthwork; four projects in structural steel; seven projects as to masonry; and seven projects as to concrete. In consideration of his restrictive view of what self-performance means (i.e. that self- performance can only mean performance of work by salaried employees on the general contractor's own payroll), the architect (evaluator) requested payroll records and workers' compensation information on two projects only, the Goldsboro Elementary School and Eustis Elementary School. The bid documents do not provide unbridled discretion in the architect/evaluator, or in the school board, to define self-performance in a manner not provided for or inconsistent with the bid documents or to define "subcontractor," to include contract labor and thus require the labor to be listed as a subcontractor on the bid response. There was no notice to any of the bidders that such a restrictive definition would be employed, nor that a contractor listing itself as self- performing, and therefore standing in same position as other subcontractors as to the areas of work it would self-perform, would be treated differently from other subcontractors by, in effect, having to list such persons or entities as those providing contract labor as "sub-subcontractors." There was no evidence that the architect was provided sole discretion to verify self-performance experience as to the two projects only and ignore verification information of self-performance as to the other listed projects provided by Haycook. Although the architect and the Board contended that Haycook's listing of itself as self-performing in the four work areas at issue might allow Haycook to "buy out" subcontractors or to "bid shop," there was no evidence offered to substantiate that this was Haycook's intent or that Haycook or any other identified contractor in Volusia County or the surrounding area had ever attempted to "buy out" subcontractors on Volusia County school projects. Contrarily, Mr. Haycook testified that he does not engage in a practice of "buying out" subcontractors after he has obtained contracts with a winning bid. He explained, as referenced above, that subcontractors and the business relationships that he has with them are crucial to the success of his business. If Haycook made a practice of engaging in such inappropriate operational and pricing conduct when bidding for projects, or entering into related contracts, then subcontractors would either elect not give bids to Haycook at all when Haycook was, in the future, attempting to formulate bid responses, or would not give Haycook their lowest or best price because of their knowledge of such a practice, if Haycook engaged in it. This would obviously have an adverse effect on Haycook's ability in the future to be successful in competitive bid procurements or projects. Haycook has self-performed in the manner intended as to Elementary School "X" for years, as have his competitors. Although the Board apparently feared that Haycook's listing itself as self-performing in the areas of work in question gave it a competitive advantage over other bidders, the evidence does not bear out that fear. The competing bidders had the same opportunity to look at their past cost knowledge and experience, their knowledge of materialmen and suppliers in the area, their knowledge of the labor market and available labor and other data by which they might arrive at an independent evaluation of what a particular area of the work should cost, as well as the methods and means necessary to perform it. They had the same opportunity to evaluate any such knowledge base they have and elect to self-perform one or more areas of the work, as did Haycook. Since they had the same opportunity to do so, the evidence does not show there is any competitive advantage gained by Haycook in this situation which was not available to other bidders as well. As addressed above, the architect's recommendation to reject the Haycook bid was based upon his interpretation that "self-performance" required all work to be accomplished by employees on Haycook's payroll. Using that restrictive definition, the architect concluded that Haycook did not demonstrate, as to the Goldsboro and Eustis projects only, that Haycook had self-performed work with its own employees in the past and therefore that Haycook would self-perform with its own employees on the project at issue. The architect concluded that Haycook's subsequent engagement of contract labor in lieu of using his own payroll employees "could potentially give D. J. Haycook Construction Company an unfair advantage over the other bidders." Neither the architect's testimony nor the Board's other evidence explained, however, how that would give the Petitioner an unfair advantage over other bidders who, as found above, were free to engage in the same proposed self-performance as Haycook. The evidence did not establish how it would harm the public's strong interest in getting the best possible price for a quality construction effort that was completed on time, within the authorized budget, and in accordance with all the contractual terms. The architect's and Board's conclusion in this regard is based upon incorrect and unreasonable interpretations of what is meant by "subcontractor" and the concept of "self-performance." The rationale for finding that Haycook's putative self-performance would give Haycook an unfair advantage, vis a vis, other bidders or would promote bid shopping or buy-out of subcontractors has been shown by the evidence to be based upon speculation and conjecture. Haycook's bid response has been shown to be responsive to the specifications as they were stated, published and furnished to the bidders, including Haycook, in the bid documents at issue. The definition of self-performance employed by the architect and the Board is not supported by the language of the bid documents and has been shown by the preponderant, most credible evidence of record to be an unreasonable definition and manner of evaluating the bids and particularly Haycook's bid. Haycook has been shown to be responsive to the specifications and the relevant portions of the bidding documents and to have the lowest bid by a significant amount, some $241,000.00 dollars as to the base bids of Haycook versus that of Clancy and Theys.
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 by the School Board of Volusia County awarding the contract for Elementary School "X" to the Petitioner, D. J. Haycook Construction Company, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: S. LaRue Williams, Esquire Kinsey, Vincent, Pyle, L.C. 150 South Palmetto Avenue, Box A Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Theodore R. Doran, Esquire Michael G. Dyer, Esquire Doran, Wolfe, Rost & Ansay 444 Seabreeze Boulevard, Suite 800 Post Office Drawer 15110 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 William E. Hall Superintendent Volusia County School Board Post Office Box 2118 Deland, Florida 32721-2118
The Issue Whether the Miami-Dade County School Board's failure to disqualify Magnum Construction Management Corporation from bidding on Project No. A0746 pursuant to paragraph G. of the General Requirements of the Request for Qualifications issued in connection with the project was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board The School Board is a duly constituted district school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools in Miami-Dade County, including, among many others, Westview Middle School (Westview) and Miami Coral Park Senior High School. The Westview Project Westview is currently undergoing expansion, remodeling, and renovation work (Westview Project). The project is almost complete. Blanca Bazan is a School Board employee who serves as project manager on School Board construction projects. At all times material to the instant cases, Ms. Bazan has been the Project Manager on the Westview Project. LIVS and Associates (LIVS), an architectural and engineering firm, has been the Project Architect/Engineer (or A/E of Record) on the Westview Project since October of 1997, when it entered into a written agreement (which is still in effect) to assume such responsibility in return for a "lump sum" payment, plus additional fees (LIVS Westview Agreement). Paragraph III.G. of the LIVS Westview Agreement describes the "basic services" LIVS is to provide during the "construction phase" of the project. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The following are to be performed by the A/E [LIVS], and shall in all cases be in accordance with the requirement of the contract documents: OBSERVATION a.) The A/E shall provide construction administration of the Contract for Construction as set forth in this AGREEMENT and in the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction unless otherwise provided in this AGREEMENT. The A/E shall visit the site at least weekly or as appropriate to the stage of construction or as otherwise directed by the BOARD to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the Work completed and to determine in general if the Work is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work when completed will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. As part of the A/E's basic services, the A/E shall conduct 120 on-site observation visits. A/E shall provide a report to the PM [Project Manager] . . . . On the basis of on-site observations as the A/E, the A/E shall keep the BOARD and Contractor informed immediately in writing of the progress or lack of progress and quality of the Work, and shall endeavor to guard the BOARD against defects and deficiencies in the Work. The A/E shall at all times have access to the Work, wherever it is in preparation or progress. * * * b.) . . . . A/E will enforce the faithful performance of Contract and assure that the Work has been or is being performed in accordance with the Construction Documents. . . . A/E will provide written notice to BOARD if it observes or has reason to become aware of any defect or non- conformance with the Construction Documents. CONTRACTOR'S SUBMITTALS The A/E shall review and evaluate samples, schedules, shop drawings, and other submissions for conformance with the design requirements of the Project, applicable codes and ordinances. . . . The A/E shall also prepare in a timely manner change order items, including the proper documentation for DOE transmittal. . . . * * * 4. QUALITY CONTROL The A/E shall make a reasonable effort to evaluate materials and/or workmanship for conformance with Construction Documents, evaluate quality control testing reports, advise the Construction Contractor and the BOARD immediately of any unacceptable materials and workmanship the A/E may discover and [e]nsure that the Contractor take appropriate action to remedy unacceptable conditions. * * * CERTIFICATION OF PAYMENTS The A/E shall review the Contractor's notarized requisitions for payment, the schedule of values, subcontractor partial releases and the Project schedule. The A/E shall determine the amount which in the A/E's opinion should be paid to the Contractor and shall recommend for [the] BOARD'S approval certificates for payments in such amounts. These certificates will constitute a representation to the BOARD, based on site observations by all appropriate Designated Specialists for architectural and engineering disciplines and on the data comprising the application for payment, that the Work has progressed to the point indicated. By recommending a certificate for payment consistent with the contract documents, the A/E shall also represent to the Board that, to the best of the A/E's knowledge, information and professional judgment, the quality of work is in accordance with the Construction Contract Documents, unless the BOARD has been notified to the contrary in writing. Prior to issuing certification for payment, A/E shall review the status of Contractor's Construction Documents and Project schedule and verify that the documents and/or schedules are up-to-date and accurate to the extent visual observation of construction will disclose. A/E shall also confirm that after the first application for payment, each subsequent application shall be accompanied by subcontractor partial lien release fully accounting for subcontractor payments due for the previous application. If the Construction Documents and Project Schedule are not up-to-date and/or accurate, A/E shall include in its certification for payment a statement that the Construction Documents and/or Project Schedule are not up-to-date. In such event, BOARD may, a.) hold an additional ten (10)% of amount then due Contractor until A/E verifies that the Construction Documents and/or Project Schedule are up-to-date and accurate, b.) refuse to process the partial or final requisition for payment, or c.) pay Contractor. . . . The A/E's certification is a representation by A/E to Owner that all required items noted herein are submitted and proper and serves as a recommendation for payment only. The A/E shall make every reasonable effort to process the Contractor's requisition for payment in accordance with the timelines[] established in the General Conditions of the Construction Contract. . . . * * * SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION The A/E, upon written notification by the Contractor that the Work is substantially complete and ready for substantial completion shall promptly conduct inspection to determine the date or dates of substantial completion for the work. . . . c) Not Substantially Complete If A/E determines that the Work has not achieved Substantial Completion, A/E will notify Contractor in writing of the deficiencies within ten (10) days of the Inspection. FINAL COMPLETION AND FINAL PAYMENT Upon receipt of written notice that the Work is ready for Final Inspection and Acceptance and upon receipt of a final Requisition for Payment, or at completion of the thirty (30) day punchlist period, whichever is earliest, A/E, its engineers and other consultants, BOARD and Contractor shall participate in a walk-through to inspect the Work. At the conclusion of the inspection, the Work shall be determined to be as follows: Finally Complete If it determined that the Work has achieved Final Completion, final payment shall be made in accordance with the Contract Documents. Not Finally Complete If it is determined that the Work has not achieved Final Completion, A/E shall prepare a Final Completion Punchlist and Final Completion shall be achieved in accordance with the Contract Documents and such other consequences as allowed by contract and at law shall be employed. . . . After all Final Inspection Punchlist items have been completed, A/E will recommend to BOARD acceptance of the Project and make recommendations regarding Contractor's final payment request. . . . Paragraph X.B. of the LIVS Westview Agreement provides as follows: If for any reason, the A/E is unable to perform the services under this contract, the BOARD reserves the right to either name or approve the A/E selected to complete the performance of this AGREEMENT. The BOARD reserves the absolute right to recommend a successor A/E or terminate the services of the A/E.[3] Paragraph XII. of the LIVS Westview Agreement provides that "[t]he BOARD may terminate this AGREEMENT, with or without cause, at any time upon thirty (30) days written notice to the A/E." With LIVS' assistance, a Project Manual for the Westview Project (Westview Manual) was prepared in anticipation of the letting of the Contract for Construction of the project through a competitive bidding process. Included in the Westview Manual were the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. Subsections 3.1.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3 of these General Conditions read as follows: 3.1.1 Contractor is the person, firm or corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida and properly licensed or registered for the work to be performed with whom a Contract has been made with the Board for the performance of the Work described in the Construction Documents. * * * Contractor shall supervise and direct the Work in a manner consistent with contemporary community standards. Contractor shall be solely responsible for and have control over construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for coordinating all portions of the Work under the Contract, unless the Construction Documents give other specific instructions concerning these matters. Contractor shall be responsible to Board for acts and omissions of Contractor's employees, Subcontractors and their agents and employees and other persons performing portions of the Work under the Contract and shall be responsible to A/E and Board for coordination and complete execution of the Work in accordance with the Construction Documents. 3.3.3. Contractor shall not be relieved of obligations to perform the Work in accordance with the Construction Documents either by activities or duties of A/E in its administration of the Contract, or by tests, inspections or approvals required or performed by persons other than Contractor. In or around 1999, the Contract for Construction of the Westview Project was awarded by the School Board to J.V. Construction Corporation (J.V.). As required by law and the terms of the Contract for Construction, J.V. executed and delivered to the School Board a payment and performance bond issued by The Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Surety). J.V. subsequently defaulted and its right to proceed under the Contract for Construction was terminated by the School Board, which called upon the Surety to fulfill the Surety's obligations under the payment and performance bond it had issued. As a result, the Surety "essentially step[ped] into the shoes of [J.V.]" under the Contract for Construction.4 The Surety thereafter contracted with MCM to act as a "completion contractor" and complete the work J.V. had begun under the Contract for Construction. The School Board was not a party to this contractual arrangement. The Completion Contract into which the Surety and MCM entered (which has been in effect since October 25, 2001) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: THIS COMPLETION CONTRACT (the "Contract") is effective the 25th day of October 2001 by and between The Hartford Fire insurance Company (the "Surety") and Magnum Construction Management Corp. (the "Completion Contractor"). RECITALS WHEREAS, J.V. Construction Corp. (the "Former Contractor") and THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA (the "Owner") entered into a contract (the "Original Contract") for the Former Contractor to furnish all labor and material and perform all work for the construction of an addition to the Westview Middle School Project No. A0670 (the "Project") in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Original Contract including all contract documents forming a part of the Original Contract; WHEREAS, as required by law and under the terms of the Original Contract, the Former Contractor and Surety made, executed and delivered to the Owner a Performance Bond, Bond No. 21 BCS AE 8081, and Payment Bond, Bond No. 21 BCS AE 8081 (collectively, the "Bonds"), each in the penal sum of $6,678,000.00; WHEREAS, the Owner has terminated Former Contractor's right to proceed under the Original Contract, and the Owner has called upon the Surety to fulfill its obligations as surety under the terms of the Performance Bond; WHEREAS, the Completion Contractor has submitted a proposal dated July 25, 2001, to the Surety to complete the Original Contract, and said proposal is incorporated herein . . . ; and WHEREAS, the Surety and the Completion Contractor desire to enter into this Contract under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the Surety and the Completion Contractor, for and in consideration of the mutual obligations and promises herein set forth, do contract and agree as follows: AGREEMENTS Contract Documents. The Contract to the Surety consists of the terms and provisions contained herein, including the proposal from MCM Construction to the Surety dated July 25, 2001, to complete the Original Contract . . . ; and the Original Contract, including all General, Supplementary and Special Conditions, drawings, specifications, forms, addenda and documents forming a part of the Original Contract and any modifications to the Original Contract, all of which are incorporated herein by reference and which are hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Contract Documents." The Completion Contractor hereby warrants that it has received and read all of the Contract Documents. Strict Compliance. The Completion Contractor shall be bound to the Surety by all of the terms and provisions of the Contract Documents, including administrative as well as technical provisions, and shall strictly comply therewith in all respects. Furthermore, the Completion Contractor shall be bound in the same manner and to the same extent that the Surety and the Former Contractor or either of them would be bound to the Owner under the Original Contract, including but not limited to the conditions or determinations by the Owner with respect to all work done thereunder. The Completion Contractor shall have no responsibility or liability for indebtedness incurred by the Former Contractor. * * * Work to be Performed. The Completion Contractor shall furnish and pay for all labor, materials, services and equipment and shall do everything else necessary to perform and satisfactorily complete the work of the Original Contract as required by the Contract Documents to the satisfaction of the Surety and the Owner in such manner as to fully protect and save the Surety harmless as to its liability to the Owner for the completion of the original Contract (The "Work"). Time for the Performance of the Work. . . . . Subject to allowable time extensions as provided under the terms of the Original Contract, if the Completion Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion as defined in the Original Contract in the time allowed by this Paragraph, the Completion Contractor is liable to the Surety for all liquidated damages assessed against the Surety for the Work under the Original Contract after 713 days from the execution of this Agreement by both parties. The Surety may withhold from the Completion Contractor payments which otherwise may be due to the Completion Contractor in an amount equal to the liquidated damages assessed by the