The Issue As set forth by the parties in the Prehearing Stipulation and in their proposed recommended orders, the issue in this case is whether the bid submitted by Pass International, Inc., on the Booker T. Washington Middle School Project No. A-0557 is responsive with respect to compliance with the Minority/Women Business Enterprise Assistance Levels subcontracting requirement contained in the Invitation to Bid.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, on the contents of the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the School Board was a duly-constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX of the Florida Constitution and to Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Acestarz, Inc., was organized as a Florida for-profit corporation on September 2, 1997. Joseph Akoni, an African American male, owns 100 percent of the stock of Acestarz and acts as its president. In an agreement executed April 19, 1998, Joseph Robert Mijares, a Hispanic, agreed to act as Acestarz' qualifying agent and to apply for Acestarz's certification of authority as a general contractor. At the time, Mr. Mijares was an employee of Pass, and he acted as project manager on a number of Pass construction projects, both large and small. Mr. Mijares notified Pass of his agreement with Acestarz a few days after it was executed. Mr. Mijares held a state general contractor's certification. As qualifying agent, Mr. Mijares submitted the application for certification for Acestarz to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, on April 23, 1998. A Temporary Authorization License was issued to Mr. Mijares on August 5, 1998, which authorized Acestarz to practice contracting through Mr. Mijares as its qualifying agent pending the processing and receipt of the permanent certification. By its terms, the temporary license was to expire on October 5, 1998. On or about June 1, 1998, Acestarz submitted a Certification Application to the School Board requesting certification as an African American M/WBE. In a letter dated June 1, 1998, Patricia Freeman, Director of the Division of Business Development and Assistance, notified Mr. Akoni that the application had been received. In the letter, Ms. Freeman stated: In the interim [while the application is pending], you may bid as a prime, or subcontractor, on future Dade County Public Schools contracting opportunities, set aside for, or requiring M/WBE participation. Should you be deemed the apparent low bidder or a subcontractor thereto, your application will be processed before contract award. Prime contractors who utilize subcontractors that are pending, but subsequently are deemed ineligible for certification, will be allowed to make a substitution, within the same racial or gender category as the firm being substituted. The School Board's BTW project is a competitive design- build project involving the conversion of Booker T. Washington Middle School into a high school. In order to submit a bid on the BTW project, prospective bidders were required to submit pre-qualification proposals for evaluation in August 1997. Pass and Danville-Findorff, among others, submitted pre-qualification proposals. After the School Board administrative staff evaluated the proposals, three firms, including Pass and Danville-Findorff, were pre-qualified to bid on the BTW project. On or about June 9, 1998, the School Board issued an Invitation to Bid on the BTW project. The bid specifications instructed the bidders to submit a lump-sum bid for all design and construction services required to complete the BTW project. The bid specifications further provided that the bids were to be submitted on or before July 28, 1998, and that, thereafter, the bids would be opened, read, and tabulated. According to the bid specifications, the "[a]ward of the contract will be made to the lowest responsible bidder for the actual amount bid." The time for submitting bids was extended to August 4, 1998. Included as part of the Invitation to Bid on the BTW project is a Special Provision for Compliance with M/WBE Subcontracting Assistance Levels Participation ("Special Provision"). The purpose of the Special Provision is to "ensure that Minority/Women Business Enterprises are afforded maximum opportunity to participate in School Board work." Section II.A., Special Provision. An M/WBE is defined in Section I.A.12. of the Special Provision as follows: Any legal entity which is organized to engage in commercial transactions and which is at least fifty-one (51) percent owned and controlled by minority persons. Minority person means a person who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States and who is: An African American, a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa; An Hispanic, a person of Spanish or Portuguese culture, including, but not limited to persons with origins in Mexico, South America [sic] Central America, or the Caribbean Islands, regardless of race; A Woman. Pursuant to the Special Provision, M/WBE assistance levels for one or more minorities are to be specified for all School Board projects. The assistance level for African American M/WBEs was established at eight percent of the total price bid on the BTW project. Section III.A. of the Special Provision provides in pertinent part: SUBMITTALS As a condition of responsiveness, all bid submittals shall contain the documents and information required below. . . . Sealed bids must contain a completed FORM FM 4828, BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND SUBCONTRACTORS/ CONSULTANT LIST, stipulating the name, and price for each Subcontractor, including the M/WBE category for those listed to meet the M/WBE subcontracting Assistance Level requirements. Letters of Intent (Attachment C-FM 4829) for listed M/WBEs used to meet the M/WBE subcontracting Assistance Levels must be presented by the apparent low bidder, to the Department of Contract Management, . . . within two (2) days (by no later than 2:00 p.m.) after the date, and time and location specified in the LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT AND THE INSTRUCTIONS COVERING OPENING OF BIDS. Letters of Intent prices must not be less than the amount listed on Form FM 4828, Breakdown of Project Cost and M/WBE Subcontractor/Consultant List. Letters of Intent for M/WBEs not listed on FM-4828, will not be considered in determining Compliance, unless the listed M/WBE becomes Unavailable. M/WBE Certification Applications (FM-3920) must accompany the Letters of Intent for all M/WBEs utilized to meet the Assistance Levels who are not certified nor pending certification as M/WBE's [sic] Dade County Public Schools at the time of bid submission. All bids, will be publicly opened, read, and tabulated in the School Board Auditorium, or other designated area, Dade County School Board Administration Building, by an authorized representative of the School Board. The submittal of the apparent low bidder being considered for award will be presented to the Division of Business Development and Assistance for an M/WBE subcontracting Compliance Review, in accordance with Section IV. of the SPECIAL PROVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH M/WBE SUBCONTRACTING ASSISTANCE LEVELS PARTICIPATION. If the apparent low Bidder is found to be nonresponsive or in Noncompliance, the Department of Contract Management shall notify the second low bidder . . . . Failure to submit the completed Form FM 4828 submittals at the bid opening may result in the bid being found nonresponsive. Both Pass and Danville-Findorff submitted sealed bids for the BTW project on August 4, 1998. The bid packages were opened on August 5, 1998. Pass had submitted the lowest lump-sum bid at $13,900,000, and Danville-Findorff had submitted the second lowest bid at $13,979,000. Pass submitted a Form FM 4828 with its bid in which it identified Acestarz and Manny & Lou as the M/WBEs that Pass intended to use to meet the eight-percent African American subcontracting assistance level. The listings on the Form FM 4828 submitted by Pass indicated that Acestarz would perform work in categories 9.01 through 9.06 for a price of $500,000 and that Manny & Lou would perform work in category 15.04 for a price of $700,000. Without Acestarz' $500,000 proposal, Pass's bid would not meet the eight-percent African American M/WBE assistance level. Section III.B.4. of the Special Provision provides as follows: The listing of a M/WBE Subcontractor [on Form FM 4828] by the Bidder shall constitute a representation by the Bidder that the listed Subcontractor is available and qualified, and a commitment by the Bidder that if it is awarded the contract, it will enter into a subcontract with the Subcontractor for the type of work, at a minimum of the price set forth in its submission. "Qualified" is defined in Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision as follows: A subcontractor is potentially Qualified to do specific work if at a minimum it meets all of the following criteria: It has or is able to obtain any and all bonds, insurance and licenses required to do such work and was duly informed by the Bidder that a bond, insurance or license was required and said Subcontractor included the cost associated with same in the bid quotation; It has the necessary experience, financial ability, organization, technical qualifications, skill and facilities to do such work; It is able to reasonably comply with the performance schedule needed for such work; It does not have an unsatisfactory record of integrity, judgment or performance; It is able to meet the applicable equal employment opportunity requirement if stipulated, and It is not otherwise ineligible to perform such work under applicable law and regulations. It is the general contractor's responsibility to determine whether a subcontractor is qualified to do the work or portion thereof. Nothing delineated herein shall be interpreted to waive the requirement that the subcontractor be legally licensed and certified at the time it is scheduled to perform such work. Prior to listing Acestarz on Form FM 4828, Henry Louden, who prepared Pass's bid package on the BTW project, did not ask Mr. Akoni about Acestarz' licensure status, the number of employees on its payroll, its financial capacity, or the type of equipment it had. Prior to submitting Pass's bid package, Mr. Louden mentioned to Mr. Akoni that he needed to look at bonding requirements because, when doing public work, subcontractors sometimes were required to provide bonds. Mr. Louden did not, however, inform Mr. Akoni of any licenses Acestarz might need to do the work proposed or of the insurance that Pass required its subcontractors to carry. The extent of Mr. Louden's knowledge about Acestarz prior to submitting Pass's bid package was described in the following two exchanges: Q. [By Mr. Flaxman] What did you know as it related to his [Joseph Akoni's] construction, his portion of construction, things of that nature prior to your [sic] submitting his name to the School Board? A. [By Mr. Louden] His experience? Q. Everything. Whatever you knew about him. A. About his whole firm, then? Q. Yes. A. Joe Akoni came to our office, inquired about bidding work with us, identified areas that he was familiar with, in construction areas that he is familiar with, and subsequent to that, I guess, he got together with Mr. Mijares in my office, and after that discussion, Mr. Mijares -- * * * THE WITNESS: Okay. Mr. Mijares got involved with Ace Starz [sic]. Ace Starz looked at a couple jobs in our office. Ace Starz submitted some bids to us on other jobs. Ace Starz was interested in submitting prices for the Booker T. Washington job. We provided plans to him. We reviewed the plans together, identifying the scope that we needed them to furnish to us, . . . . Q. . . . . Is there anything else you knew about Ace Starz, Inc. as it related to the construction of the project [prior to submitting Pass's bid package]? A. No.2 And, again, Q. (By Mr. Swimmer) Did you meet or did someone else on behalf of Pass meet with Mr. Akoni prior to Mr. Akoni giving a price on behalf of Ace Starz [sic] to go over the scope of work? A. [By Mr. Louden] Yes. Q. And did you discuss with him scope of work at that time? A. Yes. Q. And did you come away from that meeting with a sense of qualifications and ability of Ace Starz and Mr. Akoni [Objection by Mr. Flaxman.] MR. SWIMMER: Then, let me ask you -- I'll rephrase the question. BY MR. SWIMMER: Q. Did you reach a belief as a result of your interaction with Mr. Akoni regarding his capacity, his ability with regard to construction of the items for which he was pricing? A. Yes. Q. And what was that conclusion? A. His pricing and understanding of what we were requesting, from what I felt was necessary, in order to achieve -- to submit a price to me when we went through the plans, after he submitted the pricing, we reviewed it and it was consistent with what I was looking for, with other sub prices that we received. Q. Did you go through the plans with him, with Mr. -- A. Yes. Q: Did Mr. Akoni mark up the plans to describe the work which would be the scope of his price? A. I'm sure he did. I don't recall what he marked, whether he marked it. I identified