The Issue The issue for disposition is whether Barry Amos d/b/a Cloud Nine Travel violated section 559.927, F.S., by operating as a seller of travel without being registered, and if so, what remedial action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues here, Barry Amos operated a business at 4312-101 Plaza Gate Lane, Jacksonville, Florida. In the latter months of 1993, Mr. Amos was interested in starting up a travel agency. He requested information from the department and was sent a registration packet with forms and a copy of the statute and rules. On December 29, 1993, Mr. Amos wrote to the department requesting an exemption from registration based on his understanding that he was entitled to such. His letter references a telephone conversation with "Melissa" at the department and states: "She informed me that since I would not be handling ticket stock or actual payments that I would not be required to register or post the surety bond with your department." (Petitioner's composite exhibit #1) Mr. Amos did not receive his exemption; instead the department sent another letter on February 10, 1994 reiterating that the law required registration unless he provided proof that he was exempt. Joseph Nicolosi is an investigator with the department's Division of Consumer Services. On July 19, 1994 he conducted what he calls an "on-site inspection" of Mr. Amos' business. He had the information on the business but did not have a proper phone number. He looked in the yellow pages and found a listing for "Cloud 9 Travel" with a telephone number. The individual who answered Mr. Nicolosi's telephone call identified himself as Barry Amos. Mr. Nicolosi asked about coming to the office to look at brochures and to plan a trip from Jacksonville to Colorado. Mr. Amos told him that his wife would meet him someplace or send him the brochures. Mr. Amos also said that he would have to figure out the cost of the trip and call him back and that payment would be made by Mr. Nicolosi to him for the trip; he, Mr. Amos, would make the arrangements. After the telephone call was terminated, Mr. Nicolosi called Mr. Amos back a few minutes later and asked if he would accept a check as payment. Mr. Amos replied that it would be better to use a credit card but he agreed that he would accept a check. Mr. Amos concedes that when he was in business as Cloud 9, he accepted personal or cashier's checks from the public for ticket purchases. He did not accept payment from the public for what he called "services", like a commission. The checks he accepted for ticket purchases were made out to Cloud 9 Travel and were used to purchase tickets for the clients. Commissions were paid to Cloud 9 from the ticket sellers. Barry Amos ceased operation as Cloud 9 Travel in January, 1995. He never registered as a seller of travel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter its final order finding that Respondent, Barry Amos d/b/a Cloud 9 Travel, violated section 559.927, F.S., imposing an administrative fine of $250.00, requiring that Respondent continue to cease and desist until properly registered as a seller of travel and denying such registration until the administrative fine is paid. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY W. CLARK, 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 19th day of April, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Jo Englander, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Mr. Barry Amos 4312-101 Plaza Gate Lane Jacksonville, Florida 32217
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Leslie G. Hessings, held Florida Alcoholic Beverage License Series Number 2-COP, License Number 60-351, for the Twilight Inn located at 121 Southwest Fifth Street, Belle Glade, Florida. The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department, based on information received from street sources indicating the presence of narcotics on the Respondent's premises, on January 25, 1983, undertook an investigation of Respondent's operation through the use of a confidential informant subsequently identified as Samuel Colman. During the early part of the day on January 25, 1983, Sergeant Richard Browning of the Belle Glade office of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department, conducted a formal briefing of the confidential informant, Mr. Colman, as to his duties in the impending investigation. Mr. Colman was a professional informant who had worked for the Sheriff's Department before. Consequently their briefing was primarily to tell him where to go as he was already familiar with the procedures. His person and his vehicle were thoroughly searched for drugs and found to be completely clean. He then was furnished a hidden transmitter that would permit everything he said and did to be heard by Sheriff's Department agents who would be posted nearby with a receiver. Robinson and Hallar gave Colman $20.00 in money belonging to the police department and sent him to attempt to make a purchase of a controlled narcotic in the Respondent's establishment. At all times from the instant Mr. Colman was searched and wired until such time as he entered the establishment approximately 400 or 500 feet down the street from where Robinson and Hallar were parked in their car, Colman was in their sight. They saw Colman enter the bar; heard him carry on small talk with some other individuals; and order a beer. After ordering the beer he engaged in conversation with some individual about buying reefers. It appeared to Hallar and Robinson that this individual with whom Colman spoke regarding buying marijuana was the same individual from whom he purchased the beer, the bartender but neither knew who the voice belonged to. In fact he did make a purchase in the bar and after finishing his beer, left. From the time Colman left the bar until he arrived at the car where Browning and Hallar were sitting, he again was constantly in sight. When he got to the car, he pulled from his pocket two (2) bags of what was subsequently identified by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department Crime Lab as marijuana, and gave them to Sergeant Browning. Browning and Hallar, accompanied by Mr. Colman went back to the bar area later in the afternoon just about dusk and sent Colman back to the bar to try and buy from the owner/manager whom they knew to be Shirley Hessings. Before going in the second time, the informant was again thoroughly searched, as was his vehicle, and he was provided with police money. From the time he left the two officers until he entered the bar he was constantly in their sight. Colman was again wearing the radio transmitter and when he entered the bar the officers heard the juke box and heard Colman speak to several unidentified individuals. They also heard him speak to someone identified to them as Shirley and heard him say after leaving the bar that he bought a $8.00 bag from a black female who was identified to him as Shirley. The officers were unable to hear any of the conversation between Colman and the individual identified as Shirley because of the background noise on the tape caused by the juke box. However, when he arrived at the car where the officers were located, after being in constant sight after he left the bar until arriving at the car, he turned over to them an $8.00 bag of what was subsequently identified by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department Crime Lab as marijuana. Samuel Colman is dead and therefore did not testify at the hearing. The testimony of both Sergeant Browning and Detective Hallar concerning what Colman told them as to the identity of the individuals from whom he purchased the marijuana is hearsay and, as such cannot, without corroboration, serve as the basis for a finding of fact. It must be concluded therefore that while there is no doubt that Colman purchased marijuana while he was in the Twilight bar on January 25, it cannot be established who he purchased it from. Based on the two (2) buys, however, the police obtained a search warrant for the premises that was used as the basis for a search conducted on January 26 or 27, 1983. When they entered the Twilight bar pursuant to the warrant, the only individual present at the time was a black female identified as Beverly Hessings. Beverly Hessings is Respondent's sister. Detective Hallar was involved in the search of the Twilight Inn on January 26. When he entered the bar he found nineteen (19) $8.00 bags of a substance, subsequently identified as marijuana, packaged for sale in the store room. The little bags were hidden from plain view and were located in a candy box lid. They were identical with those previously given him by Samuel Colman after his two (2) controlled buys. Officer Hallar left the little baggies where they were and called the evidence custodian, Sergeant Braido, who took custody of them. Officer Dowdell of the Belle Glade Police Department was also a participant in the search on January 26 or 27. During the search he found a brown paper bag containing twenty-one (21) small manila envelopes which was under a hole in the cushion on a bench which was located on the north side of the dance floor. Dowdell took the paper bag to Detective Simons who in turn immediately released it to Detective Braido. These