The Issue Whether Respondent, Francisco Portes, violated Subsections 476.194(1)(a), 476.194(1)(e)1., and 476.194(1)(e)2., Florida Statutes (2003), and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was unlicensed as a barber by the Department's Barbers' Board of the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, the name of the business located at 1447 North Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida (North Pine Hills address), was "Still Keeping It Real." That business was not licensed by Florida Barbers' Board.1/ The Department, though its employees, conducted a compliance sweep, and/or inspection, of the facility named "Still Keeping It Real" on February 7, 2004, after Petitioner received information that there was a "possible unlicensed barber shop or cosmetology salon" operating at that location. David Hogan, a regional program administrator with the Department, and two of the Department's employees participated in the compliance sweep and inspection. Mr. Hogan has been employed with the Department for approximately ten years, during which he has attended numerous training sessions provided by the Department. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hogan was certified as an investigator by the Council on Licensure Enforcement and Regulation by Eastern Kentucky University. On February 7, 2004, Mr. Hogan and the two inspectors initially conducted surveillance of the establishment located at the North Pine Hills address from a parking lot across the street from the establishment. There was a sign on the front of the building that said "Michael J's Still Keeping It Real" or "Michael J's Keeping It Real." During the 15 to 20 minutes that Mr. Hogan and the inspectors observed the establishment, there were a number of cars parked in the establishment's parking lot and a number of people were observed coming and going from the establishment. Based on the foregoing observations, Mr. Hogan and the inspectors believed that they had sufficient cause to enter the building. Once inside the establishment, Mr. Hogan conducted an inspection of the premises of "Still Keeping It Real." During the inspection, Mr. Hogan observed approximately four to six work stations, all of which had barbering and/or cosmetology implements set up at them. In a separate room at the establishment, there were also two more cosmetology stations. Mr. Hogan conducted an inspection of each of the work stations at the establishment. Although there were individuals at some of the work stations performing various barbering services on customers in the chairs in the work stations, no barber or cosmetology licenses were posted in any of the work stations. Upon request, with one exception, the individuals working at the various work stations would not produce identification. Moreover, none of the individuals working in the work stations produced either a cosmetologist license or barber license issued by the Department. Within five to ten minutes of Mr. Hogan's entering the establishment, all but one of the individuals working there and their customers left the premises. The only remaining individual working in the establishment completed the haircut he was giving his customer. After the haircut was completed, the customer paid the person who cut his hair and then left the establishment. As of February 7, 2004, the date of the inspection, Respondent had owned and operated the business establishment at the North Pine Hills address for approximately three months. The name of the business establishment located at the North Pine Hills address, immediately prior to Respondent's becoming the owner and operator of the business, was "Michael J's Keeping It Real." However, when Respondent took over the business, he named it "Still Keeping It Real." During the February 7, 2004, inspection, Respondent gave Mr. Hogan one of Respondent's business cards. Imprinted on the business card was the name of the business establishment, "Still Keeping It Real"; the address of the business, "1447 N. Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida"; and Respondent's name, "Frank Portes." The word "barber" was imprinted on the business card immediately below Respondent's name. Respondent testified that he performed services at "Still Keeping It Real" and that he did not have a barber's license at the time of the inspection. Although not licensed as a barber, Respondent mistakenly believed that because he had completed cosmetology school and registered for the cosmetology examination, he could work under the supervision of someone with a license. Respondent testified that he was working under the supervision of Michael J., the previous owner of the establishment, who, at the time of the inspection, still worked at the establishment. However, at the time of the inspection, Michael J. was not on the premises of the establishment. Furthermore, no evidence was presented at this proceeding to establish that Michael J. was licensed as either a barber or cosmetologist by the Department. Under limited circumstances, individuals who have graduated from cosmetology school may cut hair and perform other services included within the statutory definition of