specifically which areas he needed to price 3 On August 4, 1998, the date that bid packages on the BTW project were submitted to the School Board, Acestarz was not licensed by the state Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, or by Miami-Dade County pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. Once Pass was notified by the School Board that it had submitted the low bid, Pass timely submitted Letters of Intent from each of the three subcontractors it intended to use to meet the M/WBE assistance levels for the BTW project, as required by Section III.A.2. of the Special Provision. An application for certification for Acestarz was not submitted with Pass's bid package because Acestarz's certification application had been filed with the Division of Business Development and Assistance on June 1, 1998, and was still pending. Pass was determined to be the lowest responsive bidder and its bid package was forwarded to the Division of Business Development and Assistance for a compliance review to be conducted pursuant to the Special Provision.4 In Section I.A.4. of the Special Provision, "compliance" is defined as "[t]he condition existing when a successful bidder has met and implemented the requirements of this Provision." In Section I.A.6. of the Special Provision, "compliance review" is defined as "[a] review to determine whether the successful Bidder is in Compliance with these Provisions." "Successful Bidder" is defined in Section I.A.24. as "[t]he Bidder to which the contract is awarded." Even though the above-quoted sections of the Special Provision specify that a compliance review is done for the "successful" bidder after the contract for the project is awarded, the M/WBE compliance review is actually done before the contract is awarded in accordance with the procedures set out in Section IV. of the Special Provision. Section IV.A. provides in pertinent part: DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE Subsequent to bid opening and prior to award, the M/WBE Compliance Administrator will conduct a review of the bid submittals in order to determine Compliance with the Provision as follows: 1. Fulfillment of Established Assistance Levels If the total price for work to be performed by M/WBE Subcontractors as indicated in either the Breakdown of Project Cost and Subcontractors/Consultant List or Letters of Intent is sufficient to fulfill the established Assistance Levels, in each race/ethnic/gender category, the Compliance Administrator will issue a written Notice of Compliance to the Bidder. Pursuant to these provisions, the compliance review involves consideration of the cost breakdown for each M/WBE subcontractor listed by the lowest responsive bidder on the Form FM 4828; whether each subcontractor listed is a certified M/WBE, has an application for certification pending, or has filed a certification application with its Letter of Intent; and whether the price of the work to be done by each M/WBE subcontractor meets or exceeds the assistance levels specified in the bid documents. Ms. Freeman, in her capacity as Compliance Administrator, was responsible for conducting the compliance review of Pass's bid package. On August 14, 1998, before the compliance review had been completed but after Pass had been identified as the lowest responsive bidder, Danville-Findorff sent a notice of bid protest to Julio Alvarez in the School Board's contract administration section protesting the award of the contract for the BTW project to Pass. The August 14 notice of protest includes virtually the same factual allegations as those set out in the Petition which initiated these proceedings. Danville-Findorff supplemented the allegations contained in its August 14 notice of protest in letters dated August 19, 1998, and September 1, 1998, which included additional information regarding Joseph Mijares, the qualifying agent for Acestarz. On August 18, 1998, Pass sent to the School Board via facsimile an M/WBE Subcontractor/Consultant Letter of Intent executed by G. Family Ent., Inc., a certified M/WBE, in which that company agreed to perform the same scope of work that Acestarz had agreed to perform in its Letter of Intent submitted to the School Board on August 6, 1998.5 G. Family Ent., Inc., agreed to do the work for $500,000, the same price specified by Acestarz. Although the School Board never issued a formal response to Danville-Findorff's August 14 notice of protest, the issues raised were resolved when Ms. Freeman issued a Notice of Noncompliance dated August 26, 1998, in which she stated that, based on her analysis of Acestarz' status, Pass's bid did not meet the eight-percent assistance levels for African American M/WBEs established for the BTW project. Ms. Freeman's conclusion was based on a finding that Acestarz' $500,000 proposal could not be credited toward the African American assistance levels required for the BTW project because "ACESTARZ was neither qualified as a construction company on bid day, nor can it be certified as an M/WBE." Ms. Freeman refused to authorize Pass to substitute another M/WBE subcontractor for Acestarz because "it can only be assumed that Pass was fully aware of ACESTARZ' status." When it received the Notice of Noncompliance, Pass timely requested a meeting with Ms. Freeman, as permitted in Section IV.B.2. of the Special Provision. The meeting was held on August 28, and, on September 4, 1998, Ms. Freeman issued a Final Notice of Noncompliance in which she reiterated her conclusion that Pass's bid was not in compliance with the African American M/WBE assistance levels required for the BTW project. In the final notice, Ms. Freeman stated: ACESTARZ was not qualified to perform construction services of any nature at the time of bid. Not only did it not hold a State license but it was denied a County license without first obtaining the requisite local or state licenses. Therefore, it was not eligible or qualified to bid as a prime or a subcontractor. * * * In conclusion, Pass not only listed an unqualified firm, but one that was not legally organized to conduct business as a construction company. Therefore, Pass cannot be credited for including ACESTARZ to meet the M/WBE requirements, on this project. * * * To your request for immediate authorization to allow Pass to substitute [another M/WBE subcontractor for] ACESTARZ,"[6] please be advised that Pass . . . made" the same request on August 12, 1998, Please be advised that, other than certified M/WBEs, prime contractors are only credited for listing subcontractors, that meet all legal requirements, but fail to be certified for reasons determined by the Division, in accordance with M/WBE Certification requirements. ACESTARZ was not legally qualified to engage in the construction business at the time of bid opening, and withdrew its M/WBE Certification Application."[7] Therefore, a substitution for the firm cannot be allowed. Section IV.C.5. of the Special Provision provides that the Final Notice of Noncompliance "shall be final and conclusive. The Compliance Administrator shall recommend that the Compliance Review procedure be initiated with respect to the next lowest responsive Bidder, or all remaining bids may be rejected and the project readvertised." A compliance review was not initiated for Danville-Findorff because, on September 4, 1998, Pass delivered its Formal Written Protest to the School Board. Pass stated in the protest that "the stated basis for declaring Pass International, Inc. to be not in compliance with the M/WBE subcontracting requirements set forth in the notice of August 26, 1998, is clearly in error." Specifically, Pass challenged Ms. Freeman's conclusion that Acestarz was not qualified to do the work specified in the Form FM 4828 because it was not licensed at the time Pass submitted its bid. The issues raised in Pass's protest were resolved when Ms. Freeman sent Pass a letter dated September 29, 1998, entitled "RESCISSION OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE" for the BTW project.8 Ms. Freeman rescinded the Final Notice of Noncompliance because, at the recommendation of the School Board's legal counsel, she reconsidered the definition of the term "qualified" contained in Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision and determined that, under this definition, Acestarz "is considered a qualified subcontractor for purposes of M/WBE Compliance." Specifically, Ms. Freeman concluded that, pursuant to Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision, it was not the responsibility of the Division of Business Development and Assistance to determine whether Acestarz was qualified to do the work included in Pass's bid submittal. Rather, according to Ms. Freeman, it was Pass's responsibility. In addition, Ms. Freeman concluded that, pursuant to Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision, an M/WBE does not need to be licensed or certified at the time the bid is submitted. Rather, it need be licensed to do the work and certified as an M/WBE Subcontractor in the appropriate category at the time it performs the work under the contract. During her re-evaluation of the notices of noncompliance, Ms. Freeman also decided that it was improper to conclude during the compliance review that Acestarz was not certifiable as an African American M/WBE. A compliance review to determine whether M/WBE assistance levels are met by a bidder is done pursuant to the criteria set out in the Special Provision; the decision to grant or deny an application for M/WBE certification is based on an evaluation of the application pursuant to the standards established in School Board Rule 6Gx13- 3G-1.05. As a result, Ms. Freeman advised Pass in the September 29 letter that, as "the next step in the process," the Division of Business Development and Assistance would complete its review of Acestarz' certification application.9 Some of the criteria for certification specified in School Board Rule 6Gx13-3G-1.05 are the same as or similar to the minimum criteria for an M/WBE subcontractor to be qualified pursuant to Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision. In a letter dated October 23, 1998, entitled "DENIAL OF MINORITY/WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (M/WBE) CERTIFICATION," Ms. Freeman advised Joseph Akoni that the documents he submitted failed to show that he "has the capability, knowledge, training, education, and experience needed, to independently guide the future and destiny of Acestarz' construction activities." (Emphasis in original.) Ms. Freeman also observed that, as a matter of statutory law, Acestarz' Hispanic qualifying agent, Robert Joseph Mijares, "has the responsibility to supervise, direct, manage and control the contracting and construction activities of Acestarz." Ms. Freeman concluded: "In summary, Acestarz's construction activities appear, at best, to be managed and controlled jointly by an African American and a non-African American. Therefore, the firm failed to establish eligibility for certification as African American-owned and controlled business, as prescribed by School Board rules." A copy of this denial notice was sent to Pass. Acestarz appealed the decision to deny its application for certification as an African American M/WBE. Ms. Freeman's decision was affirmed by the Certification Appeals Committee, and, in a letter dated November 20, 1998, Ms. Freeman sent to Acestarz' attorney the "FINAL MINORITY/WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (M/WBE) CERTIFICATION DENIAL NOTICE." Section III.D. of the Special Provision specifies that, if an M/WBE listed on Form FM 4828 is "determined not to be certifiable, [the M/WBE] must be substituted with another certified or certifiable M/WBE before award." Accordingly, on December 11, 1998, Pass proposed to use TCOE Corporation, a certified African American M/WBE, as a substitute for Acestarz, to do the same scope of work for $550,000. The request to substitute TCOE had not been granted or denied at the time of the final hearing. Summary With respect to the first and second factual issues raised in Danville-Findorff's formal bid protest, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Acestarz was neither licensed nor certified as an African American M/WBE at the time Pass submitted its bid on the BTW project. This is irrelevant, however, to a determination of whether Pass's bid is in compliance with the bid specifications because, pursuant to Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision, an M/WBE subcontractor need be licensed and certified only "at the time it is scheduled to perform" work under the contract. With respect to the third issue raised in its formal bid protest, Danville-Findorff presented evidence during the hearing regarding the licensing requirements for construction contractors found in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Chapter 10, Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Its apparent aim in presenting this evidence was to establish that, because Acestarz was not licensed by the state or the county, Acestarz could not submit a proposal to Pass for inclusion in its bid on the BTW project under the definition of "contracting" in the statute and in the code provision. In essence, Danville-Findorff is attempting to challenge the provision in Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision which requires that an M/WBE subcontractor be licensed at the time it is scheduled to perform work on the project. Danville-Findorff may not do so in this proceeding: The notice of protest challenging the specifications contained in an invitation to bid must be filed within seventy-two hours "after the receipt of . . . intended project plans and specifications in an invitation to bid or request for proposals, and the formal written protest shall be filed within 10 days after the date the notice of protest is filed." Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). Danville-Findorff protested only the School Board's intention to award the contract to Pass, and the protest was filed after the bids were opened. With respect to the fourth issue raised in Danville- Findorff's formal bid protest, the evidence is uncontroverted that Joseph Mijares, an employee of Pass until October 1998, acted as the qualifying agent for Acestarz, as that term is defined in Section 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Danville- Findorff's purpose in presenting this evidence is apparently to establish that Mr. Mijares exerts complete control over Acestarz by operation of this statute. According to Danville-Findorff, this level of control by a Hispanic violates School Board Rule 6Gx13-3G-1.05.I. which requires that an African American M/WBE be fifty-one percent "owned and controlled, in form and in substance" by African Americans. The issue of control is, however, not relevant to a determination of whether a bidder is in compliance with the terms of the Special Provision. Rather, the issue of control is relevant only to a determination of whether an application for certification as an African American M/WBE should be granted or denied pursuant to School Board Rule 6Gx13-3G-1.05. With respect to the sixth issue raised in its formal bid protest, Danville-Findorff presented no credible evidence to establish that it was placed at a competitive disadvantage with regard to its bid on the BTW project because an employee of Pass acted as qualifying agent for Acestarz for purposes of Acestarz' application for licensure as a general contractor. With respect to the seventh issue raised in Danville- Findorff's formal bid protest, the evidence is uncontroverted that Acestarz did not submit an application for certification as an African American M/WBE with its Letter of Intent. This was unnecessary pursuant to Section III.A.3. of the Special Provision because Acestarz' application for certification was submitted on or about June 1, 1998, and was pending at the time Pass's bid was submitted. With respect to the fifth and eighth issues raised in its formal bid protest, Danville-Findorff presented sufficient evidence to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, at the time the bid package was submitted, Pass did not satisfy the eight-percent assistance level for African American M/WBE participation on the BTW project: Pass did not satisfy the responsibility imposed on it in Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision to determine whether Acestarz was "qualified" or "potentially qualified” to do the work it had proposed to do on the BTW project. Mr. Louden, the Pass employee who prepared the Pass's bid package for the BTW project, did not possess adequate information regarding Acestarz or its president, Mr. Akoni, to determine whether Acestarz satisfied the criteria set out in Section I.A.21., which are the minimum criteria that must be met by a subcontractor to be "potentially Qualified to do specific work." In addition, Mr. Louden failed to make any meaningful inquiry into the qualifications of Acestarz. Because Pass lacked adequate information regarding Acestarz' qualifications and failed to make meaningful inquiry to ascertain Acestarz' qualifications at the time Pass submitted its bid package, Pass could not, in good faith, represent to the School Board that Acestarz was "qualified" or “potentially qualified” at the time the bid was submitted, which it did pursuant to Section III.B.A. of the Special Provisions when it listed Acestarz on the Form FM 4828.9 Because Pass did not conform to the requirements of Section I.A.21. and Section III.B.4. of the Special Provision when it listed Acestarz as a "qualified" or “potentially qualified” African American M/WBE subcontractor, it was not entitled to use Acestarz to meet the African American M/WBE assistance levels for the BTW project at the time it submitted its bid. Furthermore, under these circumstances, Pass cannot substitute another subcontractor for Acestarz because that option is available pursuant to Section III.D. of the Special Provision only upon the denial of the application for certification of an M/WBE which was not certified at time the bid was submitted. Because Pass's bid does not meet the assistance levels established for African American M/WBEs set out in the Special Provision for Compliance with M/WBE Subcontracting Assistance Levels Participation, Pass's bid was not in compliance with the Special Provision at the time it was submitted. Therefore, Pass's bid is not responsive to the bid specifications for the BTW project. The award the contract for the BTW project to Pass would be contrary to the bid specifications and would be arbitrary in light of the facts found herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board reject the bid of Pass International, Inc., as non-responsive to the bid specifications and that a compliance review be initiated with respect to the next lowest responsive and responsible bidder. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 14th day of April, 1999.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent violated Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, as alleged, by its refusal to allow Petitioner to rescind a resignation.
Findings Of Fact Ardie Collins, a Black female, lives in Rockledge, Florida, and is currently self-employed as a beauty salon owner. She began working for the State of Florida in 1973, as a salon inspector with the Cosmetology Board. She maintained her title of investigator and continued employment after reorganization with the Department of Occupational and Professional Regulation and the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), as the agency is now known. During the relevant period Ms. Collins worked out of the DPR Regional Office in Orlando. In August 1982, Ms. Collins was terminated by DPR. The case went to arbitration, and by order of the arbitrator dated December 17, 1982, she was reinstated with full back pay. She reported back to work on February 10, 1983. In January 1983, before she reported back to work Ms. Collins went to see the AFSME union representative, Eric Tait, in Cocoa. The union had represented her in the 1982 proceeding and Tait had assisted the union. In that January meeting, two letters were drafted, later typed by a clerk and signed by Ms. Collins. These letters were characterized by both Ms. Collins and Eric Tait as "intent to resign" and a letter of resignation. The "intent to resign" is dated, in error, January 12, 1982, and is addressed to Howard Kirkland, Personnel Officer. It provides, This is to inform you that it is my intention to submit my resignation from State Employment, effective June 6, 1983. This resignation is now held by Eric D. Tait, AFSME President, Local 3040. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) The second letter is dated June 6, 1983, is also addressed to Howard Kirkland, and provides: Kindly accept this as my resignation as Investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation effective June 6, 1983. The Department of Professional Regulation has informed me that as of June 6, 1983 I will have completed 10 years creditable service in the Florida Retirement System. (Petitioner's Exhibit #11) The first letter was mailed to DPR in Tallahassee and the second was held by Eric Tait. The January 12th letter was stamped received in the DPR Personnel office on January 24, 1983. Howard Kirkland took this letter to be a resignation. He discussed it with the Division Director and with the Assistant Secretary and was authorized to accept the resignation. He then sent a letter to Ardie Collins, dated January 25, 1983, stating: Please be advised that we have accepted your resignation from employment with this agency effective June 6, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit # 3) Later, on January 31, 1983, in response to a contact from Eric Tait, James Kirkland sent a letter to Ms. Collins explaining that, if necessary, her date of resignation would be extended to insure that she had the necessary ten years of creditable service. DPR commenced advertisement and recruitment to fill the anticipated vacancy. Sometime in early May 1983, Eric Tait mailed the second letter dated June 6, 1983. The letter was stamped received in the DPR Office of Personnel on May 5, 1983. On May 6, 1983, Ms. Collins wrote to Howard Kirkland informing him: Notice is hereby given that proposed or intended resignation is cancelled until further notice. (Petitioner's Exhibit #7) Between January and May, DPR received no word from Ms. Collins or her representative about her resignation. Kirkland again discussed the matter with his supervisor and responded by letter to Ms. Collins dated May 25, 1983, that her voluntary resignation had already been accepted in good faith. (Petitioner's Exhibit #8) There is no written policy or rule at DPR regarding the rescinding of resignations. The agency follows the general personnel management principle that until the resignation is accepted, withdrawal is negotiable; after acceptance, withdrawal is solely within management prerogative. Generally it is considered bad personnel management to permit an employee to rescind a resignation once it is accepted, and in particular, once the position is advertised. Ms. Collins claims that DPR has allowed other employees, white males and females, and black males, to rescind resignations. In his personal knowledge, and after reviewing DPR personnel files, James Kirkland found one individual who was allowed to rescind a resignation - a clerk, who had given probably only an oral notice and shortly later asked to withdraw it. In that case, nothing had been done to act on the resignation. The individuals named by Ms. Collins: Robert Fleming, Edward Bludworth, and Will Merrill, were not allowed to rescind resignations. Rather, they each reapplied after leaving DPR. Each was hired again on probationary status. Ms. Collins claims that she reapplied by mail to DPR sometime in late June 1983. However, neither the Tallahassee office nor the Orlando regional office have a record of her application. If she had reapplied for a vacant position, she would have been considered with the rest of the applicants. DPR has received resignations from employees in a variety of forms and in various ways. Sometimes resignations are submitted directly to an immediate supervisor; other times they are directed to the personnel officer. It is not uncommon to have a resignation expressed as an "intent to resign". DPR acted in good faith and consistent with established personnel practices when it accepted Ms. Collins' letter dated January 12th as a resignation and when it refused to allow her to rescind that resignation when requested some four months later. DPR determined that Ms. Collins had obtained her ten years of service as of June 6, 1983. This was the only condition regarding her date of resignation of which it was on notice. The agency received both the "intent to resign" and the "resignation" letter prior to receiving Ms. Collins' "cancellation". The agency simply ratified its acceptance in its response to Ms. Collins.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to service credit in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from June 1, 1995, through August 2001.