twenty-one (21) bags, each contained a substance which was subsequently identified as marijuana. When Dowdell entered the bar he observed between ten (10) and twenty (20) patrons. The officers had the patrons stand up against the wall while the search was going on. The bar is dark even during the day time, but it is lighted on the inside, though dimly, and it is possible to see. While the search was going on a policeman was stationed at each exit and it is unlikely any of the patrons or staff were able to exit the bar from the time the search was commenced. Another participant in the search was DABT Investigator Clark Raby, who was present because of a request from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department due to the fact the premises were licensed by Petitioner. Raby's area to search was the kitchen and laid out on a table in the kitchen he found what appeared to be several lottery tickets which he confiscated and maintained until he was able to relinquish them to the evidence custodian. These tickets, which appeared to be yellow sales slips bearing no proprietory identification - the kind of check one might get in a hardware store - had numbers printed on the bottom, but also had a series of numbers written on the check along with amounts of money written thereon. These tickets were in plain view on the table in the kitchen and Raby identifies them as bolita lottery tickets by virtue of his experience with such kinds of tickets in the past. At the close of Petitioner's case, respondent moved to dismiss the Notice To Show Cause on the basis that Petitioner had failed to establish that Respondent had a license on the dates alleged on the Notice To Show Cause. He contended that the actual license or a copy thereof was not admitted into evidence, which is true, and that the testimony of Lieutenant Smith indicated only that Respondent had a license in January, 1983. This testimony was adequate, absent a showing that Respondent held a license for less than an entire month, to establish jurisdiction and the motion was denied. Respondent also moved to dismiss on the basis that the testimony of the investigating officers as well as the sheets upon which the chemist's analysis of the substances was recorded reflected dates other than those alleged in the Notice To Show Cause as being the dates on which the offenses took place. It was obvious from an examination of the analysis sheets that they reflected, as to the individual buys, the correct date. As to the substance discovered during the search, the analysis sheet reflected January 27, which is one day later than the date listed in the Notice To Show Cause. The Notice to Show Cause reflected that the substance was on the license premises on or about January 26, which is sufficiently related in time to the evidence to support a denial of the motion to dismiss.
Findings Of Fact Background On March 12, 1991, the Department of Lottery (Department) issued Request for Proposal No. 91-007-LOT/TEN/P entitled "Request for Proposal for the Provision of Advertising and Related Services to the Florida Lottery" (hereafter "the RFP"). The deadline for submitting sealed proposals in response to the RFP was established as April 22, 1991, but extended to April 29, 1991, by Amendment 3 to the RFP. At the time of the deadline, ten proposals had been filed, including those of petitioner, Bozell, Inc. (Bozell), and intervenors, Earle Palmer Brown (EPB) and BBDO South (BBDO). By "Notice of Selection of Finalists," dated May 1, 1991, and posted at the Department's headquarters, the Department advised all bidders that: After review of written proposals submitted in response to the subject RFP, the Florida Department of the Lottery's Evaluation Committee has ranked the responsive proposals in the following order of preference: Ogilvy & Mather Earle Palmer Brown BBDO South Bozell W.B. Doner Fahlgren Martin Benito West & Company Beber Silverstein LMPM The Ad Team In accordance with Section 5.3 of the RFP, the Department intends to conduct oral presentations with the following firms for the purpose of determining final rankings: Ogilvy & Mather Earle Palmer Brown BBDO South Bozell W.B. Doner Pursuant to Florida Statute and Rule 53ER87-16, failure to file a formal written protest and the bond required by Section 287.042(2)(c), Fla. Stat., with the Secretary within 72 hours shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Here, there was no showing that any protest was timely filed to contest the Department's selection of the five finalists. The five finalists made oral presentations to the evaluation committee on May 7 and 8, 1991, and their cost proposals were opened and scored on May 8, 1991. At the conclusion of its work, the committee awarded EPB an average total score of 174.550 and Bozell an average total score of 171.150; 200 points was the maximum total possible. By notice dated Wednesday, May 8, 1991, at 8:07 p.m., the Department issued its "Notice of Intent to Negotiate a Contract" ranking the top five firms in the following order of preference: (1) EPB, (2) Bozell, (3) Ogilvy & Mather; BBDO; and (5) W.B. Doner. Bozell filed its formal written protest and petition for formal administrative hearing with the Department of Monday, May 13, 1991, at 4:29 p.m. The Request for Proposals The RFP consists of the original RFP issued by the Department, three amendments, and the Department's response to various written questions submitted by potential bidders. Pertinent to this case, the RFP provided: SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION Introduction. This Request for Proposal ("RFP") has been issued by the Florida Department of Lottery ("Lottery") to obtain sealed proposals from qualified firms for the provision of advertising and related services to the Florida Lottery. This RFP, and all other activities leading toward the execution of a contract per this RFP, are conducted under the Lottery policies set forth in Rules 53ER87-10 through 53ER87-19, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 24, Fla. Stat. The Lottery considers it in the best interest of the State of Florida to procure the commodities/services described herein through a competitive process. All responding firms should read and be familiar with the Florida Public Education Lottery Act [Chapter 24, Fla. Stat.] to ascertain an understanding of the purposes and requirements placed on the Lottery. A copy of Chapter 24, Fla. Stat., is attached to this RFP. This proposed purchase is a Major Procurement as defined in Section 24.103, Fla. Stat. (1989). Glossary of Terms. * * * Responsive Proposal - Refers to a proposal which contains, in the manner required by this RFP, all documentation, drawings, information, plans, materials, certifications and affirmations, regardless of which section of the RFP sets forth the particular requirements. * * * Questions About This RFP. * * * If revisions to this RFP are necessary after the closing date for submitting proposals, the revisions will be provided to only those Respondents who have submitted Responsive Proposals and have met the basic requirements of this RFP. Such Respondents will then have the opportunity to modify their proposals in conformance with the revisions. Timetable The following timetable will be strictly adhered to in all actions relative to this procurement. * * * All proposals will be opened by Lottery employees at 2:00 p.m. on April 22, 1991 [extended to April 29, 1991, by Amendment 3] in the Purchasing Office at the aforesaid Lottery Headquarters. The public may attend the opening but may not review any proposals submitted. The evaluation process will begin immediately following the proposal opening. The Evaluation Committee will rank the proposals in order of preference based on the evaluation of the technical proposals in accordance with the criteria specified herein. Notice of selection of finalists shall be posted at the Lottery's headquarters. If more than five Responsive Proposals are submitted, at least the five top firms which have submitted Responsive Proposals will be selected for oral presentations to be made in Tallahassee, Florida, at the Lottery's Headquarters. Oral presentations are tentatively scheduled for the week of April 29, 1991 [extended to the week of May 6, 1991, by Amendment 3] . . . . The Evaluation Committee will score the oral presentations and then open and score the cost proposal. The final rankings will be determined based on the evaluation of the technical proposals, oral presentations and cost proposals. Notice of Intent to negotiate with the highest ranked firm will be posted at the Lottery's headquarters. If negotiations with the highest ranked firm are not successful, the Lottery may negotiate with the other listed firms in descending order of rank. Upon successful conclusion of negotiations with a Respondent, a Notice of Award of Contract will be posted at the Lottery's headquarters. * * * 1.12. Proposal Submission. It is the Respondent's responsibility to ensure that its proposal is delivered by the proper time at the place of the proposal opening.... * * * 1.14 Correction or Withdrawal of Proposal. A correction to, or withdrawal of, a proposal may be requested within 72 hours after the proposal opening time and date. Requests received in accordance with this provision may be granted by the Lottery upon proof of the impossibility to perform based upon an obvious error. The Lottery, in its sole discretion, will determine whether a bid may be corrected or withdrawn. Interpretations/Disputes. Any questions concerning conditions and specifications of this RFP shall be directed in writing to the Issuing Officer in the manner provided in Sections 1.8 and 1.9 of this RFP. Inquiries must reference the bid number and the date of proposal opening. