The Issue The issue is whether the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued to Respondent, Dave's Tractor, LLC, on August 27, 2018, is correct.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a limited liability company engaged in the construction business with offices at 434 Skinner Boulevard, Suite 105, Dunedin, Florida. It uses tractors and a grading process to prepare land prior to building construction for commercial clients. Its managing member is David Richardson. The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. To enforce this requirement, the Department conducts random inspections of job sites and investigates complaints concerning potential violations of workers' compensation rules. On May 25, 2018, Christina Brigantty, a Department investigator, conducted a routine inspection of a job site at 3691 Tampa Road, Oldsmar, Florida. She observed two men working in a ditch, one man mixing cement, the other man driving a tractor. Investigator Brigantty observed four individuals at the job site, including the two working in the ditch: Dylan Richardson; Ismael Demillon; Javier Mastica; and Jorge Duran. She was informed by the individuals that they worked for Richardson Trailers, LLC. Investigator Brigantty called Mr. Ramsey, corporate officer for Respondent, who confirmed that Respondent hired Richardson Trailers, LLC, as a subcontractor. She later confirmed through discussions with Dylan Richardson and the Coverage and Compliance Automated System that Richardson Trailers, LLC, had no workers' compensation insurance on its employees. The parties have stipulated that at the time of the inspection, Respondent had not secured workers' compensation for any of the four individuals observed on the job site. Investigator Brigantty received approval from her supervisor to issue Respondent a Stop-Work Order and Request for Business Records for Penalty Calculation (BRR). These papers were served on Respondent on June 30, 2018. The BRR requested numerous types of business records for the period May 26, 2016, through May 25, 2018, including business tax receipts (occupational licenses), trade licenses or certifications, and competency cards held by Respondent or any of its principals; payroll documents (time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earnings records, check stubs, and payroll summaries for both individual employees and aggregate payrolls, and federal income tax documents reflecting the amount of remuneration paid or payable to each employee, including cash); and account documents including all business check journals and statements, which would include cleared checks for all open and/or closed business accounts established by the employer. Respondent failed to provide any business records in response to the BRR to determine Respondent's payroll for the audit review period. Therefore, the Department proceeded to compute a penalty based on imputed payroll in accordance with section 440.107(7)(e), Florida Statutes. This formula produced a penalty assessment of $165,654.10. On August 27, 2018, the Department served Respondent with an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment totaling $165,654.10. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), the Department also gave Respondent 20 business days in which to provide business records that would confirm Respondent's actual payroll during the two-year review period. This meant the records were due by September 25, 2018. A final hearing was scheduled initially for January 24, 2019. By agreement of the parties, on January 4, 2019, the case was rescheduled to March 15, 2019. One ground for granting a continuance was that the parties were "waiting on outstanding discovery that is being located and is necessary for an amicable resolution," presumably referring to items listed in the BRR. The final hearing was conducted on March 15, 2019, or almost seven months after the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued. A week before the final hearing, Respondent began providing business records to the Department, including bank statements and checks on March 8, 2019, and a general ledger on March 13, 2019. Given the time constraints, they were not reviewed by the auditor until the day before the final hearing. The auditor conceded at hearing that these records would result in a "significantly lower" penalty, and they were sufficient to recalculate the penalty. Even so, at this late date, the Department refuses to recalculate the assessment. Respondent's principal, Mr. Richardson, testified that he has "no way to pay" the penalty, it will force him out of business, and he will be required to terminate his employees. Mr. Richardson also testified that he requested the records from the bank on "numerous occasions," but the bank refused to provide them directly to the Department or referred him to other branch offices. However, bank records are not the only way an employer can demonstrate the amount of payroll. This also can be established by business taxes or other records described in the BRR. Mr. Richardson denied knowing that business taxes are an option if bank records are unavailable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the workers' compensation laws by failing to secure and maintain required workers' compensation insurance for its employees, and imposing a penalty of $165,654.10. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of May, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven R. Hart, Qualified Representative Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Kyle Christopher, Esquire Department of Financial Services Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed) Adrian Shawn Middleton, Esquire Middleton & Middleton, P.A. 1469 Market Street Tallahassee, Florida 32312-1726 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Notice to Show Cause, filed on September 14, 2010, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating condominiums, including condominium associations, pursuant to chapter 718, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Whitehall was a condominium association operating in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Whitehall was responsible for managing and operating Whitehall Condominium in West Palm Beach, Florida. Pertinent to the case at hand, regarding a condominium's year-end financial statement, section 718.111, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: (13) Financial reporting. --Within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, or annually on a date provided in the bylaws, the association shall prepare and complete, or contract for the preparation and completion of, a financial report for the preceding fiscal year. Within 21 days after the final financial report is completed by the association or received from the third party, but not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year or other date as provided in the bylaws, the association shall mail to each unit owner at the address last furnished to the association by the unit owner, or hand deliver to each unit owner, a copy of the financial report or a notice that a copy of the financial report will be mailed or hand delivered to the unit owner, without charge, upon receipt of a written request from the unit owner. The division shall adopt rules setting forth uniform accounting principles and standards to be used by all associations and addressing the financial reporting requirements for multicondominium associations. The rules must include, but not be limited to, standards for presenting a summary of association reserves, including a good faith estimate disclosing the annual amount of reserve funds that would be necessary for the association to fully fund reserves for each reserve item based on the straight-line accounting method. This disclosure is not applicable to reserves funded via the pooling method. In adopting such rules, the division shall consider the number of members and annual revenues of an association. Financial reports shall be prepared as follows: (a) An association that meets the criteria of this paragraph shall prepare a complete set of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial statements must be based upon the association's total annual revenues, as follows: * * * An association with total annual revenues of $ 400,000 or more shall prepare audited financial statements. (emphasis added). Whitehall's annual revenue is in excess of $400,000.00. Therefore, Whitehall is required to produce audited year-end financial statements. Whitehall's fiscal year coincided with the calendar year. As a result, Whitehall's 2009 year-end financial statement was due on or before May 1, 2010. On December 11, 2009, Whitehall engaged Hafer Company, LLC (Hafer), a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) firm, to produce its audited 2009 year-end financial statement. Whitehall must rely upon a third-party vendor, such as Hafer, to produce its audited financial statement. Hafer assigned Nicole Johnson as the auditor to produce Whitehall's audited 2009 annual financial statement.4/ Ms. Johnson's process involved, among other things, preparing a draft audit; providing a draft audit to the condominium board, which reviews the draft audit with Ms. Johnson; and then preparing the final audit. Whitehall's engaging Hafer in December 2009 did not contribute to any delay in producing Whitehall's audited financial statement. Ms. Johnson wanted to begin the auditing process early and made a request to Whitehall to begin on or about January 6, 2010, but Whitehall was not prepared to go forward at that time. She was not concerned with beginning at a later date because, among other things, her suggested date was an early date for beginning the auditing process. Whitehall's day-to-day bookkeeping and accounting was performed by a third-party vendor, The Accounting Department, Inc. (Accounting). On February 3, 2010, Ms. Johnson met with Accounting's representative who was handling the day-to-day bookkeeping and accounting. Having the meeting occur in February 2010 was not late or abnormal in the ordinary course of preparing an audited year-end financial statement for a condominium; and did not contribute to any delay in Ms. Johnson's producing Whitehall's audited 2009 year-end financial statement. On February 3, 2010, Ms. Johnson began her field-work and received the primary bulk of the accounting information necessary to complete the audit. From February 3, 2010, Ms. Johnson maintained communication, whether by telephone, email, or other methods of communicating, with Whitehall's directors and officers, and its property manager, Michael Weadock, who is a licensed Community Association