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner has been a school psychologist, certified by the Florida Department of Education. From June 1995 through August 2001, Petitioner performed duties as a psychologist under "purchase of services agreements" with SBAC to perform special needs assessments for gifted children. These formal contracts were executed between Petitioner and SBAC in and for each successive school year during that period. Although there was the expectation that a new contract would be negotiated/signed each year, there was no guarantee to that effect. The annual contracts for June 1995 through August 2001, between SBAC and Petitioner provided that Petitioner was to assume all risks, and that he was a "consultant." They further provided that he was to be paid at a rate of $150.00 for each assessment he completed. Either party to the contract could terminate it on 30 days' notice. In pertinent part, the annual contracts described Petitioner as an independent consultant and not an employee in the following terms: * * * The CONSULTANT is an Independent Consultant and will perform all services at the Consultant's risk, assuming full responsibility for completion of the services stipulated below: Psychoeducational evaluations of students referred for determination of eligibility to the Gifted Program as shall be requested by the Board through its Director of Exceptional Student Education or Lead School Psychologist. All psychoeducational evaluations shall be completed within 30 days of having been received by the CONSULTANT. All reports and billing for services rendered by the CONSULTANT shall be submitted in a timely manner. All reports are to be submitted in triplicate. * * * CONSULTANT also acknowledges that in rendering the services provided herein, the CONSULTANT will be acting as an Independent Consultant, and not as an employee of the School Board of Alachua County. (Emphasis added.) The contracts contained no specific provision for reimbursement of Petitioner's expenses. However, a calculated amount for travel expenses was built into the fee of $150.00 per child. SBAC did not consider Petitioner an "employee" during the period of his annual contracts, because he was not filling a regularly established position. Accordingly, SBAC did not report to FRS any retirement information/contributions on the amounts it paid Petitioner during this period. Likewise, during the specified period, Petitioner received no paid leave or other employee benefits from SBAC. Also, SBAC did not provide unemployment compensation coverage or workers' compensation coverage for Petitioner during the specified period. While under contract as an independent consultant, Petitioner did not report his time to SBAC via a timesheet or otherwise. Rather, he was paid for each completed assessment under the terms of his respective contracts. He was only required to file his test results within five business days of the date he assessed a student. Between 1995 and 2001, SBAC reported Petitioner's pay for federal income tax purposes by Form 1099, rather than by Form W-2. A 1099 form is traditionally used for occasional employees and for independent contractors. W-2 forms are used for regular employees. Petitioner reported his income from SBAC as "other income," i.e. self-employment income. In a similar vein, SBAC withheld no taxes, Social Security, or Medicare deductions for Petitioner during this period. SBAC made no matching contributions for Social Security or Medicare. During the specified period, Petitioner was hired solely for special needs assessments. The time frame for testing by SBAC was established by law. Other than special needs assessments, Petitioner had no duties for SBAC, but he was assigned cases by SBAC as necessary to meet its caseload and time frame. Petitioner was only called upon when SBAC's school psychologists, who filled regularly established positions, were not available or could not timely meet the demand for assessments in a school year of 10 months' duration. Petitioner was required to hold a professional license as a psychologist to perform his SBAC contracts, and he was expected to perform his services for SBAC within the standards of his profession. His contracts provided for him to render personal services, and he could not hire an assistant or subcontract out his duties to another psychologist. SBAC could not instruct Petitioner how to do his job as a professional psychologist or what decision or recommendation to reach on any child. However, SBAC told him which text to use, and he was initially trained by another school psychologist on the testing instrument required by SBAC. Petitioner also received initial training from SBAC on how to report his assessments, and SBAC provided him with test kits and word processing assistance for each child assessment. SBAC set the format for his reports and provided him with a template therefor. Petitioner was not regularly provided office space by SBAC. However, he was allotted a room on each school's premises for each test, as he traveled from school to school within the county, and he had to do his testing on a day the specified child was in school and that school was open. Each test had to be completed within 30 days of its assignment, per his contracts. Petitioner was free to schedule one or more of his assessments on the dates most efficient for him, provided he met his deadlines. Petitioner's efforts for SBAC during this period might be described as "frequently recurring, but not regular." Petitioner never worked for SBAC more than four consecutive months during the entire time period at issue. During that period, he was on his own for defending his test results. Petitioner was required to carry his own professional liability insurance during the time in question, whereas then and now, SBAC "covered" their employees' liability insurance. Between 1995 and 2001, Petitioner was free to offer his professional services to other clients besides SBAC, but he chose not to do so. There was no profit or loss involved for SBAC or Petitioner in Petitioner's 1995-2001 service. Petitioner had to invest none of his personal funds to do his assessments. In September 2001, Petitioner was hired by SBAC in a half-time, regularly established position with all benefits, including sick leave, personal leave, and FRS membership. Upon that event, his duties were altered to include rendering any psychological assistance required by any SBAC school in which he was working. He is now reimbursed for travel by submitting request forms. He has continued to meet that job description and has filled that regularly established position to date. SBAC requested, and in 2002, received a letter-opinion from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interpreting various federal statutes and regulations. That IRS letter-opinion concluded that during the period in question, the Petitioner was an "employee" of SBAC; that various federal forms might require filing or amending by SBAC; and that SBAC and Petitioner might need to pay yet-to-be determined amounts. That IRS opinion is based on facts submitted by SBAC and not necessarily in evidence; is based on federal laws which are not determinative of the Florida retirement issue before this forum, and was not necessarily final. Accordingly, it is not binding in the instant case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for membership and service credit in the FRS from June 1, 1995, through August 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Leonard D. Jackson 2731-B Northwest 104th Court Gainesville, Florida 32606-7174 Alberto Dominguez, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sarabeth Snuggs, Interim Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation is the state agency charged with the responsibility to develop and adopt criteria for a DBE program, and administer the DBE program. Burkett is a Florida corporation whose sole stockholder is a white female American. She meets the criteria of a socially and economically disadvantaged individual. Burkett applied for certification as a DBE on July 12, 1991, and on October 1, 1991, the Department denied Burkett certification. Burkett submitted additional information and made changes in its internal organization to better conform to the Department's requirements; however, the Department has denied Burkett the designation based upon the owner's lack of expertise in the critical areas of the firm's operation, to wit; she does not possess education or experience in engineering. The parties stipulate that Burkett is substantially effected by the rules being challenged, and possesses standing to bring this rule challenge. In determining the qualifications of an applicant for DBE status, the Department utilizes Sections 334.044(2), 337.137, 339.05, and 339.0805, Florida Statutes; 49 CFR Part 23; the United States Department of Transportation administrative decisions; guidelines and training manuals from USDOT or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and its own rules. At the recommendation of a representative from FHWA, the Department amended the rules being challenged regarding qualifications for DBE certification to explicate the requirement for ownership control, as required by Section 339.0805(1),(c), supra, and 49 CFR Part 23.53, to include the concept of "expertise in critical areas of operation of the business" which is required by the USDOT. The terms "expertise" and "critical areas of operation" are not defined in the Florida Statutes or DOT's rules. The DOT interprets "critical areas of operation" to mean the technical area in which the DBE certification is being sought. Management limited to the day-to-day normal business operations is not considered to be a "critical area of operation." The DOT's evaluation of "expertise" changes from business to business based upon the applicant's type of work. The department expects to see education and experience on the part of the disadvantaged owner in the technical area of operations of the business. The Department denied the Petitioner DBE certification because the disadvantaged owner did not possess engineering experience or education.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Jane, Rick and Eloise Waelti are the owners of all stock issued by Melbourne Sand Transport Company, Inc., the Petitioner in this case. Petitioner is, therefore, a private, family-owned entity and is one of four affiliated companies owned and managed by the Waelti family. Together, Jane and Eloise Waelti own 59 percent of the Petitioner's stock. Consequently, a majority of the Petitioner's stock is owned by women, a category of socially and economically disadvantaged individuals as described in Rule 14-78.002, Florida Administrative Code. Rick and Eloise Waelti, brother and sister, each own 41 percent of the Petitioner's stock. Jane, their mother, currently owns 18 percent of the stock. In 1962, Jane and Melvin Waelti moved their family to Brevard County, Florida and purchased Melbourne Sand Company. Over the years that enterprise grew and evolved into four related companies, all involved in the business of selling sand and aggregate, and the short and long range hauling of it. The companies are: Melbourne Sand Company, Inc. responsible for marketing and management; Melbourne Sand Transport Company, Inc. responsible for long range trucking; Melbourne Sand Supply Company responsible for short range trucking; and Melbourne Sand Mining Company, the entity that owns the physical plant and buildings from which all Waelti operations are run. After her husband Melvin's death in 1978, Jane Waelti became the majority stockholder in all Waelti family businesses. Jane Waelti has worked full and part-time in the businesses since 1965. Rick Waelti became president of Melbourne Sand Company at his father's death. Rick took charge of the operations side of the family businesses while Jane continued to handle office matters including personnel functions. Also at that time, Eloise Waelti was recruited to work in the businesses because of her prior banking experience. To that end, Eloise took over the fiscal responsibilities for the family businesses. Currently, responsibilities related to the day-to-day operations of the Petitioner have been delegated to nonowner employees of the company. For example, Petitioner employs a dispatcher who is responsible for assuring vehicles are dispatched to job locations as may be required. That individual also interviews and hires drivers for the company's trucks. Similarly, another nonowner employee solicits work for the company and prepares bids for submission on jobs. That employee also coordinates projects with the dispatcher so that jobs are completed in a timely manner. Rick, Eloise, and Jane Waelti are in the office to assure that all others are performing their respective jobs appropriately. Rick verifies the operations are being conducted correctly; Eloise serves as comptroller verifying funds are available for projects, acquisitions, or repairs; and Jane coordinates personnel and insurance concerns. Thus, decisions regarding problems affecting the Petitioner are dealt with by the Waeltis as a committee. They meet on an almost daily basis to resolve any policy or business decision collectively. For example, if a repair is needed in order to get a vehicle back in service, the trio will meet to decide the pros and cons of having the vehicle repaired. In 1990, the Petitioner applied for and received a Small Business Administration Loan in the amount of $800,000. To qualify for the loan, Jane Waelti pledged land valued at $1.6 million. Rick and Eloise also signed personally to guarantee the loan but did not provide collateral. This loan allowed the Petitioner to remain solvent and to keep control of its fleet of trucks. In 1991, Rick resigned as president of Petitioner and Eloise was selected to succeed him. Jane is tapering off her hours and responsibilities with the company as she is eligible for Social Security benefits which she wants to begin drawing. During 1990, Rick was state president of the Jaycees and was unavailable to supervise work for the Petitioner. During that time, Petitioner conducted business without hardship. Petitioner's nonowner employees, who Rick trained, have taken over many responsibilities for the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying the DBE certification requested by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 31stday of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 91-4787 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are accepted. To the extent that paragraph 7 states that Jane owned the majority of stock and, therefore, could "out vote" her children, paragraph 7 is accepted; otherwise, rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence since it is clear Rick had the expertise necessary to keep his mother's business running smoothly. Paragraphs 8 and 9 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 16 are accepted. Paragraph 17 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 18 through 24 are accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 26 is accepted to the extent it finds Eloise has little expertise or experience in the operational areas of the Petitioner; otherwise rejected as argument. Paragraphs 27 through 29 are accepted. Paragraph 30 is accepted to the extent that it finds Rick has the operational expertise for the Petitioner; otherwise rejected as argument. Paragraphs 31 and 32 are accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; however, such areas are critical but so are others-one would not operate without the other. Paragraphs 34 through 39 are accepted. Paragraph 40 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 41 is rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela S. Leslie Deputy General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Vincent G. Torpy, Jr. FRESE, FALLACE, NASH & TORPY, P.A. 930 S. Harbor City Boulevard, #505 Melbourne, Florida 32901