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the Lottery. Any prospective Respondent who disputes the reasonableness or appropriateness of the terms, conditions, and specifications of this RFP shall file a formal written protest in appropriate form within 72 hours of the availability of answers to questions as provided in Section 1.9 of this RFP. Any Respondent who disputes the Lottery's Notice of Selection of Finalists, Notice of Intent to Negotiate, or Notice of Award of Contract, shall file a formal written protest in appropriate form within 72 hours of the notices. Any person who files a formal written protest shall, at the time of filing the formal written protest, post a bond as set forth in Section 287.042(2)(c), Fla. Stat. Failure to file both a protest and bond within the time prescribed in Rule No. 53ER87-16, Florida Administrative Code, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Fla. Stat. Legal Requirements. Applicable provisions of all federal, state, county, and local laws and administrative procedures, regulations, or rules shall govern the development, submittal and evaluation of all proposals received in response hereto and shall govern any and all claims and disputes which may arise between persons submitting a proposal hereto and the Lottery. Lack of knowledge of the law or applicable administrative procedures, regulations or rules by any Respondent shall not constitute a cognizable defense against their effect. * * * Purpose and Overview. A. In accordance with Chapter 24, Fla. Stat., the Florida Department of the Lottery has been charged with the responsibility "to operate the state lottery . . . so as to maximize revenues in a manner consonant with the dignity of the state and the welfare of its citizens." The Contractor will support the Lottery in its mission by providing the advertising services set forth in Section 2.2. The goal of these services is to maximize the sale of tickets, enhance the public image and visibility of the Lottery, and assist in communicating the intent that Lottery proceeds enhance education . . . . Scope of Services. The Contractor shall be the principal advisor and provider to the Lottery for the following advertising and services: Development of strategic advertising plan; Creative strategy, creation and production of all advertising (including television, radio, print, transit and outdoor); Placement of all print, radio, television, transit and outdoor advertising at the lowest competitive rate; Coordination of and contracting for televised broadcasts of lottery drawings; Ticket design; Creation and production of point-of- sales material; Media plans; Educational, promotional and other related activities as directed. The Technical Proposal. The objective of the technical proposal is to demonstrate the Respondent's understanding and proposed method of rendering the requested services. Each Respondent shall provide a written statement of the firm's understanding of the services requested herein as well as a detailed written plan outlining how the firm proposes to go about providing the services set forth in Section 2.2. At a minimum, the technical proposal shall consist of the following information and materials: * * * E. Firm Qualifications. At a minimum, each Respondent must provide the following information which demonstrates the Respondent's ability to provide the services requested: * * * 4. Resumes not to exceed one page each in length of all personnel who would be assigned major roles in the fulfillment of the work obligation outlined in Section 2.2, with a statement identifying the percentage of time, calculated annually, of each person who will work on the Lottery account. * * * 12. Certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years including an auditor's report. Certified financial statements must be the result of an audit of the Respondent's records in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by a certified public accountant . . . . * * * 18. List of type and number of additional employees that may be needed if awarded contract. * * * 33. Disclosure information required by and listed in Section 24.111, Fla. Stat. * * * Section 3: INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM RESPONDENT 3.1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. * * * D. Technical proposals must include the following information, be limited to not more than 100 pages (not including cover sheet, table of contents, divider pages, creative materials or resumes) and be presented in the following sequence: * * * Vendor Information Form (Attachment B). * * * Performance bond commitment letter required by Section 6.6. All material or information required to be submitted as part of the technical proposal required by Section 2.3. * * * 13. Any other material or information required by this RFP. * * * 3.4 Use of Subcontractors. If a Respondent proposes to use one or more subcontractors, the proposal must identify the contemplated subcontractor(s) and the scope of the subcontractor's services, and must include evidence of each subcontractor's ability to fulfill its respective duties on behalf of the Respondent. Respondent must also provide the information required by Section 24.111(2), Fla. Stat., for each subcontractor as if the subcontractor were itself a vendor. * * * 3.6 Additional Information and Comments. Respondent shall not submit with their written proposals material beyond that which is covered in the 100-page technical proposal (not including cover sheet, table of contents, divider pages, creative materials or resumes), plus creative comps and samples, resumes of key personnel and the separate cost proposals. The Lottery reserves the right to request additional information from a Respondent in order to make a thorough review and fair comparison of all proposals submitted.... Section 4: MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS Terms. The Lottery has established certain mandatory requirements which must be included as part of any proposal. The use of the terms "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicate a mandatory requirement or condition. The words "should" or "may" in this RFP indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature will not by itself cause rejection of a proposal. 4.2 Non-responsive Proposals. Proposals which do not meet all material requirements of the RFP or which fail to provide all required information, documents, or materials will be rejected as non- responsive. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth in Section 3.1 and without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is impossible. The Lottery reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP and to accept proposals which deviate from the requirements of the RFP in a minor or technical fashion as determined by the Lottery. SECTION 5: PROPOSAL REVIEW AND CRITERIA FOR SELECTION 5.1. Proposal Submission. Only proposals submitted in the time frame stated herein and with the content required above will be reviewed and considered by the Lottery. A copy of Chapter 24, Florida Statutes, was attached to the RFP, and Section 24.111, Florida Statutes, was specifically referenced in Sections 2.3.E.33 and 3.4 of the RFP. The vendor information form itself referenced the requirements of Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes. In accordance with RFP Section 1.8, EPB submitted the following question, among others, to the Department: "Does Attachment B [Vendor Information Form] need to be completed by all company officers?" The Department answered "Yes, see question #8, BBDO Atlanta, letter dated March 26, 1991." The referenced answer to BBDO Atlanta emphasized that "a vendor information form must be completed by each person listed in the instructions on the form [all officers, all directors, all owners, all partners, all trustees, all stockholders holding five percent or more, executive director and chairman of the board]." Even section 1.27 of the RFP required that vendor information forms be submitted to the Department prior to or at the time of submitting the proposal. Responsiveness of proposals Under the terms of the RFP, Sections 5.1 and 5.2, the Department was not to consider and evaluate non-responsive proposals. Non-responsive proposals are defined by Section 4.2 of the RFP as follows: Proposals which do not meet all material requirements of this RFP or which fail to provide all required information, documents, or materials will be rejected as non- responsive. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth in Section 3.1 and without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is impossible. The Lottery reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP and to accept proposals which deviate from the requirements of the RFP in a minor or technical fashion as determined by the Lottery. At the time it submitted its proposal, EPB did not submit the vendor information forms required by subsections 2.3E33, 3.1 and 3.4 of the RFP and by Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes, for at least three of its corporate officers or directors (Sally Brown, Louise Smoak, and Robert Morse), and did not submit any vendor information forms for its designated subcontractor, Premier Maldonado & Associates. The Department, through its counsel, first requested submission of these forms from EPB on May 8, 1991, the date on which the Notice of Intent to Negotiate was posted. EPB did not supply the missing forms for Premier Maldonado & Associates until May 14, 1991, and for the three corporate officers or directors until on or about May 29, 1991. The RFP required that the vendor information forms be submitted with the proposal, and Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes, provided in mandatory language that: The Department shall investigate the financial responsibility, security, and integrity of any person who submits a bid proposal or offer as part of a major procurement. Any person who submits a bid proposal or offer as part of a major procurement must, at the time of submitting such bid proposal or offer, provide the following: A disclosure of the vendor's name and address and, as applicable, the name and address of the following: If the vendor is a corporation, the officers, directors, and each stockholder in such corporation, except that in the case of owners of equity securities of a publicly traded corporation, only the names and addresses of those known to the corporation to own beneficially 5 percent or more of such securities need be disclosed. If the vendor is a trust, the trustee and all persons entitled to receive income or benefit from the trust. If the vendor is an association, the members, officers, and directors. If the vendor is a partnership or joint venture, all of the general partners, limited partners, or joint ventures. If the vendor subcontracts any substantial portion of the work to be preformed to a subcontractor, the vendor shall disclose all of the information required by this paragraph to the subcontractor as if the subcontractor were itself a vendor. (Emphasis added) The Department, at hearing offered proof that it did not consider the language of the RFP or Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes, to require that all such forms be submitted at the time the proposal is submitted, and that it had been the Department's policy to allow bidders to submit additional forms after bid submission. The articulated rationale for such policy is that based solely on the proposals or, stated differently, absent investigation, the Department is unable to assure itself that forms for all required individuals are submitted with any proposal. Accordingly, the Department considers the omission of such forms a technical deficiency that can be cured up to the point of contracting, and limits its investigation to the successful bidder. While the Department may find it difficult, absent investigation, to assure itself that the vendor information mandated by section 24.111(2) is submitted with the proposal, the mandate of section 24.111(2) and the RFP is clear and unequivocal: such information "must" be submitted with the proposal. Notably, under the provisions of the statute and RFP, the onus is on the bidder, the party privy to such information, to assure that its disclosure is complete and where, as here, its disclosure is not complete its bid is non-responsive, since it is at variance with the mandate of section 24.111(2) and the RFP. Importantly, under the requirements of section 24.111(2), the Department is precluded from contracting with any bidder who fails to submit the required vendor information. Accordingly, a successful bidder who, wittingly or unwittingly, failed to make the required disclosure (such as EPB in the instant case) could subsequently decline to provide the Department with the information and thereby effectively withdraw its bid, contrary to the provisions of section 1.14 of the RFP. Such renders the failure to submit the required information at the time of bid submittal a material defect, since it accords such bidder an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders that submitted the required information. In accordance with subsection 3.1D9 of the RFP, each bidder was required to submit with its technical proposal the performance bond commitment letter required by section 6.6 of the RFP. Section 6.6, as amended by Amendments 1 and 3, provided, in pertinent part: The successful Respondent shall be required, at the time of executing the Contract with the Lottery, to post an appropriate performance bond or other security acceptable to the Lottery in the amount of $2.5 million . . . The other acceptable forms of security are: irrevocable letter of credit; Certificate of Deposit assigned to the Lottery (which must be obtained from a financial institution having its principal place of business in the State of Florida) . . . . Respondents must submit with their proposal evidence that they will be able to provide the performance bond or other security. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, a letter from an authorized agent of a bonding company committing to provide the performance bond or indicating that the bond underwriter is processing a request to provide the bond and stating unequivocally that the bond will be available upon execution of the Contract. At the time it submitted its proposal, EPB submitted an April 25, 1991, letter addressed to it from Sovran Bank as evidence of its ability to provide the required security. That letter provided: As follow up to our conversation yesterday, the company can restrict its revolving line of credit by $2,500,000 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars) for a Letter of Credit of the same amount. The alternative is to apply for the Letter of Credit as a separate facility. The particular terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit would be worked out at the time of application . . . . While of the opinion that the Sovran letter evidenced EPB's ability to provide the required security, the Department likewise felt that the letter failed to evidence any commitment on EPB's part to restrict its line of credit to secure the subject letter of credit. Accordingly, it requested additional information from EPB, and by letter of May 1, 1991, EPB responded: This is to clarify the language in the Sovran Bank letter of April 25, 1991, included as Page 9 in Earle Palmer Brown's Proposal . . . Should Earle Palmer Brown be a successful respondent we will, at the time of executing the contract with the Lottery, either restrict our revolving line of credit with Sovran Bank by $2,500,000.00 for an irrevocable letter of credit, or will provide the Lottery with a surety bond for a like amount. The letter of May 1, 1991, adds more confusion than enlightenment regarding EPB's commitment to provide a letter of credit. Clearly, under the provisions of subsection 6.6 of the RFP, EPB's bare assurance that it would, alternatively, provide the Department with a surety bond was not acceptable evidence of its ability to provide such bond. As importantly, by phrasing its proposal as an alternative, to be exercised at its discretion, EPB lent confusion to the issue of what form of security it would provide. Notwithstanding, the requirement of the RFP was that the bidders "submit with their proposals evidence that they will be able to provide the . . . security," and the letter of April 25, 1991, while perhaps sparse, is facially adequate in that regard. Notably, the proof in this case confirms that EPB does have an adequate credit line with Sovran Bank which could be so restricted for a $2.5 million irrevocable letter of credit. In accordance with section 2.3E12 of the RFP, each bidder was required to submit with its technical proposal "certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years including an auditor's report." In response to a question submitted pursuant to section 1.8 of the RFP, which asked: "If a company does not have certified financial statements for the last three years as required by Section 2.3.E.12 of the RFP, will it be disqualified from submitting a proposal?", the Department answered: "No. Although the absence of certified financial statements would render the proposal nonresponsive." At the time EPB submitted its proposal, it submitted certified financial statements for fiscal years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. As EPB's fiscal year is the calendar year, its auditors had not yet completed their audit for fiscal 1990 by the response deadline. When EPB's certified financial statement for its fiscal 1990 became available on May 14, 1991, it promptly delivered a copy to the Department. While the RFP required financial statements for the last three fiscal years, the Department understood that a bidder's ability to provide such statements would depend on when its fiscal year closed. In this regard, it is common for an independent audit to require up to six months following the close of a fiscal