Owner. Price. The Surety shall pay to the Completion Contractor and the Completion Contractor agrees to receive and accept Four Million, Seven Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand, Three Hundred ($4,788,300.00) Dollars (the "Price") as full compensation for the performance and completion of the Work as described in the Contract Documents. . . . * * * 9. Payment. As specified in the Original Contract, the Completion Contractor shall prepare, sign and submit to the Owner, on behalf of the Surety, a request for payment (the "Surety/Owner Requisition") showing the value of the work completed and the materials stored to date in accordance with the terms of the Original Contract. The Surety/Owner Requisition shall be based on the Original Contract price of the Former Contractor. The amount of the Surety/Owner Requisition as approved by the Owner and the Surety shall be due and payable to the Completion Contractor within seven (7) days after the Surety receives payment from the Owner. If the Owner refuses to pay the Surety for any reason related to the Completion Contractor's performance, nonperformance, or in any way related to the Completion Contractor's actions, the Surety shall have no obligation to pay the Completion Contractor until the Owner pays the Surety. In this event, the Surety shall only be obligated to pay the Completion Contractor whatever amounts are received by the Surety within seven (7) days of the Surety's receipt of payment from the Owner. In the event Owner refuses to pay Surety for any reason NOT related to the actions of the Completion Contractor, or its Subcontractors, Surety shall make payment to completion contractor, for all work in place as of the date of the payment application, within the timeframe set forth in the Original Contract for payment to the Original Contractor from the Owner. * * * B. In the same time frame as specified in the Original Contract, the Completion Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Surety a request for payment (The "Surety/Completion Contractor Requisition") based upon the amount of the Completion Contractor's price to the Surety. The Surety/Completion Contractor Requisition shall be based on the same percentages of completion (the value of the work completed and the materials stored to date (as the Surety/Owner Requisition.). The Surety shall pay the Completion Contractor for the Surety/Completion Contractor Requisition as specified in the immediately preceding paragraph. * * * Defects in Work. The Completion Contractor shall be responsible for any and all defects in the work performed or materials supplied by the Completion Contractor and/or any of the Completion Contractor's subcontractors or materialmen after the execution of this Agreement by both parties. Independent Contractor. Except as otherwise provided in this Contract and the Original Contract the Completion Contractor will be permitted to exercise the full prerogatives of a prime contractor, in prosecuting the work, including but not limited to the selection and classification of supervisors and workers, scheduling, determination of equipment and material requirements, and the establishment of work hours and work week including overtime. It is further understood and agreed that the Completion Contractor is an independent contractor in connection with all work to be performed by it pursuant to the Contract Documents. * * * The Completion Contractor as the Surety's Representative on the Project. The Surety shall be represented at the Project by the Completion Contractor. Prior to the issuance of the Notice to Proceed, the Completion Contractor shall name, and the Surety shall specifically authorize in writing an individual with the Completion Contractor to be its representative (the "Authorized Individual") solely for the purposes set forth in this paragraph. The Authorized Individual will represent the Surety in dealing with the Owner on day to day construction issues with respect to the Project. The Surety hereby designates the Authorized Individual to prepare and process pay requisitions on the Contract. However, the Surety will sign all pay requisitions submitted to the Owner. Payments from the Owner shall be made payable to the Surety and transmitted to the Surety . . . . * * * 17. Termination of Agreement. Termination for Convenience. This Contract may be terminated in whole or in part by the Surety at any time for the Surety's convenience, provided the Completion Contractor is given not less than ten (10) calendar days written notice of intent to terminate and an opportunity for consultation with the Surety prior to termination. . . . Termination for Cause. Should the Completion Contractor, at anytime, in the judgment of either the Owner or the Surety, refuse or fail to supply a sufficient number of properly skilled workmen or materials, tools, equipment, facilities, or supplies of a proper quality; or fail in any respect to prosecute the work with promptness and diligence; or interfere with or impede the work of others on the Project; or fail in the performance of any of its obligations under this Contract or under the Original Contract, and should the Completion Contractor fail within three (3) days after receipt of written notice from either the Owner or the Surety to remedy such default; . . . or disregard the instructions of the Owner or the Surety; or for any other cause whatsoever shall not carry on the work in an acceptable manner, the Surety may, in any such event, either terminate this Contract or may exclude the Completion Contractor and its employees and agents from the work without terminating this Contract. . . . Following the execution of the Completion Contract, the Surety's attorney wrote a letter, dated November 7, 2001, to Ms. Bazan, which read as follows: The Hartford is in receipt of your letter dated November 2, 2001, and has requested that we respond on its behalf. In response to your specific questions, please be advised of the following: The Hartford's authorized representative on the project is: Mr. Fernando Munilla MCM Corp. 6201 S.W. 70th Street Second Floor Miami, Florida 33143 The Hartford has also authorized Mr. Fernando Munilla to prepare and process pay requisitions on the project. However, the Hartford will sign all pay requisitions submitted to the School Board. Payments from the School Board shall be made payable to the Hartford Fire Insurance Company and transmitted to The Hartford at the following address unless and until the School Board is notified in writing of a different address: The Hartford Fire and Insurance Company Hartford Plaza-T4 Hartford, Connecticut 06115 Attention: Robert Griffith, Esq. Bond Claims Mr. Fernando Munilla shall have, on behalf of The Hartford, the authority to negotiate and sign change orders for extra work requested or required by the School Board (hereinafter "Change Order") without The Hartford's prior written approval, provided that the Change Order does not exceed $10,000.00 and that MCM requests and is given additional time to perform the Change Order. If the Change Order does exceed $10,000.00, or if MCM requests additional time but no additional time is given to MCM to perform the Change Order, then The Hartford's written approval is required to negotiate the Change Order and the final Change Order must be signed by The Hartford and not Mr. Munilla. If the total of the approved Change Orders exceeds the sum of $50,000.00, then The Hartford, and not Mr. Munilla, must approve in writing all additional or subsequent Change Orders regardless of the amount of each such Change Order. Mr. Munilla has no authority to negotiate deductive Change Orders, credits, backcharges or net deductions from the Original Contract of any nature whatsoever without The Hartford's prior written approval. Mr. Munilla has no authority to negotiate on behalf of The Hartford on any disputes between MCM and The Hartford. I trust this letter answers all of your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any additional information or clarification. Since the effective date of the Completion Contract, LIVS, acting pursuant to the LIVS Westview Agreement as the School Board's A/E of Record on the Westview Project, has been inspecting and evaluating the work performed by MCM under the Completion Contract and verifying that work for which payment is sought (through the submission of pay requisitions by MCM on behalf of the Surety) has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract for Construction. If a pay requisition is approved by LIVS, it is then sent to Ms. Bazan for her review and approval. If everything is in order, Ms. Bazan signs the pay requisition and then "run[s] it through the chain of command." When all the necessary signatures are obtained, the School Board makes payment to the Surety, which, in turn, pays MCM under the terms of the Completion Contract. MCM does not have any contract with the School Board in connection with the Westview Project. The payment it receives for the work it does on the project comes from the Surety (with which it does have a contractual relationship), not from the School Board. The School Board considers the Surety to be the Westview Project "contractor" (as evidenced by MCM Exhibit 19, which is an excerpt of an October 30, 2002, printout listing School Board construction projects).5 In the Statement of Contractor's Qualification that MCM submitted to the School Board in 2002 to obtain its Certificate of Contractor Prequalification for "General Contractor [W]ork" (which certificate was effective July 10, 2002, until July 10, 2003, and authorized MCM "to have under contract with the [School] [B]oard at any one time a total dollar value of work in the amount of $100,000,000.000 and maximum dollar value of each individual project in the amount of $40,000,000.00"), MCM stated, among other things, the following under "Contracts in Progress": PROJECT NAME: WESTVIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL- REMODELING & RENOVATION OWNER: Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Blanca Bazan (305)995-4538 ARCHITECT: LIVS and Associates CONSTRUCTION COST: $4,788,300 START/COMPLETION: 10/01 to 10/03 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Addition, renovation and remodeling of an existing middle school with very stringent phasing requirements and time frames. The project consists of three phases. The first phase is a new building with classrooms and a media center, as well as a new parking lot. The second phase consists of the renovation and remodeling of a one-story building with a courtyard, classrooms, locker rooms, band room, and shop class. The third phase is a two-story building with a parking lot, classrooms, auditorium and an immediate phasing that consists of remodeling a cafetorium during summer break. The remodeling and renovation includes: asbestos abatement, architectural, electrical and mechanical demolition. The Instant Project In or about July of 2002, the School Board issued a Request for Qualifications for Design-Build Firms for "State School 'MMM' 1600 Student Station Addition at: Miami Coral Park Senior High School (Project No. A-0746)" (RFQ). In a design-build project like the Instant Project (in contrast to the "traditional bid contract scenario"), the School Board enters into a single contract (with a design-build firm) for both the design and construction components of the project.6 In the Legal Advertisement that was part of the RFQ, the School Board announced that it "intend[ed] to pre-qualify three (3) to six (6) design-build firms to subsequently invite them to bid" on the Instant Project and further stated, in pertinent part, the following: Firms and companies desiring to participate in the design-build pre-qualification process shall submit an original qualification proposal and eight copies . . . . * * * If the applicant is a joint venture, an executed copy of the joint venture agreement must be submitted with the application. Percentages of participation of fees must be clearly stated for each joint venture partner. Only one submittal will be accepted per applicant, either as a single prime or as part of a joint venture. Firms or companies desiring to participate in this contract must have been pre- qualified by the Board, in accordance with Board rule for Pre-Qualification of Contractors for Educational Facilities Construction, prior to submitting their proposal for this advertisement. . . . The General Requirements portion of the RFQ provided, in pertinent part, as follows: In order to be considered, proposers must meet the following basic requirements: * * * A pre-proposal conference will be held . . . . Attendance is highly encouraged. This will be the only opportunity to present questions regarding the proposal. Written questions may be forwarded to Mr. Ivan M. Rodriguez, R. A., . . . and said questions will be answered at the pre-proposal conference. Questions and answers will be distributed to attendees. Proposers must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida and must possess all required registration, certification and licenses (including design and construction) in accordance with all applicable Florida Statues, ordinances, regulations, and/or Board Rules. A joint venture, including a joint venture composed of qualified business organizations, is itself a separate and distinct organization that must be qualified in accordance with Board Rules and Florida Statute 489.119(2)(c). Proposers must have been in business for a period of no less than five years. In the event of a joint venture or a newly formed company, at least one of the entities of the joint venture or principal of the newly formed company must have been in business for a period of no less than five years. Any proposer, firm or company desiring to participate in this process must not have as a part of its team an A/E firm presently under contract with the Board for a specific project and a General contractor for the same project. The Board considers this a conflict of interest and such proposals will not be considered for award of a contract under this Request for Qualifications. * * * M. MDCPS reserves the right to reject any proposal, to waive technicalities, or to accept the proposal that, in its sole judgment, best serves the interest of Miami-Dade County Public Schools. * * * Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in §120.57(3), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any questions concerning this RFQ should be directed to the Department of A/E Selection, Negotiations & Design Management; attention, Mr. Ivan M Rodriguez, R. A. Director at . . . . The Pre-Qualification Process portion of the RFQ provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Intent: To pre-qualify between three (3) to six (6) design-build firms to subsequently invite them to bid on the following project: State School "MMM" 1600 Student Station Addition @ Miami Coral Park Senior High School (Preliminary estimated Construction Cost- $17,473,890) 8865 S.W. 16th Street, Miami, Florida 33165 Project No.: A0746 The selected proposer will be placed on a list of qualified bidders for bidding on design-build services for the above project. * * * C. Pricing The selected proposers will be allowed to bid the above listed project[], under a competitive bid process, based on design criteria established by a Design Criteria Professional under contract by MDCPS. The Evaluation/Scoring Process portion of the RFQ provided, in pertinent part, as follows: All proposers will be evaluated based on information presented in their submittals, utilizing the Board approved "Procedure[] for [] Selection of Design-Build Firms" dated January 5, 1994 (Updated March 10, 1999) . . . . The "Procedure[] for [] Selection of Design-Build Firms" referenced in this portion of the RFQ provided, in pertinent part, as follows: I. SELECTION PROCESS: INTENT To select Design-Build firms for bidding on each DCPS Design-Build project identified. Selected proposers will be placed on a list of qualified bidders for bidding on each DCPS Design-Build project as advertised. SCHEDULE: Dates for the items listed below shall be projected and become part of future Request for Proposals (RFP) advertisement. Board Review Mailing Advertisement Proposal Submittal Deadline Evaluation Interviews Bid on Design-Build Projects Award of Design-Build Project * * * PRICING: Selected proposers will be allowed to bid each Design-Build project identified under a competitive bid process. * * * EVALUATION/SCORING PROCESS: All proposers will be evaluated based on information presented in their submittals . . . . SCORING The evaluation/scoring process will be conducted in two steps. First, staff shall evaluate all factors in the Initial Screening section of Form-1 . . . . Second, the Selection Committee shall evaluate all factors contained in the Interview section of Form-1 . . . . The evaluation/scoring process shall be as follows: INITIAL SCREENING All proposers will undergo an initial screening process conducted by staff where they will be evaluating the proposer[]s' qualifications. The proposers will be evaluated by staff utilizing Form-1 . . . ; maximum score in this category is 115 points. Proposers that do not comply with the RFP will not be accepted and shall be duly notified. INTERVIEWS All proposers that comply with the RFP shall be contacted to schedule interviews by the Selection Committee. The Proposers will be evaluated by each of the members of the Selection Committee utilizing Form-1 . . . . The maximum score in this category is 115 points. RANKING Both the initial screening score and the interview score will be added, and the sum of both scores will determine the ranking of all proposers. The highest and lowest of the seven (7) total scores for each proposer will be dropped, and an average taken of the remaining five (5), to determine total score and ranking. Three (3) or more firms will be selected as eligible to bid on the project advertised. The Board shall have the right to make exceptions to this procedure when valid public emergency conditions warrant. INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES SELECTION-FORM 1 * * * INITIAL SCREENING (115 POINTS TOTAL) From the proposer's response to the RFP, staff will objectively evaluate the firm's abilities in accordance with those criteria listed below (Scores for each applicant will be based on comparison with all other applicants): * * * C. ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN (30 POINTS): Submit General Services Administration Standard forms 254 (one for each discipline) and 255 (one for entire team), which best describes the proposed architectural/engineering design team. . . . * * * INTERVIEWS After the proposers have been evaluated based on their written applications, they will be invited to make a presentation to the Selection Committee on their approach to perform Design-Build projects for DCPS. . . . * * * The Submittal Requirements portion of the RFQ provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Note: Please refer to Pages 4-9 of the "Procedure[] for [] Selection of Design- Build Firms" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" of this RFQ, for additional information on the following items: * * * E. Architectural/Engineering design- Submit Forms 254 and 255 for A/E team members only. Identify the architect's experience in design-build, the A/E team's experience with DOE codes, MDCPS design criteria/standards, master specifications, educational specifications and furniture, fixtures and equipment. Describe the A/E team's design coordination and quality control systems. * * * P. State of Florida licenses (design and construction)- Provide current copy of State of Florida registration and licenses for proposer and all its professional consultants. * * * R. Contractors Pre-qualification Certificate- Provide current copy of MDCPS Contractor Pre-qualification Certificate. Proposers must have a valid certificate with a minimum of $17,473,890 single project capacity, in order to be considered. * * * The pre-proposal conference referenced in the RFQ was held on July 25, 2002. Attendees were given a written document which contained, among other things, the following questions (that had been submitted in advance of the conference) and answers (that had been given to these questions by "staff"): QUESTION Can an A/E firm presently under contract with the Board for a specific school project, join with the general contractor for the same school project and present a proposal. ANSWER No! The Board views this as a conflict of interest and will not consider such entities. QUESTION Can one firm submit two different proposals, one as a single prime firm and the other as part of a joint venture? ANSWER No! The legal advertisement is very specific to this issue and will only allow one submittal per applicant, either as a single prime firm or as part of a joint venture. QUESTION Can A/E firms presently under contract with the Board as term consultants participate in a design-build entity submitting a proposal? ANSWER Yes! Staff does not see any conflict with this situation. The Board, at their meeting of April 1994, has ruled that neither a direct nor an implied conflict exists. Question: Will there be a design evaluation at the time of bidding in determining the successful bidder? ANSWER No! The successful bidder will be determined based on the bid process. All bidders are to comply with the design criteria bidding documents. However, during the selection process, we will be evaluating the design approach to this project. Question: The RFP [sic] requires the applicant to be authorized to do business in the State of Florida as a design-build entity; however, when we called the State there is none available. What do we do? ANSWER You must comply with all State requirements including required registration and licenses (Design & Construction) in accordance with Florida law. It is your responsibility to comply. MCM was among those that submitted a qualification proposal in response to the RFQ (MCM's Qualification Proposal). MCM's Qualification Proposal was accompanied by a cover letter, dated August 1, 2002, from its President, Jorge Munilla, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: MCM is pleased to submit our qualifications to provide Miami Dade County Public Schools with Design-Build Service for State School MMM * * * MCM has substantial experience with the Design-Build