Findings Of Fact The Respondent YWCA is a nonprofit corporation that sponsors educational, social, and recreational programs. The YWCA's purpose states that it is a "movement rooted in the Christian faith"; however, expressed belief in Christianity is not required for membership in the YWCA or for employment by the YWCA. Its membership is comprised of adult women seventeen years of age and older. The personnel policy of the YWCA expressly states that: "Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action will be applied in recruitment, hiring, compensation, fringe benefits, staff development, and training, promotion, and any other condition of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, age, national origin, or any other nonperformance factors." (Emphasis added.) Regarding termination, the personnel policy of the YWCA expressly states that: "Reasons for staff termination must be carefully documented. They should be based upon objective performance appraisals, which in turn are based upon job descriptions, work plans, and performance standards. Except in cases of reorganization/retrenchment or termination for cause, a probationary period for work improvement must be provided, followed by another performance appraisal." The YWCA of West Palm Beach operates three facilities: Central and Residence, the Mamie Adair Branch, and the Recreation Center. The Mamie Adair Branch primarily serves the black community in West Palm Beach and includes a day-care facility. The Petitioner, Davis, was hired as the Branch Executive of the Mamie Adair Branch of the YWCA, effective July 21, 1980, at a starting salary of $12,000.00. The Petitioner was given copies of the YWCA's personnel policy, affirmative action plan, and job description. She was not given notice of particular standards of behavior to which she was required to conform away from the job. As branch Executive she was supervised by the Executive Director, Jo Prout. The Petitioner successfully completed her initial 90-day probationary period, and her annual salary was increased by five percent to $12,600.00. In October 1981, however, the Petitioner received her annual evaluation and was again placed on three months probations due primarily to an unsatisfactory working relationship with the Branch Committee. The Petitioner had a bad attitude and was antagonistic. The Petitioner became pregnant but did not immediately disclose the fact of her pregnancy. In approximately December, 1981, the Petitioner confided to a coworker that she was pregnant and the coworker, in turn, told the YWCA's Executive Director, Jo Prout, that the Petitioner was pregnant. The YWCA's Executive Director was concerned that the Petitioner's relationship with the Branch Committee would be severely adversely affected if the Committee found out the Petitioner was pregnant and unmarried. Because of this concern, the Executive Director removed the Petitioner from her position as Branch Executive, effective December 31, 1981. The Petitioner would not have been removed from her position on December 31, 1981, but for the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried. Prior to removing the Petitioner from her position as Branch Executive, the Executive Director did not attempt less drastic alternatives such as asking the Petitioner not to discuss or disclose her marital status or asking the Petitioner to take a leave of absence. Prior to her removal, the Petitioner had not discussed the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried with members of the Branch Committee or with the YWCA membership in general. At no time had the Petitioner advocated unwed motherhood as an alternative life- style or otherwise advocated or espoused principles contrary to her understanding of Christianity. In the past, certain employees of the YWCA whose on-the-job behavior was contrary to Christian principles received job discipline but were not removed from their positions. A desk clerk at the YWCA's residence, for example, who was found to have stolen property from residence guests was not discharged. The removal of the Petitioner from her position by the YWCA because she was pregnant and unmarried was not justified by the business necessity rule because: A requirement to conduct one's life, including one's off-the-job activities, according to Christian principles, was not disclosed to the Petitioner or to other employees; The YWCA did not discipline or discharge other employees for conduct which conflicted with the YWCA's alleged requirement to conduct one's life by Christian principles; and The YWCA did not show that a requirement of all employees to conduct their lives by Christian principles has a manifest relationship to the employment in question. Then the Petitioner was removed from the Branch Executive position, she was transferred to the position of center consultant for gymnastics. The position of the center consultant for gymnastics to which the Petitioner was transferred was a demotion in that the Petitioner went from an administrative to a non-administrative position. The transfer also changed the Petitioner's employment status from full-time employee to part-time employee with a 25 percent decrease in earned income and a lunch "hour" reduced to 30 minutes. The petitioner's new position as center consultant was a temporary one designated to last no longer than five months. Petitioner was removed from probationary status as a result of the transfer. The position of center consultant to which the Petitioner was transferred was not a legitimate position. The position did not exist prior to December 31, 1981, the date the Petitioner was transferred. No job description was ever written for this position, despite the fact that the YWCA personnel policy required job descriptions. The Petitioner was verbally assigned job tasks inconsistent with her title of center consultant, including cleaning toilets at the gymnastics center. The position was eliminated on February 16, 1982, approximately six weeks after it was created, allegedly due to financial streamlining. The YWCA committed an unlawful employment act against the Petitioner, discriminating against her on the basis of sex and marital status by removing her from her position as Branch Executive because she was pregnant and unmarried. Moreover, this transfer was not justified by business necessity. Because the YWCA committed an unlawful employment act against the Petitioner, the Petitioner could be entitled to be reinstated to her former position or to a comparable position and could also be entitled to recover lost wages and fringe benefits, plus interest thereon, from the date of the wrongful act, December 31, 1981, to November 31, 1982, the date she was hired by the Lutheran Ministries, set off by any interim earnings and reduced by the Petitioner's unemployment compensation benefits plus her reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Regarding reinstatement, the Petitioner has been and is now willing and able to be reinstated to her former position as Branch Executive or to a comparable administrative position. The employer's argument that the Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement because she was an unsatisfactory employee is rejected for the following reasons: The employer's allegations that the Petitioner will not satisfactorily perform her job if reinstated are too speculative and any doubts about the Petitioner's entitlement to reinstatement should be resolved in favor of the victim of discrimination; and In the event that the Petitioner's job performance upon reinstatement is not satisfactory, the employer may avail itself of the procedures set forth in its personnel policy to improve the Petitioner's performance or discharge her for unsatisfactory job performance. However, reinstatement may not be feasible in this case due to the fact that another employee has been placed in the Petitioner's former position. If the Petitioner is not reinstated to a comparable administrative position, then she should be compensated by the award of six months front pay in lieu of reinstatement. The Petitioner is entitled to damages in the amount of $13,551, which represents a back pay award of $11,000 plus 10 percent interest, six months front pay in the amount of $6,000, minus $1,575 for salary paid from January 1, 1982 - February 16, 1982, including two weeks severance pay and $2,974 in unemployment compensation benefits. The Petitioner is also entitled to costs of $232.65 and attorneys fees totaling $5,000.
Findings Of Fact On August 22, 29, and September 5, 1994, Respondent, School Board of Dade County (School Board), advertised for bids for Project No. KS-0004, Roof Repair/Replacement and Asbestos Removal at American Senior High School. The advertisement stated that "The mechanical and electrical trades have been set aside to be performed by a minority-owned and operated firm." The advertisement made no mention of any requirement that the set-asides were to be performed by minority-owned and operated firms certified by Dade County Public School/Division of Business Development and Assistance (DBDA). The bid and contract documents which were delivered to all interested bidders including Petitioner, Murton Roofing Corporation (Murton), contained page 00030-2 providing various definitions, including the definition of "minority owned and operated business participation" as follows: MINORITY OWNED AND OPERATED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION - This bid is limited to those individuals and businesses (51 percent) owned and controlled by African-American, Hispanics, and Women which are so listed by the Dade County Public Schools/Division of Business Development & Assistance prior to bidding, or to provide sufficient data to verify and certify such ownership and control at the time of the bid. Award will be made to the low bidder meeting this and other project specifications and requirements. Page 00030-2 had been included in the project specifications section dealing with legal advertisements. By addendum issued September 8, 1994, the School Board deleted this page from the bid documents. Section I A of the Special Provisions, page 1 defines Minority/Women Business Enterprises as follows: Any legal entity which is organized to engage in commercial transactions and which is at least 51 percent owned and controlled by minority persons. Minority person means a person who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States and who is: An African American, a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa; An hispanic, a person of Spanish or Portuguese culture including, but not limited to persons with origins in Mexico, South America, Central America or the Caribbean Islands regardless of race. A woman. The Project Manual defines a "M/WBE Certification Application" as a "statement signed by an M/WBE contractor, containing certain information with respect to the ownership and control of the firm (See Attachment B-FM 3920)." Page 16 of the Project Manual states that "[a]t any time there is a change in ownership or control of the firm, the M/WBE shall, immediately following the change, submit a new M/WBE Certification Application." Page 2 of Section 1 A of the Special Provisions provides: A subcontractor is qualified to do specific work if it meets all of the following criteria: It has or is able to obtain any and all bonds, insurance and licenses required to do such work; It has the necessary experience, financial ability, organization, technical qualifications, skill and facilities to do such work; It is able to comply with the performance schedule reasonably needed for such