cosmetology prior to obtaining their cosmetology license, if they are supervised by a licensed cosmetologist. See §§ 477.013(4) and 477.019(4), Fla. Stat. (2003). However, graduates of cosmetology schools who have failed the cosmetology examination twice may not practice under the supervision provision in Subsection 477.019(4), Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent graduated from cosmetology school about two and a half years ago. After completing cosmetology school, Respondent took the cosmetology licensure examination twice, but failed to pass the examination. Because he was unsuccessful in passing the examination, Respondent planned to go back to cosmetology school for 200 more hours and then re-take the cosmetology licensure examination. A person who is licensed as a cosmetologist or properly working under the supervision of a licensed cosmetologist, may cut hair and perform other services included within the definition of both "barbering" and "cosmetology." (See Subsections 476.034(2) and 477.013(4), Florida Statutes (2003), which reflect that the definition of "cosmetology" encompasses many of the services also included in the definition of "barbering.") Respondent was ineligible to provide barbering services under either of the qualifying circumstances described in paragraph 18. First, based on Respondent's testimony, he was not licensed as either a barber or a cosmetologist. Second, despite Respondent's mistaken belief to the contrary, even if it is assumed that Michael J. was licensed and present on the premises at the time of the inspection, Respondent was ineligible to perform services under the supervision of a licensed person pursuant to Subsection 477.019(4), Florida Statutes (2003), because he had failed the licensure examination twice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent, Francisco Portes, engaged in acts proscribed by Subsections 476.194(1)(a), 476.194(1)(e)1., and 476.194(1)(e)2., Florida Statutes (2003); and (2) imposing an administrative fine of $500 for each violation for a total of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 2005.
Findings Of Fact E. J. Lamberth, III, is a certified general contractor having been licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Mr. Lamberth's license was not renewed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board when it expired in June, 1975. However, the Board does not question Mr. Lamberth's right to issuance of such a license pending the outcome of this hearing, and the failure of the Board to reissue Mr. Lamberth's license is an apparent administrative oversight. Mr. Lamberth applied and obtained building permits as a Construction Industry Licensing Board Certified General Contractor for construction of modifications or additions to the homes of Mr. and Mrs. Cohen, Mr. and Mrs. Retter, and Mr. and Mrs. DeChant. Copies of the applications for building permits were introduced in the evidence. Exhibit I is the application for the Retter's permit; Exhibit V is the application for the permit for the Cohen's permit; and Exhibit VII is the application for the DeChant's building permit. Lamberth notified the Board by letter received by the Board on or about December 24, 1974 of his resignation as qualifier for Addition Builders, Inc. Lamberth's employment with Addition Builders, Inc. began when he answered a newspaper advertisement for a certified general contractor placed by Richard Butler. Butler was looking for a certified general contractor to supervise construction and to obtain building permits for a construction business which he was at that time incorporating. Lamberth checked with the local Better Business Bureau and having determined that there were no complaints against Butler, entered into an employment agreement with Butler. Subsequently, Butler did incorporate and E. J. Lamberth be came Vice-president for Addition Builders, Inc., a Florida corporation. Lamberth's duties were to inspect plans for any modification or additions which Addition Builders, Inc. contracted to construct, to supervise construction, and to be the qualifying agent for Addition Builders, Inc. In August 1974, Richard Butler entered into a contract in behalf of Addition Builders, Inc. with Michael and Carol Retter for the construction of two-bedroom/one-bath addition to their house located at 460 N. W. Opa Locka Boulevard, North Miami, Florida. Construction of this addition was to take approximately three to six months. Construction began in September of 1974. The construction at the Retter's residence was supervised by the building superintendent or chief carpenter, Mr. Braddock. Construction on the addition was intermittent during September and slowed to a halt in October 1974. The Retters called Addition Builders, Inc. in November and were advised by Mr. Braddock that Mr. Butler had withdrawn from the business but that Braddock would continue with the construction and complete the addition. Construction on the Retter's addition was approximately 50 percent complete, the floor, roof and walls having been built but the windows, doors and plumbing fixtures not having been set. Braddock came and did some work and advised