year. Here, EPB was faced with exactly such a dilemma, specifically disclosed such dilemma in its proposal, and provided the financial statements for the last four fiscal years that were available to it. Under such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the Department departed from the essential requirements of law when it declined to declare EPB's proposal non- responsive for its failure to include a certified financial statement for fiscal 1990, and accepted, as satisfying the requirements of the RFP, financial statements for the last three fiscal years that were reasonably available to EPB. In accordance with the RFP, each bidder was to identify all personnel who would be assigned major roles in the fulfillment of work under the contract. Pertinent to this case, subsection 2.3E provided: At a minimum, each Respondent must provide the following information which demonstrates the Respondent's ability to provide the services requested: * * * 4. Resumes not to exceed one page each in length of all personnel who would be assigned major roles in the fulfillment of the work obligation outlined in Section 2.2, with a statement identifying the percentage of time, calculated annually, of each person who will work on the Lottery account. * * * 18. List of type and number of additional employees that may be needed if awarded contract. At the time EPB submitted its proposal, it identified twenty-four key positions in account service, creative, media and several other categories. As to the management supervisor, the employee is identified as "selected," and as to an account executive and public relations supervisor, the employee is identified as "TBD" (To Be Determined). All other positions were identified with specific individuals and resumes were included for each. Here, Bozell contends that EPB's proposal is non-responsive because EPB did not name and include resumes for the foregoing three positions. Such contention is, however, unpersuasive. Section 2.3E18 clearly contemplated that some bidders would have to hire additional personnel if awarded the contract, and EPB complied with that section of the EPB by identifying such positions. Accordingly, EPB's proposal was not at material variance from the RFP in this regard. Although the Department's "Notice of Selection of Finalists," dated May 1, 1991, discussed supra, purported to rank the "responsive proposals" in order of preference, the proof demonstrates that the evaluation committee, who was charged with such responsibility, did not, by consensus or otherwise, ever determine the responsiveness of any proposal. Here, for the reasons heretofore set forth, EPB's proposal was non-responsive to the RFP, and the committee's failure to address the issue of responsiveness prior to scoring the proposals, for reasons discussed infra, materially affected the fairness of the evaluation process. Bozell's proposal was, however, responsive to the RFP. 2/ The evaluation committee Pursuant to Rule 53ER87-13(5)(i)(2), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 5.3 of the RFP, the Secretary of the Department appointed an evaluation committee, consisting of six members, to evaluate the proposals which were received from interested firms. Regarding the composition of such committee, the Department advised all prospective bidders, in response to a question posed pursuant to Section 1.8 of the RFP, that: The Evaluation Committee will be comprised of Lottery staff and volunteers from a cross- section of Florida business and academic communities. Subsequently, by notice of April 16, 1991, the Department advised all prospective bidders that the members of the evaluation committee would be as follows: Bernard Edwards Deputy Secretary Marketing Department of the Lottery Tallahassee, Florida Ben Johnson Newspaper Columnist Homles Beach, Florida Robert W. McKnight Assistant Secretary Department of Lottery Tallahassee, Florida Richard Mizerski Professor Tallahassee, Florida John Ruchalski Retired Businessman Jupiter, Florida Alan Sawyer Professor Gainesville, Florida Of the six committee members, only two, Bernard Edwards and Robert W. McKnight, were employees of the Department. No objection to the composition of the committee was lodged until the filing of the subject protest; however, there was likewise no point of entry provided by the Department to challenge the composition of the committee. Robert W. McKnight, who chaired the committee, has been employed by the Department as Assistant Secretary since March 4, 1991, and in such capacity has been responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Department. Mr. McKnight holds a B.S. and M.B.A. degree in business administration, with concentrations in advertising, and has in excess of fifteen years experience in marketing. Throughout the course of such employments, as well as his tenure as a Florida legislator, he has had the opportunity to monitor or supervise the work of advertising agencies employed to advance his products or person. Bernard Edwards, currently Deputy Secretary for Marketing of the Department, has been with the Department since 1988. During that tenure, he has filled, at various times, all three deputy secretary positions (operations, administration and marketing), and has participated in the advertising operations of the Florida lottery. Prior to his employment with the Department, Mr. Edwards was Executive Director of the Washington, D.C., lottery, and from 1983 to 1987 Deputy Executive Director of the Pennsylvania State lottery. During the course of such employments, Mr. Edwards has acquired significant experience in the marketing of lottery products, and the advertising incident thereto. Alan Sawyer is a Professor of Marketing and Chairman of the Department of Marketing of the University of Florida in Gainesville, and holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University in marketing. In addition to his teaching and research, Dr. Sawyer has worked with the Federal Trade Commission, as well as numerous other clients, on advertising matters, including matters of advertising deception, and is a recognized expert in advertising and marketing. Ben Johnson is a Doctoral Teaching Associate and Adjunct Professor at the University of South Florida where he teaches upper division and graduate College of Education courses in methods of teaching English, reading, and learning skills. In addition to teaching, Mr. Johnson has, for some years, been researching the lottery operations of various states. As a consequence of the knowledge he has gained concerning those operations he has written a book, The Lottery Book, scheduled for publication in September 1991, which provides general information for players of various state lotteries, and has a nationally syndicated newspaper column called "The Lottery Column" wherein he answers readers' questions regarding lottery operations. From such experience, Mr. Johnson has developed a knowledge of lottery operations, as well as an appreciation for effective lottery marketing and advertising. John Ruchalski, currently retired, holds a degree in business and marketing, and has 35 years of retail management experience. Of those years, 17 were spent as Senior Vice President of Burdines, three as Chief Executive Officer of Bullock's, and two as president of Bloomingdale's. Mr. Ruchalski's past activities have also included service as president of the Florida Chamber of Commerce and chairman of the board of the Florida Retail Federation. In all, the proof shows that Mr. Ruchalski has a strong marketing background, and a familiarity with the advertising needs incident to such operations. The final member of the committee, Richard Mizerski, is a Professor of Marketing at Florida State University, and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Florida in Economics and Business Administration, with a major concentration in marketing and a minor concentration in advertising. Dr. Mizerski, like Dr. Sawyer, has, in addition to his teaching and research, extensive consulting experience in marketing and advertising, and is a recognized expert in the field. Overall, the proof demonstrates that the composition of the evaluation committee was appropriate for the work it was tasked to do, and that it had adequate time to perform an appropriate evaluation. Each committee member had experience and knowledge in marketing, and advertizing incident thereto, and lent to the evaluation process common and diverse experiences in such areas which helped provide a balanced consideration of the proposals. As importantly, each was shown to be committed to the integrity of the process, and complied with the provisions of Section 286.011, Florida Statutes, by assuring that all committee meetings at which official acts were to be taken were conducted publicly, and by not discussing any matter pertaining to their evaluations with any other member except during meetings that had been properly noticed. Market research data Prior to reviewing the proposals, one or more of the committee members requested information from the Department that would accord them insight into the program area. In response to such request, the Department provided each committee member with the market research data it had available. Such data provided demographic