process as it relates to constructing educational facilities. We have assembled a team of professionals that will deliver the quality and cost efficiency required by Miami Dade County Public Schools. The team includes: PJB Associates, who[] will provide architectural services; Bliss & Ny[i]tray, [who] will supply structural engineering requirements; Fortin, Leavy, Skiles, Inc., [who] will provide civil engineering services; LIVS [and] Associates,[7] [who] is providing mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection consulting expertise; and the talented firm of Rosenberg Design Group, [who] will provide Landscape Architecture design. It is significant that our team members have all participated in Design- Build projects for Miami Dade County Public Schools and therefore are acquainted with the unique relationship which it necessitates. The MCM Design-Build team will deliver the cost effective construction, timely delivery, and quality design goals that are required by Miami-Dade County Public Schools. The information that follows this letter details precisely how the MCM team will satisfy these project objectives. * * * MCM's Qualification Proposal contained a Proposer's Profile, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: TOTAL NUMBER OF YEARS IN BUSINESS MCM Corp. is confident that our team, if selected for this project, will execute the contract and deliver functionally effective facilities in concert with M-DCPS staff. The project team and our organization are structured in such a manner as to provide clear-cut lines of communication and accountability. . . . MCM Corp. has learned that a critical factor in the achievement of project goals is the selection of a project team that has the technical knowledge and experience to deliver. The following lists the principal occupation of each member of the design- build team, their occupational license number, and the number of years they have been engaged in that practice. Team Members License Years in Business MCM Corp. General Contractors CG C023834[8] 19 PJB Associates, P.A. Architects AA 0003085[9] 5 Fortin, Leavy, Skiles, Inc. Civil Engineering 3653 19 Bliss & Nyitray, Inc. Structural Engineering 674 39 LIVS Associates MEP EB 0004134[10] 17 Rosenberg Design Group Landscape LA 0000143 31 Also included in MCM's Qualification Proposal were Standard Forms (SFs) 254 (Architect and Related Services Questionnaires) for PJB Associates, P.A. (PJB); Fortin, Leavy, Skiles, Inc. (Fortin); Bliss & Nyitray, Inc. (Bliss); LIVS; and Rosenberg Design Group (Rosenberg); and an SF 255 (Architect and Related Services Questionnaire for Specific Project) completed by PJB as MCM's proposed Project Architect (or A/E of Record). Under the arrangements that had been made, if MCM were the successful bidder on the Instant Project, it would enter into an agreement for design services with PJB and PJB, in turn, would retain the services of Fortin, Bliss, LIVS, and Rosenberg (as sub-subcontractors/sub-subconsultants on the project, having no direct contractual relationship with MCM) to assist it in fulfilling its contractual obligations to MCM. The SF 254 for LIVS was filled out by Hector Vergara, the partner that is "in charge of all [the firm's] mechanical work, and it lists the Westview Project as an "example" of the projects the firm has done in the "[l]ast 5 [y]ears." According the form, the "[c]ost of [LIVS'] [w]ork" on the Westview Project was $6,800,000.00 and the "[c]ompletion [d]ate (. . . [e]stimated)" of such work was "2003." The SF 255 reflected that Fortin, Bliss, LIVS, and Rosenberg would be "consultants" to PJB on the Instant Project in the "[s]pecialit[ies] of "[c]ivil [e]ngineering," "[s]tructural engineering," "[m]echanical/[e]lectrical/ [p]lumbing/[f]ire [p]rotection," and [l]andscape [a]rchitect[ure]," respectively, and it contained "brief resumes" of "key persons" from these entities who would be working on the project. Among these "brief resumes" were those of Mr. Vergara and Arnold Leon of LIVS, which indicated that they both had done work on the Westview Project. Among the other documents that were part of MCM's Qualification Proposal were the "job descriptions" and "resumes" of MCM personnel who would be assigned to the Instant Project, including Fernando Munilla (a principal of MCM), Alexis Leal (MCM's Vice President of Purchasing), and Riccardo Salani (an Estimator-Scheduler with MCM). Fernando Munilla's, Mr. Leal's, and Mr. Salani's resumes each listed the Westview Project as one of the projects on which they had worked. This was not the first design-build project solicitation of the School Board's to which MCM had responded. It had, "several months before," submitted a qualification proposal in response to the School Board's Request for Qualifications for Design-Build Firms for State School "FF,"11 which contained the same General Requirements, including paragraph G., as the RFQ in the instant cases. As in the instant cases, PJB was MCM's proposed Project Architect (or A/E of Record) on the State School "FF" project. TLC Engineering (TLC) was the original proposed MEP (mechanical/electrical/ plumbing) sub-subcontractor/sub-subconsultant. After MCM had submitted its qualification proposal, however, MCM and PJB wanted to replace TLC with LIVS as the proposed MEP sub- subcontractor/sub-subconsultant. When School Board staff (Ms. Bazan, Carlos Hevia of Capital Construction, and Ivan Rodriguez of the Department of A/E Selection, Negotiations and Design Management) were asked whether such a substitution could be made, they indicated that it would be "no problem."12 MCM therefore assumed, when it submitted its Qualification Proposal in the instant cases, that its proposing LIVS as an MEP sub- subcontractor/sub-subconsultant would not result in MCM's disqualification from further consideration pursuant to paragraph G. of the General Requirements of the RFQ, notwithstanding that LIVS was the School Board's A/E of Record on the Westview Project and MCM was the "completion contractor" on that same project (the identical roles LIVS and MCM had had at the time MCM was competing for the State School "FF" design- build contract). Following the review and evaluation of the qualification proposals that had been submitted in response to the RFQ in the instant cases, the School Board posted an "official interview schedule," on which the competing "design- build firms'" "initial screening scores" were announced. These scores were as follows: 105.50 for SBR; 103.50 for James Pirtle Construction Company (Pirtle); 98.00 for Betancourt Castellon Associates, Inc. (Betancourt); 93.00 for MCM; and 77.50 for the Beck Group (Beck). This "official interview schedule" also contained the following "notes": NOTE 1: Each firm must bring all equipment necessary to conduct its presentation. NOTE 2: The initial scores shall be cumulative to the interview scores. The final ranking for each firm shall consist of the initial score plus the interview score. NOTE 3: The following firm has withdrawn from the interviews: The Haskell Company Prior the first scheduled interview, Beck withdrew its proposal, leaving only four proposers to compete for award of the contract for the Instant Project. The determination was thereafter made to "pre-qualify" for bidding all of the remaining proposers without conducting the scheduled interviews. The evidentiary record does not reveal that anyone protested this "pre-qualif[ication]" decision; however, neither does it reflect that the School Board gave notice of the opportunity any adversely affected persons13 had to file such a protest and of the consequences of their not taking advantage of such opportunity. Following this "pre-qualif[ication]" decision, the proposers were provided copies of the Criteria Documents (or design criteria package) that had been prepared for the Instant Project. Volume I of the Criteria Documents contained, among other things, an Instructions to Bidders, a List of Subcontractors Form, Special Provisions for Compliance with M/WBE, General Conditions of the Design-Build Contract, and General Requirements. The Instructions to Bidders provided, in pertinent part, as follows: INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS * * * The Instructions to Bidders, General Conditions of the Design-Build Contract, Special Conditions for Design-Build Projects and all other documents and sections, listed in the Specifications under the Bidding Requirements, apply equally to each Section and Division of the Specifications. All sections of the Criteria Documents are complementary and are part of the contractual requirements. 2.7.1 Board reserves the right to waive informalities and irregularities in a proposal, to reject any bid that shows omissions, alterations or additions not called for in the Criteria Documents and to reject any bid containing conditions or unauthorized alternate bids. * * * 2.8.1 A bid may not be modified, withdrawn or canceled by the bidder during the stipulated time period following the time and date designated for the receipt of bids and the bidder so agrees in submitting the bid. * * * 3.2.2 When notified by Criteria Professional, prior to or after Award of Contract by Board, the successful bidder shall meet with representatives of Board at MDCPS/DCP/DB "Kick Off" meeting. At that time, the successful bidder shall bring the Design Build Team whose work is highly crucial to the completion of the Work. . . . The List of Subcontractors Form contained the following directions: This list of subcontractors shall be submitted to the Section of Contract Management, 155, N.E. 15th Street, Miami, Florida, 33132, no later than the end of the second working day after award, i.e., for bids awarded on Wednesday, list shall be submitted by 4:30 p.m. on Friday. If the list of subcontractors is not submitted as requested, the Board may initiate action which will result in rescinding the award. Subcontractor as used herein shall be defined in Florida Statute 713.01(16)- Subcontractor means a person other than a material supplier or laborer who enters into a contract with the contractor for the performance of any part of such contractor's contract. For each subcontract listed below, the bidder shall name the subcontractor or list the bidder's firm if he/she proposes to do the work. The cost of work as quoted by the subcontractor shall be listed. If the name of a subcontractor is deleted or added, the owner shall be notified immediately along with the justification for the change. The Special Provisions for Compliance with M/WBE provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Subcontractor/Subconsultant- A person other than material person or laborer who enters into a contract with a contractor for the performance of any part of such Design Builder's contract. Design or other required consultant services contracted for, in the performance of this contract will be considered as a Subcontractor. . . . The General Conditions of the Design-Build Contract provided, in pertinent part, as follows: General Conditions of the Design Build Contract * * * 1.1.2 The Contract The Contract represents the entire integrated agreement between the parties hereto and supercedes prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either oral or written. The Contract may be amended or modified only by a Modification. The contract shall not be construed to create a contractual relationship of any kind (1) between the Board and a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, or (2) between any persons or entities other than the Board and the Design-Build Contractor. The Contract Documents include the Criteria Documents and the approved Construction Documents. * * * 3.1.1 The "Design-Build Contractor" is the person, firm or corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida and properly licensed or registered for the work to be performed with whom the Contract has been made with the Board for the performance of the Work described in the Criteria Documents. "Contractor" refers to a third party Contractor. * * * 3.3.2 The Design-Build Contractor shall be responsible to the Board for acts and omissions of the Design-Build Contractor's employees, Subcontractors and their agents and employees and other persons performing portions of the Work under the Contract and shall be responsible to the Board for coordination and complete execution of the Work in accordance with the Contract. * * * 3.3.6 The Design-Build Contractor shall enforce strict discipline and good order among its employees and other persons carrying out the Contract including its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors. . . . * * * 3.9.2 During the Construction Phase, the Design-Build Contractor shall employ a competent, full time, on-site Superintendent, the Design-Build Contractor's A/E of Record Representative, who participated at least fifty percent (50%) of his/her time during the Design Phase, and shall be on site at a minimum of 50% of the working hours of each week. An M/E/P coordinator and necessary assistants shall be in attendance at the job site during the performance of the Work. . . . The Design-Build Contractor's A/E of Record on-site Representative shall not be used for checking shop drawings. The Superintendent, the Design-Build Contractor's A/E of Record Representative, M/E/P Coordinator and the major Subcontractor's Superintendents shall be fluent in English. * * * 3.12.1 Shop drawing are drawings, diagrams, schedules and other data specifically prepared for the Work by the Design-Build Contractor or a Subcontractor, Sub- Subcontractor, . . . to illustrate some portion of the Work. The Design-Build- Contractor, Subcontractor, Sub- Subcontractor, . . . shall not use the Design-Build Contractor's A/E of Record contract drawings as shop drawings, but the Design-Build Contractor shall require these entities to produce and submit such documents independently. * * * 3.18.1 The Design-Builder shall negotiate a fair and equitable agreement with each of the Architect/Engineer consultants listed in the Design-Builder's response to the request for qualifications for this project. The Design-Builder may choose additional A/E consultants, for which prior written notice to Board shall be given, but shall not terminate or replace those A/E consultants originally designated without the prior written approval of the Board. When requesting termination or replacement of A/E consultants, the Design-Builder must submit the following items: Letter requesting written Board approval of the action, stating clearly the reason for such request and the proposed replacement A/E consultant(s). Signed and sealed or notarized release from the A/E consultant(s) being replaced or justification acceptable to the Board that such release is not obtainable. Federal Standard Form 255 and 254 of the proposed A/E consultant(s). Site specific professional liability insurance incorporating the proposed A/E consultant(s) in the policy. A hold harmless clause signed and notarized . . . . * * * 4.1.1 The Board's Representative (also referred to as the "Design Criteria Professional" or "DCP") will provide administration of the Contract as described in the Criteria Documents . . . * * * 4.2.6 The DCP will review and approve or take other appropriate action upon Design- Build Contractor's submittals, previously approved by the Design-Build Contractor's A/E of Record such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, for conformance with the information given and the design concept expressed in the Criteria Documents. . . . * * * 4.2.12 The Design-Build Contractor and Design-Build Contractor's A/E of Record shall provide DCP which will confirm completeness and correctness of same and forward to Board for Board's review and records, the written documents required by the Contract to be provided such as Warranties, Operation and Maintenance Manuals, as-built drawings, releases of claim and other documents required of the Contract. The DCP will process any pending Change Order requests and evaluate the assessment of liquidated damages, if any. Upon its determination that the Design-Build Contractor and Contractor[']s A/E of Record has fulfilled the requirements of the Contract, the DCP will issue a final Certificate for Payment. * * * A Subcontractor is a person or entity other than a materialman or laborer who enters into a subcontract with the Design- Build Contractor for the performance of any part of the Design-Build Contractor[']s Work. The term "Subcontractor" is referred to throughout the Contract as if singular in number and means a Subcontractor or an authorized representative of the Subcontractor. The term "Subcontractor" does not include a separate contractor (sometimes referred to as a "third party contractor" ) or subcontractors of a separate (third party) contractor. A Sub-subcontractor is a person or entity other than a materialman or laborer who enters in to a sub-subcontract with a subcontractor for the performance of any part of such subcontractor's contract. The term "Sub-Subcontractor" is referred to throughout the Contract as if singular in number and means a Sub-subcontractor or any authorized representative of the Sub- subcontractor. The term "Sub-subcontractor" does not include separate subcontractors of a third party contractor. All Subcontractor's shall be licensed and/or certified as required by the Florida Building Code and state statutes. Separate permits may be required including but not limited to electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and roofing work. * * * As stated in the Instructions to Bidders, the Design-Build Contractor shall furnish in its proposal to Board the list of Subcontractors, Sub-subcontractors and materialmen (including those who are to furnish materials or equipment fabricated to a special design) proposed for each principal portion of the Work . . . . If Board has a reasonable objection to any proposed Subcontractor, Sub- subcontractor or materialman, Board will promptly notify Design-Build Contractor. The Design-Build Contractor shall not contract with any proposed Subcontractor, Sub-subcontractor or materialman to whom Board has made a reasonable objection pursuant to Subparagraph 5.2.2. If Board has a reasonable objection to a Subcontractor, Sub-subcontractor or materialman, the Design-Build Contractor shall propose another to whom the Board has no reasonable objection. A Subcontractor, Sub-subcontractor or materialman may be added to the list of Subcontractors, Sub-subcontractor[s] or materialmen if required for performance of Change Order Work. A listed Subcontractor, Sub-subcontractor or materialman may be changed only upon written approval of the Board. The request to change shall state reasons for the request and shall be accompanied by a signed and notarized release from the listed Subcontractor or Contractor's Affidavit to Board that such a release is not obtainable. * * * The General Requirements include Procedural Requirements, Subsections 2.03 and 9.01 of which provide as follows: 2.03 DESIGN-BUILDER ("D-B") D-B shall appoint its D-B Project Manager which is D-B's representative for the Project. The collective management of D-B services, including D-B'[s] architect, engineers and other consultants, is to be vested in D-B Project Manager. D-B Project Manager is the representative of D-B and all communications are to be through him/her to DCP and M-DCPS Project Manager. D-B Project Manager's role does not preclude the involvement of D-B's architect, engineers and other consultants. The architects, engineers and other consultants with responsibility for different aspects of the Project are to attend appropriate meetings but this must be coordinated with D-B Project manager. 9.01 PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE Prior to beginning construction, DCP (through PM) shall schedule a Pre- Construction Conference. Ten (10) days notice is required for the meeting. At minimum, the following parties shall attend: DCP Team (DCP) Design-Builder Team (D-B) PM Major Subcontractors Region Superintendent Principal BCC Representatives Testing Lab Consultant HVAC Test & Balance Consultant H. Others as applicable. * * * Section 01012 of the General Requirements discusses the Project Architect. It provides as follows: PROJECT ARCHITECT (Also referred as Architect/Engineer of Record or D-B'[s] A/E. The Project Architect (A/E of Record) is a Principal, Partner, Agent, Subcontractor or Employee of the Design-Builder,[14] and is the person lawfully licensed to practice Architecture and Engineering or an entity lawfully practicing Architecture and Engineering identified as such in the Contract; and is referred to throughout the Criteria Documents as is singular in number. The term Architect/Engineer of Record means the Architect/Engineer of Record or its authorized representative. Whenever the terms Design-Builder's A/E or A/E is used throughout the Criteria Documents, it refers to the Project Architect. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PROJECT ARCHITECT The Project Architect shall have all the duties and responsibilities established under the applicable State Statutes regulating the professions of Architects and Engineers. The Project Architect shall employ a Project Manager and necessary assistants, and shall be responsible for managing all design and production of Design and Construction Documents and the coordination of its implementation during the construction. The Project Architect shall review and approve or take other appropriate action upon Subcontractor submittals, such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples prior to their submittal to the DCP for approval. The Project Architect shall consult with the DCP concerning all items related to the design and production of the Construction Documents. The Project Architect shall be responsible for the preparation of the Record Drawings. Prior to Design-Builder's request for determination by DCP of substantial completion, the Project Architect shall determine, on his/her own, that the Project has achieved substantial completion. The Project Architect shall inspect the work and provide, through the Design-Builder, a punchlist of all items to be completed or corrected. Upon receipt of request for determination of substantial completion from the Design-Builder, the DCP shall proceed to determine if the work is ready for inspection as provided under the General Conditions. All four remaining proposers, MCM, SBR, Pirtle, and Betancourt, submitted sealed bids. The bids were opened on December 17, 2002, and subsequently tabulated. MCM had the lowest "base bid" ($17,673,600.00). SBR had the second lowest "base bid" ($18,037,446.00). Betancourt's and Pirtle's "base bids" were $18,269,000.00 and $19,540,000.00, respectively. Following the tabulation of bids, School Board staff recommended to the members of the School Board that the contract for the Instant Project be awarded to MCM as the lowest bidder. On February 6, 2003, SBR, through counsel, filed a notice of protest with the School Board, which read as follows: This firm represents SBR Joint Venture, who as you know, has submitted a proposal for construction of the above-referenced [p]roject [the Instant Project]. It has come to our attention that MCM Corp. ("MCM") who submitted a proposal to provide design build services for the above- referenced project, must be disqualified from further consideration in connection with an award of the Project due to MCM's failure to comply with general requirements as promulgated by the Miami-Dade County Public Schools relative to the Project. Specifically, item I G of the General Requirements mandates that: " Any proposer, firm or company desiring to participate in this process must not have as a part of its team an A/E firm presently under contract with the Board for a specific project and a General [c]ontractor for the same project." As disclosed by MCM in its proposal to construct the [p]roject, MCM is currently performing substantial work connection with another project known as the Westview Middle School-remodeling and renovation ("Westview"). The architect under contract with the School Board regarding the Westview Project is LIVS and Associates. In conflict with the qualification general requirements, MCM's proposal to construct school MMM contemplates the formation of a design build team which will include LIVS and Associates, as its mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection consulting engineers. As such, the proposal by MCM is violative of the requirements of design/build firms in order to qualify for the Project. Back-up documentation including, but not limited to, material portions of the request for qualifications and disclosures by MCM are attached for your review. Under the circumstances, we respectfully request that MCM be disqualified from performing any services in connection with [p]roject and the second [lowest] bidder, which is SBR Joint Venture, be awarded the Project. MCM responded to SBR's notice of protest by letter dated February 10, 2003, in which it argued that SBR's protest was without merit and "should be dismissed" and further stated, among other things, the following: The Contract documents permit[] the board to waive all irregularities. If the board were to consider that Ivan Rodriguez, Carlos Hevia and Blanca Bazan[15] misspoke on behalf of MDCPS when they approved LIVS as part of the MCM Design Build team, and or if the board were to consider the inclusion of LIVS as part of the Design Build Team as a conflict, then if that be the case, by this letter MCM hesitantly tenders substitution of LIVS (who has graciously agreed), with SDM Consulting Engineers, Inc., who is also fully qualified, has had extensive experience with DCPS and has agreed to take on the challenge. The members of the School Board were scheduled to vote at their February 12, 2003, meeting on staff's recommendation to award the contract for the Instant Project to MCM, but the "item [was] tabled" because of the pendency of SBR's protest. At the meeting, the School Board Attorney told the School Board members that he had "reviewed [SBR's] protest with staff and [they had] come to the conclusion that [they did not] agree with [SBR's] position," explaining, in part, as follows: The language [of paragraph G. of the General Requirements of the RFQ] is interpreted that if you have the A/E and the general contractor, who are under contract with the board on the same project, that is considered a conflict. In this particular instance, you have a third element here. One, is that the bonding company took over this project and the bonding company brought MCM in as a subcontractor, if you will, a completing contractor here in this particular instance. So, it was never the intent of this language to cover a situation other than one where you had both the A/E and the general contractor under contract with the board. Construing the language of paragraph G. of the General Requirements of the RFQ (which is not clear and unambiguous on its face) as not "cover[ing] [the] situation" present in the instant cases is not at all unreasonable. Because it has a contract with the Surety and not the School Board, MCM is not the Westview Project's "General contractor"16 as that term is typically used in the construction industry.17 Since there is no language manifest in the proposal/bid solicitation documents in evidence which compels the conclusion that, for purposes of the solicitation, this accepted industry meaning of the term was not intended, it is entirely appropriate to rely on this meaning and find, as did School Board staff, that MCM's role in the Westview Project does not disqualify its proposal from consideration under paragraph of the General Requirements of the RFQ.18 Moreover, even if it could not be reasonably disputed that MCM was the Westview Project's "General contractor" within the meaning of paragraph G. of the General Requirements of the RFQ (which, as noted above, is not the case), MCM's proposed use of LIVS on the Instant Project would still not, under every reasonable interpretation of the paragraph, create a "conflict of interest" of the type the paragraph prohibits. It is not beyond reason, particularly when the provisions of the Criteria Documents are considered19 (most significantly, Subsection 3.18.1 of the General Conditions and Section 01012 of the General Requirements), to conclude that an "A/E firm" on the design- build "team," within the meaning of paragraph G., does not refer to an entity, like LIVS, that is neither the design-builder seeking the contract for the Instant Project, a member of such a design-builder (where it is joint venture or partnership), the design-builder's proposed "Project Architect" as described in Section 01012 of the Criteria Documents' General Requirements (who is also referred to therein as the "Architect/Engineer of Record" or "A/E"), nor any other Architect/Engineer consultant with whom the design-builder intends to contract in accordance with the requirements of Subsection 3.18.1 of the Criteria Documents' General Conditions, but rather is merely a proposed MEP sub-subcontractor/sub-subconsultant (that is, a third-tier contractor). The evident purpose of paragraph G. of the General Requirements of the RFQ is to avoid a situation where a firm acting as the School Board's A/E of Record on another School Board project let under the "traditional bid contract scenario" is inclined to deal with the "General contractor" on that project in a lax manner compromising the School Board interests because of a relationship the firm has with that "General contractor" on the Instant Project.20 The chance of this happening if the firm were merely a third or lower tier contractor on the Instant Project would be remote, so remote that it is reasonable to believe (as John Pennington, the School Board's Director for Construction Compliance, who was "intimately involved in making [the language in paragraph G.] the final language," credibly testified) that it was not the School Board's intent, in including paragraph G. in the General Requirements of the RFQ, to eliminate a potential competitor based on this possibility.21 Had the School Board intended otherwise, it could have made its intent clear and unmistakable by having the first sentence of paragraph G. read as follows: "Any proposer, firm or company desiring to participate in this process must not propose to have working on the instant project in any capacity, including as a third or lower tier contractor, both a firm that is presently serving under a contract with the Board as the Board's A/E of Record on another project and a firm that is a General contractor for that same project." It did not do so, however. Instead, it used language in paragraph G. reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that, under this provision, proposing to use as an MEP sub-subcontractor/sub- subconsultant on the Instant Project a firm that is the School Board's A/E of Record on another project does not disqualify a proposer even if the proposer is the "General contractor" for that other project. Following the School Board meeting, SBR, on February 16, 2003, filed its formal written protest of the intended decision to award the contract for the Instant Project to MCM. On February 18, 2003, Fernando Munilla sent a letter to School Board member Dr. Marta Perez, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: MCM has been informed that unfortunately MCM's response to SBR's bid protest was not provided to you prior to the February 12, 2003, Board meeting. We enclose same for your ready reference. We respectfully request you inquire on the particulars raised in our letter, and if you agree with your staff's recommendation (that SBR's alleged irregularity in MCM's bid lacks [sic] merit), then we ask you move the Board to exercise its right to waive the alleged irregularity, as permitted by the bid documents under section 00100 page 4 subsection 2.7.1 in order that MCM continue to work on the project. On March 4, 2003, the School Board Attorney sent a memorandum to the Superintendent of Schools advising that upon further review of the matter he had changed his opinion and was now of the view that SBR's protest had merit, explaining in the memorandum as follows: This specification [paragraph G. of the General Requirements of the RFQ] prohibits a proposer from having as a part of its Design-Build team an Architect/Engineer (A/E) firm who is under contract with the Board for a specific project and General Contractor for the same project. The specification provides that the Board considers this a conflict of interest and such proposals would not be considered for award of the contract. MCM submitted a proposal which has LIVS [and] Associates, an A/E firm under contract for the Westview Middle School project as part of its team. MCM is the General Contractor on the Westview Middle School project under a contract with the surety company to complete the project as the completing contractor. MCM contends that in view of the fact that they are the completing contractor and are not in direct contract with the Board for the project, this particular provision should not apply. We disagree. The particular specification in question does not specify or require that the general contractor for the same project be under contract with the Board. Conflict exists by virtue of the fact that the A/E, acting on behalf of the Board for the Westview Project, has to inspect and review the work of MCM and, with this proposal, will be in business with MCM on another Board project. Accordingly, MCM's proposal should not have been considered for award. While it is true that, in paragraph G. of the General Requirements of the RFQ, the School Board did not include the words "under contract with the Board" after "General contractor," if it intended that "General contractor," as used in paragraph G., have the same common meaning as the term has in the construction industry (and there is no language in the proposal/bid solicitation documents in evidence compelling the conclusion that it did not have such an intent), these additional words would have been redundant because, as noted above, a "General contractor," as that that term is typically used in the construction industry, is necessarily one who is "under contract" with the owner. Furthermore, contrary to the suggestion made by the School Board Attorney in his March 4, 2003, memorandum, under MCM's proposal, MCM and LIVS would not have a direct business relationship22; rather, LIVS would be doing business with PJB.23 While LIVS' participation (as a third-tier contractor) in the Instant Project with MCM may create a potential "conflict" for LIVS, this potential "conflict," at least arguably, is not the type that is prohibited by paragraph G. of the General Requirements of the RFQ. On March 11, 2003, MCM and PJB sent the following letter to the School Board: This letter will serve as our formal request to replace the engineering firm of LIVS originally selected for State School MMM [with] SDM Consulting Engineers in which MCM's architect of record, PJB Associates, P.A., had entered LIVS as their mechanical and electrical consultants for the above referenced project [the Instant Project]. Even though we consider LIVS to be an excellent engineering firm, d[ue] to an alleged conflict of interest that is said to exist, we are respectfully requesting replacement to prevent controversy.[24] We also request that you submit this to M- DCPS's Legal Department to verify if there is any conflict; and if so, we respectfully request a written reply. In the absence of a reply within the next three working days, we will assume that this issue has been resolved. Thank you in advance for your attention. Also on March 11, 2003, MCM, anticipating that it would not be awarded the contract for the Instant Project, sent the School Board another letter, which read as follows: This letter will serve as notice of the intent of Magnum Construction Management Corporation (MCM) to protest any decision of the Miami-Dade County School Board to reject all bids on the Miami-Coral Park Project. Based on information obtained to date, MCM will assert that the decision to reject all bids is based on the false assumption that under the terms of the Request for Qualifications, MCM was disqualified to bid on the Miami-Coral Park Project and that bids on the project were over budget. MCM will assert that it was qualified to bid on the project and that its bid was responsive and within the budget. MCM subsequently filed a formal written protest and an amended formal written protest. On March 12, 2003, the Design Criteria Professional for the Instant Project sent a letter to Ms. Bazan advising her that the three lowest bids submitted for the Instant Project "were within the budget of $17,473,891.36," and that the two lowest bids, those submitted by MCM and SBR, were "substantially below the State of Florida allowable cost per student station under the Smart Schools Clearinghouse." On March 26, 2003, the School Board referred SBR's and MCM's formal written protests to DOAH. A day later, it referred MCM's amended formal written protest to DOAH.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order rejecting SBR's protest and awarding the contract for the Instant Project to MCM. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2003, 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 1st day of August, 2003.
The Issue Whether there was “just cause” for the termination of Respondent’s employment, as that term is referred to in section of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida, by: Respondent’s using school district property for personal gain, by working on tasks related to a student-based educational European trip through Education First (EF) during her district duty hours in the spring of 2009. Respondent’s consuming excessive alcoholic beverages in the presence of students and parents of Buffalo Creek Middle School (BCMS) during an EF trip in the summer of 2009. Respondent’s reporting to BCMS on August 14, 2009, in order to collect her personal belongings, and appearing to be inebriated Respondent’s contacting witnesses to the investigation to discuss details of the investigation. Respondent’s coming on school grounds on December 7, 2009, while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Manatee County, Florida, is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. Respondent, Tammy M. Johnson, has been employed with the School District of Manatee County since February 8, 2000. She was most recently employed as the senior secretary at BCMS. As the senior secretary to the principal of BCMS, Respondent served as the point person for the principal of the school, working hand-in-hand with the principal. Her duties included screening the principal’s mail and phone calls, handling substitute teachers, performing payroll duties, handling leave forms, coordinating clerical office staff, and handling emergency situations as they arose within the school. Respondent was exposed to confidential school information on a regular basis, such as complaints regarding faculty and staff and policy changes being considered within the district. Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis, which was renewed from year to year. Her employment contract was for a term of 11 months and lasted typically from early August to June of the following year. While employed full-time as the senior secretary, in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009, Respondent organized a trip to Europe through the student-based educational travel company EF. Respondent sought to recruit BCMS students and their family members to sign up for the trip by placing fliers on campus, posting a sign-up board at the incoming students’ open house, and placing a notice about the trip in the school newsletter. Respondent routinely included a signature line in her school-assigned email address that identified her not only as a Senior Secretary but as an EF tour guide in every email that she sent from her school account. Announcements about informational meetings related to the EF trip were made over the school intercom and these meetings occurred on school property in the evenings. Respondent made fliers at BCMS advertising the EF trip on at least two occasions using school equipment. On one occasion, she made 750 fliers using school paper. During the time Respondent was conducting these activities, her principal was Scott Cooper. Cooper knew of Respondent’s activities in promoting the trip, and that she was using school resources to accomplish it. He did not object or tell Respondent to stop doing so; in fact, he encouraged such trips. Respondent ultimately recruited 10 student participants for the EF trip, all of whom were students at BCMS. The trip also included 15 adult participants, all of whom were family members of BCMS students. In exchange for her work organizing, promoting and chaperoning the EF European trip, Respondent was to receive, and did receive a free spot on the trip to Europe. Respondent served as the group leader for the EF group of BCMS students and parents. Three other BCMS teachers became involved in the EF trip as chaperones: Joseph Baker, Malissa Baker and Jessica Vieira. They also used school resources to promote the trip. The EF trip to Europe took place from June 22, 2009, to July 1, 2009. On June 17, 2009, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) received a complaint that Respondent was misusing school resources for personal gain. OPS opened an investigation into these allegations. Shortly before Respondent left for Europe, Scott Cooper was replaced as principal. The newly-appointed BCMS Principal Matt Gruhl, met with Respondent to discuss his concern that she included an EF tagline in the signature block of all of her school emails. Gruhl asked Respondent to remove the EF tagline from her email, take the EF poster off of her door, make any necessary copies at a non-school location, and pay standard rates in the future for any advertising done in the school newsletter. Respondent complied with the directive. On June 22, 2009, the flight for the EF trip left from Tampa. Prior to the flight’s departure, Respondent purchased several small bottles of vodka in the airport duty-free shop. Several students observed Respondent doing so. Respondent drank two vodka-and-cranberry drinks on the flight to Europe in the presence of BCMS students and parents. Upon arrival in London, Respondent went with several other parents to a pub across the street from the hotel. While there, Respondent had too much to drink that evening and became intoxicated. Several BCMS students said that Respondent was speaking so loudly that they were able to hear her all the way across the street and up to the fifth story of the hotel. These students were upset by Respondent’s behavior. Respondent was very loud when she returned from the pub. BCMS parents had to help Respondent into the lobby, as she was falling over and laughing loudly. The adults tried to persuade Respondent to go to bed, but she insisted on ordering another drink in the lobby. Respondent was finally coaxed to go upstairs to bed, and she began banging on all the doors to the hotel rooms in the hallway. Respondent had to be physically restrained from banging on the doors. On more than four occasions Respondent was observed mixing vodka-and-cranberry juice drinks in a Styrofoam to-go cup before leaving the hotel with students for the day. The BCMS students on the EF trip commented on multiple occasions about Respondent’s drinking on the trip. The students did not want to go off alone with Respondent because they did not feel safe with her. The students also made observations that Respondent was drunk and stumbling around. On the return plane ride from Europe to Tampa, Respondent again was drinking alcoholic beverages to excess and exhibiting loud and boisterous behavior. While Respondent was in Europe with the EF trip, she had received a text message notifying her that she may be under an OPS investigation. Shortly after Respondent returned, she approached Gruhl and asked him whether there was an investigation concerning her being conducted by OPS. When Gruhl declined to comment on any pending OPS investigations, Respondent then called Debra Horne, specialist in the Office of Professional Standards, and asked whether there was an investigation being conducted. Horne confirmed that there was an open investigation and told Respondent that it might not be resolved until after school started because it involved students and parents. After speaking to Horne, on or about July 20, 2009, and being made aware that she was involved in an open investigation, Respondent called Vieira and told her that they needed to get their stories straight. Respondent also left messages for Joe and Malissa Baker stating that she heard that there was an OPS investigation and wanted to know if they had any information or had heard anything about the investigation. Respondent was only partially aware of a School Board rule which prohibited contacting potential witnesses during an investigation, although she was aware that she was expected to abide by all School Board rules. Gruhl spoke to Horne and reported Vieira and Malissa Baker’s concerns. Horne expanded her open investigation to include the allegations about Respondent’s behavior on the trip. Effective August 3, 2009, Respondent was removed from her position and placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an investigation of her conduct by the Petitioner’s Office of Professional Standards. During the time of paid leave she was required to report daily to her principal and could not travel outside the country without permission. After Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave, she came to the BCMS campus on August 14, 2009, to pick up her belongings from her office. She met Gruhl and Assistant Principal Nancy Breiding at the school. Gruhl observed that Respondent smelled strongly of alcohol. She had difficulty keeping her balance and ran into walls, ran into doorways and almost fell when she tried to adjust her flip-flop. Respondent also had great difficulty following the line of conversation when she was speaking with Gruhl and repeated herself numerous times. Concerned, Gruhl permitted Respondent to leave campus after observing that her husband was driving her. He did not seek to send her for drug or alcohol testing, as provided in school board rules. Respondent testified that she had “just one” vodka and grapefruit drink at lunch earlier that day. She denied that Gruhl’s observations were accurate, but also alleged that she was on a prescription medication, Cymbalta, and stated that it caused her to be increasingly emotional and somewhat dizzy. However, she testified that she was completely unaware that combining the medication with alcoholic beverages would have an adverse effect on her. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Gruhl’s observations of Respondent’s behavior on August 14, 2009, were incorporated into the OPS investigation. Horne interviewed Respondent on August 20, 2009, regarding the allegations made prior to the trip and the allegations made concerning her behavior on the EF trip. On September 1, 2009, the results of the OPS investigation was presented within the chain-of-command, who recommended to Superintendant Tim McGonegal that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The Superintendant concurred with their recommendation, and on September 21, 2009, the Superintendant notified Respondent that he intended to seek termination of her employment, or, should she request an administrative hearing, suspension without pay pending the outcome of that hearing. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At their meeting on October 13, 2009, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay. While on unpaid suspension, Respondent had no duties, was not required to report to anyone, and was not limited in her ability to travel. However, she was still a School District employee. On December 7, 2009, while on suspension without pay, Respondent returned by car to the BCMS campus while school was in session to check her son out early for a doctor’s appointment. Aware that she was under investigation for excessive drinking, Respondent admitted that she nonetheless had a drink at lunchtime before going to pick up her son from school around 2 p.m. While on campus, Respondent’s eyes were glassy, she smelled of alcohol, and she was unkempt, which was out of keeping with her usual appearance. When Gruhl learned of the incident on December 7, 2009, he recommended to the Superintendant that Johnson not be permitted to return to the BCMS campus On December 7, 2009, the OPS opened an addendum investigatory file on Respondent concerning the events of December 7, 2009. The addendum OPS investigation alleged that, on December 7, 2009, Johnson entered the BCMS campus while under the influence of alcohol. The testimony of Horne, Keefer, Vieira, Hosier and Gruhl is credible. Respondent’s testimony is found to be unreliable.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has cause to terminate Respondent's continuing contract of employment as a classroom teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida (School Board), is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Palm Beach County. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution. Petitioner has been authorized to act on behalf of the School Board in this proceeding. The respective duties and responsibilities of the School Board and the Superintendent are set forth in Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a classroom English teacher pursuant to a continuing contract since 1965. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Respondent taught high school English at BRCHS. On October 25, 1999, the then-serving Superintendent of Schools reassigned Respondent to an administrative position in the Division of Personnel Services, effective October 26, 1999. Respondent has not taught in the Palm Beach School District since his reassignment. The Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) is a union that represents members of the Palm Beach County School District’s instructional staff. Respondent has been a member of the CTA at all times pertinent to this proceeding. Section 231.29(1), Florida Statutes, requires each school district to establish procedures for assessing the performance of duties and responsibilities of certain employees, including classroom teachers with continuing contracts. The Florida Department of Education (DOE) must approve each school district's personnel assessment system. The School Board has adopted a personnel assessment system, described below, that has been approved by DOE. As required by Florida law, School District administrators evaluate the work performance of teachers at least once a year. The Classroom Teachers Assessment System (CTAS), the assessment system used by the Palm Beach County School District, requires that prior to any evaluation, a qualified administrator observe the teacher’s classroom performance for a minimum of twenty minutes, recording any noted strengths and identifying weaknesses that should be remediated. An observation may be recorded in a narrative form or in a summative form. Following the observation, the administrator completes the evaluation form, which requires that the teacher be rated in 16 skill areas. The rating for each skill area is a score of two for an acceptable area or a one for an area of concern (an area of deficiency). At the beginning of every school year, teachers receive a Teacher Evaluation Handbook (Handbook) that describes the evaluation form, criteria, and rating scale that Petitioner uses to evaluate the job performance of employees with continuing contracts or professional services contracts. The evaluation form lists a total of 16 skill areas under the following headings: "Instructional Process," "Professional Proficiencies," and "Professional Responsibilities" as follows: INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS Management of Student Conduct Instructional Organization and Development Presentation of Subject Matter Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal PROFESSIONAL PROFICIENCIES Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate Demonstrates Knowledge of Subject Matter Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively Demonstrates Ability to Evaluate Instructional Needs Demonstrates Effective Written Communication Skills Develops and Maintains an Accurate Record Keeping System PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Demonstrates a Commitment to Growth Demonstrates Self Control Demonstrates Effective Working Relationship with Coworkers Demonstrates Effective Working Relationship with Parents Adheres to and Enforces School Policies Performs Duties as Assigned by the School Administration The Handbook provides criteria that explain each one of these categories on the evaluation form. Teachers who receive an unsatisfactory performance evaluation are placed on a 30-day school-site assistance plan. If the teacher’s performance has not sufficiently improved by the end of the 30 days, the teacher is thereafter placed on a 90-day district-level assistance plan. Prior to the end of the 90-day period, the teacher’s performance in the classroom is evaluated again. If that teaching performance is still rated unsatisfactory, the teacher can be recommended for dismissal. This process applies to both Professional Service Contract (PSC) teachers and Continuing Contract (CC) teachers. The CTAS has been incorporated by reference into the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the School District and the CTA. 1/ Article II, Section M of the CBA is titled Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline) and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. * * * 7. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school board rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. . . . Written Reprimand. . . . Suspension Without Pay. . . . Dismissal. . . . Diane Harris became the principal of BRCHS in August 1997, taking over for Norman Shearin. Prior to her appointment, Ms. Harris served as an administrator in the Area Office and was assigned to the instructional support team. Pursuant to her duties under the CTAS, Ms. Harris observed one of Respondent’s classes on October 23, 1997. She observed what she considered to be several areas of deficient performance. Ms. Harris subsequently met with Respondent to address these concerns and make suggestions on how he could improve his teaching performance. Respondent was not receptive to her comments. Respondent’s final evaluation for the 1997-98 school year was rated satisfactory overall. Ms. Harris testified, credibly, that she rated all the teachers that year as being satisfactory because she wanted to observe all teachers during her first year as principal so she could formulate a plan for the following year. The concerns noted during her October observation of the Respondent were never made a part of his final evaluation for 1997-98. Ms. Harris rated Respondent's performance as being satisfactory despite the fact that she was aware that Respondent’s review for the prior year (under Dr. Shearin) had been unsatisfactory. Every year, the BRCHS English Department takes students on a field trip to the Caldwell Theater to view a theatrical production. On November 4, 1998, Respondent’s first period English class was scheduled to go on that field trip. That morning, however, several of his students appeared at the school’s front office and complained to Ms. Harris that Respondent would not allow the entire class to go on the field trip because some students had thrown “spit wads” during class. Rather than punish the students who were responsible, Respondent inappropriately punished the whole class. Because half of the English Department was going on the field trip that day and half the next day (November 5, 1998), Ms. Harris arranged for Respondent’s students to go on the field trip on November 5, 1998. She was unable to meet with Respondent on November 4, 1998 because, when she went to look for him to inquire about his actions, he had already left on the bus with other students to go to the theater. When Ms. Harris was finally able to speak to Respondent either that day or the following day, Respondent accused her of preempting his absolute authority over his class. On November 6, 1998, Ms. Harris issued a memorandum to Respondent outlining her concerns about the field trip incident. In that memorandum, Ms. Harris also noted that she was concerned about the frequent number of disciplinary referrals for assistance from the deans Respondent would make on a daily basis. As a result of those concerns, Ms. Harris provided Respondent with a handout from the CTAS listing the performance criteria for Management of Student Conduct, which included implementing a discipline plan. Ms. Harris specifically directed Respondent to prepare such a written discipline plan and provide it to her by November 9, 1998. On November 17, 1998, Respondent provided to Ms. Harris a copy of a one-page typed document outlining eight rules of conduct which he handed out at the beginning of each school year to his students. On the copy provided to Ms. Harris, the Respondent noted that he also followed the student/teacher handbook. Attached to the document was a copy of a page from an outdated student/teacher handbook. On several occasions Ms. Harris informed Respondent that his discipline plan was inadequate. Thereafter, Ms. Harris consulted with Ms. Stafford, an assistant principal of BRCHS, and obtained a number of documents from the School District’s Professional Standards Office to aid Respondent in properly preparing a discipline plan. By memorandum dated December 18, 1998, Ms. Harris directed Respondent to provide her with a discipline plan by January 8, 1999. When a student is removed from a classroom as the result of misbehavior, he or she is sent to a supervised study area called the opportunity room. On November 24, 1998, Ms. Harris met with Respondent regarding the large volume of referrals he was issuing, which resulted in the students being referred to the opportunity room. At mid-year, Respondent had issued approximately 70 to 75 such referrals. By the end of the school year, Respondent had issued 146 such referrals. In addition to the number of referrals, Ms. Harris received complaints from parents that two particular students were being regularly referred to the opportunity room, that these two students received failing grades, that they were not given progress reports, and that their work was misplaced. Ms. Harris also received a complaint from a student that Respondent had sent the student to the opportunity room without giving the student a way to make up class work. Respondent requested another meeting and offered to justify the referrals he had made, but the meeting was never held. 2/ On December 4, 1998, Ms. Harris made an informal observation of Respondent’s first period class. Ms. Harris observed that the classroom setting was chaotic, students ignored Respondent, and there was no flow or continuity of instruction. All teachers are required to turn in weekly lesson plans reflecting objectives, materials, assessment tools, and activities. In January 1999, Respondent turned in lesson plans for the second term of English 10 and 11. His plans for English 11 were merely a duplicate of his plans for English 10. Subsequently, Ms. Harris repeatedly instructed Respondent to turn in appropriate lesson plans for English 11. Despite those clear instructions from Ms. Harris, Respondent did not turn in appropriate lesson plans for English 11. Ms. Harris decided to give Respondent a mid-year evaluation. The evidence presented by Petitioner established that Ms. Harris was justified in determining that a mid-year evaluation was appropriate. 3/ Ms. Harris assigned Dr. Robert Murley, an assistant principal at BRCHS, to perform a summative observation of Respondent on February 2, 1999. On the day Dr. Murley observed Respondent, Respondent was approximately five minutes late to class. At one point during the observation, Dr. Murley observed that more than half the class was not engaged in learning. The students were either talking or sleeping, or staring off into space, or looking out the window. Dr. Murley further observed Respondent talking above the class rather than getting them to pay attention. Dr. Murley observed the class for over an hour in the hope that things would get better, but they did not. During the 75 minutes that Dr. Murley observed Respondent’s class, he noted 42 times where the students were engaged in misconduct, with Respondent failing to address the misconduct in 12 instances. Respondent’s lessons failed to include meaningful learning and motivational techniques. Overall, Dr. Murley felt that there was very little learning going on and that Respondent was having a lot of difficulty keeping the class aware of what he was trying to teach them and trying to keep them engaged. On February 5, 1999, Dr. Murley met and reviewed his observations with Respondent. Respondent listened to some of the suggestions but not all of them. Respondent did not contest any of Dr. Murley’s observations on the summative form at that time. Subsequently, Dr. Murley attended a meeting with Respondent, his union representative, Ms. Harris, and Ms. Stafford. At that subsequent conference, Respondent resisted all suggestions and criticized Dr. Murley’s observations. As a result of Dr. Murley’s observation and Ms. Harris’ other concerns, Ms. Harris gave Respondent an unsatisfactory rating on the mid-year evaluation. On February 22, 1999, Ms. Harris met with Respondent and gave him the evaluation; Respondent signed the evaluation under protest. Respondent accused Ms. Harris and Ms. Stafford of “obsessive misanthropy.” This can only be construed as an attack on their professionalism and an accusation that they were biased against male professionals. On March 3, 1999, another conference was held, at which time Respondent presented his written rebuttal 4/ disputing each of Ms. Harris’ concerns from the February 22nd meeting. Respondent was not receptive to any suggestions, and the meeting itself was adversarial. By memorandum dated March 8, 1999, Ms. Harris notified Respondent that he was being placed on a 30-day school-site assistance plan, and that failure to improve his performance could result in further action. A copy of the written assistance plan was provided to Respondent at that time. Respondent was also provided with copies of letters and reports from students in Respondent’s classes regarding the climate in the classroom and Respondent’s evaluation of students. On March 10, 1999, Ms. Harris met with Respondent, together with Dr. Jeanne Burdsall, Director of Professional Standards, and Diane Curcio-Greaves, a specialist from the Professional Standards Department, regarding the school-site assistance plan. Dr. Burdsall and Ms. Curcio-Greaves developed a checklist for the 30-day plan. As part of the plan, Respondent was to observe another teacher’s class, turn in a discipline plan by March 22, 1999, and work with a Peer Assistance and Review (“PAR”) Consulting Teacher. Respondent and his union representative consented to his referral for PAR assistance. Follow-up meetings to review progress under the plan were scheduled for approximately every ten days. On or about March 15, 1999, Respondent provided a written response to Ms. Harris, contesting the charges against him. On March 17, 1999, Ms. Curcio-Greaves arranged for Respondent to observe a class at Atlantic High School. During that observation, Ms. Curcio-Greaves pointed out to Respondent certain teaching behaviors that she considered effective. Two areas were focused upon: management of student conduct and instructional organization and development. Respondent could have benefited from observing that class, but he resisted the efforts of Ms. Curcio-Greaves to help him improve his performance. On March 16, 1999, as part of the on-site school assistance plan, Virginia McGrath, a member of the Area Office’s Instructional Support Team and a certified CTAS evaluator, observed one of Respondent’s classes for approximately one hour and noted several areas for improvement. Specifically, she observed that Respondent did not review the assignment with the class, and that the students did not seem to understand the material being covered. Further, Respondent would not answer the questions of students who were unclear about the materials and/or the assignment and allowed too much down time. Ms. McGrath did not observe any actual teaching by Respondent during this observation. On March 18, 1999, Ms. Harris conducted a school-wide training session regarding the new CTAS evaluation system, which had been negotiated by the School District and the CTA and approved by DOE. Respondent attended the training. On March 19, 1999, pursuant to the terms of the on- site school assistance program, Ms. Harris again met with Ms. Curcio-Greaves and Respondent to review his progress under the on-site plan. During the meeting, Respondent complained that he should not be involved in the observation process, and he was not receptive to Ms. Curcio-Greaves’ observations. Instead, Respondent was critical of the teachers he observed and opined that Atlantic High School was a bad school overall. Pursuant to Respondent’s request at that meeting, Ms. Harris scheduled a follow-up meeting for March 23, 1999, to further discuss Respondent’s evaluation. On April 9, 1999, a follow-up meeting was held to review Respondent’s progress under the school assistance program. By this time, Respondent had still not provided the required classroom management plan; rather, he had only turned in a copy of the rule book. At the meeting, Respondent was informed of a professional standards workshop on presentation of subject matter and planning, to take place on April 27, 1999. As part of the school assistance plan, Respondent attended that workshop. Also pursuant to the school assistance plan, the PAR panel granted, on April 15, 1999, Respondent’s request for inclusion in the program, and assigned a PAR Consulting Teacher. On April 15, 1999, Dr. Burdsall attended an evaluation meeting with Respondent, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Matulaitis. During the meeting, Respondent stated that the principal was unprofessional, and commented that one particular student and that student’s father were “not too bright.” Respondent also stated (referring to Dr. Burdsall and Ms. Harris) that, “The ladies are unable to handle this, you live in a fluffy world,” and responded to a question by Dr. Burdsall with “no, my love, no.” Respondent was insulting to Ms. Harris and Dr. Burdsall and resisted the remedial assistance being provided to him. On April 16, 1999, pursuant to the CTA CBA, Ms. Harris notified Respondent that she would be observing his class during the week of April 19-23, 1999. Subsequently, Ms. Harris conducted the observation of Respondent’s classroom on April 22, 1999, and prepared a narrative report of her observations. Based