the Retters that he had taken over the business from Butler. Mrs. Retter testified that she was working full-time during this period but that on days when she and her husband were home the construction personnel came at 9:00 a.m. and left in mid-afternoon. The personnel who came, with the exception of Braddock, were subcontractors employed by Addition Builders, Inc. During this period, she did not see Mr. Lamberth who she saw for the first time the day of the formal hearing. The Retters first learned of Lamberth's association with Addition Builders, Inc. from the officials of the city of North Miami, who gave the Retters Lamberth's name as the party who had drawn the construction permit. In January the Retters contacted Mr. Lamberth who advised them that he had withdrawn from the company and could not help them. The contract price for the contract between the Retters and Addition Builders, Inc. was for $8,900 of which the Retters had paid $8,000 at the time construction of the addition ceased. It cost the Retters approximately $2,000 to finish the construction of the addition after Addition Builders, Inc. ceased to perform any work on the job. E. J. Lamberth, III, has been a full-time employee of the Dade County Recreation Department since January 9, 1963. He was employed by Richard Butler as a qualifying agent for Addition Builders, Inc. and was made Vice-president of that corporation. Addition Builders, Inc. began operation in late July or August of 1974. Lamberth performed the duties for which he was employed. He drew the construction permits required, inspected plans for modifications and additions to be built by Addition Builders, Inc., and visited the various construction sites of the corporation at noon and in the late afternoon to determine the progress being made by the subcontractors employed by Addition Builders, Inc. Through his contact with Mr. Braddock and the subcontractors employed by Addition Builders, Inc., Lamberth arranged for the scheduling of the subcontractors on the various jobs. At this time, Addition Builders, Inc. had between six and eight projects under construction. Lamberth was able to determine the progress being made on the various sites through his periodic inspections two to three times per week. These inspections and his conversations with the subcontractors revealed in early October that Butler was countermanding Lamberth's directions and canceling Lamberth's instructions given to subcontractors. Because of these activities, Lamberth advised Butler that he, Lamberth, would have to be in charge of the projects underway and schedule work on the projects or he would have to withdraw as qualifying agent for Addition Builders, Inc. Because of Butler's continued interference, Lamberth eventually resigned from his position with Addition Builders, Inc. in December 1974. Lamberth was not a stockholder in Addition Builders, Inc. When the work began on the various additions, Lamberth received 3 percent of the contract price as his compensation for his services to Addition Builders, Inc. Subsequent to being advised of the problems with Addition Builders, Inc., Lamberth attempted to locate Richard Butler. Richard Butler could not be located and has apparently left the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board take no action against the certificate of L. E. Lamberth, III. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida James W. Bowling, Esquire Vernis and Bowling Sailboat Bay - PH II 2951 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1241 E. J. LAMBERTH, III, CG C006734, P. O. Box 570444, Miami, Florida 33157. Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Susan Shilling Howell, was first licensed as a registered building contractor in Florida in October, 1981. License Number RB 0040698 was issued to her, qualifying M. B. Howell Homes, located at 2601 Dale Avenue, Panama City Beach, Florida, 32404. This license expired on June 30, 1983 and no address changes were made to the records pertinent to it during period of activity, nor has it been renewed since it expired. On March 23, 1983, William Carrier and J. Paula Carrier, his wife, entered into a contract with Respondent and her husband, M. B. Howell, to purchase a house, constructed by their company, located in Bay County, Florida. Closing was scheduled for some time in April, 1983, but because the house was not completed sufficiently to satisfy the Carriers, the closing was delayed and they did not move in until sometime in June, 1983. Even at that point, there remained a substantial list of discrepancies which required correction by the builder. These included such things as: a badly poured driveway - this was replaced by Respondent once, but when found to be still unsatisfactory, Respondent refused to correct. poor interior painting, poor exterior painting, and a damaged tub in the bathroom. Mr. Carrier contacted Respondent regarding these discrepancies right after he moved in. Both Respondent and her husband, the actual builder, came to the house and looked at the items and while a few of the minor discrepancies were corrected, the major ones were not. In Carrier's estimation, 80 percent of the problems