The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of pleading nolo contendere to three counts of uttering a forged instrument, three counts of forgery, and three counts of grand theft so as to constitute a demonstrated lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance, in violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes; willful failure to comply with any provision of this Code, in violation of Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes; a finding of guilty or pleading of guilty or nolo contendere to a felony involving a crime of moral turpitude, in violation of Section 626.611(14), Florida Statutes, any cause for which issuance of the license or permit could have been refused or denied by Petitioner, pursuant to Section 626.621(1), Florida Statutes; and a finding of guilty of pleading of guilty or nolo contendere to a felony, in violation of Section 626.621(8), Florida Statutes. An additional issue is whether Respondent failed to notify Petitioner of her plea of nolo contendere within 30 days, as required by Section 626.621(11), Florida Statutes. If Petitioner prevails on any of these issues, another issue is the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been licensed as a Customer Representative. On February 23, 2001, Respondent pleaded no contest to three counts of uttering a forged instrument--i.e., a bank check--on August 10, 2000, in violation of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes; three counts of forgery of a public record on August 10, 2000, in violation of Section 831.01, Florida Statutes; and three counts of third-degree grand theft on August 10, 2000, in violation of Section 812.014, Florida Statutes. She also agreed to pay restitution of $1892.87 and court costs. By Community Supervision Order entered February 27, 2001, the court accepted the plea, withheld adjudication, placed Respondent on two years' probation, required Respondent to pay restitution of $1892.87, and required Respondent to pay court costs. Respondent entered the plea of no contest to avoid the expense of a trial. She relied on the advice of her criminal attorney that this disposition of the criminal case would have no effect on her insurance license. She was unaware of her obligation to inform Petitioner of her entry of a no contest plea to these nine charges. Respondent finished paying restitution in March 2003 and has successfully completed her probation. One of her witnesses testified that he has worked with Respondent in the past and is aware of the conduct described above. He testified that he is establishing a new insurance agency in January 2004 and, if her licensing situation permits, he intends to employ her in that office.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 626.611(14) and 626.621(11) and suspending her Customer Representative license for five months. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 27th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 R. Terry Butler, Senior Attorney Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Karen Marie Maldonado 701 Southwest Ravenswood West Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended,1 and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Department), is a state agency charged, inter alia, with the duty and responsibility to license and regulate private security, investigative, and repossession services pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Jonas Mercier, is now, and was at all times material to this case, licensed by the Department as a Class "D" Security Officer, having been issued license number D97-00533. From January 9, 1997, until March 3, 1997, Respondent was employed as a security officer by Borg-Warner Protective Services (Borg-Warner), a business which provides security services. Among Borg-Warner's clients during the period of Respondent's employment were Hertz Rent-A-Car (Hertz) and Shaw Trucking. On February 1, 1997, Respondent's assignment was to provide security services at the Hertz maintenance facility in Broward County, Florida. At 7:30 a.m., during the course of his shift, Respondent was found sleeping on duty by the client's director of security. For this offense, Respondent received an "official reprimand" from his employer. On Sunday, March 2, 1997, Respondent's assignment was to provide security services at Shaw Trucking in Broward County, Florida. His shift was to begin at 9:00 p.m. Respondent telephoned the Borg-Warner dispatcher, and reported for duty at the appointed time. During the course of that conversation, the dispatcher apprised Respondent that the road supervisor, Moses Osgood (Osgood), would not arrive until approximately 11:00 p.m. to open the padlocks. Osgood arrived at Shaw Trucking at 10:28 p.m. on March 2, 1997, and found that Respondent had left his assigned post without notice to, or permission from, Borg-Warner. Osgood remained at the post until Respondent returned at 11:08 p.m., and resumed his post. Respondent's explanation for his absence was that, since Osgood was not scheduled to arrive until 11:00 p.m., he had gone to get something to eat. In his absence, however, the client's premises were without security. Respondent was discharged by his employer on March 3, 1997, for having left his post without notice or authorization.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and that, as a penalty for such offenses, Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1998.
The Issue Whether the Department of Corrections? action to withdraw its Intent to Award and to reject all replies to ITN 12-DC-8396 is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and if so, whether its Intent to Award is contrary to governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The DOC is an agency of the State of Florida that is responsible for the supervisory and protective care, custody, and control of Florida?s inmate population. In carrying out this statutory responsibility, the Department provides access to inmate telephone services. On April 15, 2013, the DOC issued the ITN, entitled “Statewide Inmate Telephone Services, ITN 12-DC-8396,” seeking vendors to provide managed-access inmate telephone service to the DOC. Responses to the ITN were due to be opened on May 21, 2013. The DOC issued Addendum #1 to the ITN on April 23, 2013, revising one page of the ITN. The DOC issued Addendum #2 to the ITN on May 14, 2013, revising a number of pages of the ITN, and including answers to a number of vendor questions. EPSI, GTL, and Securus are providers of inmate telephone systems and services. Securus is the incumbent contractor, and has been providing the Department with services substantially similar to those solicited for over five years. No party filed a notice of protest to the terms, conditions, or specifications contained in the ITN or the Addenda within 72 hours of their posting or a formal written protest within 10 days thereafter. Replies to the ITN were received from EPSI, GTL, Securus, and Telmate, LLC. Telmate?s reply was determined to be not responsive to the ITN. Two-Part ITN As amended by Addendum #2, section 2.4 of the ITN, entitled “ITN Process,” provided that the Invitation to Negotiate process to select qualified vendors would consist of two distinct parts. In Part 1, an interested vendor was to submit a response that described certain Mandatory Responsiveness Requirement elements, as well as a Statement of Qualifications, Technical Response, and Financial Documentation. These responses would then be scored using established evaluation criteria and the scores would be combined with cost points assigned from submitted Cost Proposals. In Part 2, the Department was to select one or more qualified vendors for negotiations. After negotiations, the Department would request a Best and Final Offer from each vendor for final consideration prior to final award decision. The ITN provided that the Department could reject any and all responses at any time. High Commissions and Low Rates Section 2.5 of the ITN, entitled “Initial Cost Response,” provided in part: It is the Department?s intention, through the ITN process, to generate the highest percentage of revenue for the State, while ensuring a quality telephone service with reasonable and justifiable telephone call rate charges for inmate?s family and friends similar to those available to the public-at- large. Section 2.6 of the ITN, entitled “Revenue to be Paid to the Department,” provided in part that the Department intended to enter into a contract to provide inmate telephone service at no cost to the Department. It provided that, “[t]he successful Contractor shall pay to the Department a commission calculated as a percentage of gross revenues.”1/ The commission paid by a vendor is the single largest expense in the industry and is an important aspect of any bid. Contract Term Section 2.8 of the ITN was entitled “Contract Term” and provided: It is anticipated that the initial term of any Contract resulting from this ITN shall be for a five (5) year period. At its sole discretion, the Department may renew the Contract in accordance with Form PUR 1000 #26. The renewal shall be contingent, at a minimum, on satisfactory performance of the Contract by the Contractor as determined by the Department, and subject to the availability of funds. If the Department desires to renew the Contracts resulting from this ITN, it will provide written notice to the Contractor no later than thirty days prior to the Contract expiration date. Own Technology System Section 3.4 of the ITN provided in part: The successful Contractor is required to implement its own technology system to facilitate inmate telephone service. Due to the size and complexity of the anticipated system, the successful Contractor will be allowed a period of transition beginning on the date the contract is executed in which to install and implement the utilization of its own technology system. Transition, implementation and installation are limited to eighty (80) days. The Department realizes that some "down time" will occur during this transition, and Respondents shall propose an implementation plan that reduces this "down time" and allows for a smooth progression to the proposed ITS. GTL emphasizes the language stating that the successful contractor must implement “its own” technology system, and asserts that the technology system which EPSI offers to install is not owned by it, but by Inmate Calling Solutions, LLC (ICS), its subcontractor. However, EPSI demonstrated that while the inmate telephone platform, dubbed the “Enforcer System,” is owned by ICS now, that EPSI has a Master User Agreement with ICS and that an agreement has already been reached that before the contract would be entered into, a Statement of Work would be executed to create actual ownership in EPSI for purposes of the Florida contract. GTL alleges that in EPSI?s reply, EPSI relied upon the experience, qualifications, and resources of its affiliated entities in other areas as well. For example, GTL asserts that EPSI?s claim that it would be providing 83 percent of the manpower is false, since EPSI has acknowledged that EPSI is only a contracting subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc., and that EPSI has no employees of its own. While it is clear that EPSI?s reply to the ITN relies upon the resources of its parent to carry out the terms of the contract with respect to experience, presence in the state, and personnel, EPSI demonstrated that this arrangement was common, and well understood by the Department. EPSI demonstrated that all required capabilities would be available to it through the resources of its parent and subcontractors at the time the contract was entered into, and that its reply was in conformance with the provisions of the ITN in all material respects. EPSI has the integrity and reliability to assure good faith performance of the contract. Call Recording Section 3.6 of the ITN, entitled “Inmate Telephone System Functionality (General),” provided in part: The system shall provide the capability to flag any individual telephone number in the inmate?s „Approved Number List? as „Do Not Record.? The default setting for each telephone number will be to record until flagged by Department personnel to the contrary. Securus alleges that section 3.6 of the ITN implements Department regulations2/ and that EPSI?s reply was non-responsive because it stated that recording of calls to specific telephone numbers would be deactivated regardless of who called that number. Securus alleges that this creates a security risk because other inmates calling the same number should still have their calls recorded. EPSI indicated in its reply to the ITN that it read, agreed, and would comply with section 3.6. While EPSI went on to say that this capability was not connected to an inmate?s PIN, the language of section 3.6 does not mention an inmate?s PIN either. Read literally, this section requires only the ability to “flag” any individual telephone number that appears in an inmate?s number list as “do not record” and requires that, by default, calls to a telephone number will be recorded until it is flagged. EPSI?s reply indicated it could meet this requirement. This provision says nothing about continuing to record calls to that same number from other inmates. Whether or not this creates a security risk or is what the Department actually desired are issues which might well be discussed as part of the negotiations, but this does not affect the responsiveness of EPSI?s reply to section 3.6. Furthermore, Mr. Cooper testified at hearing that EPSI does have the capability to mark a number as “do not record” only with respect to an individual inmate, at the option of the Department. EPSI?s reply conformed to the call-recording provisions of section 3.6 of the ITN in all material respects. Call Forwarding Section 3.6.8 of the ITN, entitled “System Restriction, Fraud Control and Notification Requirements,” provided that the provided inmate telephone services have the following security capability: Ability to immediately terminate a call if it detects that a called party?s telephone number is call forwarded to another telephone number. The system shall make a “notation” in the database on the inmate?s call. The system shall make this information available, in a report format, to designated department personnel. In response to an inquiry noting that, as worded, the ITN did not technically require a vendor to have the capability to detect call-forwarded calls in the first place, the Department responded that this functionality was required. Securus alleges that EPSI is unable to comply with this requirement, citing as evidence EPSI?s admission, made some months before in connection with an RFP being conducted by the Kansas Department of Corrections, that it did not yet have this capability. EPSI indicated in its reply to the ITN that it read, agreed, and would comply with this requirement. As for the Kansas solicitation, EPSI showed that it now possesses this capability, and has in fact installed it before. EPSI?s reply conformed to the call-forwarding provisions of section 3.6.8 of the ITN in all material respects. Keefe Commissary Network Section 5.2.1 of the ITN, entitled “Respondents? Business/Corporate Experience,” at paragraph e. directed each vendor to: [P]rovide and identify all entities of or related to the Respondent (including parent company and subsidiaries of the parent company; divisions or subdivisions of parent company or of Respondent), that have ever been convicted of fraud or of deceit or unlawful business dealings whether related to the services contemplated by this ITN or not, or entered into any type of settlement agreement concerning a business practice, including services contemplated by this ITN, in response to a civil or criminal action, or have been the subject of any complaint, action, investigation or suit involving any other type of dealings contrary to federal, state, or other regulatory agency regulations. The Respondent shall identify the amount of any payments made as part of any settlement agreement, consent order or conviction. Attachment 6 to the ITN, setting forth Evaluation Criteria, similarly provided guidance regarding the assessment of points for Business/Corporate Experience. Paragraph 1.