upon her observations, Ms. Harris concluded that Respondent still did not have adequate control of his classroom environment and was exhibiting the same deficiencies as she had noted in the February 1999 evaluation. By memorandum dated April 26, 1999, Ms. Harris informed Respondent of her observations and, on April 30, 1999, personally met with him to discuss the matter further. Respondent did not agree with the assessment. Ms. Harris provided to Respondent a follow-up memorandum on May 5, 1999. By memorandum dated April 23, 1999, Mr. Matulaitis requested that the completion date for the school-site assistance plan be extended, as some items had not yet been completed. Upon review of the matter, Ms. Harris noted that most items had been completed without any noticeable improvement by Respondent. Specifically, Ms. Harris had still not received the discipline plan she had requested back in November, nor had Respondent provided to her revised lesson plans. Further, none of the observations of his classes showed any change in strategies in the classroom. In addition, Respondent became more adversarial and abusive at each follow-up meeting and consistently resisted suggestions. Ms. Harris denied Mr. Matulaitis’ request to extend the completion date for the school-site assistance plan. Dr. Mary Gray, a professor at Florida Atlantic University, is an expert in teacher evaluation who works with the school district as a consultant in teacher evaluation cases. Dr. Gray met Respondent on April 27, 1999, when he attended a workshop she conducted on planning for instruction and presentation of subject matter (including classroom management and questioning techniques) as part of his remediation program. Dr. Gray testified that Respondent appeared resistant to participating in the workshop. On May 4, 1999, Ms. Harris notified Respondent that she would provide transportation for him to go to another school and observe another teacher’s classroom as part of his remediation plan. Ms. Harris further informed Respondent that she would provide a substitute teacher for his classes that day. On that same date, Respondent signed the notification under protest and asked for the trip to be rescheduled. On May 5th and 6th, however, Respondent was absent from work. On May 6, 1999, Ms. Harris notified Respondent that his May 5, 1999, meeting to observe an ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) teacher had been rescheduled for May 10, 1999, due to Respondent’s absence on May 5th. This was one of the last open items remaining on Respondent’s school-site assistance plan. By letter dated May 6, 1999, Ms. Harris requested then Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Joan P. Kowal, to place Respondent on a 90-day performance probation, because Respondent had completed the school-site assistance plan without making any improvement in the noted areas of deficiency. On May 11, 1999, Respondent received his year-end CTAS evaluation. The evaluation noted the same deficiencies as had been noted on the February evaluation. The evaluation rated Respondent as unsatisfactory overall, and noted that a 90-day district-level assistance plan would be implemented. By letter dated May 12, 1999, Superintendent Kowal formally advised Respondent that he had been placed on 90-day performance probation and that he would receive a Professional Development Plan (the district plan) to support remediation of the deficiencies. Also on May 13, 1999, Ms. Harris provided to Respondent copies of letters from students and one parent regarding the climate in Respondent’s classroom and Respondent’s failure to appropriately evaluate student needs. Ms. Harris testified that the student concerns were addressed in the form of a petition, and that she had never received such a document for any other teacher at BRCHS. Ms. Harris referred Respondent to specific sections in the school-site assistance plan for suggestions on improvement strategies in the noted areas of concern. On that same day, Ms. Harris also requested that Superintendent Kowal revise the district plan to delete the seventh area of concern (working relationships with parents) as a result of the disposition of a grievance Respondent had filed about his evaluation. Ms. Harris had been told by her supervisor that it would be more beneficial for Respondent to concentrate on the other six areas, which more directly affected Respondent’s instructional activities. Respondent’s May 1999 evaluation was also changed accordingly. On May 14, 1999, the ESOL teacher assigned to meet with Respondent pursuant to the school-site assistance plan reported to Ms. Harris that Respondent had been resistant to the ESOL teacher’s suggestions as to the use of ESOL strategies. At a meeting on May 19, 1999, Respondent was officially placed on a 90-day district plan and notified of his right to a deficiency hearing -- which he requested. At that meeting, a checklist for the district plan was developed. Everyone agreed to the plan and agreed that it complied with the CTA CBA. Neither Respondent nor the CTA objected to the fact that Respondent had been placed on the 30-day and 90-day programs. The deficiency hearing to review the 90-day district plan was conducted with Cheryl Alligood serving as the hearing officer. The hearing was held before Ms. Alligood, the principal, the union representative, and the teacher. The purpose of a deficiency hearing is for the union representative to come with the teacher and the principal to review what concerns there may have been and whether sufficient assistance is being provided to the teacher by the district plan. Respondent, who was represented by counsel at the deficiency hearing, asserted that his performance was not deficient and that Ms. Harris was “out to get him.” Subsequently, Ms. Alligood found sufficient reason to continue Respondent on the district plan. Respondent received notice of that determination on July 6, 1999. Pursuant to Respondent’s agreement, Dr. Burdsall arranged for Respondent to observe a Dwyer Award recipient or nominee. A Dwyer Award is given for excellence in teaching. Respondent did not keep his appointment that had been set up by Dr. Burdsall. The observation was rescheduled, but again, the Respondent did not show up. Respondent also failed to attend a workshop set up by the PAR teachers specifically for the purpose of helping him remediate his particular teaching deficiencies. Dr. Burdsall offered Respondent the opportunity to attend a different workshop. Again, he did not attend. During the 1998- 99 school year, several remedial workshops were recommended to Respondent to assist in his professional development that he did not take advantage of. On May 27, 1999 (about a week before the end of the school year), Dr. Gray observed Respondent’s teaching performance in the classroom, at which time she noted he was deficient in several areas. The most critical deficiency Dr. Gray noted was that Respondent was not performing at the minimal teaching level. Based on her observations, Dr. Gray did not consider Respondent to be a competent teacher. Following the observation, Dr. Gray met with Respondent to review the results of her observation and to offer constructive criticism. Respondent was defensive and clearly resented being involved in the observation/remediation process. Respondent angrily voiced that resentment to Dr. Gray. Respondent subsequently provided Ms. Harris with a written response to Dr. Gray’s observations, disagreeing with each one. Respondent’s district plan extended through the summer. Dr. Burdsall met with Respondent following the summer break and determined that Respondent had not done anything over the summer to try to help his remediation process. At the August 13, 1999, meeting, Dr. Burdsall, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Matulaitis agreed it would be beneficial for Respondent to attend a couple of workshops on management of student conduct and instructional strategies. In addition, it was decided that the PAR teacher would continue for the 1999-2000 school year. Dr. Burdsall testified that the meeting was unlike any other assistance review meetings she has had because of the adversarial, abusive attitudes of Respondent and his union representative. Dr. Burdsall was under the impression that Respondent was never going to remediate. On August 26, 1999, pursuant to the 90-day district plan, Tcherina Duncombe, a specialist in the Professional Standards Office, conducted an hour-long observation of Respondent’s classroom and prepared a narrative report of her observations. Ms. Duncombe determined that Respondent needed improvement in the same areas that had been of concern during the prior school year, including management of student conduct, instructional organization and development, and establishing an appropriate classroom climate. Ms. Duncombe observed that Respondent’s instruction that day was not organized and was ineffectual, and that his directions were unclear. Further, Respondent failed to discipline some students for talking in class and making inappropriate comments, but then would discipline others in an inappropriate manner. Ms. Duncombe subsequently discussed her findings and suggested improvement strategies with Respondent, but he did not appear to be receptive. During the one-hour review session Ms. Duncombe had with Respondent, Respondent spent most of the time making negative comments about the district plan and Ms. Harris. Based upon the information contained in the narrative, Ms. Harris determined that Respondent had not made any improvement in his classroom teaching performance. On September 9, 1999, Respondent provided a written response to Ms. Duncombe’s observations, taking issue with each point made by Ms. Duncombe. On September 18, 1999, Respondent was notified via certified mail that a second observation would take place during the week of September 21, 1999, by Ms. McGrath, as part of the district plan. At the same time, Respondent was informed that a previously scheduled meeting had been reset to September 21, 1999. Ms. McGrath conducted her second observation of Respondent on September 22, 1999. Again, Ms. McGrath did not observe any actual teaching, and Respondent again failed to review materials with the students and clarify any confusing assignments. Ms. McGrath also observed students talking in class (including the utterance of a couple obscenities) and passing notes. In addition, Respondent was inconsistent with requests for bathroom leaves. Further, Respondent had not implemented any of Ms. McGrath’s recommendations from the previous observation (there was no defined lesson and Respondent was not meeting the needs of all his students). After the second observation, Ms. McGrath was concerned about Respondent’s competency as a teacher. Based upon the information contained in Ms. McGrath’s summary of her observation, Ms. Harris determined that Respondent still had not made any improvement in his classroom teaching performance. Dr. Burdsall was present during a September 21, 1999, district plan meeting wherein the evaluations of Ms. Duncombe and Dr. Gray were reviewed. Respondent insulted Dr. Burdsall again. Dr. Burdsall testified that she had never had a teacher become abusive when she was trying to provide assistance. Rather than walk out of the meeting, Dr. Burdsall continued to try and provide assistance to Respondent. Despite Respondent’s attitude, Dr. Burdsall continued to make efforts to assist Respondent and get him to see other teachers. On October 4, 1999, Ms. Harris received a letter from a student concerning Respondent’s teaching methods. Ms. Harris testified that the complaints in the letter were consistent with the same pattern of deficiencies exhibited by Respondent on other occasions. Ms. Harris provided copies of the letter to Respondent and, on October 7, 1999, scheduled a brief meeting with him to discuss the letter. The meeting was held on October 8, 1999. At the meeting, Respondent was also given a copy of an observation summary conducted by Dr. Penny Beers, the curriculum specialist for the School Board's language arts program, discussed infra. Further, Ms. Harris notified Respondent that she would be observing his classroom the week of October 11, 1999. On October 5, 1999, Respondent, through his counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. In that action, Respondent sought the issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the School Board to cease the 90-day district-level remediation program and restraining the School Board from treating Respondent as a PSC teacher. Respondent argued that, as a CC teacher under Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, he could only be dismissed for immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Respondent further argued that the 90-day district plan could not be applied to CC teachers. By order dated November 1, 1999, following oral argument on the issue, the Circuit Court denied Respondent’s Petition. On October 6, 1999, Dr. Beers conducted an observation of Respondent’s classroom as part of the district plan. Although Dr. Beers made several commendations in her observation summary, she made even more recommendations for improvement. Based upon her one-hour observation, Dr. Beers felt that Respondent had not demonstrated his competence as a teacher because she saw very little instructional time used during that one-hour period. Specifically, Respondent engaged the students in actual instruction for only ten minutes of the one-hour period. She also noted that Respondent was inconsistent in his meting out of discipline and was not very aware of what the students were doing (which was referred to as lacking “with-it- ness”). Dr. Beers wrote up a summary of her observation in narrative form, and included commendations as well as recommendations for improvement. From those recommendations, Ms. Harris determined that Respondent had still not made any progress toward remediating his teaching deficiencies. Ms. Harris observed Respondent’s class on October 12, 1999, and prepared a narrative summary. Respondent’s classroom performance at that time was consistent with previous observations. Ms. Harris did not note any improvement. On October 15, 1999, Ms. Harris prepared an evaluation for Respondent, rating his performance as being unsatisfactory. The unsatisfactory evaluation was based on Respondent’s failure to remediate any of the previously noted six areas of concern and his lack of effort in that regard. Ms. Harris also notified Superintendent Kowal that, although Respondent was provided 90 days of assistance, his performance deficiencies had not been corrected to a sufficient degree to warrant a satisfactory evaluation. Dr. Kowal in turn notified Respondent that she would recommend to the School Board Respondent’s dismissal effective 15 days from the November 4, 1999, School Board meeting. At the end of the 1996-97 school year, Respondent erroneously recorded that all but one student in a class had failed the final examination. The incorrect grades appeared on the final report cards for the 1996-97 school year. On September 17, 1997, a pre-disciplinary hearing was held to determine whether further action should be taken. At that pre- disciplinary hearing, it was established that the failing grades were the result of Respondent's record-keeping errors and that no further action would be taken against him after Respondent changed the erroneous grades. Respondent repeatedly failed to maintain adequate records of grades, made errors in reporting grades, and misplaced students' work. Count II alleged that Respondent refused to submit the end-of-year checklist prior to summer break for the 1998/99 school year. The evidence failed to establish that allegation. Count II also alleged that Respondent falsified a disciplinary referral by indicating on the referral record that he had spoken to the student's parent when, in fact, he had not done so. Respondent admitted that he had not spoken directly with the parent, but he testified, credibly, that he had left a message on the parent's answering machine and did not intend to mislead anyone by the referral record. Count II alleged that Respondent meted out inappropriate, unwarranted, and unequal punishment to students, and that he used grades and denial of make-up work opportunities as methods of punishment. Respondent meted out inappropriate, unwarranted, and unequal punishment to students. Petitioner did not establish that Respondent used grades and denial of make-up work opportunities as methods of punishment. As alleged in Count III, Petitioner established that Respondent was guilty of insubordination by his continuing failure to provide Ms. Harris with lesson plans and with a discipline plan. In explaining to the arbitrator who heard one of his grievances, Respondent testified that he did not do a discipline because he did not do "diddly" tasks. The remaining allegations of insubordination or willful neglect of duty set forth in Count III were not established by Petitioner. Petitioner established that each observation of Respondent's performance at issue in this proceeding was pursuant to and consistent with its established evaluation process. Each person who formally observed Respondent's classroom performance was appropriately trained and objectively reported their observations, which were factually based. Petitioner further established that each performance evaluation at issue in this proceeding was pursuant to and consistent with its established evaluation process. The various findings of unsatisfactory performance were justified by documented observations as required by the evaluation process. The 90-day district plan provided Respondent with appropriate assistance to help him correct his teaching deficiencies. Petitioner clearly established that Respondent repeatedly resisted efforts to help him. Respondent failed to remediate his deficiencies. This failure should be attributed more to a negative attitude than a lack of ability. At the March 29, 2000, School Board meeting, the Superintendent of Schools submitted a written recommendation that Respondent be dismissed from his CC teaching position with the School District at the end of the 1999-2000 school year, effective May 31, 2000. Respondent and his attorney were given an opportunity to be heard regarding the Superintendent’s recommendation. The School Board voted in favor of the Superintendent's recommendation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent’s continuing contract of employment effective at the end of the 1999-2000 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's preliminary decision to negotiate a contract with Intervenor to provide construction manager at risk services for renovations at two elementary schools is contrary to statutes, rules, policies, or the request for qualifications, in violation of Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Respondent Martin County School Board ("Respondent" or "the School Board") operates the public school system established in Martin County, Florida, pursuant to Section 1001.30, Florida Statutes. In 2002, the School Board began using "construction managers at risk" ("CMR") who bid to negotiate contracts for construction projects. If contract negotiations are successful, the CMR assumes the responsibility for scheduling and coordination in pre-construction planning and during construction, including soliciting bids from subcontractors. The CMR is responsible for the successful, timely, and economical completion of a project. See § 255.103, Fla. Stat. In May 2009, the School Board hired a Director of Facilities who proposed new ranking criteria for CMR services. The School Board approved the criteria at its meeting on July 28, 2009. On October 1, 2009, the School Board issued Request for Qualifications No. 080351-0-2009 (“the RFQ”), for CMR services for renovations to some of the buildings at two public elementary schools, Pinewood and Crystal Lake. The scope of the renovations included approximately 60,000 square feet at Pinewood with an estimated construction cost of $2,975,000, and 80,000 square feet at Crystal Lake with an estimated construction cost of $3,725,000. Twelve firms, including Urban Building Systems, Inc., ("Petitioner" or "Urban") and Pirtle Construction Company, Inc., ("Intervenor" or "Pirtle") submitted timely responses to the RFQ. The RFQ included “Instructions to Proposers” which, in relevant part, described the process as follows: The process is outlined in School Board Rule 6330. School Board rules are available on- line at www.sbmc.org/schoolboard/board- rules.php. Step 1 - SHORT LISTING. Following receipt of the proposals, the District’s Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) shall meet to review and analyze the proposals for the purpose of reducing the number of applicants qualifying for interviews with the PSAC to no more than six (6). The PSAC shall be comprised of one (1) administrator from the Facilities Department, one (1) administrator from the Finance Department, one (1) administrator from the Operations Department, one (1) member designated by the Superintendent, one Board member and one (1) representative from the community. The Director of Facilities will serve as chairperson. If the District receives six (6) or fewer proposals, all applicants will be granted interviews with the PSAC. The following criteria and point values will be used by the PSAC to determine eligibility for interview: Letter of Interest (office address on letterhead to help determine “location” points) Professional Qualification Statement (PQS) Points 0 0 Minority Business Certification 0-5 4.. Company History and Structure – documenting capabilities and past record of performance 1-5 Location 1-5 Previous Work for MCSD 1-5 Letter of Intent from a surety company indicating the applicant’s bond ability for this project. The surety shall acknowledge that the firm may be bonded for each phase of 10 the project, with a potential maximum construction cost of $8,646,860. The surety company must be licensed to do business in Florida and must have a Best Rating of “A”. Qualification and Experience of Personnel – documenting capabilities, ability and adequacy of personnel 1-10 Current Work Load 1-10 Related projects similar in scope or amount completed by the applicant, with particular emphasis on school projects. 