The Issue The issue presented in this case is whether the Respondent Department of Transportation's proposed award of District Contract Nos. E6548 and E6551 to the Intervenor, Florida Sweeping, Inc. ("Florida Sweeping,") should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: In the spring of 1993, FDOT's District Six office solicited bids for district contracts E6548 and E6551 (the "Contracts"). The Contracts call for the mechanical sweeping of certain segments of Interstate 95 in District Six. At a mandatory pre-bid conference, the bidders for the Contracts were provided with a packet which included a Notice to Contractors and Standard Specifications. The Notice to Contractors sets forth the procedures for submitting and opening the bids. The Standard Specifications are the same for all district construction and maintenance contracts. An addendum to the Standard Specifications (the "Special Provisions") was included in the bid package for all sweeping contracts. The Notice to Contractors for both of the Contracts required bidders to "provide with [their] bid, a copy of [their] occupational license issued in [the] company's name by the State of Florida." The Notice also provided that a [C]ontractor must possess a minimum of two [2] years' [sic] experience in providing the services specified. As proof, letters of reference must be included with the bid package indicating the contact person and the phone number of which [sic] the company has performed similar services in a satisfactorily [sic] manner. A contractor's bid may be rejected [emphasis in the original] if the reference letter(s) is not included in the bid package and/or does not specify that the contractor has the minimum experience required. The Special Provisions which were an addendum to the Standard Specifications included the following provision: M110-31-5 Equipment The Contractor must have proof of ownership, or a signed lease for the duration of the contract for equipment suitable for meeting the requirements of this contract. A list of equipment to be used must be enclosed with the Contractor's bid. Where new equipment will be purchased, the Contractor shall provide a signed quotation from an equipment dealer, with a guaranteed delivery date, in order to insure that work can begin on time . . . . On May 18, 1993, prior to the bid opening, the president of CSI contacted the FDOT personnel responsible for the bidding to inquire regarding the letters of reference. The president of CSI was told that anything that was a requirement of the bid package should be complied with. As a result, the president of CSI contacted the FDOT representatives that he had worked with in the past and obtained letters of reference. The reference letters from FDOT were submitted by CSI as part its bid proposals. The bids for the Contracts were opened on May 20, 1993 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Bids were received on each contract from at least three bidders including CSI and Florida Sweeping, Inc. The submitted bids were reviewed by the District Six Contractual Services Office. The bids submitted by Florida Sweeping were the lowest for each of the two contracts. At issue in this case is Florida Sweeping's bid for Contract No. E6548 which was $116,178.33. Its bid for Contract No. E6551 was $126,975.81. CSI's bids for the Contracts were $124,073.95 and $143,746.20, respectively. There were several other sweeping contracts that were bid at the same time as the contracts at issue in this proceeding. On one of those other contracts, Contract E6550, CSI and Florida Sweeping submitted the exact same bid. The bid proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping failed to include letters of reference and copies of the applicable occupational licenses. CSI's proposals included these items. The evidence established that Florida Sweeping had successfully completed similar contracts for FDOT in the past and, therefore, FDOT was familiar with Florida Sweeping's work and knew that it had the necessary experience and equipment to perform the work required by the contracts. While it is not clear whether Florida Sweeping currently has the occupational licenses required to perform the work under the contracts, the evidence established that the licenses can be obtained simply by applying and paying for them. The cost to obtain the licenses necessary to complete the work on these Contracts would not cost in excess of $178.00. Petitioner contends that Florida Sweeping's bid proposals also failed to include an equipment list. However, the evidence established that such a list was included in the proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping. Florida Sweeping's proposals also included a list of current and previous contracts completed by the company for FDOT. Florida Sweeping has obtained letters of reference from FDOT in the past and could have obtained such letters for the Contracts at issue in this case. Section 2.1 of the General Specifications in the bid package provides as follows: The Department will consider award of the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bid which complies with all the requirements set forth in these specifications, and respective contract documents, and advertisement of bid. The Department reserves the right to award the work as determined to be in the best interest of the Department. The Department reserves the right to reject any or all bids or any single items of the bid, or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in proposals received. In reviewing the bid proposals submitted, FDOT deemed Florida Sweeping's failure to include occupational licenses and letters of reference to be minor technicalities that could be waived in evaluating the responsiveness of the bids pursuant to Section 2.1 of the General Specifications cited above. This decision was consistent with prior agency determinations to waive the failure to include these documents in awarding similar contracts in the past. It does not appear that Florida Sweeping has obtained any competitive advantage as a result of its failure to include occupational licenses and letters of reference in its bid proposals. With respect to Contract E6550, FDOT decided to award that contract to CSI even though Florida Sweeping submitted a bid for an identical contract amount. FDOT's decision was based in part upon FDOT's conclusion that Florida Sweeping's proposal was not complete due to the failure to include an occupational license and letters of reference. FDOT's decision to award that contract to the more complete of two equal bidders does not mandate the award of the Contracts at issue in this case to CSI when the bid amounts were not equal. The failure to include an occupational license and letters of reference rendered Florida Sweeping's bid proposals incomplete, but not necessarily nonresponsive. FDOT had the right under the bid documents to waive these minor omissions in order to receive a lower contract price. In the fall of 1991, the predecessor of CSI was the low bidder for two FDOT sweeping contracts in this district. Another bidder protested the award of those contracts on the grounds that the proposals submitted by CSI's predecessor were nonresponsive due to the failure to include proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond. A hearing was conducted by the undersigned hearing officer on January 16, 1992 and, in a Recommended Order issued on March 24, 1992, the undersigned Hearing Officer recommended that the proposals submitted by CSI's predecessor be rejected as nonresponsive. The result reached in that case is not contrary to the result reached herein because the bid documents in that earlier case required proof that the bidder could acquire a performance and payment bond upon award of the contract. Such proof was not provided. The failure to include that proof did not qualify as a technical omission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the bids submitted by Florida Sweeping to be responsive and dismissing the challenges filed by Certified Sweeping. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 29th day of September 1993.
The Issue The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether the Department’s intended award of state term contracts for information technology staff augmentation services was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for procuring state term contracts. See §§ 287.012(28), 287.042(2)(a), 287.056-057, Fla. Stat. A “state term contract” is a term contract that is competitively procured by the Department. § 287.012(28), Fla. Stat. A “term contract” means an indefinite quantity contract to furnish commodities or contractual services during a defined period. § 287.012(29), Fla. Stat. The Department initiated this competitive procurement to establish a state term contract for information technology (“IT”) staff augmentation services. The procurement’s objective is to enable state agencies and other eligible users (“Customers”) to supplement their IT staff. The solicitation at the center of these protests is Request for Proposals for Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services – 3rd Bid, RFP 15- 80101507-SA-D (the “RFP”). The RFP is intended to replace an existing state term contract for IT staff augmentation services. The current contract has an estimated annual spending volume of approximately $66,800,000. As described in the RFP, the Department intends to award up to approximately 200 vendors with the ability to provide (temporary) IT staff services per specific position. Thereafter, a Customer who desires IT staff assistance will issue a Request for Quote, which is available for review by all vendors awarded with the state term contract (the “Contractors”). A Contractor who desires to fulfill the request responds to the Customer’s Request for Quote agreeing to provide IT staff who possess the technical skills needed. A Request for Quote also allows Customers to obtain pricing and service information from interested Contractors. See § 287.056(2), Fla. Stat. If selected, the Contractor will then charge the Customer for the assigned personnel on an hourly basis.6/ In other words, the Department will competitively procure IT staffing services from multiple vendors/Contractors. A vendor who is awarded a contract under the RFP is not given an actual IT job, but rather is included on a list of Contractors as a potential source to fill an IT position in the future. Thereafter, Customers may obtain IT staff assistance, through a Request for Quote, without having to conduct a separate, independent solicitation. The Department issued the RFP on February 5, 2019.7/ On February 11, 2019, the Department posted Addendum No. 1 to the RFP. Addendum No. 1 notified vendors that the RFP was a “new solicitation,” and that the previous solicitation had been cancelled and rebid. The Department subsequently posted Addendum No. 2 to the RFP revising and clarifying the bid specifications. The Department posted Addendum No. 3 to the RFP on May 20, 2019.8/ Addendum No. 3 instructed vendors that all proposals were due by March 19, 2019. On or before March 19, 2019, the Department received proposals from 378 vendors,9/ including ArnAmy and Seva. Under the RFP’s evaluation methodology, vendors’ proposals were scored in four Evaluation Criteria, as follows: Evaluation Criteria Maximum Possible Points IT Experience Certification (Attachment B) 100 Staffing Resource Management Plan 300 IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience 200 Price (Attachment C) 400 per Job Title Total Score Possible Per Job Title 1000 Regarding the IT Experience Certification criteria, vendors submitted information on an IT Experience Certification Form which was included in the RFP. The form was scored based on the number of years the vendor had been in the IT business. The Procurement Officer identified in the RFP, Joel Atkinson, scored this criteria. (Both ArnAmy and Seva received the maximum 100 points in this category.) Regarding the Staffing Resource Management Plan (the “Management Plan”) and the IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience (“IT Staff Contract Experience”) categories, the Department appointed three individuals (the “Evaluators”) to independently score these sections of each proposal. (The three Evaluators are referred to as the “Scoring Team”.) The Scoring Team consisted of Stephanie Reaves, Denise Roberts, and Heather Shoup. For the Management Plans, the Evaluators were to assign point values based on whether the vendors demonstrated “exceptional ability” (300 points); “intermediate ability” (200 points); “minimal ability” (100 points); or “fails to demonstrate ability” (0 points). For the IT Staff Contract Experience category, the Evaluators were to assess a point value based on whether the vendor demonstrated “extensive” experience (200 points); “intermediate” experience (150 points); “minimal” experience (100 points); or “fails to demonstrate experience” (0 points). Regarding the Price criteria, each vendor was required to complete a price sheet wherein the vendor quoted an hourly rate for each specific IT staff service for which the vendor desired to contract. The price sheet divided each staff service into “Job Families.” Within each Job Family, the RFP listed multiple “Job Titles.” The RFP included a total of 130 different Job Titles for which vendors could submit proposals. In addition, the price sheet further divided the majority of Job Titles into “Scope Variants,” which are degrees of experience within an individual Job Title (typically up to three Scope Variants per Job Title). For example, in the Job Family of Applications Development, the Job Title of Systems Analyst was broken out into Scope Variant levels of Entry, Intermediate, and Advanced.10/ Further, the RFP attached a “Ceiling Rate” to each Scope Variant. The RFP explained that the Department would not consider or evaluate a vendor’s proposal for a particular Job Title if the hourly rate the vendor quoted was higher than the Ceiling Rate. Finally, the price per hour the vendor quoted for the Job Title was considered a “not to exceed” price. In other words, after the state term contract was awarded, when a Contractor received a Request for Quote from a Customer, the Contractor could not charge a higher hourly rate than the price listed in its proposal. However, the RFP permitted Contractors to respond with a (competitively) lower hourly rate for the IT staffing services it would agree to provide. RFP, section 5.2.4 set forth a formula to calculate the score for the prices the vendors quoted for the specific Job Titles. The Department designed the formula to establish a base line with which to compare proposals. Using the formula, the vendor with the lowest price per Job Title or Scope Variant11/ was awarded 400 points (the maximum). Thereafter, every other vendor received points for price per Job Title using the following calculation: (X) x 400 = Z (N) Where: X = lowest price of all Proposals submitted per Job Title N = Respondent's submitted total price per Job Title Z = points awarded The Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, (not the Scoring Team) calculated and assigned the points for price. The Vendors’ scores for IT Experience Certification and Price (from the Procurement Officer) were added to the Evaluators’ scores for the Management Plan and Staff Contract Experience for a total score for each proposal. Upon winning a contract, Contractors are only permitted to provide services for the specific IT positions awarded through the solicitation. As explained in RFP, Exhibit A, STATEMENT OF WORK, the Contractors agree to provide IT staffing services described in a document entitled “Job Families Descriptions.” The Contractors will be responsible for the following activities: The Contractor shall possess the professional and technical staff necessary to allocate, outsource, and manage qualified information technology staff to perform the services requested by the Customer. The Contractor shall provide Customers with staff who must have sufficient skill and experience to perform the services assigned to them. All of the information technology staff augmentation services to be furnished by the Contractor under the Contract shall meet the professional standards and quality that prevails among information technology professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout Florida under the same or similar circumstances. The Contractor shall provide, at its own expense, training necessary for keeping Contractor's staff abreast of industry advances and for maintaining proficiency in equipment and systems that are available on the commercial market. The Contractor shall be responsible for the administration and maintenance of all employment and payroll records, payroll processing, remittance of payroll and taxes, and all administrative tasks required by state and federal law associated with payment of staff. The Contractor shall, at its own expense, be responsible for adhering to the Contract background screening requirements, testing, evaluations, advertising, recruitment, and disciplinary actions of Contractor’s information technology staff. The Contractor shall maintain during the term of the Contract all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the information technology staff augmentation services. In short, the Contractors are responsible for finding, hiring, and recruiting qualified IT personnel. Thereafter, the Contractors must provide and manage their IT staff pursuant to the terms of the Request for Quote. Awards under the RFP were made by Job Title. RFP, section 5.3, explained the Basis for Award as follows: The Department intends to make multiple awards from this solicitation and anticipates awarding 200 contracts per Job Title. Contracts will be awarded to the responsible and responsive Vendors that are determined to be the most advantageous to the state based on, per Job Title, the highest total evaluation criteria scores, which includes price, IT Experience Certification, Staffing Resource Management Plan, and IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience scores. The maximum possible total score per Job Title is 1000. * * * For those Job Titles where, in determining the 200th awarded Vendor, there are multiple responsible and responsive Respondents with the same numeric score, the Department reserves the right to award more than 200 contracts per Job Title to those responsive and responsible Respondents who are tied for the 200th contract award. Awards will be made per Job Title. A vendor was not required to submit a response for every Job Title. Instead, vendors were free to bid for only those Job Titles for which they desired to provide IT Staffing services. However, if a vendor did respond to a specific Job Title, the vendor was required to provide a price per hour for every Scope Variant within that Job Title. On June 5, 2019, the Department held a public meeting during which the three Evaluators, as well as the Procurement Officer, confirmed their scores. On June 24, 2019, the Department posted its Revised Notice to the Vendor Bid System listing all vendors to whom the Department intended to award IT staffing contracts. The Department awarded contracts to the top 200 vendors (plus ties) for each of the 130 Job Titles. ArnAmy bid for all 130 Job Titles. The Department awarded ArnAmy 21 out of 130 Job Titles. In other words, ArnAmy finished in the top 200 for 21 of 130 Job Titles. Seva bid for all 130 Job Titles. The Department did not award Seva any Job Titles. In other words, Seva did not finish in the top 200 for any of the Job Titles. ARNAMY’S PROTEST: ArnAmy protests the Department’s decision to award it a state term contract for only 21 of 130 Job Titles offered through the RFP. Mr. Datta Kadam testified on behalf of ArnAmy. Mr. Kadam is the founder and chief executive officer of ArnAmy. Mr. Kadam prepared and submitted ArnAmy’s response to the RFP. Mr. Kadam initially relayed that ArnAmy was formed in 2007 as an IT consulting and software development company. He further expressed that ArnAmy has extensive experience under the current (2016) state term contract, for which it is authorized to support all 130 IT staff positions. Approximately 85-90 percent of ArnAmy’s IT consulting practice is dedicated to providing IT staff augmentation services through contracts such as the Department’s state term contract. ArnAmy also services staffing contracts for Maryland and Texas. ArnAmy (through Mr. Kadam) presented three primary arguments protesting the Department’s award. The Scoring Team Failed to Evaluate ArnAmy’s Final Management Plan: ArnAmy argues that the Scoring Team was not provided with the final version of its Management Plan. Instead, the three Evaluators scored an incomplete, preliminary draft. Mr. Kadam believes ArnAmy would have received higher scores for Job Titles had the Evaluators scored the correct version of its Management Plan. ArnAmy attributes this mistake to a possible error in the MyFloridaMarketPlace (“MarketPlace”) program that interfered with or prevented Mr. Kadam from uploading, saving, and/or submitting the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan for scoring. MarketPlace is the State of Florida online procurement system. MarketPlace served as the “web portal” for vendors to access the Department’s procurement documents, as well as a guide to assist them through the purchase process. The RFP required vendors to submit proposals through MarketPlace. The main software component of MarketPlace is a program called “Ariba,” which is a suite of programs or tools. MarketPlace (through Ariba) allowed vendors to electronically submit their responses to the RFP. A vendor may take three distinct actions within MarketPlace/Ariba: (1) upload documents; (2) save documents; and (3) submit documents to the Department. Mr. Kadam maintained that the version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan that the Evaluators scored was an “intermediate working copy” that he had saved “locally” to MarketPlace. Mr. Kadam testified that he uploaded and saved at least three versions of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to MarketPlace. He intended the Department to score the last version of the Management Plan that he saved and submitted on March 18, 2019. Mr. Kadam explained that he was not aware that the Department did not score the appropriate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan until after the Department posted its Revised Notice on July 24, 2019. Upon learning that ArnAmy was only awarded 21 Job Titles, Mr. Kadam conducted a “root cause analysis” to determine the reason. He initially reviewed the scores of several other proposals “to obtain a baseline of comparison.” He soon discovered that the Management Plan the Evaluators scored for ArnAmy was not the last (and correct) version he believes he uploaded to MarketPlace. Mr. Kadam suggests that a glitch occurred