insight into Florida lottery marketing operations. At hearing, Bozell complained that it was never informed that the market research data had been provided to the committee, and offered proof, if credited, that had it known such fact it would have drafted its proposal differently. Such proof was not, however, persuasive, nor was the provision of such information to the committee inappropriate. Here, the proof demonstrates that the data provided by the Department was a matter of public record, and many of the committee members, through their research and training, were already familiar with it prior to their appointment. Bozell, as the current provider of advertising services to the lottery, was very familiar with the data, its subcontractor had complied it, and Bozell used it extensively in its proposal. In sum, Bozell was not disadvantaged by the provision of such data to the committee, and it was not treated any differently than any other bidder in this regard. As importantly, the provision of such information to the committee to lend insight into the program area for which services were being sought was quite appropriate to the evaluation process. Technical proposed evaluation Section 2.3 of the RFP describes the items required to be submitted with a firm's technical proposal, and was designed to assess a firm's understanding and proposed method of rendering the services requested by section 2.2 of the RFP. It provides that, "at a minimum," the proposal shall contain the information and materials requested by subsections 2.3A through 2.3E. Subsection 2.3A required submittal of a proposed advertising approach for the Florida lottery which addresses a three-year summary outline advertising plan, to include recommendations for advertising and promotion, and a proposed one-year timetable for advertising, showing development of creative, production, approval, placement and run-time. Subsection 2.3B required comprehensive artistic representations consisting of a detailed media plan for an eight-week Florida lottery instant game within a $1,250,000 budget; a name, ticket design and prize structure for the instant game; a 30-second radio spot for the instant game; a print ad for newspaper or magazine placement for the game; and a point- of-sale example for the game. Subsection 2.3C required one complete advertising campaign representative of the firm's work, including budget, creative strategy, positioning, media strategy and execution, and post-buy analysis. Subsection 2.3D required creative samples previously produced by key members of the proposed creative team consisting of TV ads, radio ads, print ads, outdoor campaigns, and point-of-sale samples. Finally, subsection 2.3E, entitled "firm qualifications," required, "at a minimum," information concerning 33 specific items, "which demonstrates the [firm's] ability to provide the services requested." Among the items for which information was required were the following: 3. Brief and concise statement of Respondent's advertising philosophy, taking into consideration the following points and others that you may feel are appropriate: Method the Respondent uses for developing advertising. How the Respondent currently measures the effectiveness of its advertising. * * * Evidence of any work done for a state, multi-state, national or provincial lottery. Information regarding any advertising or other experience with state agencies and other governmental entities. * * * 12. Certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years including an auditor's report . . . . * * * 29. Discussion of contributions that your firm could make toward the growth of the Lottery. Section 5.4 of the RFP set forth the general criteria by which a firm's response to subsections 2.3A-E would be evaluated. Such general criteria were the overall qualifications, experience and abilities of the firm, its staff, and contractors to provide timely and professional advertising and related services, determined by evaluating the information contained in subsection 2.3E; and, the relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the firm's proposed plans directed toward subsections 2.3A-D of the RFP. Such section concluded: "The evaluation worksheet for the technical proposal is attached as Attachment F." Attachment F to the RFP set forth the specific criteria by which a firm's response would be evaluated. That attachment provided as follows: This evaluation considers information submitted in the technical proposal. Emphasis is placed on the firm's qualifications and ability to do the work, which is addressed in the Technical Proposal. A total of 80 points is obtainable. The Technical Proposal shall be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria: Overall Ability - 40 points maximum Do the resumes of the account team support the Respondent's competency to provide the services required by Section 2.2? Proposed Account Team: Is the team make-up appropriate for the work? Do the team members have experience with comparable work? Are there any sub-contracted firms involved? Are minority sub-contractors utilized? Are the hours assigned to the various team members for each task appropriate? Has the Respondent provided advertising services of the scope required in the past? Experience of the Respondent and staff providing advertising service within the State of Florida. Experience of the Respondent and staff in providing Lottery, pari- mutuel, or other gaming related advertising. Financial stability of the firm and financial capability to provide the entire scope of services. Experience of the firm in providing advertising services to accounts in excess of $10 million. Experience of the firm in placing large volumes of electronic media in all media markets in Florida. Based on 1-3, award points, as follows: 20-30 points for exceptional experience 10-20 points for average experience 0-10 points for minimal experience Has the Respondent provided advertising services to other state or governmental entities? If the work was acceptable, award up to 3 points. If the firm has not done such work, award zero points. Does the Respondent possess unique abilities which would make a noticeable (positive) impact on the project? If the answer is yes, award up to points and note reasons. If the answer is no, award zero points. Does the team composition and each member's percentage of involvement, the use of subcontractors (if any), office location, and/or information contained in the proposal indicate that the Respondent will meet time and budget requirements? If the answer is yes, award up to points and note reasons. If the answer is no, award zero points. Does the Respondent's current workload make it likely the Respondent can provide timely and complete service? If the answer is yes, award up to 2 points and note reasons. If the answer is no, award zero points. Advertising approach and creative samples required by Sections 2.3A-D = 40 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the firm's proposed plan for providing the requested services required by Section 2.3(A). Value: 10 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the comprehensive artistic representations required by Section 2.3(B). Value: 10 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the advertising campaign required by Section 2.3(C). Value: 5 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of samples required by Section 2.3(D). Value: 15 points The criteria for evaluating the creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of above items B-1 through B-4 are as follows: Creativity Were the ideas and approach exciting and interesting? Did the samples evoke positive and appropriate emotions? Did the samples capture and hold attention? Did the samples demonstrate fresh and original thought or were they banal and mundane? Approach Was the approach germane and appropriate? Was the approach unified and integrated? Was the approach clear, direct and unambiguous? Quality Were images crisp, sharp, and distinct except where the intention is clearly otherwise? Was the production professional? Was sound free of distortion and visual free of unnecessary clutter? Thoroughness Did the advertising show an appropriate consideration for all facets of the market? Was the advertising comprehensive and balanced? Did the advertising use a full range of tools and techniques to ensure maximum penetration and retention? By memo to all committee members, entitled "Instructions and Timetable for Evaluation Committee Members," and again at the commencement of their deliberations, all committee members were advised that they must evaluate the proposals based on the criteria set forth in the RFP, and to utilize their own individual expertise in applying the criteria. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the members of the committee abided such directive, and scored the proposals based on the established criteria, except as hereinafter discussed, as applied through their own background and experience. 