1-10 Project Management Systems 1-10 Scheduling Systems 1-10 Cost Control Systems 1-10 Litigation, major disputes, contract defaults and liens in the last five years. Note: see criteria score sheets attached: Exhibit B – Short List for Interviews Exhibit C – Recommended Rank Order Up to six (6) firms with the highest ratings will be interviewed by the PSAC. Step 2 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE. The PSAC will reduce the number of qualified applicants to three, and submit a recommended order of preference of these applicants to the Superintendent and School Board. The PSAC’s recommended order of preference is advisory only, and is not binding on the School Board. The PSAC shall apply the following criteria and point values to determine a number rating and recommended rank order: Proposed Minority Business Involvement in Project 0-5 Progressive use of technology 0-5 Volume of work previously awarded to each firm by the district with the object of effecting am (sic) equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms 0-5 Recent, current and projected workloads 0-5 Past Record and Performance 0-5 Experience with and Plans to promote local subcontractor participation 0-5 Participation in, and promotion of, post-secondary vocational programs 0-5 Warranty Services 0-5 Project approach and methods – Understanding of Project 0-10 Project Schedule and Scheduling tools – Applicants willingness to meet time requirements 0-10 Cost Control & Value Engineering Techniques – Applicants willingness to meet budget requirements 0-10 Quality Control Techniques 0-10 Safety Program 0-10 Ability of Professional Personnel Applicants will be allowed a total of 45 minutes for the interview with the PSAC. 0-10 Suggested: 20 minutes for presentation 15 minutes for questions 10 minutes for closing comments Step 3 – PRESENTATIONS. The School Board may, in its sole discretion, invite one or more of the three finalists to interview with the School Board prior to the final ranking by the School Board. Step 4 – FINAL RANKING. The School Board will evaluate qualifications of the three finalists, which evaluation shall include consideration of the written materials submitted by the applicants, performance data on file with the District, written materials submitted by other firms or individuals, and the recommendation of the PSAC. Although the Board shall consider the recommendation of the PSAC, such recommendation shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board retains the authority to re-rank the three finalists. At the conclusion of its evaluation, the Board shall adopt an order of preference for the three finalists it deems the most highly qualified to perform the required services. In addition to the criteria set forth in the RFQ, School Board Rule 6330 IV.A. required the Professional Services Advisory Committee ("PSAC") to "evaluate . . . performance data on file." That evaluation was not done because the School Board failed to maintain any performance data. There is no evidence that scoring and ranking was affected by the lack of performance data. The ("PSAC") met on November 12, 2009, for the “Short Listing” and decided to invite six firms, with the highest number of points, to make presentations to the PSAC. The firms and their corresponding Step 1 points were as follows: Firm Step 1 Points 1. Morganti 543 2. Pirtle 541 3. Suffolk 531 4. Urban 526 5. Klewin 510 6. Weitz 510 When the PSAC met on November 23, 2009, to reduce the number of qualified applicants to three and to determine the order of preference, the rankings were as follows: Firm Step 2 Points 1. Pirtle 436 2. Klewin 424 3. Urban 424 4. Morganti 423 5. Suffolk 421 6. Weitz 400 The PSAC meeting on November 12, 2009, was not advertised as a public meeting in violation of the "Sunshine Law." The three highest ranking firms from Step 2, Pirtle, Klewin and Urban, made their presentations at a workshop on December 15, 2009, to the following School Board members: Lorie Shekailo, Chair; Susan Hershey, Vice Chair; David L. Anderson; Maura Barry-Sorenson; and Laurie Gaylord. After the workshop, the School Board convened a regularly scheduled meeting on the same evening, and voted to rank Pirtle first, Urban second, and Klewin third. Pirtle was ranked number one by four School Board Members, Ms. Shekailo, Ms. Hershey, Dr. Anderson, and Ms. Gaylord. Urban was ranked number one by one member, Ms. Barry-Sorenson. On February 11, 2010, Urban filed a Notice of Protest and, on February 19, 2010, a Formal Protest of the School Board’s intent to negotiate a contract with Pirtle. After the School Board and Urban were unable to resolve the issues informally, Urban filed an Amended Protest on March 2, 2010. Step 1 - Short Listing In Step 1, Urban challenged the points awarded for minority business certification, location, and letters of intent for bonding ability. Urban also challenged the fact that firms that had done the most work for the School Board were favored with higher scores in Step 1 in apparent conflict with the statutes, rules, and policies that promote an equitable distribution of work. There was no disagreement that Urban is a certified minority business enterprise ("MBE"), and that Pirtle is not. The RFQ criterion for Step 1 is "minority business certification" with "0-5" points available. Urban urges that scores should be either 0 or 5 points, because a firm either is or is not an MBE. To meet the MBE procurement goal of Section 287.042, Florida Statutes, the RFQ authorized that use of the CMR format in effect on March 1, 2005, but the PSAC used the format developed in 2009. When it met, the PSAC members used guidelines allowing it to award 5 points to a certified minority business, and to award 3 to 4 points if the business had a minority partner. As a result, each of the six members of the PSAC gave Urban 5 points and gave Pirtle 3 points. If Urban is correct, then its score for Step 1 would have remained 526, but Pirtle's would have been 541 minus 18 or 523. Because all other firms, except Urban and West,2 including all of those selected in Step 1, would have had the same 18-point reduction in their scores, the firms that moved on to Step 2 would have been the same. Urban's claim that Pirtle would have been eliminated from consideration based on a change in the MBE scoring is not supported by the record.3 Urban's interpretation of the MBE scoring is not supported by other provisions of the RFQ and is contradicted by its claim to be entitled to additional points for its bonding ability. The letter of intent for bonding ability at a specific amount from an A-rated surety is also something that a firm either does or does not have, but there is no choice or range of points available for that criterion. The RFQ provides for 10 points if a firm has the letter and there is no range, so without the letter a firm presumably would have gotten no points. Five members of the PSAC gave both Pirtle and Urban 10 points for having the letters of intent from an A-rated surety company indicating the applicant's bonding ability. One person gave Pirtle 10 points but gave Urban 5 points. Assuming, as previously noted, that the criterion called for either no points or 10 points, then Urban would have finished Step 1 with 5 additional points, or a total of 531, tied with Suffolk for third place.4 The criterion for location, which offered a range of 1-5 points in the RFQ, was more specifically refined for the PSAC as follows: 5 points for a Martin County business; 4 points for the Tri-County area; 3 points for Dade, Broward, Orlando, etc. Every member of the PSAC gave Urban, headquartered in Palm City, Martin County, 5 points. Pirtle, headquartered in Palm Beach County, received five scores of 4s and one 3. Urban's claim that Pirtle is located in Broward County and had only recently opened an office in Palm Beach County is not supported by the evidence. Pirtle recently moved from one office in Palm Beach County to another office that is also in Palm Beach County. Pirtle was entitled to an additional point for location from one PSAC member. Step 2 - PSAC In Step 2, the PSAC narrowed the list to 3 firms. Urban argued that scores from Step 1 should have been carried over to Step 2. That position is not supported by the terms of the RFQ, which authorized differences in criteria for Step 2 with no methodology for incorporating Step 1 scores. Urban challenged, in Step 2 (and again in Step 4 below), the scoring for "volume of work previously awarded to each firm by the district with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms." Unlike Step 1 scoring, in Steps 2, 3, and 4, the qualified firms that have done the least work for the School Board should be favored. Since the School Board began using CMR contracts in 2002, there have been three different CMRs for three projects at high schools, three different CMRs for four projects at middle schools, and six different CMRs for six projects at elementary schools. In the PSAC's evaluation of the volume of work previously done, Urban received a score of 5 for having done less work than Pirtle, which received a score of 4. Urban maintained that Pirtle should have received zeros from the five PSAC members and would have been eliminated in Step 2, with a score of 416 instead of 436. At the time of the RFQ review, the School Board had five ongoing CMR contracts with five different firms. Pirtle was one of the five. The Chair of the PSAC explained that under the ranking system, a zero should have been reserved for any firm that had two ongoing or pending CMR contracts. Differentiating between firms with one contract and those with more than one contract, is reasonable. The parties stipulated that from late 2003 or early 2004 through December 15, 2009, Pirtle has been awarded a CMR contract three times for total construction costs of $71,063,746. Urban was awarded one CMR contract for $7,841,814 in construction costs. It is impossible to conclude from total construction costs alone that Pirtle should have been further penalized based on the volume of past and current work. One CMR for Pirtle, to construct Anderson Middle School in 2005, accounted for $33,446,609, or over 47 percent of Pirtle's total CMR projects. Urban has never built a school from start to finish and did not respond to the Anderson RFQ. Pirtle has had a total of seven contracts or amended contracts, as compared to Urban's one. Before the project at issue in this case, Urban and Pirtle had only competed for the same CMR project once, the Pinewood/Seawind RFQ, and Urban was selected. That RFQ provided for "services necessary for the development and phased construction of an additional classroom at Pinewood Elementary, Seawind Elementary and possibly additional classrooms at other elementary schools in the future." The RFQ also advised that "[P]hases may or may not be consecutive. Additional phases may be added by amendment to the CMR pending successful performance and availability of funds." The challenged CMR proposal in this case includes renovations not invited to enter into a contract amendment for this project. Pirtle's seven contracts or amended contracts included four phases of construction at Martin County High under one CMR contract awarded in 2006. The language in the Martin County High School RFQ providing for subsequent phases was identical to that in the Pinewood/Seawind RFQ. Unlike Urban, Pirtle has been the CMR for all phases at Martin County High, including the cafeteria, the music building, and utilities, for total construction costs of $18,502,726, or another 26 percent of Pirtle's total. Urban maintains that each of these, as a matter of law, should be considered separately in assessing the volume of work previously awarded to Pirtle, further reducing its score. Urban also maintains that the School Board uses "phases" in a manner that violates its governing statutes and rules. Urban claimed that "the School Board's definition of project is contrary to statute" because Section "287.055 defines project as a "fixed capital outlay activity", not several fixed capital outlay activities." In fact, the definition in Section 287.055(2)(f), Florida Statutes, is as follows: "Project" means that fixed capital outlay study or planning activity described in the public notice of the state or a state agency under paragraph (3)(a). A project may include: A grouping of minor construction, rehabilitation, or renovation activities. A grouping of substantially similar construction, rehabilitation, or renovation activities. Urban also cited as support for its position the State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF), as incorporated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-2.0010, and School Board Rule 6330. The School Board Rule, with minor variations, tracks the language of Section 287.055(2)(f), Florida Statutes. The SREF definition is as follows: (71) Project. A project can be one or more of the following: Architectural/Engineering Project. Project in which an architect or engineer translates specific educational requirements into drawings and specifications. Construction Project. The process in which a contractor uses plans and specifications to assemble materials, erect a building or structure, or physically modify real property. (Emphasis added.) Based on the language in the statute and rules, and the differences in the past experience of Pirtle and Urban, it is not possible to reach a factual conclusion that the PSAC erred in its consideration of Pirtle's volume of work. Step 3. Presentations The School Board exercised its discretion to invite the three finalists to make presentations. In a letter dated December 7, 2009, Urban was notified that it was one of three finalist and would be given 30 minutes "to address the fourteen items noted in the RFQ and should reflect emphasis to items with the greatest weight." Urban was notified, in a letter dated December 9, 2009, that the time for the presentation had been reduced to twenty minutes and that "[t]he presentation should be structured to briefly address the fourteen items noted in the RFQ with emphasis on your firm's capabilities and project conditions." Rather than "briefly address[ing] the fourteen items" as instructed, Urban spent an inordinate amount of its time having company representatives introduce themselves and giving the details of the phasing of one of the projects. Urban, therefore, was unable to complete its presentation. When given an opportunity during questioning to offer more information, Urban said its warranty was "forever" although its written material mentioned a 12-month walk through. One School Board member described the comment as "flippant." By contrast, when Pirtle's attention was called to its representative's apparently mistaken statement that its warranty was 25 months, although their written material showed 24 months, Pirtle's Vice President quickly said it would stand by the 25- month statement. In response to an inquiry concerning apprenticeships, Urban mentioned hiring students and having had one go on to attend the Rinker School at the University of Florida. By contrast, during its presentation, Pirtle noted that 50 percent of the subcontractors on its last project have apprenticeship programs. The criteria for Step 3, as indicated in the letters to the three presenters, were the 14 items listed in the RFQ. Step 4. Final Ranking Urban alleged that it was prejudiced by the actions of the School Board because Step 2 scores were not carried forward to Steps 3 and 4. Step 2 scores were the basis for the selection of firms competing in Steps 3 and 4. As noted, the School Board members used Step 2 criteria to evaluate the PowerPoint presentations in Step 3 and for final ranking in Step 4. School Board Members differed in how far back they considered "recent" work ranging from "over the years" to two to five years. There is no specific criteria that would dictate a certain period of time. There is no doubt, however, that they were aware of what each firm had done. In their presentations to Respondent, both Petitioner and Intervenor touted their success in performing previous projects for the Respondent and others, and listed the projects. Petitioner listed 11 hard bid projects and one CMR project, emphasizing that it was awarded in 2002. Intervenor listed six projects, both hard bids and CMRs from 1995 through 2005, including Martin County High School. Foremost in the mind of Ms. Barry-Sorenson, who ranked Urban number one, were Urban's MBE certification and that it was a local firm. In addition to these criteria, other School Board Members mentioned the following: business reputation, professionalism, ability to interact with school staff, sophistication of the approach and presentation, explanation and understanding of the project, depth of qualified personnel, in- house technology staff, mention of the Jessica Lundsford Act, or the general thinking that one firm was more qualified than the other. These factors were not improperly considered. School Board Rule 6330 provides, in relevant part, that the School Board may consider the following: E. The evaluation process for professional services shall include, but not be limited to, capabilities; adequacy of personnel; past record; experience . . . Campaign Contributions Pirtle was awarded its first of its three CMR contracts in late 2003 or early 2004, to renovate Hobe Sound Elementary School. Subsequently, Pirtle or its representatives made two $500 contributions in 2004 and two $500 contributions in 2008 to Dr. Anderson; one $500 contribution in 2006 to Ms. Gaylord; two $500 contributions in 2008 to Ms. Hershey. Pirtle also solicited contributions for Dr. Anderson from its subcontractors, but the record does not indicate the amount of contributions received as a result. Pirtle has given no contributions to Ms. Shekailo who, along with Dr. Anderson, Ms. Gaylord, and Ms. Hershey, ranked Pirtle number one, or to Ms. Barry-Sorenson, who ranked Urban number one. Pirtle has also given no contributions to Ms. Barry-Sorrenson who ranked Urban number one. Of the last five CMR projects prior to this one, Dr. Anderson ranked five different firms number one, including Pirtle and Urban once each. On the same projects, Ms. Gaylord ranked Pirtle number one twice, and Urban and two other firms number one once. Ms. Hershey and Ms. Shekailo did not rank either Pirtle or Urban number one among competitors for the five CMR projects prior to this one. There is no evidence of a pattern of favoring Pirtle over Urban for reasons other than the criteria established by statutes, rules, policies, and the RFQ.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order rejecting Urban's protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2010.
The Issue Whether the actions taken by the superintendent and staff of the Duval County School Board prior to December 1, 1974, were sufficient to achieve comparability pursuant to the provisions of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Congress amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by Public Law 91-230 instituting a project referred to as the Title I Program. The Respondent, Department of Education, has the responsibility of administering the Title I Program and dispensing federal funds to the various school districts throughout the State of Florida. Petitioner, Duval County School Board, is a large urban school district of some 112,000 students and 10,000 employees. There are 134 schools in the district of which 28 are designated as E.S.E.A. Title I Project Schools. The statute under consideration is 20 U.S.C.A. Sec. 241(e): "(a) A Local educational agency may receive a grant under this sub-chapter for any fiscal year only upon application therefore approved by the appropriate State educational agency, upon its determination (consistent with such basic criteria as the Commissioner may establish) . . . (3) That . . .(c) state and local funds be used in the District of such agencies to provide services in project areas which, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services being provided in areas in such districts which are not receiving funds under this sub-chapter: . . . provided further, That each local educational agency receiving funds under this sub-chapter shall report on or before July 1, 1971 and on or before July 1 of each year thereafter with respect to its compliance with this clause; . . ." The regulation under consideration which was promulgated to implement the statute is Regulation Sec. 116.26, a part of which reads: "(a) A state educational agency shall not approve an application of a local educational agency for a grant under section 141(a) of the Act, or make payments of Title I funds under a previously approved application of such agency, unless that local educational agency has demonstrated, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, that services provided with State and local funds in title I project areas are at least comparable to the services being provided with State and local funds in school serving attendance areas not designated as Title I project areas. Such approval shall not be given unless the local educational agency also provides the assurances and the additional information required' by paragraph (e) of this section with respect to the maintenance of comparability. For the purpose of this section, State and local funds include those funds used in the determination of fiscal effort in accordance with Section 116.45." 