within the MarketPlace program that replaced or substituted an earlier version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan for the final version. At the final hearing, Mr. Kadam relayed that he did not find any error at the “front” or “user’s” (ArnAmy’s) end of the system. Nor did he receive any error messages after submitting ArnAmy’s Management Plan. He did, however, offer several possible, “logical” causes for the inconsistency. His theories included “deadlock,” or a situation that occurs on the system when one document is in use on the server that prevents another document (i.e., ArnAmy’s Management Plan) from being properly uploaded. Mr. Kadam explained that the difference between the early version and the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan was significant. RFP, section 5.2.2, instructed vendors to recite how they proposed to recruit, staff, and manage requests for IT services. The intermediate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan did not include the information referenced in RFP, section 5.2.2.B, which specifically directed vendors to identify and describe the roles and expertise of their Principal Personnel.12/ Mr. Kadam represented that the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan did contain this information. ArnAmy argues that if the MarketPlace error had not occurred, its proposal would have received a much more favorable score. Mr. Kadam specifically pointed to the score from one Evaluator, Stephanie Reaves, who only awarded ArnAmy’s Management Plan 100 out of 300 points. Mr. Kadam contends that if Ms. Reaves had just increased her score to the next level (200), ArnAmy would have been awarded most, if not all, of the 130 Job Titles. As more fully discussed below, despite Mr. Kadam’s detailed analytical investigation into the MarketPlace program, ArnAmy did not produce conclusive or direct evidence to support his theory that an error within MarketPlace was responsible for the submission of an intermediate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to the Department, instead of Mr. Kadam’s final version. During his testimony, Mr. Kadam stated that “a lot could have happened” to the documents he uploaded. However, he conceded that he did not know exactly what that might have been. The Scoring Team was Not Qualified to Score the Proposals: ArnAmy also charges that the Department failed to properly train the three Evaluators or provide them adequate guidance on how to effectively score the vendors’ proposals. Specifically, ArnAmy asserts that the Department failed to select Evaluators with the requisite background, experience, and knowledge in the subject matter of the RFP, i.e., information technology. Consequently, the Evaluators could not have conducted a comprehensive or sound review of the IT staffing services listed in the RFP. In other words, the Department could not have competently or fairly decided that ArnAmy should not be awarded an IT staff augmentation contract because the Evaluators did not know how to properly score its proposal. To support its argument, ArnAmy points out that not a single Evaluator possessed IT experience. ArnAmy contends that the technical details involved in evaluating proposals for IT staff services require direct experience in the IT field or in acquiring and/or utilizing IT staffing services. Because the Evaluators were unqualified, as well as the fact that the Evaluators were under time pressure to evaluate all 374 proposals, ArnAmy alleges that they inconsistently applied the RFP’s evaluation criteria, and, in some cases, failed to apply it altogether. As discussed below, the facts adduced at the final hearing support a finding that the Evaluators were suitably qualified to score the vendors’ proposals. Therefore, the undersigned finds this argument insufficient to reverse the Department’s award. Evaluator Stephanie Reaves Incorrectly Scored ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience: Finally, as a direct result of the Scoring Team’s inexperience, ArnAmy asserts that one of the three Evaluators, Stephanie Reaves, failed to properly score its IT Staff Contract Experience. ArnAmy specifically alleges that, in her haste to review ArnAmy’s proposal, Ms. Reaves overlooked key information included in its IT Staff Contract Experience submission. RFP, section 5.2.3, advised that a vendor “will be scored” based on “the best representation of its experience in providing IT Staff Augmentation.” Section 5.2.3 specifically asked vendors to include information regarding: Total number of IT Staff Augmentation contract/purchase orders. Total combined dollar amount of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders. At page 19 of its response to section 5.2.3, ArnAmy reported on its IT Staff Contract Experience document that ArnAmy had 11 years of IT staffing experience with the State of Florida involving 147 total contracts worth over $19,600,000. As discussed in paragraphs 93, 146, and 147 below, ArnAmy’s argument on this point has merit. Ms. Reaves awarded ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience 150 out of 200 points. At the final hearing, Ms. Reaves admitted that she did not see this information in ArnAmy’s proposal prior to formulating her score. SEVA’S PROTEST: Seva was not awarded any of the 130 Job Titles for which it bid. Seva protests the Department’s award arguing that the RFP’s scoring formula was built on an arbitrary evaluation system and a mathematically deficient price scoring system. Consequently, the evaluation process resulted in unfair and unreliable awards that should not have excluded Seva’s proposal. Danny O'Donnell spoke on behalf of Seva. Mr. O’Donnell prepared and submitted Seva’s proposal to the RFP. In addition, at the final hearing, Mr. O’Donnell was accepted as an expert in statistics, data presentation, and pattern analysis. Mr. O’Donnell explained that he is very competent at extracting and compiling data from spreadsheets and reports and presenting that information in a form that is more easily understood. Mr. O’Donnell testified that Seva is an IT consulting and software development services firm headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida. He further represented that Seva has extensive experience providing IT staffing services to the State of Florida. Seva has provided temporary IT staff for state agencies since 2009, and has participated in a total of 120 IT staffing contracts with the state worth over $19,800,000. Further, Seva is an active vendor supporting 129 of the 130 IT jobs awarded in the 2016 state term contract. Mr. O’Donnell also commented that Seva’s 2019 proposal was substantially the same as its 2016 submission. Further, the 2019 RFP criteria was very similar to the 2016 procurement terms. In 2016, Seva received good (and winning) scores for its Management Plan. Consequently, Mr. O’Donnell was puzzled why Seva received such low scores under this RFP. To understand the reason the Department did not award Seva any Job Titles, Mr. O’Donnell culled through reams of Department data, charts, and spreadsheets. Based on his statistical analysis, Mr. O’Donnell reached two primary conclusions why the Department’s scores for the 2019 RFP are unsound. The RFP’s Price Scoring System: Initially, Mr. O’Donnell argued that the RFP’s “extremely flawed” price scoring formula set forth in RFP, section 5.2.4, produced arbitrary and unreliable scoring results. Specifically, the formula allowed vendors to propose “low-ball,” “unrealistic,” and “unsustainable” prices that are excessively below the market value for IT staffing services in order to procure higher scores for their proposals. Consequently, vendors who submitted these “unbalanced” bids received an unfair competitive advantage over vendors who presented realistic prices (i.e., ArnAmy and Seva) for their IT staffing services. Mr. O’Donnell further urged that the formula caused a very narrow “band compression of price points,” which gave rise to “price neutralization.” In other words, vendors who offered legitimately low, but realistic, prices for Job Titles received no corresponding benefit because the unbalanced bids “caused the relative value of the pricing criteria to be neutralized in value.” Concomitantly, the two subjectively scored criteria graded by the Scoring Team (Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience) took on much greater significance in determining whether a particular vendor was awarded a state term contract. A vendor could lose more points on pricing than it could earn for its Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience. As a result, vendors who tendered “unbalanced” bids (with unreasonably low prices) obtained an inequitable and unwarranted benefit. Mr. O’Donnell asserted that there is no correlation between winning vendors having the best price, and the responsible and responsive vendors who can provide the best IT staffing service to Customers. Mr. O'Donnell testified to his belief that the Department did not account for or prevent these artificially low, “unbalanced,” bids. Consequently, it was his opinion that the Scoring Team did not select vendors whose proposals will be the most advantageous to the State of Florida (i.e., Seva). Therefore, the Department’s decision not to award the IT staffing contract to Seva must be overturned. Mr. O’Donnell alleged that his extensive statistical analysis reveals that the three Evaluators used markedly different standards to review, then score, vendors’ proposals. To support his argument, Seva produced a chart showing that Ms. Reaves awarded 161 of the 374 Management Plans a top score of 300. Ms. Shoup awarded 116 Management Plans with 300 points. Ms. Roberts awarded only 66 Management Plans the maximum 300 points. Mr. O’Donnell stressed that these diverse scores indicate an arbitrariness that is outside any zone of reasonable results. Consequently, as a matter of fairness, all proposals must be reevaluated. Mr. O’Donnell further argued that the inequity is compounded by the fact that the Department limited state term contracts for each Job Title to 200 vendors (and ties). Not only is restricting the available Contractors to 200 arbitrary, but the 200 Contractor cap impacts whether legitimate vendors were awarded IT staffing contracts. In addition to Mr. O’Donnell’s analysis and conclusions, Seva presented expert testimony from Dr. Wei Wu. Dr. Wu is a professor in the Department of Statistics at Florida State University. Dr. Wu was accepted as an expert in statistics, including the chi-square correlation test, as well as the “p value” as applied to the solicitation scoring. To formulate his opinion, Dr. Wu applied basic statistical methods and tools. He explained that he conducted a “standard chi-square test” to determine whether the three Evaluators produced the same scoring distribution. Dr. Wu then analyzed the data, reviewed the intuitive results, and formulated his conclusion. He rechecked his data to ensure that it was mathematically correct. Based on his statistical analysis, Dr. Wu announced, with “very high confidence,” that the three Evaluators did not apply the same methodology when scoring Management Plans. Dr. Wu specifically opined that he was “99.99 percent confident that, of the three evaluators; they don’t have the same standard to give the score.” In other words, his research indicated that the Evaluators did not have the same, common understanding of the RFP’s scoring criteria. On the contrary, the Evaluator’s