work; It does not have an unsatisfactory record of integrity, judgment or performance; It is able to meet the applicable equal employment opportunity requirement if stipulated; and It is not otherwise ineligible to perform such work under applicable law and regulations. Nothing delineated herein shall be interpreted to waive the requirement that the Subcontractor be legally licensed and certified at the time it is scheduled to perform such work. Section III, titled Bid Documents, Section III A, Submittals, states: As a condition of responsiveness, all bid submittals shall contain the documents and information required below. Non-submittals or incomplete submittals shall be cause for finding a Bidder nonresponsive and for the contract not to be awarded to the Bidder. Failure to submit completed forms and other required information, within the time period specified, can neither be cured by supplementary submittals and testimony at hearings, nor shall the nonresponsiveness of the bid be waived, negotiated or compromised. In its bid, Murton listed Goral Enterprises (Goral) as the subcontractor for the mechanical work on the project. Murton indicated on the subcontractor list that Goral was a woman business enterprise. At the time that Murton submitted its bid, Goral was not certified as a M/WBE by DBDA and Murton did not submit with its bid an application from Goral for certification as a M/WBE by DBDA. Goral was certified as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) by Metropolitan Dade County's Department of Business and Economic Development. Murton relied on Goral's DBE certification to met the M/WBE requirements of the project specifications. The DBE program is a separate program from the School Board's M/WBE program. The School Board does not give reciprocity to contractors who are certified as DBE's for acceptance in the School Board M/WBE program. Goral had been denied certification as an MBE by the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development approximately two weeks prior to Murton submitting its bid for the project. The project specifications do not state that a contractor certified as a DBE will be deemed to meet the criteria of a M/WBE. Intervenor, A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc., also submitted a bid on the project; however, its bid was rejected as nonresponsive. By letter dated October 13, 1994, the School Board advised Murton that it was not in compliance with the special provisions of the project specifications because Goral was neither certified as a M/WBE nor had certification pending; therefore Goral could not be used to meet the M/WBE requirements for the mechanical work on the project. By letter dated October 14, 1994, Murton requested a meeting with the Contract Administrator to discuss the Notice of Noncompliance issued the day before. A meeting was held on October 18, 1994. On October 21, 1994, the School Board issued a Final Notice of Noncompliance. On October 26, 1994, the School Board issued a Revised Final Notice of Noncompliance, wherein it inaccurately stated that the legal advertisement required that the M/WBE's be certified by the DBDA at the time of submittal or that the bid submittal contain sufficient data to verify and certify M/WBE qualification. However, the Revised Final Notice of Noncompliance also stated that the bid document when read as a whole required that the M/WBE be either certified or pending certification at the time of bid submittal or that a certification application be submitted with the bid. The notice stated that Goral did not meet the requirements of the bid documents for a M/WBE. Murton requested an appeals hearing before the Certification Appeals Committee (Committee). The hearing was convened on October 26, 1994, at which time it became apparent to the Committee that the October 21, 1994 letter contained an error in that the paragraph stating that M/WBE's must be certified by the DBDA prior to bidding or provide sufficient data to verify or certify such ownership and control at the time of bid had not in fact appeared in the advertisement and the second page of the advertisement in the project manual which represented that this language had been a part of the advertisement had been removed by addendum. The meeting was recessed in order to review and obtain clarification of documentation presented by Murton. The Committee reconvened on November 15, 1994. At that time, upon reviewing the project manual and other documentation, the Committee determined that the language remaining in the Project Manual, read as a whole, did require DBDA certification and voted to uphold the determination of noncompliance. The School Board has interpreted similar project specifications to require that the proposed M/WBE be certified by DBDA at the time of bid submittal or that the bidder submit sufficient data with the bid to be able to determine whether the entity qualifies as a M/WBE. Such data is to be submitted on the application form contained in the project specifications as Attachment B- FM 3920, which is the form used by DBDA for application for certification as a M/WBE. The School Board has on numerous occasions rejected bidders for failure to submit either currently certified M/WBE's as subcontractors or for failure to submit an application for DBDA certification for the subcontractor with the bid. School Board Rule 6Gx13-3G-1.02 delineates the objectives for its M/WBE program. The rule states that the program's objectives may be accomplished by affirmative actions which include set aside contracts, subcontracting goals, prime contracting and designated scopes of work. In the instant case the School Board had designated certain portions of the work of the project to be performed by M/WBE firms. School Board Rule 6Gx13-3G-1.02 IV. provides: In order to ensure that business firms seeking to participate in the M/WBE Program are at least fifty-one (51) percent legitimately owned, operated and controlled by minorities, each M/WBE firm shall be required to be certified as to its minority ownership at the time of each bid award. Such certification shall be on the basis of a completed M/WBE Certification Application with supporting documentation, submitted by the firm, sworn to by an officer of the firm, invest- igated and verified by the Division of Business Development and Assistance, prior to any contract award. The School Board desires to rebid the project. On January 9, 1995, the School Board placed a new legal advertisement for bid on the project, specifically indicating that it would require and accept only DBDA certified M/WBE's.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Murton Roofing Corporation's Petition and rejecting all bids for the project and rebidding the project. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6919 To comply with the requirement of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Accepted that Goral was certified as a DBE but rejected that DBE certification meant that Goral was qualified as a M/WBE. Paragraphs 7-11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Accepted that that portion was deleted, but rejected to the extent that it implies that section was the only portion of the bid documents relied upon by the School Board. Paragraphs 13-15: Rejected as not necessary. Paragraph 16: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 17: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 18: Accepted to the extent that that was his testimony. Paragraphs 19-22: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 23-24: Rejecting as constituting argument. Paragraphs 25-26: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 27: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 28: There is no paragraph 28. Paragraph 29: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 30-31: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: The first two paragraphs are rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 5-10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11-12: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 13: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 14: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The second sentence is accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Vincent F. Vaccarella, Esquire Elder & Kurzman Grand Bay Plaza, Suite 702 2665 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Phillis O. Douglas Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Steven M. Rosen, Esquire 5601 Building 5601 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, #403 Mimai, Florida 33132-1308 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Triple M Enterprises, Inc., employed persons in the State of Florida without obtaining workers' compensation insurance meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. If Petitioner did not obtain the required insurance, the subsequent issue is the amount of any penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Division is charged with the regulation of workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida and is responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers' compensation insurance for the benefit of their employees. Triple M, is a corporation located at 24393 North 71, Robertsdale, Alabama, and is a framing and drywall contractor. Dwain Sanders and Celina Sanders are principals of Triple M. On June 4, 2004, Triple M was engaged as a subcontractor in the construction of a building on the premises located at 334 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, Florida. On June 4, 2004, Patricia Jean Krossman was an investigator employed by the Division. Her duties include ensuring that the employers in the state are in compliance with the requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law. More specifically, she visits work sites, and determines if the workers are covered by workers' compensation insurance. The morning of the aforementioned date, Ms. Krossman visited 334 Gulf Breeze Parkway, in Gulf Breeze, Florida, and observed four men engaged in construction activities, including framing a building. Dwain Sanders, who was at the site, identified himself as the owner and president of Triple M, which was the employer of the four men who were working at the site. Ms. Krossman requested that Mr. Sanders provide her with proof that he had workers' compensation coverage effective in Florida. Mr. Sanders made an immediate effort to supply the requested proof. Pursuant to Mr. Sanders' request, his insurance agent in Montgomery, Alabama faxed a portion of Triple M's policy to the Division's Pensacola office. The documents received by Ms. Krossman caused her to conclude that Triple M had not complied with Florida law because she believed the document did not demonstrate that Florida premium rates were paid, or that Florida class codes were used, or that there was a Florida endorsement in place. Ms. Krossman conducted a database search of the Coverage and Compliance Automated System database and the National Council on Compensation Insurance database. The search did not demonstrate that Triple M had a policy then effective in Florida. Having concluded that the documents produced by Triple M failed to demonstrate coverage in accordance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and after noting the absence of policy information in the databases, Ms. Krossman issued a Stop- Work Order to Triple M on June 4, 2004. The portion of Triple M's policy, provided by Triple M's insurance agent by facsimile, number 748-36-79, which was issued by the American Home Assurance Company to Triple M, had a classifications of operations page which related solely to work to be performed in Alabama. This page provided class codes, the rates, and the premium basis which provided the total estimated annual premium that Triple M was required to pay, based on Alabama law. The faxed document included a policy information page that provided in Item 2, that the policy period ran from January 1, 2004 until January 1, 2005. It provided in Item 3A, as follows: "Workers Compensation Insurance: Part One of the policy applies to the Workers' Compensation Law of the states listed here: AL." The policy information page provided in Item 3C that, "Part Three of the policy applies to the states, if any, listed here:" and lists 44 states, including Florida. The policy provides in Item 4, "Classifications of Operation," a statement of the rating group, and the "total classification premium increase limits," under the heading, "State of Alabama Totals." On June 25, 2004, Ms. Krossman received via facsimile machine, an endorsement to policy no. WC 748-36-79. This was the first time Ms. Krossman had seen this endorsement. It purported to add Florida coverage using Florida premium rates and class codes. It also purported to add the Gulf Breeze Parkway work-site where Ms. Krossman found Triple M engaged in construction activities. The base policy, on its face, indicated a date of January 1, 2004. The issue date of the endorsement was June 16, 2004. This endorsement was not in effect on June 4, 2004, the date of the Stop Work Order. Ms. Krossman served Triple M a "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation." The