3/ At the commencement of their deliberations, the committee members agreed that the format they would follow in evaluating the technical proposals would be to first review all the proposals, and then score the proposals individually. This procedure was followed although, not unexpectedly, some members made preliminary assessments as they progressed through the various proposals. Upon completion of their review, the members then scored each proposal and, as appropriate, made adjustments to preliminary assessments they had made based on the perspective they had acquired after their review of all the proposals. Here, Bozell complains that the RFP did not permit the scoring of proposals relative to each other but, rather, required that the proposals be evaluated and scored solely by applying the criteria independently to each proposal, and that the failure of all committee members to so evaluate the proposals is a fundamental flaw in the evaluation process. Bozell's complaint is not, however, persuasive. Here, the RFP required, among other things, a determination of the relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of a firm's plans for providing the services requested by subsections 2.3A-D of the RFP. Under such circumstances, considering the subjective nature of the evaluation, it would not be unreasonable to assign points based on relative merit. And, considering the fact that the proposals were not scored until all proposals had been reviewed that, more likely than not, is what was done by each committee member, consciously or subconsciously. As importantly, each member of the committee scored the proposals independent of any other member of the committee, and was consistent with the approach he took as to each firm's proposal. 4/ Accordingly, it cannot be concluded, based on the proof in this case, that the evaluation process was fundamentally flawed because of the manner in which points were awarded. However, because points were awarded on a relative basis, the inclusions of non-responsive proposals in the evaluation process could have materially affected the scoring of proposals and the Department's failure to exclude non-responsive proposals from the scoring process, as required by section 5.1 of the RFP, was a material departure from the requirements of the RFP. Bozell also complains that Mr. Johnson evaluated the technical proposals in light of his knowledge about the success of other states' lottery advertising. The application of such expertise to the criteria contained in the RFP was, however, appropriate, as discussed supra. As noted by Mr. Johnson: . . . That's my frame of reference against which I measured all of the companies. I could tell that some of the companies really didn't know what they were talking about, because they were suggesting things that were failing in other states. And I was aware of that from my general information background. [Tr. 471] As heretofore noted, selection of committee members with knowledge of the program area, and the exercise of that expertise in applying the criteria, is most appropriate to a reasoned evaluation of a proposal. Finally, with regard to the evaluation of the technical proposals, Bozell offered proof that some committee members failed to apply specific criteria mandated by the RFP, or otherwise scored the proposals in a manner at variance with that called for by the RFP. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that while proposals were to be evaluated, at least in part, based on the different games and formats that were presented in the technical proposals (see subsection 2.3B of the RFP), Mr. Ruchalski did not do so because he had no knowledge upon which to base a decision. Regarding subsections A5-8 of Attachment F (the scoring criteria), Mr. Johnson did not award points in the manner mandated by each subsection. Finally, notwithstanding that an evaluation of the overall ability of the applicant, as set forth in section A of Attachment F to the RFP, required an examination of the "financial stability of the firm and financial capability to provide the entire scope of services," no evaluation of the financial integrity and responsibility of any of the firms was made, and such criteria were not applied in the evaluation process. 5/ In its proposed recommended order, the Department suggests that it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require a detailed financial review by the agency at the initial bid analysis stage since, ultimately, only one firm will be awarded the contract, and because security and financial investigations will be done before a contract is awarded. While such may be the case, it was the Department's election to provide for an analysis of financial stability and capability as part of the review criteria. Oral presentation evaluation The second phase of the evaluation process was the scoring of the oral presentations. Pertinent to this case, section 5.3 of the RFP provided: . . . The oral presentations must be made by the account service, creative and media personnel who would work on the account. There will be no limitation on the information and materials pertinent to this RFP which may be utilized . . . . Section 5.5 of the RFP provided that presentations would be scored based on the following general criteria: Understanding of services requested -- up to 20 points, account team -- up to 25 points, responsiveness to questions -- up to 15 points, and overall impression -- up to 20 points. Finally, Attachment G to the RFP provided that the evaluation relative to the account team would be scored as follows: Account Team = 25 points maximum Did the proposed account team participate? Creativity, quality, uniqueness demonstrated by account team? Respondent's advertising philosophy demonstrated, long term image building? Did account team members prepare samples submitted? EPB's oral presentation was made by Jeb Brown, the chief executive officer of EPB; Craig Davis, the president of EPB's Florida operations; Mike Knaisch, account group head; Kandi Kirkland, account supervisor; Bruce Ayers, media director; Scott Mackey, associate creative director; Pat Hanlon, creative director; Tom Hall, chairman of EPB; and Jeff Tucker, president of public relations. Each of the presenters were identified by EPB as key personnel to be assigned to the Florida lottery account, except Jeb Brown and Tom Hall. As part of its oral presentation, EPB utilized a video tape, which presented favorable comments by the head of the Virginia lottery concerning EPB's performance for it. Addition-ally, EPB included in such video a character it utilizes for the Virginia lottery, "Lady Luck," who also said "nice things" about EPB. Here, Bozell complains that the participation of Jeb Brown and Tom Hall, in the oral presentation, as well as the use of the video which included comments by the head of the Virginia lottery and "Lady Luck," was improper under the provisions of the RFP because they were not members of the account team. Such compliant is, however, unpersuasive. While section 5.3 of the RFP did require that the oral presentation be made by the account, creative, and media personnel who would work on the account, it did not expressly preclude others from participating, and the RFP placed no restrictions on the information and materials pertinent to the RFP that could be utilized. Accordingly, EPB's oral presentation was not at variance from the RFP and, if it were, it was not shown to be a significant deviation. As heretofore noted, the evaluation relative to the account team allowed an award of up to 25 points, and required, among other things, a determination of whether the account team participated; the creativity, quality and uniqueness demonstrated by the account team; and whether the account team members prepared the samples that were submitted. The committee members did not, however, make any specific inquiry regarding whether the account team participated or prepared the samples, although the bidders generally made it a practice to introduce the account team members, but assumed such to be the case for purposes of scoring the presentations. Here, Bozell contends that the committee's failure to expressly inform itself as to whether the account team participated and prepared the samples, as opposed to indulging the assumption that they did, constitutes a significant failing in the evaluation process. However, Bozell failed to demonstrate, at hearing, that the committee's assumption was misplaced. Finally, Bozell offered proof that Dr. Sawyer awarded Bozell 21 points and EPB 22 points for "overall impression," when 20 points were the maximum contemplated by the RFP. Such error was, however, inadvertent, it simply being the intention of Dr. Sawyer to award EPB one more point than Bozell, and was harmless since it did not affect the overall outcome. Cost proposal evaluation Section 5.6 of the RFP provided the criteria for evaluation of the cost proposals and provided that: Finalists' cost proposals will be given points based on an evaluation of the proposed compensation and the experience and qualifications of the proposed staff. A maximum value of 40 points was established for this part of the evaluation. The cost proposals, which the committee members were to evaluate, were contained in a "sealed cost proposal envelope" and were, pursuant to subsection 2.4B of the RFP, to contain: The cost proposal shall include a calculation of the Respondent's proposed compensation for undertaking and completing all phases of the services requested and outlined