scoring distributions were arbitrarily and unreasonably different. Further, Dr. Wu expressed that the scores awarded for price were “crunched” in the final results, thereby reducing their importance in the proposals’ total scores. Dr. Wu testified that, if the Evaluators had followed the same scoring standard, the score distributions across the 374 proposals would not have been so varied. Dr. Wu acknowledged that some deviation between Evaluators is expected, but not this much. Based on Mr. O’Donnell’s analysis, as supported by Dr. Wu, Seva asserts that statistical data confirms that each Evaluator applied dissimilar grading scales, which manifested itself into erratic scoring. Each Evaluator appears to have a different understanding of what a vendors’ proposal would have to show in order to earn a top-ranked score. Despite his conclusions, however, Mr. O’Donnell conceded that he has no previous experience forming statistical inferences from procurement criteria. Neither does he feel qualified to explain the meaning of his statistical analysis of the scores. Consequently, he could not testify “why” the data shows what it shows. Similarly, Dr. Wu acknowledged that he has never researched procurement scoring formulas, scoring of requests for proposals criteria, or the scoring behavior of procurement evaluators. Nor did his opinion take into account the subjective opinions of the three Evaluators. The Scoring Team was Not Qualified to Score the Proposals: Secondly, similar to ArnAmy, Seva asserts that the wide-ranging scores show that the Department failed to select Evaluators with the requisite experience and knowledge in IT. Seva further charges that the Department neglected to effectively train the Scoring Team. The Department only provided the three Evaluators poorly defined guidelines explaining how to evaluate the vendors’ Management Plans. In addition, Seva argues that amount of time the Department allotted for scoring (eight weeks) was too short to reasonably evaluate 374 separate proposals. DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO THE TWO PROTESTS: In response to ArnAmy and Seva’s challenges, the Department asserts that it properly acted within its legal authority, as well as the RFP specifications, to award the RFP to qualified responsive and responsible vendors. The Scoring Team Selection/Qualifications: Initially, the Department rejects ArnAmy and Seva’s allegations that the Scoring Team members lacked the requisite experience and knowledge to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. To score a procurement in a request for proposals solicitation, section 287.057(16)(a)1 directed the Department to appoint: At least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought. In accordance with section 287.057(16)(a)1, the Department appointed three individuals (Ms. Reaves, Ms. Roberts, and Ms. Shoup) to serve on the Scoring Team. The three Evaluators were selected by Cliff Nilson (Deputy Director of the Division of State Purchasing), and Joel Atkinson (the Department’s Procurement Officer). Thereafter, the Evaluators were approved by the Department’s Secretary. At the final hearing, Mr. Nilson testified as the Department’s corporate representative. In his role as Deputy Director of State Purchasing, Mr. Nilson oversees the Department’s procurement process, as well as the state term contracts awarded under the RFP. Initially, Mr. Nilson discussed how the Department selected the three Evaluators. Mr. Nilson explained that the state term contract in this solicitation is fundamentally a “staffing” contract. Mr. Nilson characterized the procurement as “essentially . . . a human resource function that’s outsourced to a vendor to recruit, employ, and manage those people.” Mr. Nilson explained that the RFP’s purpose is to solicit vendors who will find, recruit, and manage IT personnel; then effectively provide those employees to Customers to use on an hourly basis to perform IT work. Vendors awarded with a state term contract are only responsible for providing “a person,” not directing or overseeing an IT project. Accordingly, the Department sought evaluators who had experience in human resources and staff management. Further, Mr. Nilson did not believe that a working knowledge of IT services was necessary for a fair and reasonable evaluation of the vendors’ proposals. Mr. Nilson relayed that, because the RFP’s purpose was to identify staffing companies, extensive knowledge of the IT tasks and responsibilities listed in the 130 Job Titles was not necessary when reviewing the vendors’ Management Plans and IT Staff Contract Experience. At the final hearing, the Department elicited testimony from Mr. Kadam (for ArnAmy) and Mr. O’Donnell (for Seva) admitting that the “deliverable” under this state term contract is people and their time and expense, not the various vendors’ IT prowess. During the hearing, both Mr. Kadam and Mr. O’Donnell acknowledged that their primary responsibilities would be to find, recruit, and place suitable IT staff with a state agency. Regarding training the Evaluators, Mr. Nilson conveyed that the Department anticipated that scoring would be fairly straightforward. Therefore, the Department did not plan a lengthy training regime for the Evaluators. Mr. Nilson further commented that the grading criteria described in the RFP did not require specific knowledge of IT services. The Evaluators were to review how each vendor proposed to hire, manage, and retain persons with IT skills. The Evaluators were not scoring the specialized knowledge of the vendors or their employees. Before starting their reviews, the Department arranged for each Evaluator to receive a copy of each proposals’ Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience section. The Evaluators also received an Evaluators Guide, as well as Instructions for the Evaluator Score Sheet. Each Evaluator also received and signed a document entitled Evaluator Instructions for Ethics, Sunshine Law, and Conflict of Interest. Finally, the Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, contacted each Evaluator separately to explain their role and answer any questions. The RFP gave the three Evaluators eight weeks to review and score every proposal. Mr. Nilson envisioned the Evaluators spending approximately 30 minutes on each proposal. Mr. Nilson recognized that the scoring would entail hard work, but he was comfortable that the Evaluators would have enough time to perform their responsibilities. The Evaluators scored Petitioners’ proposals as follows: ArnAmy: Management Plan (out of 300 points): Ms. Reaves: 100 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points Ms. Shoup: 200 points IT Staff Contract Experience (out of 200 points): Ms. Reaves: 150 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points (maximum) Ms. Shoup: 200 points (maximum) Seva: Management Plan (out of 300 points): Ms. Reaves: 100 points Ms. Roberts: 0 points Ms. Shoup: 100 points IT Staff Contract Experience (out of 200 points): Ms. Reaves: 150 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points (maximum) Ms. Shoup: 200 points (maximum) Mr. Nilson testified that he was not concerned that the Evaluators’ scores were slightly different. He commented that in his experience, a one-step difference in the scoring spread between evaluators was “not unusual at all.” At the final hearing, each of the Evaluators testified about their background and experience in state procurements and IT staffing contracts as follows: Stephanie Reaves: Ms. Reaves testified that she has worked in the field of human resources for her entire career. She has hired, managed, recruited, and trained employees. At the time Ms. Reaves was selected as an evaluator, she was employed as the Director of Human Resources for the Department of Children and Families. During the RFP process, she transferred to the Department of Environmental Protection where she works as an Employee Relations Specialist. In addition, Ms. Reaves was previously employed with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, where she reviewed and scored proposals submitted in response to requests for proposals for public contracts. Ms. Reaves also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration, as well as a Masters in Human Resource Development. Prior to this RFP, however, she has never been involved in procuring IT staff services. Ms. Reaves declared that she had a firm grasp of her responsibilities as an evaluator. Before she scored the proposals, she reviewed and understood the scoring criteria described in RFP, section 5. She also read the Evaluators Guide, as well as the score sheet instructions. She further relayed that she spoke with the Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, who provided general guidance. Ms. Reaves expressed that she felt adequately trained to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. She also believed that she had the necessary human resources experience to discern whether vendors sufficiently described their staffing abilities in their proposals. Ms. Reaves explained that, when evaluating a proposal, she read the vendor’s submission twice, as well as reviewed the applicable RFP sections. She then compared the proposal to the RFP evaluation criteria. At that point, she scored accordingly and submitted her scores electronically to the Department. Ms. Reaves spent approximately 20-30 minutes per proposal. Ms. Reaves rejected any concerns that her lack of IT knowledge affected her evaluation. She relayed that she did not find scoring difficult. She did not encounter terms in the RFP or the various vendors’ proposals that she did not understand. Ms. Reaves asserted that she worked fairly and independently. Further, she testified that she used the criteria set forth in the RFP and applied the scoring criteria consistently to each proposal. She relayed that she held vendors to the same standard and used the same method when evaluating each proposal. Finally, despite the large amount of commitment and work this evaluation required, Ms. Reaves firmly asserted that she had sufficient guidance and time to review and score each proposal. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Reaves testified that she awarded ArnAmy 100 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that, for a perfect score of 300, a proposal would have to “demonstrate exceptional ability.” This score meant that she thoroughly understood how a vendor would provide prospective IT staff to Customers, and the vendor did an excellent job in describing how it would identify potential IT staff that would respond to a Customer’s Request for Quote. ArnAmy’s Management Plan, however, only showed minimal ability to meet the RFP’s objectives. Specifically, ArnAmy did not explain “how” it intended to accomplish or implement a plan to provide IT staff to Customers. In addition, ArnAmy failed to include information regarding the experience of its Principal Personnel to manage IT staff. Regarding ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience, Ms. Reaves awarded ArnAmy 150 out of 200 points. Ms. Reaves explained that she did not find in ArnAmy’s proposal responses to two specific requests for information: 1) the total number of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders; and 2) the total combined dollar amount of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders. However, as became apparent during the final hearing, ArnAmy’s proposal did, in fact, include information on these two specific points. What appears to have happened is that Ms. Reaves missed this information because ArnAmy presented these numbers at the very end (page 14) of its IT Staff Contract Experience section (and in tiny print).13/ In RFP, section 5.2.3, the total number of IT contracts and their combined dollar amount are the first two bullet points listed in the IT Staff Contract Experience criteria section.14/ Accordingly, Ms. Reaves looked for this information in the order set forth in the RFP, i.e., at the beginning of each vendors’ response to this section. (For example, Seva inserted its contract history in the first two lines of its IT Staff Contract Experience submission.) The RFP did not contain any specific instructions on how a vendor was to format its response to this section. At the final hearing, Ms. Reaves testified that she would still have given ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience a score of 150, even if she had found the entry for total IT contracts. It does appear, however, that Ms. Reaves plainly overlooked this information when evaluating ArnAmy’s proposal. Regarding Seva, Ms. Reaves awarded it 100 points (out of 300) for its Management Plan. She explained that she did not believe Seva adequately explained “how” it was going to accomplish “what was critical” to performing the IT staffing contract. On the contrary, Seva’s proposal lacked specifics, which left Ms. Reaves questioning Seva’s ability to provide quality IT staff for potential Customers. Ms. Reaves awarded Seva 150 out of 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She testified that she could not determine the level or type of Seva’s staffing experience from its proposal. Denise Roberts: Ms. Roberts has spent her entire public service career working in the procurements field for various state agencies. When she was selected to serve as an evaluator, Ms. Roberts was employed as a Purchasing Agent for the Agency for State Technology. During her evaluation, Ms. Roberts moved to the Department of Lottery where she processed procurements, solicitations, and purchase orders. Notably, Ms. Roberts has previously procured IT staff augmentation services, as well as obtained quotes for IT staff assistance for the Agency for State Technology, the Department of Corrections, as well as the Department of Transportation. Additionally, Ms. Roberts is a Certified Public Professional Buyer and a Florida Certified Contract Manager. She does not, however, have any IT experience or training. Nor did she have knowledge of what the IT Job Titles listed in the RFP specifically entailed. Ms. Roberts testified that, before she scored the proposals, she reviewed and understood the RFP, as well as the documents she was to score. In addition, she spoke with the Department’s Procurement Officer (Mr. Atkinson) who provided general guidance on how to score the proposals. Ms. Roberts expressed that she followed the instructions the Department gave her and felt sufficiently trained to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. She also believed that she had enough experience to evaluate proposals regarding IT staffing services. Ms. Roberts explained that she generally conducted the following evaluation process: Initially, she read the vendor’s proposal, followed by a review of the RFP’s requirements. She then reviewed the proposal again to determine how the vendor complied with the RFP criteria. At that point, she scored the proposal. When scoring, Ms. Roberts handwrote all scores onto the RFP’s scoresheet. Thereafter, she input her scores online and submitted them electronically to the Department. Ms. Roberts spent about 30 to 45 minutes evaluating each proposal. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Roberts testified that she awarded ArnAmy 200 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that, for a perfect score of 300, a proposal had to meet every aspect the RFP requested in great detail, as well as describe how the vendor was going to accomplish the RFP’s tasks. ArnAmy’s Management Plan, however, was missing information and provided less detail than she expected. Specifically, Ms. Roberts did not find a response to the RFP’s requirements that ArnAmy list the “Respondent’s Principal Personnel who will make management decisions concerning staff placement for services under the contract(s),” or the “role each Principal Personnel” would have in the contract. Regarding ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience, Ms. Roberts awarded ArnAmy the maximum 200 points. She found that ArnAmy provided “quite a bit” of information regarding its prior experience. Regarding Seva, Ms. Roberts awarded it 0 points for its Management Plan. She explained that she did not believe Seva’s proposal provided the information the RFP requested. Specifically, Seva did not explain “how” it was going to accomplish “any” of the RFP’s staffing requirements. Seva simply offered general comments with no details or step-by-step processes describing how it would acquire, then manage, IT personnel for potential Customers. Neither did Seva include the role its principals would play in its Management Plan. Conversely, Ms. Roberts awarded Seva with the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that Seva provided all the information requested regarding its prior contract experience. Ms. Roberts asserted that she worked independently and did not communicate with the other Evaluators. Further, she testified that she conscientiously used the criteria set forth in the RFP and gave each proposal consistent and fair consideration. Despite the large amount of proposals, Ms. Roberts confidently voiced that she had adequate time to consider, then score, each proposal. Heather Shoup: Ms. Shoup currently serves as the Director of Human Resources for the Department. In this position, she oversees all human resource activities for the Department, including recruitment and retention, benefit administration, classifications, compensation, employee relations issues, orientation, and retirement coordination. Ms. Shoup testified that her professional experience has been primarily in the areas of financial and human resources. In addition, she has experience hiring and managing individuals who provide IT services. However, she has no prior experience in public procurements. In preparing for her evaluations, Ms. Shoup met with the RFP’s Procurement Officer (Mr. Atkinson), as well as reviewed the RFP criteria, the Evaluators Guide, and the Instructions for the Evaluator Score Sheet. Ms. Shoup expressed that she understood her responsibilities and had sufficient training and time to evaluate each proposal. When evaluating, Ms. Shoup relayed that she worked independently through each proposal and scored as best as she could. For a perfect score, she was looking for answers to all RFP criteria. She wanted to see clear, precise responses that provided all information the RFP requested. She specifically reviewed “how” the vendor intended to deliver IT staff support for Customers. Ms. Shoup testified that she spent approximately ten minutes per evaluation. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Shoup awarded ArnAmy 200 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that ArnAmy’s Management Plan was missing information regarding its Principal Personnel who would make management decisions under a potential staffing contract. On the other hand, Ms. Shoup awarded ArnAmy the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that ArnAmy’s proposal reflected extensive IT staffing experience. Regarding Seva, Ms. Shoup awarded it 100 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that Seva’s proposal was “too broad.” Specifically, Seva did not answer the “how” questions in multiple categories. Conversely, Ms. Shoup awarded Seva with the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that Seva’s proposal clearly showed its prior IT contract experience. Finally, Ms. Shoup testified that she fairly scored each proposal she evaluated. She did not have difficulties reviewing the various submissions. Ms. Shoup also expressed that she had adequate time to consider, then score, each proposal. Based on the testimony received, the Department persuasively demonstrated that the Scoring Team “collectively [had] the experience and knowledge” required to score the RFP. Each Evaluator convincingly conveyed her ability to ably participate in the Department’s solicitation process. Although, none of the Evaluators had prior experience in the IT profession, each possessed the acumen and ability to competently conduct a procurement for IT staffing services. Ms. Reaves and Ms. Shoup both had extensive experience in personnel and human resource functions, including hiring and managing employees. Further, Ms. Roberts had broad knowledge in procuring services, including IT staff augmentation services. Finally, upon reviewing their scores again at the final hearing, each Evaluator testified that they would not change their scores. They each credibly expressed that neither ArnAmy nor Seva adequately addressed some or all of the criterion set out in the RFP. Therefore, based on their various professional and educational backgrounds and vocational experience, the undersigned finds that the Scoring Team was fully capable and proficient to review and score all aspects of each of the 374 vendor proposals. The Evaluators were adequately knowledgeable of, and sufficiently experienced for, their task of understanding and evaluating the vendors’ IT staffing plans. Conversely, neither ArnAmy nor Seva established that the Department’s appointment of a Scoring Team consisting of Stephanie Reaves, Denise Roberts, and Heather Shoup was contrary to the governing authority in section 287.057(16)(a)1. The RFP was not Contrary to the Department’s Governing Statutes, Rules, Policies, or the Solicitation Specifications: In addition to describing the Evaluator selection process, Mr. Nilson explained why the RFP limited the number of awards to 200 Contractors per Job Title (plus ties).15/ Initially, Mr. Nilson conveyed that the Department desired that vendors continue to compete to provide staffing services. Two hundred potential Contractors for each Job Title would maintain active competition when Customers requested price quotes. This arrangement would help ensure that Customers would continue to receive fair and reasonable prices in response to a Request for Quote. Secondly, restricting the number of Contractors to 200 would enable the Department to more easily monitor the large pool of vendors. Finally, the Department hoped to keep the Request for Quote process as simple and straightforward as possible for the Customers. When seeking IT staff services, Customers would have a definite and finite list of prospective Contractors. Further, Mr. Nilson added that market research indicated that only about 90 vendors actually participated in the prior/currently existing state term contract. Consequently, the Department determined that economical and fair competition for IT staff services would reasonably end at approximately 200 Contractors. Finally, the Department called Kimberly Stiver to discuss the possibility that an error occurred in the MarketPlace online system that impeded ArnAmy’s attempt to submit the final version of its Management Plan to the Department. MarketPlace is operated by Accenture. Ms. Stiver is Accenture’s Program Manager for MarketPlace. Ms. Stiver testified that, after learning of ArnAmy’s