were not fixed. Though he asked Respondent to come back and fix the items several times, with the last request by letter dated October 18, 1983, no one did and on November 14, 1983, he asked another contractor to come in and make the necessary repairs. During all this time, Respondent and M. B. Howell Homes were using the address, 126 Rose Coral Drive, (their home), as their place of business. On January 12, 1984, Respondent went to the Bay County Building Office and purchased a building permit in the name of M. B. Howell Homes, listing herself as contractor and her expired license on the application form along with the address, 126 Rose Coral Drive, as the business address. Permit Number 9472 was issued. This entire transaction was observed by Elizabeth O'Connor, a permit clerk, who recognized Respondent as the applicant. Thereafter, on March 15, 1984, Respondent again applied for a building permit for M. B. Howell Homes, at the same office, this time dealing directly with Ms. O'Connor. Again she listed her expired license number and the above address on the application form and was issued permit 9733. On both occasions, her license had expired and had not been renewed and she made no mention of the fact that the license was delinquent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that, the registration of Respondent, SUSAN SHILLING HOWELL, as a registered building contractor in Florida be revoked. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 8th day of March, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan Shilling Howell 126 Rose Coral Drive Panama City Beach, Florida 32407
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”), notice of intent to award a contract to Intervenor, Blue Ray’z Heating and Air Conditioning, LLC (“Blue”), for maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) equipment and components located at various facilities along Florida’s Turnpike System, is contrary to DOT’s governing statutes, rules, or the bid specifications, and contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact DOT is an agency of the state of Florida tasked with procuring the construction of all roads designated as part of the State Highway System, the State Park Road System, or any roads placed under DOT’s supervision by law. On March 10, 2017, DOT published its bid solicitation for ITB-DOT-16/17-8017-AC (the “ITB”), seeking bids from contractors for maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement of HVAC equipment and components at various facilities along Florida’s Turnpike (SR 91) milepost 172.0 to milepost 312.0; Southern Connector (SR 417) milepost 0.0 to milepost 6.5; Beachline Expressway (SR 528) milepost 0.0 to milepost 8.4; Seminole Expressway (SR 417) milepost 37.7 to milepost 55.0; and Daniel Webster Western Beltway (SR 429) milepost 0.9 to milepost 11.0. The scope of work of the ITB requires all labor, materials, and incidentals necessary to provide maintenance and repair of 232 HVAC units located at 65 facilities along Florida’s Turnpike System. The contract is for one year, with three one- year renewal periods. The 65 facilities span the distance from Wildwood in the north at milepost 304 to past Yeehaw Junction in the south to milepost 172, and from a westernmost point on State Road 429 at milepost 11 (Orlando area) to the easternmost section of State Road 417. Under the ITB, the vendor is required to conduct bimonthly preventative maintenance services on each HVAC unit; a total of five visits per site, per year. The vendor is also required during the first month of the contract and any subsequent annual renewal periods to conduct one annual preventative maintenance service. The annual maintenance is typically more extensive than the 60-day maintenance. However, the bi-monthly and annual maintenance services require, on average, 30 minutes for each of the 232 HVAC units. The vendor is also required to provide unscheduled, emergency services to diagnose problems and make necessary repairs of units that are not operating properly. An unscheduled repair could take several hours to complete, and there have been occasions where more than one unit needed a repair at the same time. The vendor must be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, to provide unscheduled, emergency services. Most air conditioning work is treated as an emergency, which requires the vendor to respond within three hours. The ITB includes specifications, schedules, a list of facilities, and other materials. Section 9.1 of the ITB requires bidders to meet certain minimum qualifications, including demonstrating the experience necessary to satisfactorily perform the services within the scope of work. Of particular relevance to the instant case is the following language on page 12 of the ITB: Certification of Experience The organized business enterprise (e.g. corporation, LLC or sole proprietorship) shall have been licensed and actively involved in the type of business requested for a minimum of three (3) years. Prior experience shall specifically be related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the Scope of Work for this Contract. Submit documentation of the work experience