Manager (CAM). Ms. Johnson's communications included requesting additional information, asking questions, and obtaining clarifications regarding items for the audited year-end financial statement. One of the items needed by Ms. Johnson to complete the audited year-end financial statement was independent verification from Whitehall's banks regarding Whitehall's certificates of deposit (CDs). Ms. Johnson, as the auditor, was responsible for obtaining the independent verification of the CDs from Whitehall's banks. Due to the economic crisis, which occurred in 2009, banks nationwide were taking an unusual amount of time to respond to auditors' requests associated with the independent verification of bank account information. The banks from which Ms. Johnson was requesting independent verification were no different. She did not receive independent verification of Whitehall's CDs until after the May 1, 2010, due date for Whitehall's audited 2009 financial statement. Whitehall could do nothing to expedite the banks' response to Ms. Johnson's requests. Additionally, on May 28, 2010, Ms. Johnson sent an email to Mr. Weadock requesting additional items that were outstanding. The requested items were non-bank items and were not items that would delay the completion of a draft audit, but were required for the final audit. The next business day, Whitehall provided the requested items. Whitehall had control over these non-bank items, which delayed completion of the final audit. Subsequently, Ms. Johnson received the independent verification of Whitehall's CDs from the banks. On June 23, 2010, Ms. Johnson completed Whitehall's audited 2009 Financial Statement and forwarded a copy to the Department. Even though the final audit was not completed until June 23, 2010, on or about June 10, 2010, Whitehall posted on its bulletin board a notice indicating that copies of the audited 2009 Financial Statement were available in its office. However, subsequently, another notice was posted on the bulletin board indicating, among other things, that copies of the audited 2009 Financial Statement would be available at the Board of Directors Meeting on July 1, 2010, in order to provide for the completion of the audited year-end financial statement. Whitehall does not dispute that neither notice complies with the manner/method of delivery requirement in section 718.111(13). Additionally, Whitehall provided notice to its unit owners as to the availability of the audited 2009 Financial Statement through its community television channel, website, and email blast. This same manner/method of sending the notices to unit owners was used in the past by Whitehall. Whitehall does not dispute that this manner/method of providing notice does not comply with the manner/method of delivery requirement in section 718.111(13). At the time of hearing, Whitehall had not provided its unit owners with a copy of the audited 2009 Financial Statement by mail or hand-delivery. Whitehall has prior disciplinary history regarding its failure timely to prepare and provide its audited year-end financial statements in prior years. On April 1, 2010, Whitehall and the Department entered a Consent Order resolving several statutory violations. One of the violations in the Consent Order was Whitehall's failure timely to prepare and provide its 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 audited year-end financial statements. As to this violation, the Consent Order concluded that Whitehall failed timely to prepare and provide the audited year-end financial statements for the four consecutive years. The Consent Order did not include a violation of the manner/method of delivery of notices regarding the year-end financial statements for the four consecutive years. Subsequent to the Consent Order, the Department received a complaint from a one of Whitehall's unit owners regarding Whitehall's failure timely to provide a copy of the 2009 audited year-end financial statement. The Department's usual practice is that, if a repeat violation occurs within a two-year period, administrative action is taken resulting in a consent order or notice to show cause. Considering the recent Consent Order, the Department followed its usual practice and appropriately pursued the complaint. On September 14, 2010, the Department filed a Notice to Show Cause against Whitehall, which is the subject matter of the instant case. Even though the unit owner's complaint did not include the manner/method in which notice was provided, the evidence fails to demonstrate that the Department was restricted to investigate only that which was complained of. The evidence fails to demonstrate that the Department's investigation of a violation of section 718.111(13) by Whitehall was improper. Further, the evidence fails to demonstrate that the Department's enforcement of the requirements of section 718.111(13) was selective enforcement against Whitehall. The evidence demonstrates that the Department participated in this proceeding primarily due to Whitehall having previously, within a short period of time, violated section 718.111(13) regarding Whitehall's failure timely to provide its unit owners a copy of audited year-end financial statements. Additionally, the evidence fails to demonstrate that either the Department or Whitehall needlessly increased the cost of litigation in the instant case.5/ Consequently, the evidence fails to demonstrate that the Department participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose as defined by section 120.595(1)(e)1.6/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order: Finding that Whitehall Condominiums of the Villages of Palm Beach Lakes Association, Inc., violated section 718.111(13), Florida Statutes, by failing to deliver, in the manner authorized by statute, a copy of its audited 2009 year- end financial statement to all of its unit owners no later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year, and by failing to make audited 2009 year-end financial statement available in the manner authorized by statute, when it became available; and Imposing a fine in the amount of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2013.
The Issue The issues presented for determination are whether Respondent violated Subsections 106.11(3) and 106.19(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Order of Probable Cause dated May 22, 2001, and the Statement of Findings dated April 3, 2001.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order dismissing all charges against Petitioner, Bruce Grady. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 26th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herron, Esquire Mark Herron, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 701 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Rushing, Clerk Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue Whether Respondent timely filed a quarterly report as required under chapter 560, Florida Statutes (2015), or related rules.
Findings Of Fact OFR is the state agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of chapter 560, related to licensing of money services businesses, a term that includes money transmitter services, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Respondent is a money services business and has license number FT30800590. Respondent operates as a check casher, and is located at 3220 Sydney Dover Road, Dover, Florida. Every Florida licensed check casher is required to submit quarterly reports to OFR in a format which includes information specified by rule. See § 560.118(2), Fla. Stat. The due date for a check casher to have filed its money services business quarterly report for the quarter ending December 31, 2014, was February 16, 2015. OFR sent a reminder to Respondent within ten days following December 31, 2014, to file the quarterly report. OFR sent seven additional e-mails before the deadline advising Respondent to file the quarterly report within the deadline. On March 6, 2015, Respondent filed the quarterly report in the proper format; however, it was 18 days after the applicable filing deadline. OFR determined that Respondent’s late filing of the quarterly report is a “Class A” violation pursuant to rule 69V- 560.1000(39) and (150). OFR determined the appropriate penalty to be a $1,000 fine. Mr. Grosmaire’s testimony on the basis of OFR’s imposition of the $1,000 fine is credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 19th day of July, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Amjad J. Hijaz Mexican American Grocery 1105 Spurwood Court Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) William Michael Oglo, Esquire Office of Financial Regulation Fletcher Building, Suite 550 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0376 (eServed) Eric O. Husby, Esquire 2001 West Cleveland Street Tampa, Florida 33606 (eServed) Drew J. Breakspear, Commissioner Office of Financial Regulation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 (eServed) Colin M. Roopnarine, General Counsel Office of Financial Regulation The Fletcher Building, Suite 118 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0370 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioners violated provisions of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Order of Probable Cause filed August 23, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Chapters 97 through 106, Florida Statutes, comprise the Florida Election Code (Code). Pursuant to the Code, the Commission is empowered specifically to enforce the provisions of Chapters 104 and 106, Florida Statutes. Mary McCarty was elected to the City Commission of Delray Beach, Florida in 1987. She was elected to the Palm Beach County Commission in 1990. She has been returned to that office in each subsequent election and she is currently a member of the Palm Beach County Commission. In November of 2002, she was elected to her fourth term as Chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Executive Committee. The Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary was an unincorporated entity. It was a de facto committee, which, for reasons addressed herein, did not ever become a "political committee" as defined in Section 106.011(1), Florida Statutes. Ms. McCarty has run for public office six times and was successful on each occasion. Prior to each election she received from the Florida Secretary of State a handbook addressing campaign financing. She is familiar with the statutes and rules with regard to financing an individual campaign. Sometime before the Thanksgiving Holiday in 2000, Ms. McCarty received a telephone call from Roger Stone of Washington, D.C. Ms. McCarty knew Mr. Stone, who at various times had been a