allegations, she and her staff investigated the MarketPlace system to uncover any evidence that would justify ArnAmy’s claim. Ms. Stiver reviewed event logs, the attachment history log, and the system logs to determine whether an error took place within MarketPlace related to the uploading, saving, or transmitting of ArnAmy’s Management Plan. Initially, Ms. Stiver explained that responding to a solicitation takes two steps. First, the vendor uploads the document. Then, the vendor “submits” the document to the agency. After uploading the document, but prior to submitting it, MarketPlace allows vendors to replace, revise, or upload additional documents. After a vendor has “submitted” the document, the agency then accesses the last uploaded and successfully saved version of the document in MarketPlace. At the final hearing, Ms. Stiver declared that, following her detailed inquiry, she found no indication within MarketPlace that ArnAmy was not able to, was prevented from, or encountered any difficulties in properly submitting its Management Plan to the Department. Expanding on her assertion, Ms. Stiver explained that each procurement in MarketPlace is a unique and distinct “event” that tracks key activity from the vendor community. ArnAmy’s activity on MarketPlace relating to this RFP shows that ArnAmy submitted a Management Plan at approximately 1:41 p.m. on March 18, 2019. Based on the event log, Ms. Stiver stated that ArnAmy logged onto MarketPlace only one time on March 18, 2019, and that ArnAmy only uploaded one document identified as its Management Plan at that time. The event log does not support Mr. Kadam’s suggestion that he uploaded multiple versions of a Management Plan which may have resulted in an earlier version being submitted to the Department instead of ArnAmy’s final intended version. The attachment history log also shows that ArnAmy logged into MarketPlace only one time on March 18, 2019, to upload, save, and submit documents. Ms. Stiver testified that, like the event log, the attachment history log does not support Mr. Kadam’s assertion that he saved at least three versions of ArnAmy’s Management Plan in MarketPlace. If Mr. Kadam had uploaded and saved, but not submitted, multiple versions of a Management Plan, Ms. Stiver asserted that the attachment history log would document the entries as “not submitted.” The attachment history log for ArnAmy, however, records no entries or messages with a status of “not submitted.” Finally, Ms. Stiver reviewed ArnAmy’s system log for the period of March 12 through 19, 2019, the time period during which MarketPlace was open to receive vendors’ proposals. The system log shows no system errors occurred at any time while ArnAmy was logged into MarketPlace from March 12 through 19, 2019. Based on her comprehensive explanation, Ms. Stiver persuasively testified that no errors or inconsistencies occurred in the MarketPlace online system that caused an earlier (incomplete) version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to be submitted to the Department or prevented ArnAmy from effectively and timely uploading its Management Plan in response to the RFP. The logical conclusion is that the discrepancy between the version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan that the Evaluators eventually scored and the final version that Mr. Kadam claims he submitted in MarketPlace was the result of ArnAmy’s unfortunate oversight. The Possibility of “Unbalanced” Bids: Regarding Seva’s (and ArnAmy’s) complaint that the Department failed to identify and reject “unbalanced bids,” Mr. Nilson expressed that the RFP did not prevent vendors from presenting “unbalanced” proposals. Moreover, no statute, rule, or solicitation specification required the Department to reject a vendor’s proposal simply because the hourly rate quoted might be lower than market value for a certain Job Title or Scope Variant. Further, nothing in the RFP directed the Department to conduct a statistical analysis of vendor prices prior to awarding the state term contract.16/ The RFP clearly informed all vendors of the scoring criteria the Department would apply for price. Every vendor was free to submit a hourly rate for each Job Title for which it would agree to abide. The Department uniformly applied the RFP’s price formula to every Job Title from every proposal. Finally, while Seva asserts that the price formula could have led to unfair and/or misleading scoring results, the RFP allowed all vendors (including ArnAmy and Seva) to present “low-ball” prices in their proposals. Further, even if certain vendors did include unrealistic prices for their IT staffing services, the RFP protects Customers by binding a Contractor to the maximum price per Job Title or Scope Variant listed in its proposal. (In fact, a Contractor could offer even lower prices for its IT staff services in response to a Request for Quote.) Finally, regarding Seva’s complaint that its proposal was substantially similar to its previous proposal (which received a higher score), Mr. Nilson commented that Seva’s 2019 proposal was materially different from its 2016 proposal. Seva presented fewer Principal Personnel in 2019 (two versus four individuals). Mr. Nilson surmised this factor may have reduced the amount of IT experience Seva represented. In addition, Mr. Nilson believed that Seva’s prior proposal presented a clearer description of how it intended to recruit, and then place, prospective IT personnel for Customers. In that regard, Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that Seva’s 2019 proposal contained several substantive differences from its 2016 proposal. To summarize the findings in this matter, neither ArnAmy nor Seva established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department’s decision to award only 21 of 130 Job Titles to ArnAmy and 0 of 130 Job Titles to Seva was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evidence does not demonstrate that either ArnAmy or Seva were placed at a competitive disadvantage in this solicitation. Neither is there evidence that the Department conducted this procurement in a manner that was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of the RFP. Regarding ArnAmy and Seva’s complaint that the Department did not assemble a qualified Scoring Team, the evidence establishes the contrary. Testimony at the final hearing demonstrated that the individuals the Department assigned to score the vendors’ proposals possessed the “experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which [the] contractual services [were] sought” as required by section 287.057(16)(a)1. The Evaluators’ scores for ArnAmy and Seva’s proposals were logical, reasonable, and based on a sound understanding of the criteria requested in the RFP.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order dismissing the protests of ArnAmy and Seva, except that the Department should rescore ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience. Otherwise, the Department should award state term contracts under Request for Proposals for Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services – 3rd Bid, RFP 15-8010H07- SA-D as set forth in the Revised Notice of Intent to Award the RFP issued on June 24, 2019. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 5th day of February, 2020.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002), by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for her employees; and whether Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against Respondent pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; documentary materials received in evidence; stipulations by the parties; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003); and the record evidence submitted, the following relevant and material finding of facts are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002).1 On August 8, 2003, Respondent was a sole proprietor in the construction industry by framing single-family homes. On that day, Respondent was the sub-contractor under contract with Marco Raffaele, general contractor, providing workers on a single-family home(s) located on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision, Riverview, Florida. It is the responsibility of the Respondent/employer to secure and maintain workers' compensation coverage for each employee. During the early morning hours of August 8, 2003, Donald Lott, the Department's workers' compensation compliance investigator, was in the Panther Trace subdivision checking on site workers for potential violations of the workers' compensation statute. While driving down Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision, Mr. Lott approached two houses under construction. There he checked the construction workers on site and found them in compliance with the workers' compensation statute. Mr. Lott recognized several of the six men working on the third house under construction next door and went over to investigate workers' compensation coverage for the workers.2 At the third house Mr. Lott interviewed Darren McCarty, Henry Keithler, and Mike Sabin, all of whom acknowledged that they worked for Respondent, d/b/a Riopelle Construction. Mr. Lott ascertained through Southeast Leasing Company (Southeast Leasing) that three of the six workers, Messrs. Keithler, Sabin, and McCarthy were listed on Southeast Leasing Company's payroll through a valid employee lease agreement with Respondent as of August 8, 2003. The completed employee lease agreement provided for Southeast Leasing Company to provide workers' compensation coverage for only those employees whose names, dates of birth, and social security numbers are contained in the contractual agreement by which Southeast Leasing leased those named employees to the employing entity, Respondent, d/b/a Riopelle Construction. Mr. Lott talked with the other three workers on site, Ramos Artistes, Ryan Willis, and Robert Stinchcomb. Each worker acknowledged working for (as an employee) Respondent on August 8, 2003, in the Panther Trace subdivision. In reply to his faxed inquiry to Southeast Leasing regarding the workers' compensation coverage status for Messrs. Artistes, Willis, and Stinchcomb, Southeast Leasing confirmed to Mr. Lott that on August 8, 2003, Southeast Leasing did not have a completed employee leasing contractual agreement with Respondent for Messrs. Artistes, Willis or Stinchcomb. Southeast Leasing did not provide workers' compensation coverage for Messrs. Artistes, Willis or Stinchcomb on August 8, 2003.3 Southeast Leasing is an "employee" leasing company and is the "employer" of "leased employees." As such, Southeast Leasing is responsible for providing workers' compensation coverage for its "leased employees" only. Southeast Leasing, through its account representative, Dianne Dunphy, input employment applications into their system on the day such application(s) are received from employers seeking to lease employees. Southeast Leasing did not have employment applications in their system nor did they have a completed contractual employment leasing agreement and, therefore, did not have workers' compensation coverage for Messrs. Artistes and Willis at or before 12:08 p.m. on August 8, 2003. After obtaining his supervisor's authorization, Mr. Lott served a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order against Respondent on August 8, 2003, at 12:08 p.m., requiring the cessation of all business activities and assessing a penalty of $100, required by Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes, and