with the bid package. Pursuant to section 9.2, “[f]ailure by the bidder to provide the above item(s) will constitute a non-responsive determination. Bids found to be non-responsive will not be considered.” The Certification of Experience requirement is also referenced on page 2 of the ITB, followed by this statement: “The Department will review carefully to determine if the Vendor is responsive, responsible and qualified in the area of work contemplated by this Contract.” A two-page “Certification of Experience Documentation” form is located on pages 23 and 24 of the ITB. The form reiterates, in pertinent part: Prior experience shall specifically be related to the technical scope and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work for this Contract. Submit documentation of the work experience with the bid package. The Department will review carefully to determine if the Vendor(s) is responsive, responsible and qualified in the area of work contemplated by this Contract. Describe your work experience in detail for the minimum period required, beginning with your current or most recent project. Use a separate block to describe each project. (Print out additional copies of the form or attach additional sheets as necessary.) The form includes many lines, spaces, and separate blocks for bidders to provide the client names, addresses, and telephone numbers; dates of service; dollar value of each project; client project manager for each project; and a description of each project. The form includes enough lines and spaces for bidders to provide the required information for up to seven clients. The bidders are directed to attach additional sheets as necessary. The deadline for submission of bids was Tuesday, April 4, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. On April 4, 2017, DOT received and opened bids from four vendors in response to the ITB, which revealed the following bid tabulation prices: (1) All Seasons ($158,446.00); (2) Blue ($128,630.00); (3) Kenyon & Partners, LLC ($279,183.00); and (4) Florida Drawbridges, Inc. ($331,183.00). On April 4, 2017, DOT posted a notice of intent to award the contract for the work described in the ITB to Blue. Notwithstanding the requirement for each bidder to demonstrate prior experience “specifically . . . related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the Scope of Work for this Contract,” Blue failed to demonstrate such experience in the Certification of Experience Documentation form. The first client listed on Blue’s Certification of Experience Documentation form is the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”). With regard to this client, Blue indicated service dates of June 2015 to present and a project dollar value of $5,000.00 per year. As to the project description, Blue stated: “Provide HVAC Maintenance, Repair & Service @ Orange Regional Juvenile Detention Center.” At hearing, Mr. Davis, the sole owner and operator of Blue, conceded the work involved a total of only 12 HVAC units, in two DJJ buildings, and at the same location. The second client listed is Florida Environmental Compliance Corp. (“FECC”). With regard to this client, Blue indicated service dates of 2012 to present and no dollar value for the project was provided. As to the project description, Blue stated: “HVAC Maintenance, Repair & Service. Installation.” At hearing, Mr. Davis conceded the work for FECC involved a total of only eight HVAC units at two locations (Polk County–two units, and Orlando-six units). The third client listed is DOT. With regard to this client, Blue indicated service dates of July through August 2015, and the dollar value of the project was $21,300.00. As to the project description, Blue stated: “Installation of Recorder Room Ductless split system.” At hearing, Mr. Davis conceded the work for DOT involved the installation of only three HVAC units in three locations at a cost of $7,100.00 each. The fourth client listed is CVS. With regard to this client, Blue indicated service dates of July through August 2014, and the dollar value of the project was $17,000.00. As to the project description, Blue stated: “Installation of Mini split system in CVS store clinics.” At hearing, Mr. Davis conceded the work for CVS involved the installation of only two HVAC units at one store location.2/ DOT did not review Blue’s Certification of Experience Documentation form to determine whether Blue demonstrated the necessary qualifications and experience required by the ITB. At hearing, none of the witnesses presented by DOT could testify as to Blue’s demonstration of prior experience, specifically related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work. Leonard Robinson, a contract manager for Jacobs Engineering, the consultant for the project, testified he was involved only “to a very small extent” in the review of Blue’s bid. Mr. Robinson testified that “the only thing I had to do was to award the bid per the lowest bidder as written in the contract and state the reason why I’m doing so and also sign the Conflict of Interest form. That is it.” Mr. Robinson did not review Blue’s qualifications or past experience, and he could not say that Blue could