campaign operative for Senator Arlen Specter, had been involved in opposing the sugar tax amendment in Florida, and had been a consultant to Donald Trump, during his short-lived presidential campaign. Ms. McCarty was aware that Mr. Stone and Craig Snyder were principals of IKON Public Affairs, a business entity with offices in Washington, D.C., and Miami Beach, Florida. Roger Stone informed Ms. McCarty that he was forming a committee to raise funds for the purpose of taking action against the Florida Supreme Court. Mr. Stone stated that he had formed The Committee and that he wished for her to be the chairperson. She did not initially commit to undertake this responsibility. A few days after the conversation with Mr. Stone, Ms. McCarty received a facsimile draft of a fundraising letter that The Committee proposed to post. The facsimile was sent by Roger Stone from Washington. She made some suggested changes and returned it to the address in Washington from whence it came. Subsequently, she had a telephone conversation with Lora Lynn Jones of Unique Graphics and Design in Alexandria, Virginia. Ms. Jones was in the business of making mass mailings. Ms. McCarty told Ms. Jones that her name could be used on the fundraising letter although Ms. McCarty did not sign the fundraising letter. Nevertheless, the document was mailed to a large number of people and it bore the printed name, "Mary McCarty, Palm Beach County Commissioner." The first time Ms. McCarty saw The Committee's finished product it was in the form of a "Telepost, high priority communication." She first saw the "Telepost" when it arrived in her mailbox in early December 2000. The wording of the letter was different from the draft Ms. McCarty had seen earlier. Unlike the draft, it targeted specific justices on the Florida Supreme Court. It cannot be determined from the evidence the date the December "Telepost" was posted, but it was posted before Ms. McCarty determined that she had become Chairperson of The Committee. The "Telepost," dated December 2000, solicited funds so that The Committee could, ". . . send a clear message to the Florida Supreme Court that we will not tolerate their efforts to highjack the Presidential election for Al Gore." Later in December 2000, Mr. Stone called Ms. McCarthy and told her that she should be the chairman of The Committee. She agreed. Ms. McCarty signed a "Statement of Organization of Political Committee," which was dated December 19, 2000. This is a form provided by the Division of Elections, which, if properly completed and filed, officially establishes a political committee. She also signed a form entitled "Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Political Committee." Mr. Stone, or his operatives, provided these forms to Ms. McCarty. She signed them and mailed them to Mr. Stone's address in Washington, D.C., which was the headquarters of the IKON Public Affairs Group. The "Statement of Organization of Political Committee," dated December 19, 2000, was received by the Division of Elections on December 26, 2000. It listed Amber McWhorter as Treasurer. Inez Williams, who works in the document section of the Division of Elections, processed the form. When Ms. Williams received it, she recognized that the form was incomplete because on the face of it the reader could not determine if the committee was an "issue" committee, or a "candidate" committee. Ms. Williams noted that the mailing address on the form dated December 19, 2000, was "c/o VisionMedia," 1680 Michigan Avenue, Suite 900, Miami Beach, Florida. Ms. Williams found a telephone number for that business and dialed it, on December 27, 2000. No one answered so she left a message on VisionMedia's answering machine. In addition to the telephone call, Ms. Williams prepared a letter with the address of, "Mary McCarty, Chairperson, The Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary, 1348 Washington Avenue, Suite 177, Miami Beach, Florida." This letter was dated December 27, 2000, and was signed by Connie A. Evans, Chief, Bureau of Election Records. This is the address found on the "Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Political Committee," which had also been received by the Division of Elections on December 26, 2000. The letter signed by Ms. Evans on December 27, 2001, informed Ms. McCarty that items 3 and 7 needed to be "rephrased." It further informed Ms. McCarty, that upon receipt of the requested information the committee would be included on the "active" list. The message recorded on The Committee answering machine on December 27, 2001, generated a response from a person who identified himself as Mr. Snyder, on January 2, 2002. Mr. Snyder engaged in a telephone conversation with Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams explained to Mr. Snyder that items 3, 5, 7, and 8, would have to be completed properly as a condition of The Committee's being recognized. A letter dated January 4, 2001, bearing the letterhead of "The Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary," and signed by Amber Allman McWhorter, was faxed to the Division of Elections on January 4, 2001, and received that date. This letter referenced the telephone call between Ms. Williams and Craig Snyder, who was further identified as The Committee's attorney. The letter stated that a corrected Statement of Organization of Political Committee, and a designation of treasurer, would be forwarded to the Division of Elections within the next 72 hours. On January 8, 2001, a filing was received by the Division of Elections that was deemed by the Division to be complete. Subsequently, in a letter dated January 10, 2001, and signed by Connie Evans, informed Ms. McCarty and The Committee that the Statement of Organization and the Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for The Committee complied with the Division of Elections' requirements. The Committee was provided with Identification No. 34261. Posted with the letter was a copy of the "2000 Handbook for Committees," which is published by the Division of Elections. The letter and the handbook were sent to The Committee operation in Miami, not Ms. McCarty, and no one in the Miami Beach operation ever forwarded it to her. Connie Evans, Bureau Chief of Election Records, the entity that supervises the filing of the forms mentioned above, believes that due to a court ruling in Florida Right to Life v. Mortham, Case No. 98-770-Civ-Orl-19A, the language in Section 106.011, Florida Statutes, which defines a "political committee," has been found to be unconstitutional. She believes that a political committee is not required to register with the Division of Elections but that if a committee does register, it must abide by the statutes regulating political committees. Ms. Evans has informed numerous entities of this interpretation of the law in letters. The efficacy of that case, and Ms. Evans' interpretation of it, will be discussed further in the Conclusions of Law, below. Ms. McCarty signed a "Campaign Treasurer's Report Summary"(CTR-Q1) which was filed with the Division of Elections on April 10, 2001. This addressed the period January 1, 2001 until March 31, 2001. Under the certification section of the CTR-Q1 are the words, "It is a first degree misdemeanor for any person to falsify a public record (ss. 839.13, F.S.)." Immediately above her signature are the words, "I certify that I have examined this report and it is true, correct, and complete." The box found immediately above and to the right of her signature, was checked to signify that Ms. McCarty was the chairperson of The Committee. According to Ms. Evans, The Division of Elections regulates several kinds of committees. There are "issues" committees, "candidate" committees," "party executive" committees, and "committees of continuing existence." Depending on the nature of the committee, different rules apply. The Committee was a "candidate" committee so the contribution regulations of a political candidate applied to the committee. That meant that the maximum contribution per person was $500. The CTR-Q1 indicated in the "Itemized Contributions Section" that seven people contributed $1,000 and one person contributed $2,000. Walter Hunter, Neda Korich, Arthur Allen, William Shutze, Caroline Ireland, Henry Allen, and Honore Wansler, contributed $1,000, each. Robert Morgan contributed $2,000. The amounts in excess of $500 were eventually returned to the $1,000 contributors, except that in the case of Henry Allen, the refund was made to Allen Investment corporation. The sum of $1,500 was returned to Robert Morgan, the $2,000 contributor, but the CTR-Q1 listed only a $500 repayment. Therefore, the CTR-Q1 in its expenditures section was incorrect with regard to Mr. Morgan. The CTR-Q1 also listed in the "Itemized Contributions Section" the receipt, on January 2, 2001, of $150,000 for "LOA/INK extension of credit for direct mail services." These words may be interpreted to mean that a loan in the form of an "in kind" service had been provided. This was reported under the name of Creative Marketing, 2760 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 250, Alexandria, Virginia. The Committee had a bank account at CityBank of Miami, Florida. The sole authorized signatory on the account was Diane Thorne. The Account No. was 3200015694. There was no entry in the bank account of the receipt of $150,000. This indicates that the item was not processed through the bank and it would not have been processed through the bank if it were really an "in kind" contribution. Because the beginning balance was zero on February 8, 2001, it is concluded that the inception date of Account No. 3200015694 was February 8, 2001. Lora Lynn Jones, is the principal of Unique Graphics and Design, which is located in Suite 253, at an address in Alexandria, Virginia, which is not further identified in the evidence of record. Ms. Jones prepared and posted the fundraising letter of December 2000, at the direction of Mr. Stone. Ms. Jones talked on the telephone with Ms. McCarty prior to mailing the fundraising letter and determined that the language in the letter was agreeable to Ms. McCarty. At the direction of Mr. Stone, Ms. Jones requested payment and received payment for her work, but from whom she cannot remember, except that she is sure that Creative Marketing did not pay it. The money for this production was paid in advance by wire transfer. There is no evidence in the record that this was paid from the account of The Committee. In fact, because the payment was made sometime in early December 2000, it could not have been paid from the account because it had not been opened. Ms. Jones is aware of an entity by the name of Creative Marketing Company