(f) provided: “If any entities of, or related to, the Respondent were convicted of fraud or of deceit or unlawful business dealings, what were the circumstances that led to the conviction and how was it resolved by the Respondent?” Addendum #2. to the ITN, which included questions and answers, also contained the following: Question 57: In Attachment 6, Article 1.f. regarding respondents “convicted of fraud, deceit, or unlawful business dealing . . .” does this include associated subcontractors proposed in this ITN? Answer 57: Yes, any subcontractors you intend to utilize on this project, would be considered an entity of and related to your firm. As a proposed subcontractor, ICS is an entity of, or related to, EPSI. There is no evidence to indicate that ICS has ever been convicted of fraud or of deceit or unlawful business dealings. There is no evidence to indicate that ICS has entered into any type of settlement agreement concerning a business practice in response to a civil or criminal action. There is no evidence to indicate that ICS has been the subject of any complaint, action, investigation, or suit involving any other type of dealings contrary to federal, state, or other regulatory agency regulations. The only evidence at hearing as to convictions involved “two individuals from the Florida DOC” and “two individuals from a company called AIS, I think that?s American Institutional Services.” No evidence was presented that AIS was “an entity of or related to” EPSI. Conversely, there was no evidence that Keefe Commissary Network (KCN) or anyone employed by it was ever convicted of any crime. There was similarly no evidence that KCN entered into any type of settlement agreement concerning a business practice in response to civil or criminal action. It was shown that KCN “cooperated with the federal government in an investigation” that resulted in criminal convictions, and it is concluded that KCN was therefore itself a subject of an investigation involving any other type of dealings contrary to federal, state, or other regulatory agency regulations. However, KCN is not an entity of, or related to, EPSI. KCN is not a parent company of EPSI, it is not a division, subdivision, or subsidiary of EPSI, and it is not a division, subdivision, or subsidiary of EPSI?s parent company, CenturyLink, Inc. EPSI?s reply conformed to the disclosure requirements of section 5.2.1, Attachment 6, and Addendum #2 of the ITN in all material respects. Phases of the ITN Section 6 describes nine phases of the ITN: Phase 1 – Public Opening and Review of Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements Phase 2 – Review of References and Other Bid Requirements Phase 3 – Evaluations of Statement of Qualifications, Technical Responses, and Managed Access Solutions3/ Phase 4 – CPA Review of Financial Documentation Phase 5 – Review of Initial Cost Sheets Phase 6 – Determination of Final Scores Phase 7 – Negotiations Phase 8 – Best and Final Offers from Respondents Phase 9 – Notice of Intended Decision Evaluation Criteria in the ITN As amended by Addendum #2, the ITN established scoring criteria to evaluate replies in three main categories: Statement of Qualifications (500 points); Technical Response (400 points); and Initial Cost Sheets (100 points). It also provided specific guidance for consideration of the commissions and rates shown on the Initial Cost Sheet that made up the pricing category. Section 6.1.5 of the ITN, entitled “Phase 5 – Review of Initial Cost Sheet,” provided in part: The Initial Cost Proposal with the highest commission (percentage of gross revenue) to be paid to the Department will be awarded 50 points. The price submitted in Table 1 for the Original Contract Term, and the subsequent renewal price pages for Table 1 will be averaged to determine the highest commission submitted. All other commission percentages will receive points according to the following formula: (X/N) x 50 = Z Where: X = Respondents proposed Commission Percentage to be Paid. N = highest Commission Percentage to be Paid of all responses submitted. Z = points awarded. * * * The Initial Cost Proposal with the lowest telephone rate charge will be awarded 50 points. The price submitted in Table 1 for the Original Contract Term, and the subsequent renewal price pages for Table 1 will be averaged to determine the highest commission submitted. All other cost responses will receive points according to the following formula: (N/X) x 50 = Z Where: N = lowest verified telephone rate charge of all responses submitted. X = Respondent?s proposed lowest telephone rate charge. Z = points awarded. The ITN as amended by Addendum #2 provided instructions that initial costs should be submitted with the most favorable terms the Respondent could offer and that final percentages and rates would be determined through the negotiation process. It included the following chart:4/ COST PROPOSAL INITIAL Contract Term 5 years ONE Year Renewal TWO Year Renewal THREE Year Renewal FOUR Year Renewal FIVE Year Renewal Initial Department Commission % Rate Proposed Initial Blended Telephone Rate for All Calls* (inclusive of surcharges) The ITN, including its Addenda, did not specify selection criteria upon which the determination of best value to the state would be based. Allegation that EPSI Reply was Misleading On the Certification/Attestation Page, each vendor was required to certify that the information contained in its reply was true and sufficiently complete so as not to be misleading. While portions of its reply might have provided more detail, EPSI did not mislead the Department regarding its legal structure, affiliations, and subcontractors, or misrepresent what entity would be providing technology or services if EPSI was awarded the contract. EPSI?s reply explained that EPSI was a wholly owned corporate subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc., and described many aspects of the contract that would be performed using resources of its parent, as well as aspects that would be performed through ICS as its subcontractor. Department Evaluation of Initial Replies The information on the Cost Proposal table was reviewed and scored by Ms. Hussey, who had been appointed as the procurement manager for the ITN. Attempting to follow the instructions provided in section 6.1.5, she added together the six numbers found in the boxes indicating commission percentages on the Cost Proposal sheets. One of these boxes contained the commission percentage for the original five-year contract term and each of the other five boxes contained the commission percentage for one of the five renewal years. She then divided this sum by six, the number of boxes in the computation chart (“divide by six”). In other words, she calculated the arithmetic mean of the six numbers provided in each proposal. The Department had not intended for the commission percentages to be averaged in this manner. Instead, they had intended that a weighted mean would be calculated. That is, they intended that five times the commission percentage shown for the initial contract term would be added to the commission percentages for the five renewal years, with that sum then being divided by ten, the total number of years (“divide by ten”). The Department did not clearly express this intent in section 6.1.5. Mr. Viefhaus testified that based upon the language, Securus believed that in Phase 5 the Department would compute the average commission rate the way that Ms. Hussey actually did it, taking the arithmetic mean of the six commission percentages provided by each vendor, and that therefore Securus prepared its submission with that calculation in mind.5/ Mr. Montanaro testified that based upon the language, GTL believed that in Phase 5 the Department would “divide by ten,” that is, compute the weighted mean covering the ten-year period of the contract, and that GTL filled out its Cost Proposal table based upon that understanding. The DOC posted a notice of its intent to negotiate with GTL, Securus, and EPSI on June 3, 2013. Telmate, LLC, was not chosen for negotiations.6/ Following the Notice of Intent to Negotiate was this statement in bold print: Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. On June 14, 2013, the DOC issued a Request for Best and Final Offers (RBAFO), directing that Best and Final Offers (BAFO) be provided to the DOC by June 18, 2013. Location-Based Services The RBAFO included location-based services of called cell phones as an additional negotiated service, requesting a narrative description of the service that could be provided. The capability to provide location-based services had not been part of the original ITN, but discussions took place as part of the negotiations. Securus contends that EPSI was not a responsible vendor because it misrepresented its ability to provide such location-based services through 3Cinteractive, Inc. (3Ci). EPSI demonstrated that it had indicated to the Department during negotiations that it did not have the capability at that time, but that the capability could easily be added. EPSI showed that due to an earlier call it received from 3Ci, it believed that 3Ci would be able to provide location- based services to it. EPSI was also talking at this time to another company, CTI, which could also provide it that capability. In its BAFO, EPSI indicated it could provide these services, explained that they would require payments to a third- party provider, and showed a corresponding financial change to their offer. No competent evidence showed whether or not 3Ci was actually able to provide that service on behalf of EPSI, either at the time the BAFO was submitted, or earlier. EPSI showed that it believed 3Ci was available to provide that service, however, and there is no basis to conclude that EPSI in any way misrepresented its ability to provide location-based services during negotiations or in its BAFO. Language of the RBAFO The RBAFO provided in part: This RBAFO contains Pricing, Additional Negotiated Services, and Value Added Services as discussed during negotiation and outlined below. The other specifications of the original ITN, unless modified in the RBAFO, remain in effect. Respondents are cautioned to clearly read the entire RBAFO for all revisions and changes to the original ITN and any addenda to specifications, which are incorporated herein and made a part of this RBAFO document. Unless otherwise modified in this Request for Best and Final Offer, the initial requirements as set forth in the Department?s Invitation to Negotiate document and any addenda issued thereto have not been revised and remain as previously indicated. Additionally, to the extent that portions of the ITN have not been revised or changed, the previous reply/initial reply provided to the Department will remain in effect. These two introductory paragraphs of the RBAFO were confusing. It was not clear on the face of the RBAFO whether “other specifications” excluded only the pricing information to be supplied or also the specifications indicating how that pricing information would be calculated or evaluated. It was not clear whether “other specifications” were the same thing as “initial requirements” which had not been revised. It was not clear whether scoring procedures constituted “specifications.” While it was clear that, to the extent not revised or changed by the RBAFO, initial replies that had been submitted -- including Statements of Qualifications, Technical Response, Financial Documentation, and Cost Proposals -- would “remain in effect,” it was not clear how, if at all, these would be considered in determining the best value to the State. In the RBAFO under the heading “PRICING,” vendors were instructed to provide their BAFO for rates on a provided Cost Proposal table which was virtually identical to the table that had been provided earlier in the ITN for the evaluation stage, including a single square within which to indicate a commission rate for the initial five-year contract term, and five squares within which to indicate commission rates for each of five renewal years. The RBAFO stated that the Department was seeking pricing that would provide the “best value to the state.” It included a list of 11 additional services that had been addressed in negotiations and stated that, “in order to provide the best value to the state,” the Department reserved the right to accept or reject any or all of these additional services. It provided that after BAFOs were received, the Negotiation Team would prepare a summary of the negotiations and make a recommendation as to which vendor would provide the “best value to the state.” The RBAFO did not specify selection criteria upon which the determination of best value