Division has the statutory authority to request payroll records from an employer working in Florida and the "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation" is the vehicle through which those records are sought. The payroll records provide the data required to calculate any penalties for failure to maintain required coverage. Penalties are calculated by determining the premium amount the employer would have paid based on his or her Florida payroll, and multiplying by a factor of 1.5. In response to the "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation," Triple M provided payroll records. The records indicated that Triple M had employed workers in Florida in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. Using the records provided by Triple M, the penalty was calculated by Ms. Krossman. After some interaction with Ms. Celina Sanders, of Triple M, she eventually determined that the proper penalty to be assessed was $36,521.61. The penalty was calculated using Florida premium rates and class codes in accordance with the dictates of Section 440.38, Florida Statutes. The penalty is correct. Triple M depends on its agent, the Goff Group, of Montgomery, Alabama, to provide proper insurance coverage. As noted above, Item 3.A of the policy listed the primary state of coverage as being Alabama. The policy plainly states at "Part Three - Other States Insurance, How This Insurance Applies," in paragraph 1, that "This other states insurance applies only if one or more states are shown in Item 3.C of the Information Page." One of the other states shown is Florida. At paragraph 2, of the section noted immediately above, the policy states, "If you begin work in any one of those states after the effective date of this policy and are not insured or are not self-insured for such work, all provisions of the policy will apply as though that state were listed in Item 3.A of the Information Page." At paragraph 3 of the policy, the following sentence is found: "We will reimburse you for the benefits required by the workers' compensation law of that state if we are not permitted to pay the benefits directly to persons entitled to them." At paragraph 3, the following sentence is found: "If you have work on the effective date of this policy in any state not listed in Item 3.A. of the Information Page, coverage will not be afforded for that state unless we are notified within thirty days." After that language is the following: "B. Notice. Tell us at once if you begin work in any state listed in Item 3.C. of the Information Page." The plain language of the policy reveals that Triple M's employees were covered by the policy, and that the employees would receive the same benefits, in case of injury, as if it were a Florida Policy with Florida rates and classifications, so long as the work at Gulf Breeze Parkway had not been going on for more than thirty days. Ms. Sanders testified under oath that she notified Triple M's carrier within 30 days of the inception of the work at the Gulf Breeze Parkway site. A letter to the Department of Financial Services signed by Dwain and Celina Sanders on behalf of Triple M, dated June 24, 2004, asserted that Triple M had just begun working in Florida, for the first time in 2004, the week that Ms. Krossman entered the work site. Triple M has been in business for 22 years and has never been bankrupt. Triple M has 401K plans for its employees as well as health insurance. Triple M would have difficulty paying the fine proposed by the Division. Triple M believed its workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance and they were covered. The parties agree that American Home Assurance Company is authorized to write insurance in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation affirm the Stop-Work Order issued to Petitioner on June 4, 2004, and assess a fine of $36,521.61. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 13th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Thompson, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dwain Sanders Triple M Enterprises, Inc. 24393 North 71 Robertsdale, Alabama 36567 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The primary issue in this case is whether the Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) certification issued by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to the Respondent, Berryman & Henigar, Inc. (BHI) should be revoked. In addition, BHI seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that Raymond J. Berryman is an "Asian American" under the part of the definition of "Minority" person under Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.621(12)(b). (All rule citations are to the current Florida Administrative Code.) Mr. Berryman owns 77.4 percent of Berryman & Henigar Enterprises, Inc. (BHE), a Nevada corporation formed in March 1994. BHE is the sole owner of Berryman & Henigar, Inc. (BHI), a Florida corporation and the Respondent in this case. BHE also owns holds 100 percent of the stock of Berryman & Henigar, Inc., a California corporation (BHI California), and Employment Systems, Inc., a California corporation (ESI). BHE also holds ten percent of the stock of GovPartner.com, a Nevada company. BHI and BHI California are both engineering firms. BHI's business in Florida is oriented more towards environmental engineering consulting. The business of BHI California in that state is more oriented towards engineering management consulting. BHI California does more building safety and project management work than BHI in Florida. Notwithstanding these differences between the business of the two corporations, they can be said to be in business in the same or an associated field of operation. BHE provides a corporate shield and consolidated tax reporting for the companies it owns. Most of its directors and officers also serve as directors and officers of the subsidiaries. As a result, BHI and BHI California share the following directors: Ray Berryman, Mary Berryman, Jon Rodriguez, and Scott Kvandal. They also share three or four officers, including Mr. Berryman as CEO. BHE also provides accounting, legal, human resource, and marketing services to all the affiliates under the holding company's umbrella. BHE's marketing department refers to both BHI and BHI California as "Berryman and Henigar" in order to imply the size and strength of BHE and all of its affiliates. By holding both businesses out as one large company, the marketing department attempts to make BHI "look as grandiose as possible." BHE has a negative net worth, as reflected in the consolidated statements of its affiliates. BHI itself has approximately 114 permanent, full-time employees; however, altogether, BHI and its affiliates have well over 200 permanent, full-time employees (although the exact number of employees of BHI's affiliates was not clear from the evidence). Candice Boyer, SFWMD's Senior MBE Coordinator, testified that SFWMD consistently interprets its MBE rules to disqualify an entity either: (1) owned by a holding company not certified by SFWMD as an MBE, or at least not able to qualify for such certification (e.g., by not being domiciled in Florida); (2) affiliated with or sharing resources with another business concern in the same or an associated field of operation if the affiliate is not certified by SFWMD as an MBE, or at least is not able to qualify for such certification (e.g., by not being domiciled in Florida); or (3) whose net worth, or number of permanent, full-time employees, together with all affiliates, exceeds the rule's limits. However, the evidence of SFWMD's actual practice (which was limited to its practice with respect to BHI and ESJV) did not support Boyer's testimony in that regard. BHI first sought certification from SFWMD in July 1996 under an MBE-type program in effect at the time and was denied because the gross receipts of BHI, apparently together with its affiliates, were too high under the program's guidelines. SFWMD's MBE rules, as first adopted in Part VI of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 40E-7, entitled "Supplier Diversity and Outreach MBE Contracting Rule," went into effect on October 1, 1996. In April 1997, SFWMD "graduated" BHI under one of the new MBE rules (since repealed) that counted subcontractor participation by a firm exceeding the size standards (at that time, $3 million net worth and $2 million in net income after federal income taxes, excluding carryover losses) towards a prime contractor's MBE participation goal. In December 1997, BHI updated its application for MBE certification and was granted full certification in the fields of civil engineering, surveying, and construction management for a three-year period of time, even though the application revealed BHI's continued affiliations with BHE and the other affiliated companies. In March 2001, BHI was re-certified for another three years notwithstanding that it continued to be affiliated with BHE and the other companies. Boyer's only explanation was that she should have investigated the affiliates in December 1997 and March 2001 but did not. In late 2001 or early 2002, a joint venture called Everglades Survey Joint Venture (ESJV) sought MBE certification in the field of surveying, with BHI as the qualifying member of the joint venture. Certification was denied because Mr. Berryman did not have a required surveyor's license, as required by Rule 40E-7.653(5). Although not necessary to the decision, the Recommended Order entered by Administrative Law Judge Donald R. Alexander found that ESJV otherwise met the requirements for certification. SFWMD entered a Final Order adopting those findings. Confusing evidence presented in the course of the ESJV proceeding as to BHI's net worth and number of employees caused SFWMD to focus on those issues and cause an investigation to be conducted by its Office of the Inspector General, which is defined by Rule 40E-7.621(14) as the SFWMD "office which provides a central point for coordination of and responsibility for activities that promote accountability, integrity, and efficiency in government as referenced in Section 20.055(2), F.S." The investigation, which was conducted by a consulting auditor employed by SFWMD named John Timothy Beirnes, also focused on the rules dealing with those issues and resulted in an investigative report advancing the interpretations of SFWMD's MBE rules ultimately used to support the decertification recommendation of the Inspector General, Allen Vann. Notwithstanding Boyer's testimony as to SFWMD's purported consistent interpretations of its rules, there was no evidence that SFWMD asserted these interpretations prior to issuance of the Inspector General's investigative report. Boyer also testified that other government agencies in Florida uniformly interpret their MBE-type programs in a manner that would disqualify BHI in this case. However, the evidence was clear that BHI is certified under the MBE-type programs of other agencies in Florida, including the State of Florida Department of Management Services, Orange County, the City of Orlando, and the City of Tampa. One of SFWMD's exhibits was the affidavit of an Operation and Management Consultant I for the State of Florida Department of Management Services stating: "If a firm is affiliated with other firms, I count the number of employees as well as the net worth of the firm together with all of its affiliates." SFWMD's PRO contended that this hearsay statement supported Boyer's testimony. Actually, besides being inconsistent with the action of the Department of Management Services in certifying BHI as an MBE, the hearsay statement is ambiguous, and it is not clear whether the affidavit supports Boyer's testimony as to the purported uniform interpretation of all state agencies. SFWMD's PRO cites Petitioner's Exhibit 10, page 265, as evidence that Palm Beach County decertified BHI for exceeding size limitations, contrary to Mr. Berryman's recollection of never having had an MBE-type certification decertified. In fact, the exhibit merely evidences decertification because BHI failed to respond to a request for information needed for re-evaluation of BHI's continued eligibility under recent changes to provisions of the Palm Beach County Code. In addition, while the exhibit reflects the section numbers of the changed provisions, the provisions are not further identified; and it is not clear from the evidence that they related to size limitations. Finally, the evidence was that the requirements of MBE-type programs of different jurisdiction in Florida can vary except, as of October 1, 1998, in certain respects. See Conclusion 31, infra. For that reason, denial of certification or decertification in one jurisdiction does not necessarily require similar action in another jurisdiction--which is one reason why SFWMD has not reciprocated any certifications by other jurisdictions under Rule 40E-7.651(1). No Improper Purpose BHI takes the position that SFWMD's purpose in seeking revocation of BHI's MBE certification after the Final Order in the ESJV case was improper. But the findings in the ESJV case relied upon by BHI were not necessary to the denial of EVSJ's application, which was based on the joint venture's not having the required professional license as a surveyor. It does not appear that the issues presented in this case were fully litigated in the ESJV case. It appears that the confusing evidence presented in the course of the ESJV proceeding as to BHI's net worth and number of employees prompted SFWMD to focus on those issues. In so doing, SFWMD also focused on the rules dealing with those issues and ultimately advanced interpretations of its MBE rules supporting revocation. It is not found that SFWMD fashioned those interpretations for an improper purpose--i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or securing the approval of an activity." Section 120.595(1)(e)1, Florida Statutes. Aside from the relative merits of the positions of the parties on the proper interpretation of the pertinent statutes and rules, and the earlier decision in the ESJV case, BHI's evidence of improper purpose essentially involved the timing of SFWMD's decision to initiate decertification proceedings in relation to the letting of contracts for work in which BHI intended to participate as a subcontractor, and the resulting monetary impact on BHI. BHI's evidence was insufficient to prove improper purpose.