and she believes it may be located in Northern Virginia, but she is not involved with it. It is found by clear and convincing evidence that the fundraising letter was not paid for by Creative Marketing, 2760 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 250, Alexandria, Virginia. The bank records of The Committee reflect a $50,000 expenditure made to Unique Graphics and Design, paid with a check dated May 9, 2001. This represents a payment for something other than the fundraising letter dated December 2000. The $50,000 item was reported as an expenditure on the CTR-Q1 that was reported to have been made on March 12, 2001. It was reported as having been made to Creative Marketing as payee. The only check in the amount of $50,000, reflected in The Committee checking account for the period February 8, 2001, to June 30, 2001, was payable to Unique Graphics and Design and was dated May 9, 2001. Therefore, it is found that the CTR-Q1 is incorrect when it was reported as having been made on March 12, 2001, to Creative Marketing. Ms. Jones believes there is a company by the name of Creative Marketing Company, which she believes may be located in Northern Virginia, but she is not involved with it. Contributions remitted in response to the fundraising letter were forwarded to one of Mr. Stone's two addresses. Because the address of 1348 Washington Avenue, Suite 177, in Miami Beach, Florida, is the address listed on the fundraising letter, it is likely that contributions in response to the fundraising letter went to Mr. Stone's Miami Beach operation. In any event, it is found as a fact that Ms. McCarty did not personally receive or have any contact with any of the contributions remitted to The Committee. The people handling the receipt of funds and the deposits were Roger Stone and people paid by his organization, including Diane Thorne, the secretary; Amber McWhorter, the treasurer; and Craig Snyder. Just as Ms. McCarty was not involved in the receipt of income to The Committee, she was also not involved in the disbursement of funds. The CTR-Q1 was completed by The Committee's staff in either Miami Beach or Washington, D.C., but Ms. McCarty had no input into its preparation. When Ms. McCarty signed the CTR-Q1 she was without knowledge as to whether the report was truthful, correct, or complete. It is further found that she made no effort to ascertain whether the report was truthful, correct, or complete. She believed it to be true and correct because she trusted Mr. Stone's operatives to accurately prepare the report. Ms. McCarty, excepting the current litigation, has never been the subject of a Commission action. Ms. McCarty has an income of approximately $80,000. She owns a residence jointly with her husband which is valued at approximately $300,000 and which is subject to a mortgage of approximately $200,000. She owns a vacation home in Maine jointly with her husband that is valued at approximately $25,000. She and her husband own three automobiles. She owns stocks, annuities, mutual funds or certificates of deposit of an indeterminate value.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Orders of Probable Cause entered in the case of both Mary McCarty and The Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kendall Coffey, Esquire Coffey & Wright, LLP 2665 South Bayshore Drive Grand Bay Plaza, Penthouse 2B Miami, Florida 33133 J. Reeve Bright, Esquire Bright & Chimera 135 Southeast 5th Avenue, Suite 2 Delray Beach, Florida 33483-5256 Mark Herron, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Ruching, Clerk Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for a certificate of qualification, pursuant to Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-22, Florida Administrative Code, for failure to timely file the application.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a family-owned construction firm located in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. It primarily acts as a contractor on pile driving projects. Petitioner is also involved in property management, oil, pre-stressed concrete, and general construction. Respondent selects its highway and bridge contractors from those who qualify under Section 337.14(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-22.002(2), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner has been a qualified bidder and construction contractor in Florida for Respondent continuously since the early 1940s. Contractors desiring to bid on state highway construction contracts in excess of $250,000 must apply annually to Respondent for a certificate of qualification. The application must be accompanied by the applicant's most recent annual financial statement, showing its financial condition no more than four months before Respondent receives the application. The application directs applicants to "mail" the completed forms to Respondent's Contracts Administration Office. Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Expiration of Qualification on or about February 3, 1999. The notice advised Petitioner of the following: Your qualification with this Department will expire on 04/30/99. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, your pre-qualification application must be 'filed' with the Department within four (4) months of the ending date of your financial statement. Filing is defined as receipt of the application by the Contracts Administration Office. Enclosed are two copies of the application form. Please return an original and one (1) copy of the application and all attachments. Please be advised all information must be filed in duplicate. In preparing your new application, please carefully follow the instructions on the application form and those enclosed with this notice. Additional reference material and a copy of Rule 14-22, F.A.C., are also enclosed for your convenience. Petitioner mailed its 1999 application for qualification, together with its most recent audit report dated December 31, 1998, to Respondent's Contracts Administration Office on April 27, 1999. Petitioner's fiscal year ends on December 31. An independent accounting firm begins preparing Petitioner's audit report shortly thereafter. The accounting firm's field work for Petitioner's 1998 audit was not complete until March 10, 1999, the date of the audit certification. This certification means there were no material changes in Petitioner's financial condition up to that date. There was no material change in Petitioner's financial condition over the holiday weekend from Thursday, December 31, 1998 to Monday, January 4, 1999. Changes in the amount of interest earned by Petitioner or charged against it during this brief interval would not make a difference in anyone's decision process. Any significant change up to March 10, 1999, would have been disclosed by the accounting firm in the December 31, 1998, audited financial statement. The same accounting firm has been auditing Petitioner's books for at least 15 years. Petitioner is in very sound financial condition. The Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service has set no more than three days as the standard for delivery of first class mail between Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Tallahassee, Florida. This standard is not a guarantee. However, 90-94 percent of the time, the postal service delivers first class mail within two or three days throughout the country, as measured by an internal service measurement standard. The postal service also contracts with Price- Waterhouse to perform an independent external service measurement system called EXFC. Under that system, the postal service scored 100 percent on test mailings, delivered to Tallahassee from Mississippi within three days, over the past three years. The post office in Tallahassee, Florida, provides dedicated carrier service for the delivery of first class mail to state agencies five days a week. The postal service also delivers mail on Saturdays for the agencies that request weekend delivery. The postal service delivers Respondent's mail to its mailroom between 7:30 and 9:00 a.m. on weekdays. Respondent also receives mail on the weekends. Respondent's security guard pushes the weekend mail cart into the building on the weekends. Respondent's mailroom staff sorts incoming mail and places it in various bins for each mail station by 11:00 a.m. each week day. The mail stations send individuals down to the mailroom to pick up the mail from their assigned bin. If a station has not picked up its mail by 2:30 p.m., mailroom personnel deliver it to that station. Occasionally, first class mail is placed in the wrong bin and delivered to the wrong mail station. That mail is retrieved by the mailroom staff sometime after 2:30 p.m. and delivered to the correct office. At the end of the business day, no first class mail remains in the mailroom for delivery within the building. There is no evidence that first class mail intended for the Contracts Administration Office has ever been misdelivered. Bessie White, Administrative Assistant in the Contracts Administration Office, picks up the mail for her office from bin number 55. After she opens the mail, she stamps qualification applications and financial statements using an electric date and time clock. Ms. White saves envelope postal markings by cutting them out and attaching them to the applications. She then distributes the mail to various personnel in her office. The date and time clock that Ms. White uses to stamp incoming mail has to be reset manually when a calendar month ends in less than 31 days. April 30, 1999, was a Friday. Ms. White did not reset the date and time clock at the end of the business day. She did not work on the weekend of May 1-2, 1999. On Monday, May 3, 1999, Ms. White dated and time stamped Petitioner's application and financial statement before she reset the clock on the stamp machine. Consequently, the date and time stamp erroneously reflected that Petitioner's application and financial statement were received on Sunday, May 2, 1999, at 11:42 a.m. Ms. White distributed Petitioner's application and financial statement to the appropriate staff member in her office. Later that day, she reset the date and time clock to reflect the correct date of May 3, 1999. She did not go back to correct the erroneous stamps on mail, including Petitioner's documents, which she had already distributed. Ms. White discovered the error on Petitioner's application and financial statement seven months later, after Petitioner filed its protest in this matter. At that time, she made a handwritten notation on the documents, indicating their receipt on May 3, 1999. Petitioner mailed its 1999 application for qualification and its audited financial statements with a reasonable expectation that Respondent would receive them within three days, on or before April 30, 1999. Petitioner relied upon the postal service standard, and its own experience, in anticipating delivery of the documents within that time frame. Petitioner has an affiliate company located in Monticello, Florida. The Florida affiliate normally receives mail from Petitioner within three days. The record here contains no explanation for the delay by one business day in the receipt of Petitioner's application by Respondent's Contracts Administration Office. Petitioner mailed similar applications to Georgia, Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana on April 27, 1999. All of these applications were approved. Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Deny Application for Qualification by certified mail on May 24, 1999. Respondent made this decision because the financial statements accompanying the application were dated more than four calendar months prior to the date the application was filed. Respondent counts calendar months in making its decision whether a qualification application is timely. In this case, Respondent took the position that the four-month time period ended on April 30, 1999, 120 days after December 31, 1999. 1./ If Petitioner's fiscal year had ended on June 30, 1999, Respondent would have required Petitioner to file its application within 123 days, on or before October 31, 1999. In determining whether a qualification application is timely, Respondent does not allow the five-day grace period for service by mail as set forth in Rule 28-106.403, Florida Administrative Code, and adopted by Respondent in Rule 14- 22.0011, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent approves over 400 qualification applications a year. It denies an average of 20 applications because they are late. When an application is denied as untimely, the applicant has an opportunity to furnish Respondent with an audited interim financial statement. An interim audit requires the same work and preparation as a regular annual audit. An interim audit would cost Petitioner between $25,000 and $30,000. Performing and filing an interim audit would also cause a three-month delay in the processing of Petitioner's application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order approving Petitioner's application for a certificate of qualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 23rd day of December, 1999.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent Department of Corrections (the Department) properly determined that there were no responsive proposals to the Request for Proposals entitled Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV, RFP #08-DC-8048 (the RFP); (b) whether the Department's intended award of a contract to provide mental healthcare services to inmates in Region IV to Intervenor Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (CMS), pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), is unlawful; and (c) whether Petitioner MHM Correctional Services, Inc. (MHM), has standing to challenge the Department's intended award of a contract to CMS pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact The RFP Process The Department issued the RFP on February 5, 2009. Two addendums were issued to the RFP, the first on February 6, 2009, and the second on March 11, 2009. The Department did not receive any protest of the RFP or addendums from MHM or any other proposer within the statutorily set time limit of 72 hours from the issuance of the RFP. At the time of issuance of the RFP, MHM was the incumbent provider of mental health services to inmates in Region IV. At that time, MHM was providing the services at a rate of $77.62 per month/per inmate. MHM's contract to provide mental health services in Region IV was the result of a prior vendor being financially unable to perform the contract at its agreed rate. The RFP sought proposals from vendors to provide comprehensive mental healthcare services for inmates located at 14 correctional institutions located in the southern part of the State beginning on July 1, 2009. The Department’s contract with MHM for those services was set to expire on June 30, 2009. The Department had previously attempted another procurement for replacement of those services in late 2008. Proposals to the RFP were received and opened in a public meeting on March 23, 2009, from CMS, MHM, the University of Miami's Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences (the University of Miami), and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Wexford). The Department’s Bureau of Procurement and Supply (BPS) was responsible for overseeing the RFP. The Procurement Manager for the RFP was Ana Ploch. Ms. Ploch’s duties included drafting the proposal with the assistance of the Office of Health Services, managing the procurement process by coordinating release of documents, conducting related meetings (such as proposers’ conferences, proposal opening, and price opening), conducting site visits, supervising the evaluation process, and keeping records of the process through completion of a summary report of the procurement. Once the Department received the proposals, it began the eight-phased review and evaluation process as set forth in Section 6 of the RFP. Phase 1 of the review and evaluation process began with the public opening of the proposals that took place on March 23, 2009. Phase 1 also included the review of the proposals to determine if they met mandatory responsiveness requirements. Determination of meeting mandatory responsiveness requirements was made by BPS staff. Mandatory Responsiveness Criteria or “fatal criteria” is described in Section 5.1 of the RFP as requirements that must be met by a proposer for the proposal to be considered responsive. A failure to meet any one of the three following criteria would result in an immediate finding of non- responsiveness and the rejection of the proposal: (a) the subject proposal must be received by the Department by the date and time specified in the RFP; (b) the proposal must include a signed and notarized Certification Attestation Page for Mandatory Statements; and (c) the price proposal must be received by the Department by the date and time specified in the RFP and must be in a separate envelope or package in the same box or container as the project proposal. There is no dispute that all four proposals met these mandatory responsiveness/fatal criteria. In addition to the fatal criteria, a proposal could be found to be non-responsive for failing to conform to the solicitation requirements in all material respects. The RFP, Section 1.20, clearly set forth the definition of a “material deviation” and the basis for rejecting a proposal as follows: 1.20 Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to proposals to be submitted by vendors. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where any deviation therefrom is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient proposal is not in substantial accord with this RFP’s requirements, provides an advantage to one proposer over other proposers, or has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items or services proposed, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a proposal. (Emphasis in original.) A Responsive Proposal is defined in the RFP Section 1.29 as “[a] proposal, submitted by a responsive and responsible vendor that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation.” A minor irregularity is defined in Section 1.26 of the RFP as: 1.26 Minor Irregularity: A variation from the RFP terms and conditions which does not affect the price proposed or gives the proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other proposers or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. Phase 2 consisted of a review of the business/corporate qualifications and technical proposal/service delivery narratives contained in the proposals. This phase was completed individually by evaluation team members. The evaluation team, which consisted of 5 employees from the Department’s Office of Health Services, met with Ms. Ploch on March 24, 2009, for instruction on how to proceed with the evaluation. The team members were given the evaluation materials on that date. Evaluation and scoring of the proposals was done separately by each individual without discussion among the members. At the March 31, 2009, bid tabulation meeting, which occurred after the team members scored the proposals, Ms. Ploch told the team members that MHM and the University of Miami were non-responsive to the RFP. Then the scores for the different categories were recorded as announced by each member of the evaluation team. All four proposals were scored for the three categories listed in RFP Section 5.3 (business/corporate experience), Section 5.5 (project staff) and Section 5.6 (technical proposal and service delivery narrative). There is no allegation that the scores assigned to the proposals were done in error or that they were not in compliance with Department rules or procedures. Phase 3 of the review and evaluation process was completed at the same time as Phase 2 and 4, by Ms. Ploch and the BPS staff. That review of the proposals included a determination as to whether the proposers were in compliance with Section 5.3 “Business/Corporate Qualifications.” At that point in the review process, BPS determined that the University of Miami’s proposal was non-responsive in that the proposer did not have the necessary business experience. This finding has not been disputed by any party. An independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) completed Phase 4 of the review and evaluation process. The Department hired the CPA to review the financial requirements of Section 5.4 of the RFP. The CPA, Richard Law, was given all the proposals, including the financial documentation, on March 24, 2009. He conducted his review separately from the Department's reviews in Phases 2 and 3. Mr. Law has been a licensed CPA for over 30 years. His major practice area is conducting audits for state governments, as well as private businesses. With more than 10 years of experience reviewing financial documentation for the Department and assisting on the setting of financial benchmarks for numerous procurements, he is highly qualified to perform the evaluation and assessment of these basic financial criteria. The financial requirements and the financial documentation and information that the proposers had to submit are set out in Section 5.4 of the RFP. That section is entitled “Financial Documentation,” and provides as follows in pertinent part: Tab 4-Financial Documentation The Proposer shall