to the State would be based. In considering commission percentages as part of their determination as to which vendor would receive the contract, the Negotiation Team decided not to consider commissions that had been listed by vendors for the renewal years, concluding that the original five-year contract term was all that was assured, since renewals might or might not occur. On June 25, 2013, the DOC posted its Notice of Agency Decision stating its intent to award a contract to EPSI. Protests and the Decision to Reject All Replies Subsequent to timely filing notices of intent to protest the intended award, Securus and GTL filed Formal Written Protests with the DOC on July 5 and 8, 2013, respectively. The Department considered and compared the protests. It determined that language in the ITN directing that in Phase 5 the highest commission would be determined by averaging the price for the original contract term with the prices for the renewal years was ambiguous and flawed. It determined that use of a table with six squares as the initial cost sheet was a mistake. The Department determined that the language and structure of the RBAFO could be read one way to say that the Department would use the same methodology to evaluate the pricing in the negotiation stage as had been used to evaluate the Initial Cost sheets in Phase 5, or could be read another way to mean that BAFO pricing would not be evaluated that way. It determined that the inclusion in the RBAFO of a table virtually identical to the one used as the initial cost sheet was a mistake. The Department determined that the language and the structure of the RBAFO could be read one way to require further consideration of such factors as the Statement of Qualifications and Technical Response in determining best value to the State, or could be read another way to require no further consideration of these factors. The Department prepared some spreadsheets demonstrating the varying results that would be obtained using “divide by six” and “divide by ten” and also considered a spreadsheet that had been prepared by Securus. The Department considered that its own Contract Manager had interpreted the Phase 5 instructions to mean “divide by six,” while the Department had actually intended the instructions to mean “divide by ten.” The Department had intended that the Negotiation Team give some weight to the renewal-year pricing, and had included the pricing table in the RBAFO for that reason, not simply to comply with statutory requirements regarding renewal pricing. The Department determined that the way the RBAFO was written and the inclusion of the chart required at least some consideration of ten-year pricing, and that vendors had therefore been misled when the Negotiation Team gave no consideration to the commission percentages for the renewal years. Specifically, based upon the Securus protest, the Department determined that the RBAFO language had been interpreted by Securus to require that the Phase 5 calculation of average commission percentage be carried over to evaluation of the pricing in the BAFOs, which Securus had concluded meant “divide by six.” The Department further determined that based upon the GTL protest, the RBAFO language had been interpreted by GTL to require the Department to consider the renewal years in pricing, as well as such things as the Statement of Qualifications and Technical Response in the BAFO stage. The Department determined that had “divide by six” been used in evaluating the BAFOs, Securus would have a computed percentage of 70 percent, higher than any other vendor. The Department concluded that the wording and structure of the ITN and RBAFO did not create a level playing field to evaluate replies because they were confusing and ambiguous and were not understood by everyone in the same way. Vendors naturally had structured their replies to maximize their chances of being awarded the contract based upon their understanding of how the replies would be evaluated. The Department concluded that vendor pricing might have been different but for the misleading language and structure of the ITN and RBAFO. The Department did not compute what the final award would have been had it applied the scoring procedures for the initial cost sheets set forth in section 6.1.5 to the cost elements of the BAFOs. The Department did not compute what the final award would have been had it applied the scoring procedures for the Statement of Qualifications and Technical Response set forth in section 6.1.3 to the BAFOs. Ms. Bailey testified that while she had originally approved the ITN, she was unaware of any problems, and that it was only later, after the protests to the Notice of Intended Award had been filed and she had reviewed the specifications again, that she had come to the conclusion that the ITN and RBAFO were flawed. Following the protests of the intended award by GTL and Securus, on July 23, 2013, the DOC posted to the Vendor Bid System a Notice of Revised Agency Decision stating the DOC?s intent to reject all replies and reissue the ITN. On August 5, 2013, EPSI, GTL, and Securus filed formal written protests challenging DOC?s intended decision to reject all replies. Securus subsequently withdrew its protest to DOC?s rejection of all replies. As the vendor initially notified that it would receive the contract, EPSI?s substantial interests were affected by the Department's subsequent decision to reject all replies. GTL alleged the contract had wrongly been awarded to EPSI and that it should have received the award, and its substantial interests were affected by the Department's subsequent decision to reject all replies. The Department did not act arbitrarily in its decision to reject all replies. The Department did not act illegally, dishonestly, or fraudulently in its decision to reject all replies. EPSI would likely be harmed in any re-solicitation of bids relative to its position in the first ITN, because potential competitors would have detailed information about EPSI?s earlier reply that was unavailable to them during the first ITN. An ITN requires a great deal of work by the Department and creates a big demand on Department resources. The decision to reject all replies was not undertaken lightly. The State of Florida would likely benefit in any new competitive solicitation7/ because all vendors would be aware of the replies that had been submitted earlier in response to the ITN, and bidders would likely try to improve upon those proposals to improve their chances of being awarded the contract.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Corrections issue a final order finding that the rejection of all replies submitted in response to ITN 12-DC-8396 was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing all four protests. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 1st day of November, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice when it terminated Petitioner's employment on July 20, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses while testifying, exhibits admitted into evidence, stipulations and arguments of the parties, and evidentiary rulings made, the following relevant and material facts are objectively determined: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Timely File Petition for Relief This case arises out of a Charge of Discrimination (Charge) filed by Petitioner (Mr. Tabak) with the Commission on July 19, 2002. Mr. Tabak alleged in the Charge that Respondent (Office Depot) discriminated against him based on his religion (Jewish), disability, and age (54 years) and retaliated against him for complaining of the same when it terminated his employment on July 20, 2001. Office Depot denied the allegations in the Charge and contends that it does not discriminate on the basis of religion, disability, age or any other factor. On March 12, 2004, a no cause determination was issued by the Commission after its investigation of the allegations in the Charge. The determination states that "there is no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred." The no cause determination and the Notice were mailed to Mr. Tabak on March 12, 2004. The Notice informed Mr. Tabak of his right to request an administrative hearing by filing a petition for relief within 35 days of the date of the Notice (i.e. April 16, 2004), and it further informed Petitioner that his claim would be dismissed if it was not timely filed. The Commission received Mr. Tabak's Petition for Relief (Petition) on April 19, 2004, 38 days after the date of the no cause determination and Notice of March 12, 2004. Mr. Tabak gave no reason for the failure to timely file his Petition, other than "he put it in the mail and the postal services should have delivered it." Failure to Respond to Discovery Mr. Tabak acknowledged receiving Office Depot's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories. Mr. Tabak acknowledged that he did not answer Respondent's discovery requests. Office Depot did not file a motion to compel or any other pleading to have Mr. Tabak's refusal to comply with discovery addressed by the undersigned prior to the hearing, and the noncompliance issues are now moot. Claim of Discrimination Mr. Tabak was hired by Office Depot on November 25, 1994, as a delivery driver at the satellite facility located in Fort Myers, Florida. Delivery drivers would report to the warehouse each morning to be assigned a "route" and/or "delivery" by the "lead" driver. The lead driver was an employee promoted from among the drivers. Drivers with the most experience and knowledge of the "delivery aspect" of the business, who had demonstrated an ability to manage other drivers and interviewed well as a potential leader, as determined by management, was promoted to lead driver positions. During Mr. Tabak's employment with Office Depot, a male and female were promoted to lead driver positions. At the time of hire, all of Respondent's employees, to include Mr. Tabak, were provided with a copy of Office Depot's employee handbook. Office Depot's employee handbook includes policies regarding equal employment opportunity, prohibition of unlawful harassment, and appropriate workplace conduct. The policies prohibit discrimination or harassment of employees on the basis of several factors, including religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, race, and national origin and require employees to treat one another with respect. The handbook provided the accepted method for employees to file their objections to all proposed disciplinary actions taken against them by management, at the time they were notified of adverse action impacting their employment status. On October 13, 1997, some 35 months after he was hired, Mr. Tabak applied for a lead driver position that was advertised. Mr. Tabak was interviewed, selected, and promoted to the lead driver position with an increase in pay and responsibilities. The overall responsibility of the lead driver was to ensure each day (1) that all vehicles were operative, that drivers were present and assigned delivery routes, and that drivers were scheduled to fill in for drivers who were on vacation and out sick. When necessary, the lead driver will drive for a driver who is out sick and no replacement was timely found. All Office Depot drivers understood that "the daily delivery of goods was the ultimate objective to be achieved." On or about May 11, 2001, driver Jamie Salazar radioed Mr. Tabak, his lead driver, informing Mr. Tabak that he ran out of gas while driving a delivery route. During their conversation on the office-to-truck radio, another driver, Daniel Vasquez, overheard Mr. Tabak tell Mr. Salazar, "if you have a fucking problem, say it to my face," or some vulgar statement to that effect. Mr. Salazar and Mr. Vasquez reported Mr. Tabak's vulgar comment to Jeff Parry, the satellite manager. Mr. Parry discussed Mr. Tabak's inappropriate conduct with his immediate supervisor, Tom Perrin, the district manager/supervisor. Mr. Parry and Mr. Perrin agreed that Mr. Tabak's comments and conduct were inappropriate and were a violation of Office Depot's policy and practice that required "employees to treat one another with respect." On May 11, 2001, Mr. Parry and Mr. Perrin concluded that Mr. Tabak would receive written counseling for his comment to Mr. Salazar, with the warning that the next policy infraction would result in a final written counseling warning and/or termination. The written counseling becomes a part of the employee's personnel file. Office Depot's Problem Resolution policy is included in the employee handbook. Through the Problem Resolution policy, employees may contest proposed disciplinary counseling or other adverse actions taken by Office Depot management. Mr. Tabak was given a Problem Resolution form at the time he was informed by management of the "written counseling warning," but he elected not to complete the form to contest the written counseling warning he received for his vulgar comment to Mr. Salazar. On May 11, 2001, Mr. Parry and Mr. Perrin gave Mr. Salazar a final written warning for running out of gas. This final warning was given because it was the responsibility of the driver, Mr. Salazar, to ensure that the truck assigned to him was fully gassed each morning before leaving the facility. On or about July 10, 2001, driver, David Tollison, reported to Mr. Parry that at the end of his delivery run he attempted check-in with Mr. Tabak, his lead driver, by giving his signed clipboard evidencing deliveries made. According to Mr. Tollison, Mr. Tabak shoved the clipboard back to him and said "fucking check yourself in." When confronted by management with this second complaint of using vulgarity to coworkers, Mr. Tabak denied using the specific word "fucking" but admitted he "may" have said "hell" or "damn" when he shoved the clipboard at Mr. Tollison. Again Mr. Parry discussed this incident with Mr. Perrin, and they agreed that Mr. Tabak's conduct was inappropriate and violated Office Depot's policies and practices requiring "employees to treat one another with respect" and that he should receive a final written counseling. On July 10, 2001, Mr. Tabak received his final written counseling for his inappropriate conduct toward Mr. Tollison. The final warning informed Mr. Tabak that the next infraction of Office Depot's employee policies would result in termination. Again, Mr. Tabak was given a Problem Resolution form at the time he was informed by management of the "final written