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that BHI's MBE certification not be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 12th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Dean Cannon, Jr., Esquire Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 Post Office Box 3068 Orlando, Florida 32802-3068 Catherine M. Linton, Esquire Frank M. Mendez, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and proofs admitted in these proceedings, and upon the matters stipulated by the parties, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds the following facts to exist: Respondent solicited bids for the reroofing of its Winter Park 9th Grade Center Reroofing Project No. 9209 ("the Project"). Respondent also caused to be compiled a Project Manual for the Project, which among other things contains Instructions To Bidders which governed the bidding process. In its Advertisement For Bid, as well as its Instructions To Bidders, Respondent reserves the right to reject any or all Bids. The Instructions to Bidders also reserves the right to reject any and all bids when Respondent, in its sole discretion, deems it to be in its best interest to reject same. The Project Manual contains a bid form to be used by bidders. In it the bidder understands and agrees that the Owner (Respondent) reserves the right to reject the bid or any and all bids for the Project. Such language was contained in the bid submitted by Petitioner. Included in the Project Manual was a document entitled "Affirmative Action Minority and Women Business Enterprises Program for Construction Work and Construction Materials" (hereinafter "the MBE/WBE rule") which had been adopted by the School Board as an administrative rule. The MBE/WBE Rule established MBE/WBE subcontractor and supplier participation goals for Respondent construction projects, and in pertinent part: it requires bidders on Respondent construction projects to solicit (by newspaper advertisements and by letters) MBE/WBE subcontractor and supplier participation in the work on Respondent construction projects, it permits and requires a bidder who fails to meet the goals to demonstrate and prove to Respondent's MBE/WBE Manager that the bidder made a good faith effort to attain the goals, as a condition precedent to acceptance of his bid, and it establishes criteria which a bidder may use or meet in an effort to show a good faith effort. It also permits a bidder to show any other factor to prove the existence of a good faith effort. By Addendum No. 2 to the Project Manual for the Project, Respondent apprised bidders of its amendment to the MBE/WBE Rule which served to alter and increase the participation percentages of the Rule to 27.5 percent. Petitioner's bid was the apparent low bidder of five bids received by Respondent. Petitioner's bid was in the amount of $795,000.00 and was the only bid under budget. The next lowest bid was in the amount of $823,000.00. Cheesbro's bid showed that Cheesbro had no MBE/WBE subcontractor or supplier participation. All other aspects of Petitioner's bid were proper and responsive. None of the other bidders on the Project achieved the 27.5 percent M/WBE participation goal. Section II of the M/WBE Program acknowledges that the 27.5 percent M/WBE participation requirements "are goals only." This section of the M/WBE Program further states that "[n]o bid of any bidder will be rejected by the School Board solely because the bidder fails to attain the goals..., however, the bidder... must demonstrate to the MBE/WBE Manager, within 72 hours after the time of bid opening (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays), that such bidder made a good faith effort to contract with qualified subcontractors and/or suppliers for the construction work sufficient to meet the requirements of the goals." Petitioner met with the Respondent's M/WBE Manager within 72 hours after the time of bid opening and demonstrated its good faith effort to contract with qualified subcontractors and/or suppliers for the construction work pursuant to the contract documents. The M/WBE Program requires that each bidder must solicit sub-bids and price quotations from MBE and from qualified MBE and WBE contractors. All potential bidders, including Petitioner, received a list of the qualified M/WBE contractors from the School Board at the pre-bid meeting. The M/WBE Program specifically sets forth the manner in which the bidders must solicit "from M/WBE subcontractors and suppliers" and "the failure of a Bidder to solicit same shall render the bid of such bidder unresponsive and the School Board will reject such bid." The School Board's M/WBE Program establishes the format by which each bidder must solicit bids from qualified M/WBE subcontractors and suppliers. Pursuant to the M/WBE Program, each potential bidder must publish advertisements in two daily newspapers which are published and widely circulated in Orange County. The Orlando Sentinel and Orlando Times are identified by the contract documents as two acceptable newspapers for these advertisements. Each bidder must also prepare and deliver, by certified or registered mail with return receipt requested, three solicitation letters to not less than three approved M/WBE subcontractors and/or suppliers. The contract documents identify an approved form for the referenced advertisements and solicitation letters. Further, the bidders must attach to their bids proof of publication and mailing for the advertisements and solicitation letters, respectively. Petitioner complied with each requirement set forth by the M/WBE with regard to soliciting sub-bids and price quotations from M/WBE subcontractors and suppliers. Petitioner timely published the requisite advertisement in the Orlando Sentinel and the Orlando Times as required by the contract documents. Petitioner also went beyond the three solicitation letters required by the contract documents and sent eight solicitation letters to approved M/WBE subcontractors on the Project. Petitioner also attempted to solicit an oral bid from Mavis Painters but none was received by them. Petitioner received only two telephone calls in response to its advertisements and solicitation letters. One M/WBE subcontractor advised Petitioner that it was going to bid on the Project as a prime contractor (which did not occur), and the other M/WBE subcontractors who called advised Petitioner that they would not bid the Project because they were too busy with other work. Petitioner received no other response to either its advertisements or solicitation letters. Petitioner attempted to make telephone contact with some of the M/WBE subcontractors to whom the letters were sent but was unable to contact them. Despite its efforts, petitioner received no price quotations from any approved M/WBE subcontractors or suppliers. And, none was included in Petitioner's bid. Petitioner is a licensed Florida roofing contractor. Petitioner bid the Project as a prime, rather than as a general, contractor. In this regard Petitioner was to retain a substantial portion of the work to be done by its own forces, rather than to subcontract out most of the work. There are certain portions of any project which lend themselves to work by subcontractors who are specialized in a particular trade. On this Project, Petitioner sought price quotations from electrical, mechanical, plumbing, lightweight concrete, and metal roofing subcontractors. These are the areas which Petitioner looked to subcontract to others on the Project. As a roofing contractor it was logical for Petitioner to do the actual roof work itself and to subcontract out the remainder of the work. Petitioner sought price quotations from approved M/WBE subcontractors on the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing portions of the work. None of the lightweight concrete installation or metal roofing M/WBE subcontractors listed by the School Board were approved applicators for the lightweight concrete installation and metal roof as specified for this Project by the School Board's architect. Therefore, Petitioner was unable to obtain any price quotations, and did not request quotations, from any approved M/WBE subcontractors in these two trade areas. Installation by a manufacturer's approved applicator is essential in order to obtain the warranty documents as required by the contract documents. Also, these two subcontract areas make up a substantially larger percentage of the overall contract amount than do the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing sections. While there may be some other areas which Petitioner could have subcontracted to other forces, these other areas were within the general "roofing" scope of work and better able to be performed by Petitioner. The pool of approved M/WBE subcontractors which Petitioner had available to choose from in order to meet the minority participation requirements was therefore severely restricted. Shortly after the bid opening, a representative of Petitioner met with the School Board's M/WBE Manager to demonstrate Cheesbro's good faith effort to achieve the M/WBE percentage participation goals. Petitioner explained the efforts which it had taken. These efforts were beyond the minimum required by the contract documents in order to obtain minority participation on the Project. However, the Assistant to the School Board's M/WBE Manager felt that Petitioner had not made a good faith effort and the Manager agreed and recommended to the School Board that it reject all bids and rebid the Project. This recommendation was based on the Manager's determination that petitioner should have actively solicited bids from M/WBE sub-contractors well beyond sending letters and the newspaper ads. On December 13, 1993, School Board furnished to Cheesbro a written notice of its intended decision to reject all bids. The basis of such intended decision was that no bidder had attained the MBE/WBE goals and that no bidder, including Cheesbro, had shown that it had made the good faith effort required by the MBE/WBE Rule. On December 14, 1993, School Board sustained the determination of the MBE/WBE Manager that a good faith effort was not shown by Cheesbro and rejected all bids as recommended by School Board's Superintendent of Schools. On December 27, 1993 Cheesbro filed a written Formal Protest, which is the subject of these proceedings. There is no evidence or claim that the MBE/WBE Manager, in determining that Cheesbro had failed to prove it made a good faith effort to obtain the goals, acted illegally, fraudulently or oppressively, in reaching her decision. However, the evidence shows that the determination was arbitrary and was not justified based on the proofs offered by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact, it is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Orange County enter a Final Order granting the relief requested by the Petitioner, Cheesbro Roofing Inc., and certifying that Petitioner is the lowest responsive bidder and enter into a contract with Cheesbro for the Project pursuant to the bid. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 (in part), 23. Rejected as argument or conclusion of law: paragraph 22 (in part). Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (in part), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (in part), 17 (in part). Rejected as argument or conlusion of law: paragraphs 6, 11 (in part), 19. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 16 (in part), 17 (in part), 18. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Wittek, Esquire Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Wittek, P.A. 145 N. Magnolia Avenue P. O. Box 2828 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Rowland, Jr., Esquire Broad and Cassel 390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 4961 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dr. Donald Shaw Superintendent Orange County School Board P. O. Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271 Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