provide financial documentation that is sufficient to demonstrate its financial viability to perform the Contract resulting from this RFP. Three of the following five minimum acceptable standards shall be met, one of which must be either item d, or item e, below. The Proposer shall insert the required information under Tab 4 of the Proposal. Current ratio: = .9:1 or (.9) Computation: Total current assets ÷ total current liabilities Debt to tangible net worth: = 5:1 Computation: Total liabilities ÷ net worth Dun and Bradstreet credit worthiness (credit score): = 3 (on a scale of 1-5) Minimum existing sales: = $50 million Total equity: = $5 million NOTE: The Department acknowledges that privately held corporations and other business entities are not required by law to have audited financial statements. In the event the Proposer is a privately held corporation or other business entity whose financial statements ARE audited, such audited statements shall be provided. If the privately held corporation or other business entity does not have audited financial statements, then unaudited statements or other financial documentation sufficient to provide the same information as is generally contained in an audited statement, and as required below, shall be provided. The Department also acknowledges that a Proposer may be a wholly-owned subsidiary of another corporation or exist in other business relationships where financial data is consolidated. Financial documentation is requested to assist the Department in determining whether the Proposer has the financial capability of performing the contract to be issued pursuant to this RFP. The Proposer MUST provide financial documentation sufficient to demonstrate such capability including wherever possible, financial information specific to the Proposer itself. All documentation provided will be reviewed by an independent CPA and should, therefore, be of the type and detail regularly relied upon by the certified public accounting industry in making a determination or statement of financial capability. To determine the above ratios, the most recent available and applicable financial documentation for the Proposer shall be provided. This financial documentation shall include: The most recently issued audited financial statement (or if unaudited, reviewed in accordance with standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountant). All statements shall include the following for the most recently audited (immediate past) year. auditors’ reports for financial statements; balance sheet; statement of income; statement of retained earnings; statement of cash flows; notes to financial statements; any written management letter issued by the auditor to the Proposer’s management, its board of directors or the audit committee, or, if no management letter was written, a letter from the auditor, stating that no management letter was issued and that there were no material weaknesses in internal control or other reportable conditions; and a copy of the Dun & Bradstreet creditworthiness report dated on or after February 5, 2009. (Emphasis in original) The RFP provided as follows in Section 5.4.2: If the year end of the most recent completed audit (or review) is earlier than nine (9) months prior to the issuance date of this RFP, then the most recent unaudited financial statement (consisting of items b, c, d and e above) shall also be provided by the Proposer in addition to the audited statement required in Section 5.4.1. The unaudited financial data will be averaged with the most recent fiscal year audited (or reviewed) financial statement to arrive at the given ratios. Throughout Section 5.4 of the RFP, the emphasis is on the need for audited financial statements. The use of unaudited financial statements alone does not apply to MHM pursuant to the terms of the RFP, but they did apply to other proposers. Both audited and unaudited financial statements were averaged to determine ratios for CMS and Wexford, where their audited financial statements were older than 9 months. This was clearly permissible under Section 5.4.2. MHM’s proposal included audited financial statements dated September 30, 2008, and also additional information, including unaudited financial statements and a financial narrative in which it admitted that its current ratio as of September 30, 2008, was 0.82 and that it had a negative equity of $24.8 million dollars. MHM was fully aware that it could have difficulty meeting the financial ratios before the Department issued the RFP. As early as January 2008, MHM was considering a stock repurchase. MHM knew its existing contract would come up for rebid. MHM also knew that the Department sometimes used financial criteria and financial ratios as pass/fail ratios. MHM was concerned that the stock repurchase would trigger one of those ratios, causing them to lose the contract. In January 2008, Susan Ritchey, MHM's Chief Financial Officer, and Steve Wheeler, MHM's President and Chief Operating Officer, contacted Mr. Law. Ms. Ritchey and Mr. Wheeler wanted to discuss their concerns regarding financial ratios that the Department might require in the future. During the hearing, Mr. Wheeler denied that the contact with Mr. Law had anything to do with the instant RFP. There is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Law gave Ms. Ritchey and Mr. Wheeler inappropriate advice. The independent review by Mr. Law of MHM’s financial documentation resulted in the finding that MHM only met two of the minimum acceptable standards required by Section 5.4 of the RFP. Mr. Law set out his conclusions on a Department form entitled “Phase IV, Financial Documentation Review to Be Completed by Independent CPA.” That sheet reflected that MHM had failed the current ratio with a score of .819, when a ratio of = 9:1 or (.9) was required (item a). Likewise, MHM failed the “Debt to tangible net worth” and the “total equity” criteria (items b and e, respectively), since MHM had a negative equity of $22 million dollars. MHM passed the two remaining criteria. First, it met the minimum existing sales (item d) with sales at $217 million (greater than or equal to $50 million). Second, it met the requirement of the Dun & Bradstreet creditworthiness score (item c), which needed to be less than or equal to 3, with a score of The Dun & Bradstreet score was not noted on the Department review form because MHM had already failed three of the financial minimum acceptable financial standards. MHM disputes the finding that it failed the “Debt to tangible net worth” requirement (item b) which was a ratio of = 5:1 or “less than or equal to 5 to 1, a whole number.” Net worth is the same as equity. Following proper accounting practices and a commonsense reading of this mathematical phrase required that both numbers be whole numbers, neither could be a negative. Put simply, a proposer could only have a maximum of five dollars in debt for every one dollar in net worth to pass this minimum acceptable standard. So, for purposes of evaluating this ratio, once it was determined that MHM had a negative equity of $22 million dollars, there was no way for MHM to pass this critical requirement. The “Debt to tangible net worth” criteria, was meant to be “Debt to net worth.” The computation set out below the criteria reflects the proper calculation needed to find debt to net worth, not debt to tangible net worth. Mr. Law performed the computation for debt to net worth as set out in the description of the computation, which was more advantageous to proposers than debt to “tangible net worth,” and resulted in a more favorable ratio. The ratio of “-1.77,” reflected on MHM's financial documentation review sheet is a mistake because Mr. Law used the number he reached averaging the audited and unaudited financial statements. The correct number is “-2.16,” which is based only on MHM's audited financial statement of September 30, 2008. That is, it was a greater negative number, but still negative. Either way, MHM fails this criteria. MHM had no dollars in net worth as of the issuance date of the RFP. Instead, MHM had a negative net worth of $24,785,000.00 as of the end of its fiscal year on September 30, 2008, as reflected in its audited financial statement. As to item “a”, “Current ratio,” a finding of .819 was reached by taking the total current assets ($23,493) and dividing into that number the total current liabilities ($28,692), both reflected on the MHM’s audited financial statement of September 30, 2008. These numbers taken from MHM’s audited financial statements for total current liabilities; total current assets and total equity represent millions, rounded for accounting purposes. MHM reached a similar finding of .82 using its September 30, 2008, audited financial statements. On the date the RFP was issued, February 5, 2009, MHM’s audited financial statement of September 30, 2009, was indisputably less than 9 months old and was the only financial statement under Section 5.4.2 of the RFP that could be used to compute the ratios in Section 5.4.2. Even if the unaudited financial statement submitted by MHM were averaged with the most recent audited financial statement, as demonstrated by Mr. Law’s attempts to do so, MHM would still not have met the current ratio. Nowhere in the RFP does it allow for the use of unaudited financial statements alone when there are existing audited financial statements. Mr. Law’s completed Phase 4 review of the financial documentation. He returned it to the Department on March 30, 2009. The Department conducted Phase 5 of the review and evaluation process, the Public Opening of the price proposals, on April 2, 2009, in a properly noticed meeting. At that time, the Department knew that there were only two responsive proposals (CMS and Wexford). No public announcement regarding the status of the other proposals had been made at that time. The RFP contained a price cap of $70.00 per inmate per month as reflected in Section 5.11.2 of the RFP and the Price Information Sheet. The intent of the price cap of $70 per month was to achieve a price savings for the Department over what it was then paying for mental healthcare services in Region IV, which was nearly $78.00. The goal of $70 was considered to be possibly unrealistic, but the true intent was to keep from exceeding the current rate of $78.00. At the price opening, the following prices were announced: (a) MHM’s price was $70.00 per inmate per month; (b) the University of Miami’s price was $69.49 per inmate per month; (c) CMS’s price was $74.49 per inmate per month; and (d) Wexford’s price was $95.00 per inmate per month. It was later determined that CMS had also submitted an alternative price sheet. However, the alternative