116.26(c) "If any school serving a Title I Project Area is determined not to be comparable under this paragraph, no further payments of Title I funds shall be made to the local educational agency until that agency has taken the action required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section to overcome such lack of comparability." Regulation Sec. 116.26(k)(1) in part reads: "that such local educational agency has allocated or reallocated sufficient additional resources to Title I Project Areas so as to come into compliance with such requirements and has filed a revised comparability report reflecting such compliance." Petitioner, Duval County School Board, has been the recipient of Title I funds on a year to year basis since 1965, but was deemed by the Respondent to be in violation of the federal requirements from December 1, 1974 through January 2, 1975 for the reason that Petitioner had not "achieved comparability" for that period of time. Funds withheld from Petitioner, in excess of $325,000 are involved in this hearing. The following sequence of events are pertinent: On or about July 1, 1974, the Duval County application for Fiscal Year 1974 was filed and approved based on the assurance that comparability existed in Duval County and would be maintained throughout the 1974-75 school year. On or about September 27, 1974, the Respondent advised local school districts that October 1, 1974 was the date for collecting the data on which the comparability report for Fiscal Year 1975 would be based. On October 7 and 8, 1974, and again on November 7 and 8, 1974, conferences and meetings were held with representatives of various school boards, including those of the Petitioner. The purpose of these meetings and conferences was to inform these school boards concerning the requirements of achieving and maintaining comparability. On November 20, 1974, in a memorandum from Woodrow J. Darden marked "URGENT" the Respondent advised all Superintendents, the Finance Officers and Title I Coordinators that the comparability reports were due on or before December 1, 1974. A part of said memorandum stated: "If the comparability report submitted by your district did not meet the measures to determine comparability as outlined in the Federal Regulations, administrative or Board action for the purpose of reallocating resources should be taken on or before December 1, 1974, to bring the schools into compliance." The date of December 1, 1974 is established by Regulation 116.26(b)(7). On November 26 and 27, 1974, the Superintendent authorized a reallocation of instructional staff and authorized budgetary transfers to bring Petitioner up to the required level of comparability. On December 1, 1974, Petitioner filed its report. On December 17, 1974, the Director, Special Projects, received a copy from Department of Education of a MAILGRAM from Robert R. Wheeler, Acting Deputy Commissioner for School Systems, United States Office of Education to Honorable Ralph Turlington, stating: "this is to remind you that your agency is required under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act not to make any further payments as of December 1 to any local educational agency that has not as of that date complied with the comparability requirements in 45 CFR 116.26 and to notify each such agency not to obligate any Title I funds after that date. Compliance with this requirement is subject to Federal Audit. Your continued cooperation is appreciated." By a letter dated December 18, 1974, the Respondent notified Petitioner funds were being withheld for the period of December 1 through December 16, 1974. An audit was conducted by Petitioner following the withholding of funds of December 18, 1974, and this audit revealed that comparability had still not been achieved. A revised report dated December 27, 1974 indicated that additional personnel still were needed to meet comparability requirements. Pursuant thereto additional personnel reported to work on or about January 2, 1975. By a letter dated January 16, 1975, the Respondent rescinded the prior authorization that had permitted the resumption of the use of Title I funds as of December 16, 1974 and extended the period of withholding of Title I funds through January 1, 1975. Following the notification to Petitioner that the funds were being withheld, the Petitioner requested a hearing in order to appeal the withholding of the Title I funds for the period of December 1, 1974 through December 16, 1974. This request for a hearing was later amended to include the period of time from December 15, 1975 through January 1, 1975. Petitioner contends: That it complied with the requirements of the subject statute and regulation when it unconditionally committed itself on November 26, 1974 to the employment of necessary personnel by the establishment and budgeting of all necessary positions and direction that such positions be filled. Petitioner further contends that good faith on its part and substantial compliance is all that the statute and regulation require. Respondent contends: That the subject statute and regulation require that compliance with the comparability requirements is a continuing state of being and must be maintained throughout the year. Respondent further contends that the Federal statute and regulation require not only that the positions be budgeted and directions be given to employ but that the positions be actually filled and the personnel on the job on or before the filing of the report required by Regulation 116.26(b)(7). The Hearing Officer further finds: That both Petitioner and Respondent have demonstrated a dedication and concern for the schools within their respective jurisdictions; That both Petitioner and Respondent have been diligent in trying to act within the provisions of the subject statute and regulations; That the personnel of both the Petitioner and Respondent are familiar with the requirements of the statute and regulation but the federal requirements are subject to different interpretations by reasonable persons. There was no meeting of the minds of the parties from the federal, state and local governmental units as to the required method of compliance with the laws.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and the competent substantial evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Petitioner, Broward County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools in Broward County pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed by the District as a physical education teacher since 2004. His last teaching assignment was as a physical education teacher at Crystal Lakes Middle School in Pompano Beach, Florida. Administrative Charges The alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding occurred on or about May 18, 2018. The Administrative Complaint alleges that on that day, Respondent did not fully cover his early morning duty in the school cafeteria, did not fully attend his assigned homeroom, and did not attend his first period class, thereby leaving his students unsupervised for part of those periods; and reported to work under the influence of controlled substances——specifically, alcohol and cocaine. As a result of this alleged conduct, Petitioner has charged Respondent, in the Administrative Complaint, with violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), (3), (4), and (5), and specified provisions of school board policies 2400, 4008, and 4.9, discussed in greater detail below. Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding On the morning of May 18, 2018, Respondent reported to work under the influence of alcohol and cocaine, both of which are defined as "controlled substances" by school board policy. As a result, Respondent did not fully cover his early morning cafeteria duty, did not fully attend his assigned homeroom, and did not attend his first period class. A fellow physical education teacher, Cindi Ancona, was forced to cover Respondent's first period class. During the portions of the periods in which Respondent was not present in his classroom and in which Ancona was not covering his class, his students were left unsupervised. Ancona saw Respondent at the beginning of second period. When she questioned Respondent regarding his whereabouts during first period, she noticed that he appeared confused and off— balance and that his eyes were glassy, so she sent a text message to Sabine Phillips, the Principal at Crystal Lake Middle School, regarding Respondent's demeanor and appearance. Phillips and Assistant Principal Ben Reeves responded to Ancona's text message. Reeves entered the boys' locker room and found Respondent lying down in his office outside of the locker room. Phillips then entered the locker room and told Respondent that he needed to go to the office with her and Reeves. In the course of questioning Respondent about where he had been during his first period class, Phillips surmised, and informed Respondent that she had reasonable suspicion, that he was under the influence of controlled substances. Phillips contacted the District's Special Investigative Unit to request that Respondent be subjected to testing to determine whether he was under the influence of controlled substances. Phillips followed the designated procedures, which entailed completing and transmitting a completed Incident Report Form to the designated District personnel. The Risk Management Department determined that the requested testing was warranted and transmitted an Anti—Drug Program Passport to Phillips, who delivered it to Respondent. The Anti—Drug Passport informed Respondent that he would be subjected to controlled substances testing, and that the testing would be performed at Crystal Lakes Middle School. Respondent consented to the drug and alcohol testing. The Risk Management Department sent an employee health testing collector to Crystal Lake Middle School, where she conducted a breath alcohol and urine test on Respondent. The breath alcohol testing indicated that Respondent had blood alcohol levels of .101 and .095, both of which exceed the blood alcohol level of .04 that Petitioner has adopted as the threshold for being under the influence of alcohol. Petitioner's third—party contractor confirmed that Respondent had a blood alcohol level of .095 at the time he was tested. Julianne Gilmore, an environmental health testing specialist with the District's Risk Management Department, contacted Phillips and Respondent, notifying them both that Respondent was being placed on Administrative Reassignment and was to remain at home——i.e., not report to work——pending the result of the drug testing. This informal contact was followed by a letter dated May 21, 2018, confirming that Respondent had been placed on Administrative Reassignment and directing him to stay home pending further notice.1/ Gilmore also advised Respondent of the availability of the District's Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"), participation in which was not mandatory.2/ The results of Respondent's drug test were received by the Risk Management Department on or about June 1, 2018. Respondent tested positive for cocaine. Respondent does not dispute that he was under the influence of alcohol and cocaine while at school on May 18, 2018, and also does not dispute accuracy of the results of the blood alcohol and drug tests. Upon receiving the results of Respondent's drug test, it was determined3/ that Respondent's employment with the District should be terminated, notwithstanding that the next step in sequential progressive disciplinary process ordinarily would be suspension. A significant consideration in this decision was that Respondent had left his students unsupervised, placing their safety at risk. No evidence was presented that the students in Respondent's class were actually physically or psychologically injured or harmed as a result of Respondent being absent from his classroom on May 18, 2018. Prior Discipline Petitioner has a policy (Policy 4.9, discussed below) of imposing discipline in a progressive manner, which means that discipline typically is imposed in sequential steps in order to afford the employee the opportunity to correct his/her conduct and performance before he/she is suspended or terminated. The progressive discipline policy authorizes sequential disciplinary steps to be skipped for sufficiently severe misconduct. Petitioner previously has disciplined Respondent. On April 21, 2016, Petitioner issued a Summary of Conference memo, memorializing a conference in which Respondent was verbally admonished for having briefly left the students in his class unattended while he took an injured student to the physical education office to tend to his injury, during which time some of the students physically assaulted other students in the class. On February 10, 2017, Petitioner issued a Verbal Reprimand to Respondent, reprimanding him for being tardy to, and absent from, work without following the proper protocol for entering an absence. On December 1, 2017, Petitioner issued a Written Reprimand to Respondent, reprimanding him for continuing to be tardy to, and absent from, work without following the proper protocol for entering an absence. On February 14, 2018, Petitioner issued another Written Reprimand to Respondent, reprimanding him for consistently failing to follow absence/tardy—reporting procedures, resulting in his students being left unsupervised. He was informed that if he again failed to adhere to the appropriate procedure, he would be subject to further discipline, including possible termination of his employment. Other Key Considerations in this Proceeding Respondent was forthright in admitting that he suffers from a substance abuse problem. In 2016, Respondent sought help for his substance abuse issue through the District's EAP program at Phillips' suggestion, but did not complete the program——in part because he did not find its methods helpful in dealing with his problem, and in part because he believed that he could overcome his problem on his own as he always had done in his life. Respondent has come to realize that he cannot overcome his substance abuse problem on his own and that there is no shame in asking others for help in dealing with his problem. To that end, Respondent participated in, and has completed, the Evolution substance abuse program, which consisted of counseling sessions three to four days a week, for a three—to— four—month period, and attending therapy classes and meetings each week. As a condition of participation in Evolution, Respondent was subject to random substance abuse testing. He did not test positive for alcohol or drug use during his participation in the program. The spiritual counseling and substance abuse trigger counseling that Respondent received in the Evolution program have resonated with him and have helped him successfully address his substance abuse problem.4/ In order to avoid backsliding, Respondent remains in weekly contact with one of his therapists at Evolution, and attends meetings three to four times a week, to place himself in an environment that enables and fosters his success in fighting his substance abuse problem. Since commencing Evolution, Respondent has not engaged in alcohol or drug use. Respondent expressed remorse at his behavior and poor judgment at having reported to work under the influence of controlled substances on May 18, 2018. He testified that he did so because he previously had been reprimanded for being absent, and was concerned about missing more school. He recognized that his choice to go to school in that condition was "bad thinking at the time." Respondent credibly testified that he greatly enjoys teaching and that he chose teaching as a career because he loves working with kids, relates well to them, and believes he can help them. His colleague, Tyrell Dozier, testified that Respondent gets along well with his students and is a caring, effective teacher. Findings of Ultimate Fact As noted above, the Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having violated State Department of Education rules and specified school board policies. Specifically, Petitioner has charged Respondent, pursuant to rule 6A—5.056, with misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duty. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with violating school board policies 2400(1) and (3); 4008 B.1., 3., and 8. and certain provisions of Policy 4.9. Whether the charged offenses constitute violations of the applicable rules and policies is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each alleged violation. Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1985)(whether there was a deviation from the standard of conduct is not a conclusion of law, but instead is an ultimate fact); McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether a particular action constitutes a violation of a statute, rule, or policy is a factual question); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether the conduct, as found, constitutes a violation of statutes, rules, and policies is a question of ultimate fact). Based on the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent violated some, but not all, of the rules and school board policies charged in the Administrative Complaint. By engaging in the conduct addressed above, Respondent committed misconduct in office under rule 6A—5.056(2), which includes violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A— 10.081(2)(a), by having left his students unsupervised. By engaging in the conduct addressed above, Respondent engaged in conduct constituting incompetency under rule 6A—5.056(3). By engaging in the conduct addressed above, Respondent engaged in conduct constituting gross insubordination under rule 6A—5.056(4). By engaging in the conduct discussed above, Respondent engaged in conduct constituting willful neglect of duty under rule 6A—5.056(5). Respondent violated Policy 2400(1) by reporting to work while under the influence of controlled substances. However, no evidence was presented that Respondent was in possession of, or used, a controlled substance while on school board property or at a school—sponsored activity. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent consumed alcohol and used cocaine in a social setting the night before he reported to school on May 18, 2018. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that Respondent violated Policy 2400(3), as charged in the Administrative Complaint. Policy 4008, subsections (B)1. and 8., requires school board employees to comply with State Board of Education rules and school board policies. As discussed above, the evidence shows that Respondent violated rule 6A—5.056(2), (3), (4), and (5), and rule 6A—10.081(2)(a). In violating these rules, Respondent violated Policy 4008, subsections (B)1. and 8. However, the evidence does not establish that Respondent violated Policy 4008B, subsection 3., as charged in the Administrative Complaint. This policy imposes on instructional personnel the duty to "Infuse in the classroom, the District's adopted Character Education Traits of Respect, Honesty, Kindness, Self—control, Tolerance, Cooperation, Responsibility and Citizenship." While Respondent's conduct in reporting to school under the influence of controlled substances on May 18, 2018, may not have constituted self—control or respect for his duties as a teacher on that specific day, no evidence was presented regarding Respondent's behavior in the classroom—— whether on that day or on any other day. To the contrary, as discussed above, the evidence established that Respondent is a caring and effective teacher in dealing with his students. Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent did not violate Policy 4008, subsection B.3. The evidence establishes that Respondent violated Policy 4008(C), which requires instructional personnel to be on duty for a minimum of 7.5 hours on an instructional day. However, the evidence does not establish that Respondent violated the provision in Policy 4008, "Miscellaneous" section, which states that "all members of the instructional staff shall be expected to teach a full schedule of classes, unless prior approval from the area superintendent or superintendent is obtained." Policy 4008 establishes the overarching responsibilities and duties of Principals and instructional personnel in the context of performing their employment contracts. In this context, the "full schedule of classes" provision refers to a teacher's instructional schedule assignment for the school year rather than a specific per—hour requirement. In fact, to read this provision as urged in the Administrative Complaint would render it redundant to the statement (also in the "Miscellaneous" section) that "instructional personnel must be on duty a minimum of seven and one—half hours (7 1/2) hours daily. The Administrative Complaint also charges Respondent with having violated the District's progressive discipline policy, Policy 4.9. As more fully discussed below, it is found that Respondent that did not violate this policy. Based on the foregoing, it is found, as an ultimate fact, that although Respondent violated the rule and many of the school board policies charged in the Administrative Complaint, under the progressive discipline policy set forth in Policy 4.9, the appropriate penalty that should be imposed on Respondent in this case is suspension without pay for the entire period during which he has been reassigned from the classroom. Additionally, Respondent should be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing, at his personal expense, as a condition of his continued employment by Petitioner.5/ This penalty is appropriate based on the fact that Respondent has not previously been subject to suspension without pay under the progressive discipline policy, and takes into account several relevant considerations: specifically, that Respondent has a substance abuse problem for which he actively sought——and finally has been able to obtain——real, effective help in overcoming; that he has an approximately 14—year employment history with Petitioner that only, in the last two years, entailed discipline as the result of conduct that was caused by his substance abuse problem; that he is remorseful, understands that he made poor choices, and has obtained the counseling and therapy he needs in order to correct his performance problems through overcoming his substance abuse problem; that he is a caring and effective teacher who loves children and enjoys his teaching job; and, importantly, that no students were injured or otherwise harmed by Respondent's conduct on May 18, 2018. This penalty also is sufficiently severe to deter Respondent from committing future violations of rules and school board policies, and sends the message that this is truly his last chance.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Douglas G. Griffin, Esquire Broward County School Board Office of the General Counsel 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 For Respondent: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County School Board, enter a final order suspending Respondent from his teaching position without pay commencing on the date on which he was reassigned from the classroom; reinstating Respondent to his teaching position; and requiring Respondent to submit to random drug and alcohol testing, at his personal expense, as a condition of his continued employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 July, 2018.