a penalty of $1,000, as required by Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes, the minimum penalty under the statute. On August 12, 2003, the Department served a Corrected Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order containing one change, corrected federal identification number for Respondent's business, Riopelle Construction. Mr. Stinchcomb, the third worker on the construction job site when Mr. Lott made his initial inquiry, was cutting wood. On August 8, 2003, at or before 12:00 p.m., Mr. Stinchcomb was not on the Southeast Leasing payroll as a leased employee covered for workers' compensation; he did not have individual workers' compensation coverage; and he did not have a workers' compensation exemption. On that day and at that time, Mr. Stinchcomb worked as an employee of Riopelle Construction and was paid hourly by Riopelle Construction payroll check(s). Respondent's contention that Mr. Stinchcomb, when he was working on the construction job site between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on August 8, 2003, was an independent contractor fails for the lack of substantial and competent evidence in support thereof. On August 8, 2003, the Department, through Mr. Lott, served an administrative request for business records on Respondent. Respondent failed and refused to respond to the business record request. An Order requiring Respondent to respond to Petitioner's discovery demands was entered on December 1, 2003, and Respondent failed to comply with the order. On December 8, 2003, Respondent responded that "every effort would be made to provide the requested documents by the end of the day" to Petitioner. Respondent provided no reliable evidence and Mr. Stinchcomb was not called to testify in support of Respondent's contention that Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor as he worked on the site on August 8, 2003. Respondent's evidence, both testamentary and documentary, offered to prove that Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor on the date in question failed to satisfy the elements required in Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes. Subsection 440.02(15)(c), Florida Statutes, in pertinent part provides that: "[f]or purposes of this chapter, an independent contractor is an employee unless he or she meets all of the conditions set forth in subparagraph(d)(1)." Subsection 440.02(15)(d)(1) provides that an "employee" does not include an independent contractor if: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal requirements; The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controls the means of performing the services or work; The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform; The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform and is or could be held liable for a failure to complete the work or services; The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job or competitive-bid basis and not on any other basis; The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services; The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations; and The success or failure of the independent contractor's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. The testimony of Respondent and the testimony of her husband, Edward Riopelle, was riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and incorrect dates and was so confusing as to render such testimony unreliable. Based upon this finding, Respondent failed to present evidence sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and failed to demonstrate that on August 8, 2003, Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that on August 8, 2003, Mr. Stinchcomb, while working on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision was an employee of Respondent and was not an independent contractor. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Stinchcomb did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. On August 8, 2003, Mr. Willis was a laborer on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision as an employee of Respondent, who paid him $7.00 per hour. Mr. Willis was not listed on the employee list maintained by Southeast Leasing, recording those employees leased to Respondent. Mr. Willis did not have independent workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. Mr. Willis had neither workers' compensation coverage nor a workers' compensation exemption on August 8, 2003. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Willis did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. On August 8, 2003, Mr. Artises was a laborer on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision and was an employee of Respondent. Mr. Artises had been in the employment of Respondent for approximately one week before the stop work order. Mr. Artises did not have independent workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. Mr. Artises did not have a workers' compensation coverage exemption on August 8, 2003. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Aristes did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleading and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, affirming and adopting the Corrected Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order dated August 12, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 29th day of March, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Clyde S. Botner, was a registered specialty contractor having been issued license number RX 0043602 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). Respondent is now the owner of Days Aluminum Products (DAP), a construction firm located at 4404 Devonshire Road, Tampa, Florida, but was in the process of purchasing the business when the events herein occurred. He has been licensed by the State since June 29, 1983. Botner was and still is the only state licensed contractor with the firm. Debra Tackett resides at 7302 Sequoia Drive, Temple Terrace, Florida. Tackett desired to have an aluminum carport added to her house and contacted DAP for the purpose of obtaining an estimate. Respondent visited Tackett's residence in July 1987 and gave an estimate of $7,088 to complete the job. Within a few days, another DAP representative, Scott Tarbox, met with Tackett and agreed to reduce the price to $6,000. After the contract changes were initialed by Tarbox, Tackett gave Tarbox a check for $1200 as a down payment on the work. The check was deposited to the account of DAP. The contract carries the signature of Botner as the authorized agent of DAP. On or shortly after July 18, Botner made application for a building permit with local officials butt was unsuccessful since the proposed construction was three feet beyond the setback line. This meant the structure had to be moved back three feet or a variance obtained from local zoning officials. Because Tackett preferred not to modify her structure, she requested that respondent obtain a variance. By then, Botner had put up string lines, laid boards for pouring concrete and dug some trenches. The value of this work was less than $1200. Although respondent now contends he had no authority or responsibility to do so, he agreed to make application for a variance by August 26 so that the matter could be taken before the local zoning board for final decision on September 17. However, he missed the August 26 filing deadline. Around September 15 Tackett learned that the application for a variance had not been timely filed and, in any event, it would probably be denied. Therefore, she decided "it was best to terminate" the contract. She also requested that Botner return her deposit. Although respondent promised to return the money on two occasions (September 18 and 22), he did not do so. When he did not meet the second deadline of September 22, she filed an action against Botner in small claims court the same date seeking to recover her $1200. On September 29, 1987, or a week after the small claims court action had been filed, respondent purchased a cashier's check in the amount of $1264 and had an employee, Larry Blevins, carry the check to Tackett. However, before returning the deposit, Blevins asked that Tackett sign a "release" which forbade her from making any complaints against DAP. Tackett declined to sign the release and was accordingly not given her money. By letter dated October 5, 1987 Tackett received an offer of $1263 from DAP's attorney but such payment was again conditioned upon her agreeing to "not register any complaint with any governmental or non-governmental agencies regarding (DAP)." She again declined the offer. On January 5, 1988 Tackett obtained a judgment in the amount of $1263 plus interest against Clyde S. Botner d/b/a Days Aluminum Products. To date, Botner has paid only $100 of that judgment. Botner conceded the judgment is still unpaid, except for one payment of $100, but contends Tackett has damaged his firm's reputation by filing complaints with the Better Business Bureau and the Board and obtaining a judgment in small claims court. He also contends that Tackett gave conflicting and untrue versions of what occurred to the Board investigator and the Better Business Bureau. He does not believe the judgment has anything to do with DAP or his license but instead is a purely civil matter. This is because he says the work in question could have been performed in Hillsborough County in 1987 without using his state license. Finally, he contends this proceeding is unjustified because he twice attempted to repay the money in 1987 but the customer refused his offers. There was no evidence of any prior disciplinary action having been taken against respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987) and that a fine in the amount of $750 be imposed. The other charge should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2693 Petitioner: 1-3. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. 7-8. Covered in finding of fact 3. 9-11. Covered in finding of fact 4. 12-13. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being irrelevant to the issues. Covered in finding of fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Mr. Clyde S. Botner 1989. 