price sheet did not affect the responsiveness of CMS's proposal or the Department's subsequent decision. Based on the fact that CMS’s and Wexford’s proposed prices exceeded the amount set by the RFP, their proposals were deemed non-responsive to the RFP. Consequently, as of April 2, 2009, there were no responsive proposers to the RFP. BPS staff prepared a final score and ranking sheet as required by Section 6.2.7 of the RFP. The scoring and ranking included just the two proposals, CMS and Wexford, that were responsive going into the Phase 5 Price Opening. BPS staff did not perform further scoring and ranking of the two proposals that were non-responsive prior to the Price Opening. Department of Corrections’ Procedure 205.002, entitled “Formal Service Contracts,” addresses the Department’s procedures, terms, and conditions for soliciting competitive offers for certain types of services. The Procedure has separate sections for Invitations to Bid, Requests for Proposals, Invitations to Negotiate and general sections that address all three. There is no requirement in the procedure that addresses the specific situation facing the Department in the mental healthcare procurement. The section of Procedure 205.002 that Petitioner points to, Section (5)(r)3., applies only to instances when the Department is seeking to single source a procurement or negotiate with a single responsive bidder. The section reads as follows in pertinent part: (r) Receipt of One or Fewer Responsive Bids, Proposals or Responses: * * * 3. If the department determines that services are available only from a single source or that conditions and circumstances warrant negotiation with the single responsive bidder, proposer, or respondent on the best terms and conditions, the department’s intended decision will be posted in accordance with section 120.57(3), F.S., before it may proceed with procurement. This section of the procedure is clearly inapplicable in the instant case since there were no responsive proposals. Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008) Faced with no responsive proposers, the Department considered its options. The Department then decided to negotiate for a contract on best terms and conditions pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), in lieu of going through a third competitive solicitation. The Department’s decision to negotiate was ultimately made by the Assistant Secretary for Health Services in the Department's Office of Health Services. The BPS staff and legal counsel advised Assistant Secretary Dr. Sandeep Rahangdale about the options available to the Department. Dr. Rahangdale had the following three options: (1) to reject all proposals and begin what would be the third competitive procurement for mental healthcare services in less than 8 months; (2) to negotiate a contract on best terms and conditions under Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), since there were less than two responsive proposals to the RFP; or (3) to use the statutory exemption for health services under Section 287.057(5)(f), Florida Statutes (2008), and enter into a contract with any vendor the Department selected. Option 1, to begin a new procurement was time-barred because the Department needed a new contract in place by July 1, 2009. Dr. Rahangdale’s primary concern was to insure that the Department provided constitutionally mandated health care, including mental healthcare to all inmates in its custody. In making the decision to negotiate, Dr. Rahangdale reasonably chose to begin negotiations with CMS. He made this decision because, of the two proposers who were responsive except for exceeding the price cap, CMS’s price was closest to the $70.00 per inmate per month goal. Wexford, the other proposer that was responsive except for price, had submitted a price of $95.00 per inmate per month. Thus, the Department had a reasonable belief there was a better chance of reaching its $70 goal through negotiations with CMS. Additionally, CMS was the highest scored technical proposal of the only two responsive proposals prior to the Price Opening. Thus, CMS was a better choice for the Department from a delivery of services standpoint. The Department made a reasoned decision to not abandon all the criteria of the RFP that had to do with qualifications, such as business experience (failed by University of Miami) or financial viability (failed by MHM). Dr. Rahangdale considered and determined that the nature of MHM’s and the University of Miami’s failure to be responsive could not be changed or cured in the negotiation process unless the Department lowered its expectations regarding performance and corporate viability. Negotiations were conducted between April 7, 2009, and April 9, 2009, by Jimmie Smith of the Office of Health Services. Dr. Rahangdale instructed Mr. Smith to undertake negotiations with CMS on best terms and conditions, and to strive to get as close as possible to a price of $70.00 per inmate per month in the negotiations. Mr. Smith is a Registered Nurse working in the Department’s Office of Health Services. His working job title is Assistant Program Administrator/Contracting. He has the responsibility to contact potential vendors for health-related services and commodities and to ensure that formal contracts or purchase orders are issued for the required health-related services and commodities. Mr. Smith typically is charged with making initial contact with vendors, handling negotiations for exempt health service contracts, and coordinating the procurement of the services with BPS. He is also a contract manager for healthcare services and advises other contract managers. Mr. Smith was eminently well qualified to negotiate this contract for mental healthcare services on behalf of the Department. Prior to beginning his negotiations, Mr. Smith obtained a complete copy of CMS’s proposal, including the price proposal. He contacted CMS'S Senior Director of Business Development, Frank Fletcher, by telephone to conduct the negotiations. Emails dated April 9, 2009, between the Department and CMS’s representative reflect an offer by CMS to perform the scope of work described in the RFP at a capitated rate of $70.00 for the first year of service, with a $2.50 escalator per year for a five-year non-renewal contract term. CMS also proposed adding a 30-day period for correction of performance measures, prior to the imposition of liquidated damages. The Department counter-offered with a requirement that any failure to correct the performance measure violation within the 30-day period would result in retroactive imposition of liquidated damages to the day of the violation. These terms and conditions were presented to Dr. Rahangdale who approved them. Dr. Rahangdale considered the $2.50 escalator, but decided he was satisfied with the initial year price of $70, a 10% savings for the Department over its current contract and a savings of three million over the life of the contract. On April 10, 2009, Mr. Smith confirmed the tentative agreement to Mr. Fletcher by email. CMS understood that the agreement was tentative until the Department posted a notice of agency decision. The BPS staff prepared an Agency Action Memo, the Summary Report, and the Notice of Intent to Award. The Agency Action Memo contained a recommendation for award and an option of non-award. The Agency Action Memo stated as follows in part: The Department made the determination that it was in the best interest of the State to proceed with negotiations as authorized by Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes. The Department negotiated with the highest- ranked Proposer on the best terms and conditions for the resulting Contract. Based upon the results of the negotiation conducted, it is recommended that the Department awards a Contract to Correctional Medical Services, Inc. A Summary Report was attached to the Agency Action Memo. The report explained the RFP process in detail. It explained the reasons for finding MHM and the University of Miami non-responsive. It explained that CMS and Wexford were non-responsive because they exceeded the price cap. 55.. The report charted the results of the Phase 5--Public Opening of Price Proposals as follows in abbreviated form: PROPOSER UNIT PRICE ANNUAL COST FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE CMS $74.59 $16,536,780 Passed Passed Wexford $95.00 $21,090,000 Passed Passed U. of M. $69.49 $15,426,780 Passed Failed MHM $70.00 $15,540,000 Failed Passed The report set forth the Department's reasons for negotiating on best terms and conditions pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), in pertinent part as follows: Phase 8--Notice of Agency Decision The procurement of Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV was under competitive solicitation for over eight (8) months, via two (2) different solicitations (ITN and RFP). The companies that submitted proposals in response to this RFP also submitted responses to the previous ITN. Pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes, the Department negotiated with the highest-ranking proposer on the best terms and condition and in the best interest of the state, in lieu of resoliciting competitive proposals for a third time. The last page of the report charted the Final Score and Ranking for CMS and Wexford. The first chart showed the actual points received by the proposers, the highest points received by any proposal, and the awarded points. The second chart showed the proposed unit price, the lowest verified price, and the awarded points. The third chart showed the total response points, with CMS having 500 and Wexford having 454.64. MHM and the University of Miami were non-responsive as to RFP requirements that the Department, in its sole discretion, determined were non-negotiable. Therefore, the Department properly determined that CMS was the highest-ranking proposer after the Price Opening. As Bureau Chief, Mr. Staney was ultimately responsible for verifying that the four proposals were non-responsive. He and Dr. Rahangdale signed the Agency Action Memo, recommending an award to CMS. On April 15, 2009, Mr. Staney sent the documents to his supervisor, Director of Administration Millie J. Seay. The BPS staff briefed Ms. Seay regarding the Agency Action Memo. Ms. Seay questioned whether the Department should negotiate with Wexford. The BPS staff explained that Dr. Rahangdale had considered negotiating with Wexford but that he was satisfied with the negotiated rate and the higher technically-scored proposal from CMS. On Monday, April 20, 2009, Ms. Seay signed the Agency Action Memo. The next day the Department posted its intent to award a contract to CMS. The Department's Notice of Agency Decision announced the intent to award a contract for Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV to CMS as follows: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NOTICE OF AGENCY DECISION RFP #08-DC-8048 MENTAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES IN REGION IV Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 287.057(6), Florida Statutes, the Department of Corrections announces its intent to award a contract for MENTAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES IN REGION IV to the following vendor: Correctional Medical Services, Inc. This announcement gave all interested parties notice that the Department was taking some action with regard to the referenced RFP. The Notice also contained the statutorily required language giving all interested parties a point of entry to challenge the Department’s intent to award. Accordingly, no proposers were denied an opportunity to inquire into the details of the process that led to an award under the referenced statute, including the evaluation of the proposals and the Department’s decision to wait until it had completed Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), negotiations to post the intended agency decision. 