warning," but he elected not to complete the form to contest the written counseling warning he received for his vulgar comment to Mr. Tollison. On July 18, 2001, Mr. Parry was advised that Mr. Tabak had made derogatory comments about the sexual orientation of Lisa Holmes, a lead driver. It was reported that Mr. Tabak, in the presence of drivers, Dan Mouser and Glenn Michalak, had on more than one occasion referred to Ms. Holmes as "that gay bitch." On two or more occasions Mr. Tabak made derogatory comments about Ms. Holmes in the presence of Vailoa Tavia, referring to Ms. Holmes as a "bitch" and stating that "she should not be working as a driver at Office Depot because she is a woman." Mr. Tabak, in the presence of Mr. Michalak, continued his barrage of derogatory comments about Ms. Holmes, referring to her as a "dike" and stating "we sure don't need any gay leads [drivers] around here." Mr. Tabak's derogatory comments about his coworkers were not restricted to just the sexual orientation of Ms. Holmes. In the presence of Mr. Michalak and on more than one occasion, Mr. Tabak expressed his opinion regarding his Mexican and Black American coworkers, to include the statement "if we could get rid of all the Blacks and Mexicans, this place would run better," and "we don't need Blacks and Mexicans, because they are lazy." Mr. Tabak's repeated inappropriate comments made about his coworkers in the presence of other coworkers, after two written warnings, were brought to the attention of Richard York, Office Depot's Regional Human Resources Manager, located in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. York, through his own investigation of Mr. Tabak's comments regarding the race, national origin, and sexual orientation of other Office Depot employees confirmed repeated violations, after warnings, had occurred. On July 20, 2001, Mr. Tabak was terminated for repeated violations of Office Depot's policies concerning equal employment opportunities and non-harassment. Again, at the time of his termination for the third and last time, Mr. Tabak was given a Problem Resolution form to complete to contest his termination. Mr. Tabak did not, however, mention in his Problem Resolution any claims of religious, age, or disability discrimination; failure to accommodate; or retaliation. It is undisputed that Mr. Tabak's termination was the sole and direct result of his having made three or more derogatory statements about his coworkers in the presence of other coworkers, each such statement being a separate violation of Office Depot's policy regarding mandatory respect of each employee for coworkers. Mr. Parry terminated another employee, Mr. Mouser, for making derogatory remarks about Mr. Tabak's Jewish religion. He also terminated Michael Salters and Charles Wrotten for misconduct. Neither Mr. Mouser, Mr. Salters nor Mr. Wrotten was Jewish or disabled, and they were all in their early to mid 20's when terminated. Mr. Tabak was terminated solely for his repeated violations of Office Depot's employee policy consisting primarily of derogatory remarks and inappropriate conduct toward his coworkers and for no other reason as he alleged some three years after his termination. Religious Accommodation Claim Office Depot does not have nor does it observe any company-wide, close all stores, religious holidays. The policy of Office Depot was to accommodate any employee's request, should another employee be found to replace the absent employee, or the day off was one of those listed for all employees. No day off was given any employee merely because of that employee's religion or other personal traits and/or desires. Leave and vacation time was available should an employee plan his schedule and have eight or more hours leave available for any purpose the employee deemed appropriate. Mr. Tabak's claim of discrimination, to include religious discrimination, was filed on July 19, 2002, more than 1,000 days after he was required to come in to work on Yom Kippur in September of 1999. Mr. Tabak's requests for time off for religious holidays during his employment, beginning in November of 1994 through September of 1999, with Office Depot were granted without exception when another driver could and would be available to cover Mr. Tabak's assigned duties. Mr. Parry was Mr. Tabak's manager in 1999 and 2000 during both Jewish holidays, Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah. In 1999, Mr. Tabak was called in to work on Yom Kippur by Mr. Parry after his prior request for that day off had been granted. On that day, the unexpected absence of two drivers would have caused undue hardship on the operations of the facility where Mr. Tabak was employed as a lead driver. Mr. Tabak's suggestion that a driver could be requested from the Miami location to travel to Ft. Myers for one day's work that he might celebrate a religious holiday was rejected by Mr. Parry because had never requested driver assistance from Weston/Miami on the day of a crisis. Mr. Tabak was not called in to work on Jewish holidays in the year 2000 because no drivers called in sick. Religious Discrimination Claim Mr. Tabak's claim of religious discrimination was based on his not getting promoted to the Ft. Myers managerial position in November 1998 for which he also applied. Again, the religious discrimination claim was not raised in 1998. Mr. Parry's employment with Office Depot began in 1988, when Office Depot acquired Allstate Office Products, by whom Mr. Parry was already employed as a driver in Tampa, Florida. In 1993, Office Depot incorporated the Allstate Office Products Tampa office system for computer centralized customer delivery from the warehouses into the Fort Myers facility. In December 1994, one month after Mr. Tabak was hired, Mr. Parry was temporarily assigned to the Ft. Myers facility to set up and implement the computer centralized customer delivery system and to train its drivers. Tim Edwards, Office Depot's manager, made the decision to promote Mr. Parry because he felt that Mr. Tabak did not do well during his interview. Mr. Edwards gave Mr. Tabak an out- of-cycle pay increase in November 1998 of approximately six percent. Mr. Parry hired Jordan Silverstein, a Jewish driver, after Mr. Tabak's termination on July 20, 2001. At the request of Mr. Tabak, and as a part of its business practice of giving back to the community, Office Depot made two voluntary donations of $2,500 each to Mr. Tabak's Jewish Temple, once in 2000 and again in 2001. Considering all evidence of record favorable toward Mr. Tabak regarding religious discrimination, Mr. Tabak failed to establish a prima facie case that Office Depot discriminated against him because of his religion when he was not selected for promotion to the position of manager of the Ft. Meyers facility in November 1998. Mr. York was 53 years of age in July 2001 when he participated as a manager in the decision to terminate Mr. Tabak. Mr. Perrin was in his early 40's when he participated in the decision to discipline and ultimately terminate Mr. Tabak. Mr. Michalak was 51 years old in July 2004. During his employment with Office Depot, Mr. Michalak testified to never having experienced age discrimination and never having observed or heard of any age-related discriminatory remarks toward Mr. Tabak. Mr. Tabak's only evidence of age discrimination was his allegation that Mr. Michalak made the remark, which Mr. Michalak denies, that "an old fart like you is never going to make manager." Considering all evidence of record favorable toward Mr. Tabak regarding age discrimination, Mr. Tabak failed to establish a prima facie case that Office Depot discriminated against him because of his age, when he was not selected for promotion to a manager's position or because of an alleged statement made by Mr. Michalak. Disability Discrimination Mr. Tabak based his claim of disability discrimination on his alleged diminished hearing capacity. Mr. Tabak alleged that he suffered with diminished hearing that was corrected and restored to 100 percent when he would wear his hearing aid. Mr. Tabak's alleged diminished hearing did not interfere with or prohibit his performance of his job and duties while employed at Office Depot. Mr. Tabak passed his annual Department of Transportation hearing tests while he worked under Mr. Parry's management in the Ft. Myers facility. Mr. Tabak never personally made Mr. Parry aware of his diminished hearing, and, consequently, Mr. Parry was not aware that Mr. Tabak suffered with a hearing problem that was corrected with a hearing aid. Mr. Tabak offered no medical evidence in support of his "diminished" hearing allegation. Considering all evidence of record favorable toward Mr. Tabak, he failed to establish a prima facie case that Office Depot discriminated against him because of his diminished hearing that was corrected and restored to 100 percent when he would wear his hearing aid. Retaliation At no time during his employment or during his termination process, including his opportunity to identify and address his retaliation claim on his Problem Resolution form, did Mr. Tabak allege that not being selected to a position of manager and his termination were acts of retaliation. Indeed, when his termination was first and in the forefront of his concerns, Mr. Tabak did not complete his Problem Resolution form to raise a claim of retaliation or to contest his termination. Office Depot was first made aware of Mr. Tabak's claims of alleged religious, age, and disability discrimination; failure to accommodate; and retaliation on July 19, 2002, one year after his termination. Mr. Tabak failed to establish a prima facie case that Office Depot retaliated against him when they terminated his employment on July 20, 2001.
Recommendation Based upon the foregone, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief and the Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 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 1st day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alexander Tabak 214 Southwest 46th Terrace Cape Coral, Florida 33914 Joanne B. Lambert, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner has been the subject of an unlawful employment practice based on her national origin.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sonia V. Fortin, is a white female whose national origin is Tunisian. She has a heavy French or Tunisian accent and at the hearing was very difficult to understand. Ms. Fortin was a Southern Bell employee who had taken an extended leave of absence in 1988 in order to move from Miami to Panama City to care for her ill father. In the Fall of 1989, Ms. Fortin's extended leave of absence ended and she sought employment with Southern Bell in Panama City. Because no positions were available in Panama City, Ms. Fortin applied for and was accepted into a trainee position at the Directory Assistance (DA) operator office in Lake City. Ms. Fortin reported to work for initial training on Monday, October 23, 1989. Assistant manager Patsy Foss only needed one new person in the group of employees she was responsible for overseeing and training. Ms. Fortin was assigned to train with Ms. Foss in Ms. Foss' group. Other new trainees were assigned to other groups at various times depending on what each work group needed. During the three-day training period, the trainee listens to the manager and other experienced operators answer calls, is instructed on the proper method of "keying" in names into the directory computer in order to find the proper telephone numbers, and is given a final evaluation by a manager. In order to become a permanent employee a DA operator was expected to successfully complete a minimum of 90-92% of the calls that the operator handles. Respondent's policy is totally neutral. Ms. Foss met the Petitioner on the first day, introduced herself, and, in an effort to be friendly and out of curiousity, asked the Petitioner about herself, including where she was from. Ms. Foss used the standard Southern Bell training guide for DA operators and taught Ms. Fortin the keying method used for finding customers' numbers, observed Ms. Fortin taking actual requests from customers for directory information, and allowed Ms. Fortin to listen to other operators take calls. However, unlike other new trainees, Ms. Fortin was not able to master the keying method of locating customers and had trouble spelling customers' names even after the customer had spelled the name. In addition, Ms. Fortin was evaluated by Southern Bell Assistant manager Carolyn Land on Thursday, October 26, 1989. Ms. Fortin had an error rate of 20%. On Monday, October 31, 1989, Ms. Foss again guided Ms. Fortin through the training course a second time. Ms. Fortin continued to exhibit the same problems. On Wednesday, November 1, 1989, Manager Comer directed Assistant manager Land to conduct a second evaluation of Ms. Fortin. Ms. Fortin's evaluation resulted in an even higher error rate of 24.1%. Ms. Comer decided to continue the training and on Thursday, November 3, 1989, directed Ms. Foss to conduct a third evaluation. The third evaluation resulted in an error rate of 14%. At no time, did Ms. Fortin meet Southern Bell's standards for continued employment as a DA operator. Manager Comer, after receiving the results of the three evaluations, discussing Ms. Fortin's qualifications in detail with Ms. Land and Ms. Foss, and listening to Ms. Fortin herself, concluded that Ms. Fortin had not successfully completed the initial training for DA operator and instructed Ms. Foss to terminate Ms. Fortin. Ms. Foss informed Ms. Fortin of her termination on November 3, 1989. Ms. Fortin offered no evidence that she was treated differently or that trainees with higher error rates were hired over her. The only evidence that Ms. Fortin pointed to as supporting her charge of discrimination was that Ms. Foss asked her where she was originally from, Ms. Foss gave her what Ms. Fortin perceived to be a dirty look after she responded, Ms. Foss was nasty to her during training and that, upon termination, either Ms. Foss or Ms. Comer made the statement that Ms. Fortin had a language barrier when she was terminated. The evidence clearly showed that Ms. Foss was nasty to everyone regardless of national origin and that Ms. Fortin's difficulties in performing her duties as a DA operator may very well have been related to her inability to communicate with persons not used to her accent and manner of speaking. Neither Ms. Foss' nastiness or the statement about a language barrier were discriminatory. Likewise, none of the evidence Ms. Fortin points to as supporting her charge of discrimination comes close to establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Therefore, Ms. Fortin's charge of discrimination should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Southern Bell's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, and that this action be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1992.