perform the work described in the ITB. Alan Chua is the capital improvement procurement administrator for Jacobs Engineering. Mr. Chua evaluated Blue’s bid to determine whether it corresponded to the engineer’s estimate. He testified he reviewed the Certification of Experience Documentation form, but only as to the dates and to the limited extent necessary to determine whether the projects listed by Blue satisfied the three years of experience required by the contract. Mr. Chua conceded he did not review the project descriptions for the four referenced clients identified on the form, and he could not say whether any of the four projects identified on the form were similar in volume or technical scope to that specified in the ITB. Trisa Thomas is a contracts development manager for Jacobs Engineering. Ms. Thomas testified she reviewed the Certification Experience Documentation form. Ms. Thomas testified she reviewed the dates to determine whether the projects listed by Blue satisfied the three years or more of experience required by the contract. She further testified she reviewed the dates, project manager, and project descriptions. As to the project descriptions, Ms. Thomas testified she reviewed the type of work Blue did for the company to see if it was related to the work specified in the ITB. However, she did not consider the volume of Blue’s work. Significantly, Ms. Thomas testified: Q: Okay. All right. Do you know why the dollar value of the project is on the Certification of Experience Documentation? A: Just to get an idea what they--how much they probably performed. Q: So would that help you get an idea of the volume of work that they performed for that client? A: I’m not even really sure if that played a factor. Q: And when you say, I’m not sure if that played a factor, what--what are you referring to? A: Well I guess what I’m saying is, I’m-- that’s really not where my concentration is. I’m looking at the years, the project description, what they--the type of work they performed for the--for that agency, and if the references are credible or, you know, satisfactory. Q: Okay. And when you say they’re satisfactory, what do you look at to determine if they’re satisfactory? A: Based on the service that they provided to them, the vendor will let us know how pleased they were with the work that they provided to their agency. Q: All right. Looking at this Joint Exhibit 5, pages 5 and 6, which places did Blue Ray’z perform HVAC maintenance, repair, installation and repair services that were of the same technical scope as the Invitation to Bid? A: I see on the Certification of Experience where they provided HVAC repair and service installation. Also I see where they provided installation of a recorder room. But the volume, there’s--I don’t--I wouldn’t be able to determine that. Q: And let me ask my question again. So which places did Blue Ray’z perform HVAC maintenance, repair, installation and replacement services that were of the similar technical scope? A: I don’t know. Q: What maintenance, repair and installation or replacement services did Blue Ray’z provide to another vendor that was similar to the volume of work specified in the Invitation to Bid? A: The volume work? I don’t know. Q: Do you know if the bid by Blue Ray’z was reviewed by anybody to determine if the experience was similar in size, technical scope and volume of work specified in the Scope of Work? A: I don’t know. Tr., Vol. I, pp. 121-123. Santiago Alvarez is the facilities and telecommunications administrator for the Turnpike Enterprise, which is part of DOT. Mr. Alvarez testified he did not review the Certification of Experience Documentation form in any detail. He just looked to confirm the documents were included in the bid package. Sheree Merting is the contract services administrator for DOT’s Turnpike Enterprise. Ms. Merting testified she was not involved in the evaluation of Blue’s bid. Amanda Cruz is a contract analyst for DOT. She did not review Blue’s bid to determine whether Blue was qualified by having the experience required by the ITB. DOT established specific requirements for the ITB to determine responsiveness and then failed to determine if Blue had prior work experience specifically related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work. DOT awarded the bid to Blue because it was the lowest bidder, without considering whether Blue demonstrated prior experience specifically related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work. DOT awarded the bid to Blue because it was the lowest bidder, even though Blue failed to demonstrate in the Certification of Experience Documentation form that it had prior experience specifically related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work. In sum, Blue is not a responsive and responsible vendor, and DOT’s proposed action is contrary to the bid specifications, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary and capricious.3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Transportation, enter a final order rescinding the proposed award to Intervenor, Blue Ray’z Heating and Air Conditioning, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 2017.