63 MHM timely filed its Formal Bid Protest Petition with the Department on May 4, 2009.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended: That the Department enter a final order awarding the contract for Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV to CMS and dismissing the protest of MHM. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 27th day of July, 2009.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Marc M. Harris holds a license to practice certified public accounting in Florida, No. AC 16869. Respondent compiled, permitted his name to be associated with, and issued a balance sheet or statement of financial position, including notes, for MMH Equity Fund, Inc., purporting to represent the company's position as of March 31, 1988. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; Petitioner's Request for Admissions Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The body of respondent's letter accompanying the balance sheet or statement of financial position reads: We have compiled the accompanying balance sheet of MMH Equity Fund, Inc., as of March 31, 1988, except as noted in the last paragraph, in accordance with the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information that is the representation of the individual. We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statements and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any form of assurance on them. MMH Equity Fund, Inc., has elected to use the equity method to report its holdings in majority-owned subsidiaries. If the consolidated disclosures were included in the financial statements, they might influence the user's conclusions about the Fund's financial position. Accordingly, these financial statements are not intended for those who are not informed about such matters. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (Emphasis supplied.) Dated April 15, 1988, the letter evinces an intention to qualify the balance sheet or statement of financial position. But the balance sheet or statement of financial position does not contain a reference to the accountant's report or to the notes. Petitioner's Request for Admissions Nos. 32 and 33; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; T. 26. While the letter refers to a "balance sheet," the document itself is styled a statement of financial position. Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services (SSARS), which have been adopted by Florida's Board of Accountancy, require that the balance sheet contain a reference to the accountant's report and notes to the financial statement, if any. Petitioner's Request for Admission No. 34; T. 26- This is particularly important when the report contains significant qualifications. Lack of Independence Undisclosed Respondent Harris was an officer and/or a director of MMH Equity Fund, Inc. Petitioner's Request for Admission No. 41. A company's officer or director is not independent of the company. In evaluating financial assets, liabilities and equity or net worth, certified public accountants offer three levels of service: audit, review and compilation. Certified public accountants are forbidden to undertake audits or reviews for entities with respect to which they are not independent. In contrast, nothing prohibits a certified public accountant's performing a compilation, despite a lack of independence. But the lack of independence must be disclosed: If the accountant is not independent, he should specifically disclose the lack of independence . . . When the accountant is not independent, he should include the following as the last paragraph of his report: I am . . . not independent with respect to XYZ Company. Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services, (SSARS) Section 100.22 (Jan. 1, 1987). The respondent's lack of independence was not disclosed in the accountant's report, on the statement of financial position, or in the notes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; Petitioner's Request for Admission No. 42; T. 30, 31. Accepted Principles Disregarded A provision in SSARS 1 requires the accountant "to read the financial statements and make certain that there are no obvious deviations from generally accepted accounting principles." T. 29. This requirement applies specifically to compilations, to prevent disregard for generally accepted accounting principles. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7; T. 29. Respondent did not adhere to applicable generally accepted accounting principles or exercise due professional care in compiling and issuing the March 31, 1988, statement of financial position for MMH Equity Fund, Inc. Assets should equal equity plus liabilities. T. 11. On the compiled balance sheet or statement of financial position, total liabilities and stockholders' equity do not add up to the amount stated as total assets. The document reflects a discrepancy of $100,000. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; T. 11. The balance sheet or statement of financial position puts total assets at $13,171,000 but, as stated individually, they add to $13,216,000. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; Petitioner's Request for Admissions Nos. 9 and 10. The balance sheet or statement of financial position shows investment in operating affiliates in the amount of $6,234,000. But there is no further disclosure as to who or how many those affiliates are; as to how much of the $6,234,000 is invested in any one entity; or as to what percentage of ownership MMH Equity Fund, Inc. has in any one entity. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; T. 18. With respect to investments accounted for by the equity method, Accounting Principles Board Statement No. 18 requires that the name of each investee and the percentage of the investor's ownership of common stock, if significant, be disclosed in the notes. Petitioner's Request for Admissions No. 25; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4; T. 17-20. If the certificates of deposit were held by related parties, they should have been disclosed in the notes. T. 22. Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 57 requires that the name and amount or amounts due to or from related parties be disclosed. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5; T. 23. The notes do not disclose the balances of major classes of depreciable assets by nature or function. Petitioner's Requests for Admissions Nos. 15 and 16; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; T. 15. Accounting Principles Board Statement No. 12 requires that depreciable assets be broken down by class together with the accumulated depreciation thereon. T. 16; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Neither the gross amount of assets in the balance sheet nor the accumulated amortization for the assets recorded under capital leases is disclosed in the notes. Petitioner's Requests for Admission Nos. 26 and 27; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; T. 24. The notes do not disclose accumulated depreciation by class nor do the notes disclose total accumulated depreciation. Petitioner's Requests for Admissions Nos. 18 and 19; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; T. 15 and 16. Neither the aggregate cost nor the market value of marketable securities is disclosed on the balance sheet or statement of financial position or in the notes. Petitioner's Requests for Admissions Nos. 29 and 30; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; T. 25. The requirement is that both the original cost and market value be disclosed. Petitioner's Request for Admissions No. 31; T. 25. No allowance for doubtful accounts is disclosed on the balance sheet or statement of financial position or in the notes, and no explanation is offered why such an allowance might be unnecessary. Petitioner's Request for Admissions No. 21; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; T. 16. Accounting Principles Board Statement No. 12 requires either that allowance for doubtful accounts be made or that an explanation as to why one is not needed be included in the notes. Petitioner's Request for Admissions No. 22; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3; T. 16, 17. Neither the March 31, 1988, compiled balance sheet or statement of financial position for MMH Equity Fund, Inc. nor the notes disclose any maturity schedule for long term notes. But these long term notes represent indebtedness of $11,000, or less than one thousandth of total assets, and the omission of a maturity schedule is immaterial.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, recommended that the Board of Accountancy reprimand respondent; and place him on probation, on condition that he not practice in Florida without supervision by another certified public acountant licensed in Florida, until he has practiced in Florida under the supervision of another certified public accountant licensed in Florida satisfactorily for a year; and completed 24 hours of continuing education in generally accepted accounting principles. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Tobi C. Pam, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Marc M. Harris Apartado 6-1097 Estafeta El Dorado Panama, Republica de Panama Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Martha Willis Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Suite 16 4001 Northwest 43rd Street Gainesville, FL 32606 =================================================================