The Issue Is Respondent, Department of Corrections' (Department), Notice of Intent to Award DC RFP-13-031 for Statewide Inmate Telecommunication Services to Intervenor, Global Tel*Link Corporation (Global), contrary to the governing statutes, rules, or policies or to the Department's Request for Proposal solicitation specifications?
Findings Of Fact Background The Legislature charged the Department with protecting the public through the incarceration and supervision of offenders and rehabilitating offenders through work, programs, and services. The Department is required to provide telephone access to inmates in its custody. Inmate telecommunication services provide inmates the ability to stay in contact with friends and family. The services promote and support efforts to help inmates re-enter society by fostering communications with the community outside jail and prison. The Department does not pay for these services. The inmates and their designated family members and friends pay for the services. The contract to provide the telecommunications service generates revenue for the Department. The provider pays the Department for access to the consumers. The provider charges the inmates and their designees for the service. The provider pays the Department a commission calculated as a percentage of revenues received. The commission is calculated as part of the charge for the services and is included in it. The price competition portion of the RFP is based on the prices charged to the inmates and designees and the commissions paid to the Department. According to the RFP, the State of Florida presently has a total inmate population of approximately 102,000 people. In fiscal year 2010-2011, the inmate calling services generated total revenue of $14,180,345 from 9,587,040 calls. In fiscal year 2011-2012, the inmate calling services generated total revenue of $13,513,495 from 8,226,577 calls. And in 2012-2013, the inmate calling services generated total revenue of $14,749,021 from 8,853,316 calls. In 2012–2013, interstate calls generated 11.6 percent of calls and 12.9 percent of revenues from the contract. Securus holds the contract with the Department to provide inmate telephone services and has for over six years. Before February 11, 2014, Securus paid a 35 percent commission to the Department on all of its call revenue from the contract. That changed as of February 11, 2014, when the Department interpreted a stayed order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), discussed in more detail later, to prohibit collecting the commissions on interstate calls. The record does not reveal if Securus stopped collecting the commission portion of the rates charged to inmates and their designees. The Department does not collect commissions because it interprets the FCC order to say that it cannot receive commission revenue because it is a state agency. The Department also declines to accept commissions because it fears finding itself in a position where it may have to refund money which has already been transferred to the general fund, possibly an earlier year's general fund. During the RFP process, Securus was aware of the Department's interpretation of the FCC order, because it had negotiated the change to its existing contract to end commission payments. The changes did not affect Securus charging inmates the commission. The Department did not include its interpretation of the order in the RFP, as modified by the Addenda. Commissions on interstate calls are significant revenue for the Department. This case involves the Department's second attempt to award a new contract for inmate telecommunication services. Earlier, the Department issued an Invitation to Negotiate for these services. CenturyLink, Global, and Securus all responded. The Department negotiated with all three. The Department initially decided to award the contract to CenturyLink. Eventually, the Department rejected all bids after it determined that the scoring language and selection criteria were poorly worded. They were subject to different reasonable interpretations that made how the Department would select the winning vendor unclear and made the playing field for vendors unequal. The vendors protested the decision to reject all bids. In upholding the decision to reject all bids, Administrative Law Judge Scott Boyd found at paragraph 70: The Department concluded that the wording and structure of the ITN and RBAFO did not create a level playing field to evaluate replies because they were confusing and ambiguous and were not understood by everyone in the same way. Vendors naturally had structured their replies to maximize their chances of being awarded the contract based upon their understanding of how the replies would be evaluated. The Department concluded that vendor pricing might have been different but for the misleading language and structure of the ITN and RBAFO. Global Tel Link Corp. v. Dep't of Corr., Case No. 13-3041BID (Fla. DOAH Nov. 1, 2013), adopted in whole, except for correcting two scrivener's errors, FDOC Case No. 13-81 (Fla. DOC Nov. 25, 2013). The Request for Proposals The Department released the RFP seeking to establish a five-year contract with a vendor to provide inmate telecommunications services on March 7, 2014. The Department subsequently issued Addenda 1, 2, and 3 to the RFP. The Addenda included vendor questions and the Department's answers. No vendor protested any term, condition, or specification of the RFP or the Addenda. The RFP sought vendor proposals to provide an inmate telephone system, video visitation system, and other services for inmates housed in the Department's facilities. The requested services included the actual service, system design, equipment, installation, training, operation, repair, and maintenance at no cost to the Department. The RFP included security, reporting, auditing, and monitoring requirements. It also established the procurement process, including scoring criteria. Of the RFP's 66 pages, only the commissions' role in pricing, scoring procedure, the score given Securus for its response to RFP section 3.15, and treatment of refunds are the focus of the disputes in this proceeding at this point. Review and Scoring The RFP established proposal scoring based upon four categories. The chart below reflects the categories, the tab of the RFP in which the scored categories are described, and the maximum points allowed for category. Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements 0 points Executive Summary and Other Proposal Submissions 0 points Category 1--Business/Corporate Qualifications (Tab 3) 50 points Category 2--Project Staff (Tab 4) 200 points Category 3--Technical Response (Tab 6) 400 points Category 4--Price Proposal 350 points TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 1,000 points The RFP breaks each of the categories into components, each referencing and correlating to specific RFP sections. These are found at RFP "Attachment 4--Evaluation Criteria." For each component, the Evaluation Criteria posed a question. For example, in Category 3, a question asks "How adequately does the Respondent describe their overall capability and process for providing a video visitation system?" The RFP provides a maximum score for each scoring component, which range from 15 to 50 points depending on the relative importance of the particular component. Each proposal was graded on the following qualitative scale: Omitted, Poor, Adequate, Good, and Exceptional. The RFP associates a point value with each qualitative description for each particular scoring component. For instance, if a component had a maximum score of 25 points, the scoring framework was as follows: Omitted--0; Poor--6.25; Adequate--12.5; Good--18.75; and Exceptional--25. A score of zero meant that a vendor completely omitted any information for the item from which a qualitative assessment could be made. The RFP directed the vendors how to generally format and package their proposals. Specifically, RFP Section 5 (Proposal Submission Requirements) stated: All Project Proposals must contain the sections outlined below. Those sections are called "Tabs." A "Tab," as used here, is a section separator, offset and labeled, (Example: "Tab 1, Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements"), such that the Evaluation Committee can easily turn [t]o "Tabbed" sections during the evaluation process.Failure to have all copies properly "tabbed" makes it much more difficult for the Department to evaluate the proposal. Vendors were to include seven "tabs" within their proposals: Tab 1 Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements Tab 2 Transmittal Letter with Executive Summary Tab 3 Business/Corporate Qualifications Tab 4 Project Staff Tab 5 Respondent's Financial Documentation Tab 6 Technical Response Tab 7 Minority/Service Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Certification The RFP gave further instructions about the contents within each tab. RFP Section 5.6 provided the requirements for Tab 6, Technical Responses. It required vendors to provide a narrative technical response identifying how vendors will meet the scope of services required by the RFP and, more specifically, the scope of services described in RFP Sections 2 (Statement of Need/Services Sought) and 3 (Scope of Services). The RFP did not mandate any other formatting requirements for the contents of Tab 6. This becomes significant in the analysis of Securus's response to section 3.15 of the RFP. The RFP advised that the Department would assign an evaluation committee to evaluate proposals. It did not state how many evaluators would be selected to score proposals or whether evaluators would be responsible for scoring proposals in their entirety or just specific portions. The Department appointed a team of six evaluators: Jon Creamer, Shane Phillips, Randy Agerton, Steve Wilson, Charles Lockwood, and Richard Law. Mr. Law, a certified public accountant, reviewed each vendor's financial submissions on a pass/fail basis. The other five evaluators scored the technical responses, categories one through three. Julyn Hussey, the procurement officer, trained the evaluators, except for Mr. Law. She provided the evaluators with a training manual, the RFP, the vendors' proposals, and scoring sheets. During training, Ms. Hussey instructed the evaluators to review proposals in their entirety to properly evaluate and score their various components. The Department gave the evaluators approximately eight days to evaluate and score the proposals. The evaluators did not consult with each other during their evaluation. Each evaluator turned his completed score sheet in to Ms. Hussey. She then compiled the technical response scores. Ms. Hussey also calculated the price scores by taking the prices from the vendors' price sheet submissions and applying the RFP price scoring formula. The Department combined the technical and price scores to calculate each vendor's total score. Global received the highest total score with 2,960.42 points. Securus was second with 2,911.04 points. CenturyLink was third with 2,727.94 points. Global outscored Securus by 49 points on a 3,600-point scale. Global outscored CenturyLink by 232.48 points. Securus outscored CenturyLink by 183.10 points. Commissions, Pricing, and an FCC Order The vendors' price proposal was a critical category of the RFP review and evaluation. It was worth 350 of the 1,000 points available. Only the technical response could score more points, 400. Of the 350 points, 300 points were directed toward the inmate telephone service price proposal and 50 points were for the video visitation service price proposal. The RFP subdivides the inmate telephone service points into 150 possible points for the provider offering the highest commission payments to the Department; 125 points for the lowest intralata, interlata, intrastate, and interstate per-minute rates; and 25 points for the lowest local and local extended area per-minute rates. The vendor with the most favorable numbers in each subcategory received the maximum points. The rest received a percentage of the maximum points based on a ratio between their bid and the most favorable bid RFP Section 3.8.3, "Rate and Call Charge Requirements"3/ provided: For the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate on the price sheet (attachment 5) for the inmate telephone service and the video visitation service. Local and local extended area service calls shall be billed as local calls and shall not exceed $0.50 for a 15 minute phone call. For the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on the North American Dialing Plan, including intralata, interlata, intrastate, and interstate calls which shall not exceed the maximum rate per minute allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and appropriate regulatory authority during the time the call is placed. In addition to the FCC, vendors can contact the state consumer protection agency, Better Business Bureau, or State Attorney General's Office to obtain maximum rate per minute information. Note: In accordance with Federal Communications Commission 47 CFR Part 64[WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 13-113]--Rates for Interstate Calling Services--effective February 11, 2014, no commission shall be paid on revenues earned through the completion of interstate calls of any type received from the Contract Call charges for international calls shall not exceed the maximum rate allowed by the appropriate regulatory authority during the time the call is placed. Local call charges for coin-operated telephone calls at the Work Release Centers shall not exceed thirty-five cents (.35) per local call plus the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) charges, which vary between LEC's. Long distance call charges for coin-operated phones at the Work Release Centers shall be at the same rates for inmate telephone calls. The Contractor shall agree that charges for calls shall include only the time from the point