4404 Devonshire Road Tampa, Florida 33634 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for his subcontractors, thereby, failing to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Family Flooring was located at 1450 10th Street, Lake Park, Florida. At all times material hereto, Michael Martino was the president of Family Flooring. After having conducted a workers’ compensation coverage check of businesses along 10th Street in Lake Park, Florida, the Department’s investigator, John Turner (Investigator Turner), visited Family Flooring. Family Flooring engages in the retail sales of various flooring and performs some installation of the floorings sold when requested by its clients. When installation is requested, the client pays Mr. Martino for the flooring and installation. Mr. Martino hires and pays the subcontractors to perform the installation. Mr. Martino informed Investigator Turner and testified at hearing that Family Flooring had not secured payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its subcontractors. The Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated Systems (CCAS), a database of workers’ compensation coverage information for the State of Florida, and its exemption website (exemption database) confirmed that Family Flooring failed to have workers’ compensation coverage for the subcontractors. Investigator Turner requested certain business records from Family Flooring, including payroll records and exemptions, for the time period covering October 16, 2004 through December 16, 2004. Mr. Martino complied with the request. The business records submitted indicated that Family Flooring hired eight subcontractors. Individuals may make application to the Department to be exempt from workers’ compensation benefits. If granted, only the individual named on the application is exempt. The business records indicated that some, not all, of the subcontractors had exemptions. A review of both the business records and the Department’s databases for the eight subcontractors failed to verify workers’ compensation coverage or current, valid workers’ compensation exemptions for the following subcontractors: Scott Lunardoni -- exemption expired on December 31, 2003; Mauricio Perez -- exemption expired on December 31, 1999; Richard Robinson -- no exemptions; and Robert Waddicor -- exemption expired on December 31, 2003. No dispute exists that Family Flooring hired and paid the above-named subcontractors for installation of flooring. At the time of hiring the above-named subcontractors, Mr. Martino did not inquire as to whether they had secured the payment of workers’ compensation coverage or possessed current, valid workers’ compensation exemptions. Mr. Martino maintained that the above-named subcontractors were independent contractors, not employees of Family Flooring. As a result, he maintained that Family Flooring was not required to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage. At hearing, Mr. Martino entered into evidence two notarized letters from two of the subcontractors, Mauricio Perez and Scott Lunardoni. The letter from Mauricio Perez was notarized on April 21, 2005, and the letter from Scott Lunardoni was notarized on April 20, 2005. Both letters provided that each considered himself an “independent contractor,” not an employee of Family Flooring; that Family Flooring supplied the flooring, which was purchased by the customer, usually a homeowner; that each set his own time and schedule, provided his own transportation and tools for the installation, and was compensated at his own rate schedule; that each understood his responsibilities as to the required insurance and licenses; and that each was free to offer his services to other businesses, which they did. Investigator Turner testified that the Department’s interpretation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, pertaining to Family Flooring’s circumstances was that the above-named subcontractors became employees of Family Flooring when the subcontractors failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage and failed to have a current, valid workers’ compensation exemption. Having identified subcontractors who had no workers’ compensation coverage or exemptions, Investigator Turner sought approval from his supervisor for the issuance of a SWO and OPA. The approval was given, and a SWO and OPA were issued and served on Family Flooring on December 28, 2004. The SWO provided, among other things, that Family Flooring was an employer in the construction industry and that the basis for its issuance was Family Flooring’s “failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation in violation of § 440.107(2) Fla. Stat., by: failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Ch. 440, Fla. Stat., and the Insurance Code.” The OPA provided, among other things, that the penalty assessed would be “in an amount equal to 1.5 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during the periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation required by this chapter [Chapter 440, Fla. Stat.] within the preceding 3-year period, or $1,000, whichever is greater. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat.” To determine the assessment for the penalty, on December 28, 2004, Investigator Turner served a subpoena upon Family Flooring for the production of its business records covering a three-year period from December 28, 2001 through December 28, 2004. Family Flooring responded to the subpoena and provided a copy of its check ledger and a computer generated payroll ledger. The Department utilizes the Scopes Manual to assign a class code or number to a specific job or task. The Scopes Manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) and is a reference for all jobs and jobs descriptions to which NCCI assigns class codes/numbers. The Scopes Manual is used throughout the insurance industry and throughout the State of Florida for uniformity; as a result, the same specific job or task in different geographic locations in Florida would have the same class code or number. Using the Scopes Manual, the Department assigned a class code to the type of work performed by each aforementioned subcontractor, who was now determined to be an employee of Family Flooring. The Department then multiplied the assigned class code’s approved manual rate times the gross wages paid to the employee, per one hundred dollars, to obtain the premium what Family Flooring should have paid during the period of non- compliance; and then multiplied the premium obtained by 1.5 to obtain the penalty to be assessed for each employee. During the period of non-compliance, Mr. Martino had a current, valid workers’ compensation exemption. Also, the Department’s database indicated, among other things, that the “Exemption Type” was “Construction.” Due to Mr. Martino's exemption, payments to him by Family Flooring were not included in the assessment of the penalty. A total penalty in the amount of $42,613.47 was calculated by the Department. An Amended OPA, together with the Department’s penalty worksheet, was served on Family Flooring on January 4, 2005, providing, among other things, that the amended assessed penalty was $42,613.47. Subsequently, Family Flooring entered into an agreement, Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty (Agreement), with the Department regarding payment of the penalty. The Agreement provided, among other things, for a down payment by Family Flooring of ten percent of the assessed penalty, for the remaining balance of the penalty to be paid by Family Flooring in 24 equal monthly installments, and for proof of compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by Family Flooring. As proof of compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, Family Flooring, through Mr. Martino, provided the Department a notarized letter, dated and notarized December 28, 2004, which provided that Family Flooring would only hire subcontractors who were in compliance with the regulations of the Department. As a result of the Agreement, on January 4, 2005, the Department issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order (Order of Conditional Release). No evidence was presented at hearing that Family Flooring had violated the Order of Conditional Release.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation enter a final order: Finding that WMW Enterprises, d/b/a Family Flooring violated Sections 440.10 and 440.38, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for its employees, Scott Lunardoni, Mauricio Perez, Richard Robinson, and Robert Waddicor. Affirming and upholding the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $42,613.47. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 6th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services Workers’ Compensation Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Michael Martino WMW Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Family Flooring 1450 10th Street Lake Park, Florida 33403 Carlos G. Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher, Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner received a salary overpayment at the time of her separation from employment with Respondent to which she was not entitled, as set forth in correspondence dated February 5, 2016; and, if so, whether Respondent is entitled to a repayment for the salary overpayment made to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jasminne Myles, was hired as a career service employee of the Department in the position of Economic Self Sufficiency Specialist I in the Office of Economic Self Sufficiency, with an effective appointment date of May 22, 2015, which included a 12-month probationary status. Petitioner resigned from her employment with the Department effective January 21, 2016. At that point, she had been employed with the Department for eight months, placing her squarely within the 12-month probationary period. Petitioner’s supervisor submitted her approved, accurate time record 26 minutes late on February 3, 2016, which resulted in Petitioner being paid for 80 hours for the month, rather than for the 40 hours to which she was entitled to be paid during her last pay period. Petitioner testified that she was told by various supervisory employees of the Department who ranked above her and upon whose statements she believed she could rely, that she was entitled to her entire amount of unused annual leave. She believed her final paycheck in the amount she usually received, was the one to which she was entitled. Unfortunately for Petitioner, any information she received or believes she received from her supervisors in this regard, was incorrect. The Department is bound by statute and rule as to how its employees are paid, including the handling of leave pay-outs for employees during their probationary periods. Petitioner believed she had been properly compensated until she was contacted by Susan Monick, who informed her of the overpayment. She was told that, because she had not been employed by the Department for 12 months, she was not allowed to take her unused vacation time. While Petitioner did not recall receiving or reading the employee handbook given to her by the Department outlining CFOP 60-1, which mirrors the applicable Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-34.0041(6)(a), she acknowledged that the language put before her at the hearing supported the Department’s position regarding her entitlement to the leave pay-out. Ms. Monick testified that she has been employed by the Department for 33 years and that she sent Petitioner a letter notifying her of the overpayment in the amount of $408.46 on February 5, 2016. She acknowledged Petitioner’s service of eight months and the fact that the paycheck had been automatically generated due to the barely late filing of Petitioner’s termination paperwork. She also told Petitioner that she must repay the full $408.86, the overpayment amount. Ms. Monick stated that if Petitioner had extended her separation date by one week and used her annual leave, she would not have been overpaid and would have been entitled to the full amount of the paycheck.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order requiring Petitioner to repay the salary overpayment in the amount of $408.86. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 29th day of April, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane Almy-Loewinger, Esquire Department of Children and Families 210 North Palmetto Avenue, Suite 447 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 (eServed) Paul Sexton, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Jasminne Myles 222 Ontario Court Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Rebecca Kapusta, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