at which the called party accepts the call and shall end when either party returns to an on-hook condition or until either party attempts a hook flash. There shall be no charges to the called party for any setup time. The Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for collect or prepaid calls any charges referred to as Local Exchange Carrier's (LEC's) or Competitive Local Exchange Carrier's (CLEC's) billing costs, or any bill rendering fee or billing recovery fee. The Contractor shall also ensure that LEC's and CLEC's do not charge or pass on to the customer any additional fee or surcharges for billing. The Contractor shall be responsible for any such LEC or CLEC surcharges incurred if billing through the LEC or CLEC. In addition, the Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for the collect, prepaid calls or video visitation visits any of the following charges and/or fees: Bill Statement Fee, Funding Fee, Mail-In Payment Fee, Western Union Payment Fee, Refund Fee, Regulatory Recovery Fee, Wireless Admin Fee, Single Bill Fee, Paper Statement Fee, Account Setup Fee, Account Maintenance Fee, Inactive Account Fee, Account Close-Out Fee, Non-Subscriber Line Charge, Inmate Station Service Charge, Third-Party Payment Processing Fee, State Regulatory Recovery Fee, Check/Money Order Processing Fee, Biometric Service Charges, JPay Payment Fee, Federal Regulatory Cost Recovery Fee, Regulatory and Carrier Cost Recovery Fee, Validation Surcharge or Wireless Termination Surcharge. The Contractor shall ensure, inmates' family and friends utilizing the Florida Relay Service to receive calls from inmates are charged the same rates as those family and friends receiving calls from inmates not utilizing this service. [emphasis added]. The Department intended for the boldface note to advise responding vendors that the vendor would not pay commissions on interstate call revenues. The language raised questions which the Department replied to in the Addenda issued after the RFP issued. None of the Addenda modified the plain statement in section 3.8.3 that "the Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate on the price sheet (attachment 5) for the inmate telephone service." Section 7.3.1 of the RFP established the requirements for commission and monthly payments. It states: The Contractor shall pay to the Department a monthly commission based on the percentage of gross revenues as determined through this RFP process. The Department will begin to receive payment for a facility on the date the Contractor assumes responsibility for the operation of that facility's inmate telecommunication service in accordance with the Final Transition and Implementation Plan. Sections 7.3.2 through 7.3.4 contain additional requirements for commission payments, supporting documentation for the commission calculation, and penalty, if the vendor does not timely make the final commission payment at the end of the contract. They make the importance of commission payments to the Department clear. Attachment 5 is a mandatory form for vendors to provide their proposed call and commission rates. It contains the same boldface note about the FCC order as section 3.8.3. The form solicited a blended rate and a single commission rate for telephone services. FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 64 (WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 13-113) (FCC order), referred to in RFP Section 3.8.3 and Attachment 5, is a commission decision and regulation, effective May 31, 2013, addressing a need for reform in what the FCC determined were "egregious interstate long distance rates and services" in the inmate telecommunications business. The FCC identified paying commissions to correctional institutions and including them in the rates charged inmates and their families and other designees as a significant factor contributing to unreasonably high rates for inmate telecommunications services. The decision also addressed surcharges and fees. The FCC determined that inmate telecommunications charges must be cost- based and that commission payments, among other things, could not be included in the costs. The FCC adopted subpart FF to 47 C.F.R. part 64 of its regulations to regulate inmate calling services. The FCC included in subpart FF, section 64.010, titled, cost-based rates for inmate calling services. It states: "All rates charged for Inmate Calling Services and all Ancillary Charges must be based only on costs that are reasonably and directly related to the provision of ICS [inmate calling services]." This is the rule implementing the FCC's decision that commission payments are not included in the reasonably and directly related costs. The FCC made clear that it was not prohibiting payment of or collection of commissions, only prohibiting including them in the costs determining the fee paid by inmates and their designees. The FCC addressed this in paragraph 56 of the order, which states: We also disagree with ICS providers' assertion that the Commission must defer to states on any decisions about site commission payments, their amount, and how such revenues are spent. We do not conclude that ICS providers and correctional facilities cannot have arrangements that include site commissions. We conclude only that, under the Act, such commission payments are not costs that can be recovered through interstate ICS rates. Our statutory obligations relate to the rates charged to end users—the inmates and the parties whom they call. We say nothing in this Order about how correctional facilities spend their funds or from where they derive. We state only that site commission payments as a category are not a compensable component of interstate ICS rates. We note that we would similarly treat "in-kind" payment requirements that replace site commission payments in ICS contracts. Providers of inmate calling services, including all three vendors in this proceeding, sought review of the decision and regulation by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court stayed section 64.010, along with sections 64.6020, and 64.6060. Following release of the RFP, the Department received and answered inquiries from vendors. The inquiries, the Department's responses, and changes to the RFP are contained in Addenda 1, 2, and 3 to the RFP. Rates and commissions received a fair amount of attention in the process. In response to inquiries about section 3.8.3 and Attachment 5, the Department changed both with Addendum 2. The questions and Department responses follow. Question No. 4 states: Page 30: 3.8.3 - Rate and Call Charge Requirements and Attachment 5 – Blended Call Rates. Regarding the blended rate (inclusive of all surcharges) to be bid – the current wording could be opportunistically misinterpreted in a few different ways: First in the treatment of per-call versus per-minute fees, based on our understanding, one bidder could possibly offer a flat $1.80 per call fee for non-local inmate telephone calls and claim to have the same blended rate ($1.80/15 minutes = $0.12) as someone bidding $0.12 per minute with no per-call fee. This could occur even though calls average less than 15 minutes (and many calls are less than 10 minutes), meaning these two offers are not comparable in terms of overall cost to family members. Second, the RFP wording could also possibly be interpreted as allowing a Contractor to set different rates for different call types (collect/prepaid, intraLATA/interstate) and then averaging them using assumptions they define. Question 1: To minimize cost to family members and make offers comparable, would the Department please explicitly disallow per-call fees for the inmate telephone system (for example, per-call setup charges, per-call surcharges), allowing only a true per-minute rate? Question 2: If no to Question 1, would the Department require separate disclosure of per-call fees and per-minute rates? Question 3: Would the Department please verify that ALL non-local domestic calls-- intraLATA, interLATA, and interstate, for both collect and prepaid-–must be charged at an identical rate? Answer No. 4 states: Question 1: Per this Addendum #2, the following revisions will be made to Section 3.8.3: In 3rd paragraph after first sentence add: The Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. These per minute rates delete: which Delete 4th paragraph beginning with Note. In 6th paragraph first sentence revised to read: Local call charges for coin-operated telephone calls at the Work Release Centers shall not exceed forty-five cents (.45) per local call plus the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) charges, which vary between LEC's. In 9th paragraph following In addition, the Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for the collect, prepaid calls or video visitation visits any of the following charges and/or fees: Add Pre-call setup charges, Pre-call surcharges, Delete last paragraph; Question 2: Not applicable, Question 3: Confirmed, per Section 3.8.3 all non-local and local extended area calls must be charged at an identical rate. Question No. 5 states: Attachment 5 - Price Sheet. Page 30--Section 3.8.3 states that on the price sheet, the Respondent will provide a "single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges . . . ." Attachment 5 states "Blended Telephone Rate for All Calls . . ." To eliminate ambiguity, would the Department consider changing the language in Attachment 5 to read "Blended Telephone Rate Per Minute for All Calls . . . ?" [sic] Answer No. 5 states: Attachment 5 will be revised to include "Blended Telephone Rate Per Minute for All Calls". Question No. 6 states: Page 30: 3.8.3 - Rate and Call Charge Requirements. The fourth paragraph states that "In accordance with Federal Communications Commission 47 CFR Part 64 [WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 13-113]--Rates for Interstate Calling Services--effective February 11, 2014, no commission shall be paid on revenues earned through the completion of interstate calls of any type received from the Contract." Respectfully, this interpretation of the FCC's Order is incorrect. The Order, without question, does not prohibit the payment of commissions on interstate calls. Also, rules regarding future cost-based regulation (including consideration of commissions in rate-setting) have been stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and FL DOC interstate rates are well below the FCC rate caps that have been left in place by the Court. This is why most providers have continued to pay commissions on interstate calling, in compliance with their contracts. Q. Will the State consider removing this paragraph from the RFP in order to ensure revenue for the State and a level playing field across providers? Answer No. 6: Section 3.8.3 and Attachment 5--Price Sheet is amended, per this Addendum to remove the paragraph. In addition, Section 7.3.1 has also been amended, per this Addendum, to state that commissions will be paid in accordance with all Federal, State and Local regulations and guidelines. Further questions and clarifications followed. They are found in Addendum 3 to the RFP. Question No. 2 states: In Addendum No. 2; Answer #4 Revises Section3.8.3 by revising the 3rd paragraph Instructions are to add the following language: The Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. These per minute rates (delete: which) For the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on the North American Dialing Plan, including intralata, interlata, intrastate, and interstate calls which shall not exceed the maximum rate per minute allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and appropriate regulatory authority during the time the call is placed. The Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. These per minute rates (deIete [sic]: which). In addition to the FCC, vendors can contact the state consumer protection agency, Better Business Bureau, or State Attorney General's Office to obtain maximum rate per minute information. The instructions to add "These per minute rates (delete: which)" does not fit with the instructions. The word "which" is not included in this area of paragraph 3. Question #2: Can the Department please clarify? Answer No. 2 states: To further clarify 3.8.3, paragraph 3 is revised to read as follows: For the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on the North American Dialing Plan, including intralata, interlata, intrastate, and interstate calls. The Respondent shall also establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. Both of these per minute rates shall not exceed the maximum rate per minute allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and appropriate regulatory authority during the time the call is placed. In addition to the FCC, vendors can contact the state consumer protection agency, Better Business Bureau, or State Attorney General's Office to obtain maximum rate per minute information. Question No. 3 states: Question: Is the Department requiring the successful Respondent to pay commissions on revenues generated through the completion of interstate calls? Answer No. 3 states: The Department's position is that the collection of commission rates will be determined by the FCC ruling 47 CFR Part 64 [WC docket no. 12-375; FCC13-113]. For purposes of this solicitation the Department requests respondents submit a commission rate for interstate calls. The Department will comply with any future FCC ruling. Question No. 10 states: Section 7.3.1 was revised to include: "Commissions will be paid in accordance with all Federal, State and Local regulations and guidelines." There are no Federal, State, or Local regulations and guidelines which require phone vendors to pay commissions on interstate calling. Thus, in not paying commissions on interstate calling, there would be no violation of any Federal, State, or Local regulation or guideline. The requirement as to whether or not commissions will be paid on interstate calling must come from FL DOC and must be clearly indicated in the RFP. If not clearly indicated one way or another, we fear some vendors may have an unfair advantage as commissions are not currently being paid and there does not seem to be a compliance issue with the current contract which requires such commissions. Please, clearly specify whether or not commissions are required to be paid on interstate calls. Answer No. 10 states: Please see answer to question 3. The Department never definitively stated whether it would ultimately collect commissions on interstate revenues. Nor did it provide a means for vendors to propose rates or commissions based upon whatever the Department concluded were the most likely scenarios resulting from the FCC order and appeal. But the Department's RFP persisted in the RFP requirement that the bidders must include the commission in the calculation of their blended rate for the price proposal. This stands in contrast to the RFP's lengthy list of items, such as bill statement fees, paper statement fees, and account setup fees, which could not be included in the rate. These are items, like the commissions, that the FCC order said could not be part of the fee base. A vendor, who did not calculate the commission in the blended rate, would have a significant price advantage over a vendor who included the commission in its blended rate. It could propose lower rates and/or higher commissions while maintaining its profit margin. That is because although the price sheet identifies a commission, the commission is not accounted for in the blended rate. CenturyLink included payment of a commission rate of 65.3 percent on interstate calls in the blended rate it provided on Attachment 5. This action is a reasonable application of the statements of the RFP and the Addenda about blended rates, commissions, and the cryptic statement about plans to follow the FCC order. CenturyLink proposed a blended rate that did "establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate." If CenturyLink had not included the commission payment on interstate calls in its blended rates, it could have bid higher commissions, lower rates, or a combination of both. Securus identified a commission percentage for all calls of 73 percent on its Attachment 5 price sheet. Securus did not include the cost of paying a commission on interstate calls in calculating the blended rate that it submitted. This allowed Securus to submit a lower blended rate than it would otherwise have had to submit to achieve the same revenue from the contract. The blended rate that Securus proposed did not "establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate." Global identified a commission percentage of 46 percent for all calls in its Attachment 5 price sheet. In determining the proposed rates for interstate calls, Global did not include or assume payment of the commission percentage rate. This allowed it to submit lower blended rates and/or a higher commission rate. Global did not intend to or think it would be required to pay commission rates on interstate calls. This was based on its evaluation of the FCC order, the appeal, and the Department's decision not to accept commission payments on interstate calls under its current contract with Securus. This is why it did not include the commission as a cost when calculating the blended rate. Global chose to take the business risk that its evaluation of the FCC order would be correct. If it was incorrect and a commission payment was required, Global was prepared to make the payment, even though it would not have been collected from inmates and their designees through the blended rate. The blended rate proposed by Global did not "establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate." Ms. Hussey applied the formula in the RFP to determine points awarded each vendor for its price proposal. This calculation was a ministerial function that did not call for any exercise of judgment or discretion. The overall cost ranking scores were: Global 280.42, Securus 276.04, and CenturyLink 232.94. The scores for the commissions were: Global 94.52, Securus 150, and CenturyLink 134.18. The scores for the blended rates for inmate telephone services that included interstate services were: Global 125, Securus 56.25, and CenturyLink 50.90. This difference reflects the vendors' differing treatment of commissions when proposing their blended rates. The Department did not know during the evaluation process that Global and Securus had not included or assumed payment of the commission in its proposed rates for interstate calls. The Department learned this during discovery in this proceeding. Not including commission payments on interstate calls in the proposed blended rate was contrary to the instructions of the RFP. Securus Response to RFP Section 3.15 The Department awarded Securus zero points for the question of "[h]ow adequate is the Respondent's plan to meet the performance measures outlined in section 3.15 of the RFP?" This criterion related to the performance measures of RFP Section 3.15, for which proposals could earn 125 total points. The difference between zero and the possible maximum points would have made a difference in winning and losing the contract award for Securus. The score of zero is a factual finding by the Department that Securus's 600-plus-page proposal had no information from which evaluators could qualitatively assess the proposal by that criterion. A score of zero is not a qualitative assessment, like a score of "poor" or "exceptional." A score of zero reflects a finding that information is completely absent. The evaluation criteria score sheet, RFP Attachment 4, provided factors to be considered in evaluating and scoring proposals. It presented the factors to evaluators in the form of questions to evaluators. For section 3.15, the question and accompanying scores allowed were: How adequate is the Respondent's plan to meet the performance measures outlined in section 3.15 of this RFP? (Omitted-0; Poor-6.25; Adequate-12.5; Good-18.75; and Exceptional-25.) Because the Department allowed each evaluator to score this factor, a total of 125 points was ultimately available to the vendors. RFP Section 3.15 provides: Performance Measures Upon execution of this contract, Contractor agrees to be held accountable for the achievement of certain performance measures in successfully delivering services under this Contract. The following Performance Measure categories shall be used to measure Contractor's performance and delivery of services. Note: the Contractor shall comply with all contract terms and conditions upon execution of contract and the Department may monitor each site upon implementation of services at that site to ensure that contract requirements are being met. The Department reserves the right to add/delete performance measures as needed to ensure the adequate delivery of services. Performance Outcomes and Standards; and Other Contract Requirements. A description of each of the Performance Measure categories is provided below: RFP Section 3.15 was divided into two components. Section 3.15.1 listed key "Performance Outcomes and Standards" deemed most critical to the success of the contract and required that "the contractor shall ensure that the stated performance outcomes and standards are met." The key elements were: (1) Completion of Routine Service, (2) Completion of Major Emergency Repair Service, and (3) Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report (Invoice Documentation). The first is RFP Section 3.15.1. It provides: Performance Outcomes and Standards Listed below are the key Performance Outcomes and Standards deemed most crucial to the success of the overall desired inmate telecommunication service. The contractor shall ensure that the stated performance outcomes and standards (level of achievement) are met. Performance shall be measured as indicated, beginning the second month after which service has been fully implemented. Completion of Routine Services Outcome: All requests for routine service (as defined in Section 1.22) shall be completed within twenty-four (24) hours of request for service from the Department, unless otherwise instructed by the Department. Measure: Compare the date/time that service is completed to the date/time that the request for service was received from the Department by the Contractor. (Measure Monthly). Standard: Ninety percent (90%) of routine service requests shall be completed within twenty-four (24) hours of notice from the Department. Completion of Major Emergency Repair Service Outcome: All major emergency repair service (as outlined in Section 3.10.8) shall be completed within twelve (12) hours of request for repair from the Department, unless otherwise instructed by the Department. Measure: Compare the date/time that major emergency repair service is completed to the date/time that the request for major emergency repair service was received from the Department by the Contractor. (Measure Monthly). Standard: Ninety percent (90%) of routine service requests shall be completed within twelve (12) hours of notice from the Department. Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report (Invoice Documentation): Outcome: The Contractor shall provide the Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report to the Contract Manager or designee as specified in Section 7.3.3 within thirty (30) days of the last day of the Contractor's regular billing cycle. Measure: Compare the date the Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report was received with the last day of the Contractor's regular billing cycle. (Measure Monthly). Standard: One hundred percent (100%) of Commission and Call Detail Reports shall be received within thirty (30) days of the last day of the Contractor's regular billing cycle. Upon execution of this Contract, the Contractor hereby acknowledges and agrees that its performance under the Contract shall meet the standards set forth above. Any failure by the Contractor to achieve any outcome and standard identified above may result in assessment of Liquidated Damages as provided in Section 3.17. Any such assessment and/or subsequent payment thereof shall not affect the Contractor's obligation to provide services as required by this Contract. Section 3.15.2 advised that the Department will monitor the contractor's performance to determine compliance with the contract. It states: Other Contract Requirements Standard: The Department will monitor the Contractor's performance to determine compliance with other contract requirements, including, but not limited to, the following: Video Visitation System (as outlined in Section 3.7) Inmate Telecommunication System Functionality (as outlined in Section 3.7) Transition/Implementation/Installation of System Bi-Annual Audit Timely Submittal of Corrective Action Plans (when applicable) Measure: Failure to meet the agreed-upon Final Transition/Implementation/Installation schedule or failure to meet (compliance with other terms and conditions of the contract or contract requirements listed above) may result in the imposition of liquidated damages Each of the three items in section 3.15.1 and the five items in section 3.15.2 relate directly to a particular provision within RFP Section 3 titled, "Scope of Services." Section 3.15.1 related to RFP Sections 1.22 and 3.10.7 (Routine Maintenance), 3.10.8 (Major Emergency Repair Service), and 7.3.3 (Detail Report). Section 3.15.1 specifically identifies the last two. Similarly, section 3.15.2 cross referenced section 3.7 (Telecommunications Services System Functionality) for the first two performance measure items. Two others items relate directly to sections 3.5 (Facility Implementation Plan and Transition of Service), 3.6 (Installation Requirements), and 3.11 (Bi-Annual Audit). This is significant because Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.11 were independently scored. In other words, the RFP required that the proposals contain a narrative explaining how vendors planned to provide the services required by each of those sections. The RFP did not require the proposals to contain a separately delineated section titled, "3.15." It only required that each proposal include, under "Tab 6," a narrative description of the vendor's solution and plan to meet the performance measures. Evaluation of Responses to Section 3.15 Global included a specifically labeled section 3.15 in its response. It essentially copied and pasted the RFP language for Sections 3.15, 3.15.1, and 3.15.2, and after each subsection, inserted the words "GTL [Global] Response: GTL understands and complies." Global did not provide a substantive narrative under the heading, section 3.15. CenturyLink's labeled response to section 3.15 was very similar. The evaluators reviewed the section of Global's proposal labeled as responsive to section 3.15. The maximum score the evaluators could award per evaluator was 25 points. Global earned scores of 25, 18.75, 12.5, 12.5, and 12.5 from Messrs. Lockwood, Agerton, Phillips, Creamer, and Wilson, respectively. The evaluators reviewed CenturyLink's proposal labeled as responsive to section 3.15. It also earned scores of 25, 18.75, 12.5, 12.5, and 12.5 from Messrs. Lockwood, Agerton, Phillips, Creamer, and Wilson, respectively. All five evaluators reviewed copies of the vendors' proposals. Some evaluators performed a section-by-section and some performed side-by-side evaluations of the proposals. Since Securus did not have a labeled section 3.15 and the other proposers did, the evaluators scored Securus's proposal as "Omitted-0" for section 3.15. After their initial review of Securus's proposal, three evaluators raised concerns with the Department's procurement officer, Ms. Hussey, over their inability to find a section in the Securus proposal specifically identified as a response to Section 3.15. Ms. Hussey reiterated the instruction given during evaluator training to review proposals in their entirety when scoring any component of the RFP. None of those evaluators changed their scores of "omitted" for section 3.15 of Securus's proposal after receiving Ms. Hussey's additional instruction and presumably performing a second review of Securus's proposal. RFP Section 3.15 included cross references to sections 3.7 and 3.10.8. Following these referenced sections to the matching section numbers in the Securus proposal reveals narratives addressing the section 3.15 requirements. In addition, these cross-referenced sections were separately scored by each evaluator during his review of each vendor's Telecommunications Service System Functionality and Telecommunication Service Equipment Requirements. Securus's proposal complied with the RFP specifications by affirming Securus's commitment to comply with section 3.15 throughout the proposal. Although Securus's proposal did not include a separate tabbed section addressing Securus's plan to meet the section 3.15 performance measures, Securus provided a narrative explaining how Securus would meet each performance measure required in section 3.15. Securus also provided narratives explaining how it would meet and provide the scope of service of each one of the performance measures of Section 3.15. The first performance measure in RFP Section 3.15.1 required that 90 percent of all routine service be completed within 24 hours of the Department giving notice to the vendor. The routine service requirement was located at section 3.10.7. In its proposal, behind Tab 6 and labeled "3.10.7 Routine Service," on page 388, Securus's response stated: All routine service shall be completed within twenty-four (24) hours of the initial system failure notice, service request for service or equipment failure or liquidated damages may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17. Securus has read, understands, and complies. Securus Field Repair staff is strategically located throughout the state to be able to respond to all repair service needs in order to meet all repair service needs. Securus will continue to complete all routine service, as we do under the existing contract, within twenty-four (24) hours if the initial system failure notice, service request for service or equipment failure or liquidated damages may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17. This response complied with the RFP requirement. It could not rationally be deemed omitted. The second performance measure in RFP Section 3.15.1 required that 90 percent of all major emergency repair services (as outlined in section 3.10.8) be completed within 12 hours of the Department giving notice to the vendor. This performance measure cross-referenced section 3.10.8. Securus's proposal behind Tab 6 and labeled "3.10.8 Major Emergency Repair Service," addressed the emergency repairs stating: All major emergency service shall be completed within twelve (12) hours of the initial system failure notice request or liquidated damages may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17. Securus has read, understands, and complies. Securus Field Repair staff is strategically located throughout the state to be able to respond to all repair service needs in order to meet all repair service needs. Securus will continue to complete all major emergency service, as we do under the existing contract, within twelve (12) hours if the initial system failure notice, service request for service or equipment failure or liquidated damages may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17. Securus's response complied with the RFP requirement. It could not rationally be deemed omitted. The third performance measure in RFP Section 3.15.1 required that the Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report (Invoice Documentation) be provided to the contract manager or designee, as specified in section 7.3.3 at the end of every month with the contractor's regular billing cycle. Securus addressed this requirement behind Tab 6 in a section labeled "2.4 Revenue to be Paid the Department," on page 107. Securus's response stated: This RFP will result in a Revenue Generating Contract. The Contractor shall pay the Department a commission based on a percentage of gross revenue. The Contractor shall be responsible for collections and fraud, and shall not make any deductions from gross revenue for uncollectible accounts, billing fees or other administrative costs prior to applying the commission percentage. Notwithstanding the above, gross revenue shall not include taxes charged by an appropriate governmental entity. The monthly commission amount is obtained by multiplying the commission percentage times each month's total charges. The successful contractor shall submit a Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Documentation for Monthly Payment report as indicated in Section 7.3.3 with the monthly commission payment. Securus has read, understands and complies. Securus will provide the monthly payment report as required and will provide all appropriate auditing detail required upon request from the Department. This response complies with the RFP requirement and cannot rationally be deemed omitted. Some evaluators acknowledged that they did not factor Section 3.15.2 into their scoring of Securus's proposal. The terms of the RFP require considering section 3.15.2 during the scoring of section 3.15. It is part of that section. Failing to consider Securus's narrative related to section 3.15.2 is not rational. As with section 3.15.1, Securus's proposal complied with the RFP Section 3.15.2. Securus committed to complying with the requirements of section 3.15.2 throughout its proposal. The record does not prove whether each evaluator re-reviewed the cross-referenced sections identified in Section 3.15. But Mr. Phillips did. Despite seeing the exact language in those sections as required in the "Outcome" portion of Section 3.15, Mr. Phillips awarded Securus a score of zero because, in his mind, "key parts of 3.15" were not addressed. The conclusion that Securus entirely omitted a plan to address Section 3.15's requirements is irrational and clearly erroneous. Something was there. A score of omitted is not supported. Mr. Phillips also did not score section 3.15 consistently with the way he scored another section of Securus's proposal. He originally gave Securus a score of zero for section 3.14 entitled, Training, because he did not find a specifically delineated section titled section 3.14 in Securus's response. But Mr. Phillips changed his score before submitting it to Ms. Hussey because upon further review of Securus's proposal, he found some aspects that addressed the training requirements of section 3.14. He scored that section accordingly. This highlights the error in evaluators not doing the same with section 3.15. The evaluators irrationally concluded that Securus failed to include in its technical proposal any information explaining how it would meet the performance standards and outcomes of section 3.15. Some evaluators relied on the theory that Securus did not "acknowledge" the outcomes and standards. As established above, Securus acknowledged that "the Performance Outcomes and Standards are crucial to the success of the overall inmate telephone service," and throughout its technical response, Securus addressed all the required outcomes and standards. Securus mentioned and acknowledged the performance outcomes and standards a total of six times in its proposal: twice on page 42 and once on each of pages 100, 138, 160, and 392. Three of those pages were narrative responses to sections 3.7 and 3.11, which are specifically included as part of section 3.15. Some evaluators also claimed that Securus never expressly agreed to be bound by the performance measures of section 3.15. That may theoretically affect the qualitative evaluation of the response, but it does not support a finding that the information was omitted. Also, the RFP did not require a vendor to specifically delineate each of the 18 subsections of section 3 in its response. To comply with the Technical Response section of the RFP, a vendor needed to address, in narrative form, its plan to provide the scope of services outlined in section 3. This was not disputed. Several Department employees testified and agreed that a response to the RFP did not require specifically delineated sections of the response that mirrored the delineation of the RFP. Inclusion of Prohibited Fees In Addendum 2, the Department asked the vendors to provide a sample refund policy. The policies were not described as or intended to be final refund policies that would be used in administration of the contract. The terms of a refund policy, if any, would be negotiated with the winning vendor, subject to the requirements of the RFP, including the prohibition against including fees in the blended rate. The sample policies of Securus and Global included some costs or forfeitures for obtaining a refund depending on how and when the inmate sought the refund. These are not prohibited fees or even items agreed to in the RFP. They are only samples. The evidence does not prove that the sample refund policies violate the requirement of section 3.8.3. Scoring The review and evaluation process described in section 6 of the RFP identified the maximum number of points that could be awarded for each part of the inmate calling services project. The total number of possible points was 1,000. The sections and points allotted to them were as follows: Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements--0, Executive Summary and Other Proposal Submissions--0, Business/Corporate Qualification--50, Project Staff--200, Technical Response--400, and Price Proposal--350. This allowed 350 points for the pricing section and 650 for the remaining technical sections. Because each evaluator scored the technical sections, the cumulative totals of their scores exceed 1,000. Securus maintains that this scoring is inconsistent with the process described in the RFP. But each evaluator scored the technical portion of the proposals within the maximum 650 total points available to each vendor. And the procurement staff scored the price proposals within the maximum 350 points available for price to each vendor. Applying the RFP's mathematical scoring methodology to the price proposals, the procurement staff scored the pricing as follows: Global 280.42, Securus 276.04, and CenturyLink 232.94. The scoring for each was within the RFP's 350-point maximum. The scores given by each evaluator for the technical portion of the vendors' proposals are as follows: EVALUATORS: Shane Phillips Steve Wilson Jon Creamer Charles Lockwood Randy Agerton CenturyLink 722.94 857.94 707.94 776.69 734.19 Securus 749.79 808.54 702.29 834.79 779.79 Global 782.92 880.42 751.67 859.17 802.92 Each evaluator's technical score when combined with the pricing score was within the RFP's 1,000-point maximum. Ms. Hussey totaled all the evaluator's technical scores for each vendor with the pricing score for that vendor. The resulting number exceeded 1,000. The award memorandum presented the totals, as follows: Ranking = Cost + Total Evaluator Scores (As Posted) Commission + Rates Evaluation Scores Total Ranking Global 280.42 2,680.00 2,960.42 1 CenturyLink 232.94 2,495.00 2,727.94 3 Securus 276.04 2,635.00 2,911.04 2 This method of compilation did not affect the relative ranking of the vendors. If the technical scores awarded by the five evaluators are averaged and added to the pricing scores, the points total for each vendor is under 1,000. And the ranking of the vendors does not change. Ranking = Cost + Evaluator Scores (Evaluator Scores Averaged) Commission + Rates Evaluation Scores Total Ranking Global 280.42 535.00 815.42 1 CenturyLink 232.94 499.00 731.94 3 Securus 276.04 527.00 803.04 2 Averaging in this fashion is consistent with the RFP. The evidence does not prove the Department erred in scoring the proposals.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order rejecting all proposals for Request for Proposal DC RFP-13-031. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 4th day of September, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether two persons were employees or independent contractors of Respondent, pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if employees, an additional issue is the penalty that Petitioner should impose against Respondent for his failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the two employees.
Findings Of Fact At the time in question, Respondent was in the business of erecting enclosures for swimming pools. On most of these jobs, Respondent served as a subcontractor of Commercial Residential Construction. On April 7, 1998, Respondent was providing labor and materials, as a subcontractor to Commercial Residential Construction, on a screened-enclosure job located at 2242 Otter Creek Lane in Sarasota. Commercial Residential Construction supplied the aluminum and screen used for this job. For this job, Respondent hired two individuals who had worked for Commercial Residential Construction or other independent contractors in the construction business. Respondent did not have workers’ compensation coverage for the two individuals working with him on this job. Respondent’s agreement with these two persons was to pay them, on a weekly basis, a specified percentage of the total price that Respondent was to receive for the work. If the contractor refused to pay Respondent due to unsatisfactory work, then Respondent would not pay the two individuals. The two individuals had to supply their own tools. Sometimes they transported themselves to the job site; sometimes, as a matter of convenience, Tom Dybalski, the owner of Respondent, transported them or was transported by them. The two individuals did not testify. Petitioner called Mr. Dybalski as a witness; otherwise, Petitioner’s witnesses consisted exclusively of staff and investigators. However, these witnesses were unable to establish the statements of the two putative employees because of hearsay. The findings of fact contained in this recommended order are derived from Mr. Dybalski’s testimony or admissions made to one of Petitioner’s investigators. However, the administrative law judge has not relied on hearsay testimony, which is admissible under the exception for admissions against interest, that Mr. Dyblaski admitted that the two individuals were employees. Mr. Dyblaski is an aluminum contractor, not an attorney, and his “concession” concerning a complex matter, especially given his obvious ignorance of the applicable legal criteria, is not entitled to any weight. Admissible evidence does not establish whether the two individuals had exemptions from workers’ compensation. Mr. Dybalski testified that he did not know whether they did. The two individuals did not testify, so it is impossible to determine from this source whether they had exemptions. The record is similarly devoid of competent evidence establishing Respondent’s contention that the two individuals were employees of Commercial Residential Construction while working on the subject job.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to obtain workers’ compensation coverage to two employees and imposing a penalty in the amount of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Louise T. Sadler Senior Attorney Division of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 A. Brent McPeek Attorney 3986 South Tamiami Trail Venice, Florida 34293 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