in this RFP. The cost proposal shall be prepared in the same format as illustrated on Attachment "E" and shall be completed as follows: The Respondent shall provide an aggregate gross salary by work category and position classification for all personnel who will work on the Lottery's account. The aggregate gross salary shall include only that portion of each individual staff member's time that will be attributable to the Lottery account. The portion of time proposed in the cost proposal shall match the labor hour percentages proposed for each individual as required in Section 2.3(E)(4). The Respondent shall also include a proposed multiplier of the type described in paragraph A above. The Respondent shall multiply the aggregate gross salary by the multiplier and the product shall be included in the cost proposal. The Respondent shall also include, in the sealed cost proposal envelope, resumes for all personnel whose salary, or portion thereof, was included in the calculation of the proposed aggregate gross salary resumes shall be included regardless of whether the resumes have also been included in the technical proposal envelope. While the RFP contemplated that all three sections of the proposal (technical, oral presentation, and cost) would be evaluated and scored independent of each other, and that the evaluation of the cost proposal would be limited to an evaluation of the information contained in the "sealed cost proposal envelope," not all committee members so limited their evaluation. Rather, some committee members utilized the knowledge they had gleaned from evaluating the technical proposals and oral presentations, as well as the scores they had assigned during the course of those evaluations, to assist them in assessing the qualifications and experience of the proposed personnel and weighing the firms' proposed compensation. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how any committee member could ignore the knowledge he had acquired during the course of his evaluations that was reflective of the quality and experience of the proposed staff, any more than he could ignore the expertise he had acquired through his life experiences, in evaluating the cost proposal. Notably, the RFP, as it related to the cost proposals, provided that "the portion of time proposed in the cost proposal shall match the labor hour percentages proposed for each individual as required by section 2.3(E)(4)" of the RFP [the key personnel], and the committee had, as part of their evaluation of the technical proposal, previously evaluated the proposed account team, as well as the relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of their proposals relative to subsections 2.3A-D of the RFP. At the oral presentation, the committee had an opportunity to put faces with names, and broaden their knowledge of the individuals involved. Accordingly, when it came time to evaluate the cost proposals, which involved a consideration of staffing and salary, the members of the committee had certainly formulated opinions regarding the quality of the staff proposed by the respective firms, and balanced that opinion against the proposed compensation to derive the most cost effective proposal. While it may seem unreasonable to restrict the committee to the bare resumes and costs set forth in the cost proposal, as the basis for their evaluation, the reasonableness of the provisions the Department formulated are not at issue in this proceeding. Accordingly, it is concluded that by going beyond the information contained within the cost proposal, the members of the committee materially deviated from the requirements of the RFP. This conclusion prevails, since those bidders who were favored in the evaluation of the technical proposals or oral presentation were, by the consideration of the opinions derived from such evaluations, accorded an unfair advantage over other bidders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which rejects all bids, and that a new invitation to bid be extended. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of July 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 25th day of July 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carolyn K. Peterson, entered a drawing held by Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), on September 12, 1984, for priority entitlement to apply for one of thirteen new quota alcoholic beverage licenses to be issued for Seminole County. Peterson initially was not successful, having been ranked 15. Later, three applicants selected in the September 12 1984, drawing failed to qualify or file a proper application. By letter dated January 25,1985, the Division notified Peterson that her ranking now entitled her to apply For licensure. The January 25, 1985, letter informed Peterson "you must file a full and com- plete application within 45 days of the date of this letter pur- suant to Rule 7A-2.17, Florida Administrative Rule." The letter also notified Peterson: "Failure to file your complete application within such 45 day period will be deemed a waiver of your right to file for the new quota license." The Division consistently follows Rule 7A-2.17. On February 4, 1985, Peterson and her husband went to the Division's Orlando office to inquire concerning application for licensure. Peterson's husband, who had experience in applying for quota alcoholic beverage licenses, inquired whether it was necessary to jump through the procedural hoop of having a location selected and reflected in the application only to put the resulting license in escrow while seeking a more suitable license location within 180 days. The Division's representative, former employee Carolyn Thompson, responded that applicants no longer had to jump through that procedural hoop but could leave the designation of the location of the license blank on the initial application so long as a suitable location was selected and the application updated within 180 days. Thompson partially typed the application forms for Peterson, duplicated them so that Peterson could file the completed application in duplicate as required, and kept a copy for the Division's files. Thompson also gave Peterson, and kept a copy of, an instruction form for completion of Peterson's application. Thompson did not explicitly tell Peterson or her husband that Peterson could file the completed application after the expiration of the 45 day time limit. The Petersons confused the 45-day deadline for filing a full and complete application with the 180-day deadline for obtaining an appropriate location and zoning approval. As a result, the Petersons misunderstood and believed that the application was not required to be completed and filed within 45 days. After the February 4, 1985 meeting, the Petersons inquired about the process of finding a suitable location with suitable zoning. Meanwhile, they let the 45-day time limit ex- pire without filing a full and complete application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, deny the application of Petitioner, Carolyn K. Peterson, for a quota alcoholic beverage license. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Carolyn K. Peterson 797 Pinetree Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX To the extent Petitioner's written final argument contains proposed findings of fact, they are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and the Findings of Fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact 1 through 5 are accepted, but 4 is subordinate and 5 is unnecessary.
Findings Of Fact Leroy Wise, Jr.'s Mother purchased lottery ticket number 1888-3620-9444 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ticket") on approximately July 6, 1989. The Ticket was a Fantasy 5 ticket with four correct numbers. The Ticket winnings amounted to $805.00. Mr. Wise took his Mother to the Department of the Lottery's offices in Tallahassee, Florida on July 10, 1989. Mr. Wise's Mother did not have proper identification required by the Department of the Lottery to cash in the Ticket. Therefore, she allowed Mr. Wise to present the ticket for collection because Mr. Wise had proper identification. On July 10, 1989, Mr. Wise completed a Florida Lottery Winner Claim Form (hereinafter referred to as the "Form") and submitted the Form and the Ticket to the Lottery. On the back of the Ticket Mr. Wise listed his name and address on the spaces provided for the person claiming the prize and signed the Ticket. Mr. Wise listed his name, Social Security Number, address and phone number on the Form. Mr. Wise signed the Form as the "Claimant." In a letter dated July 10, 1989, the DHRS notified the Lottery that Mr. Wise owed $4,690.00 in Title IV-D child support arrearages as of July 10, 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued providing for payment of the $805.00 prize attributable to the Ticket owed by Mr. Wise as child support arrearages as of the date of the Final Order to DHRS. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 21st day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-4 2 6. 3 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Petitioner's did not offer any evidence at the formal hearing concerning these proposed findings of fact. Mr. Wise's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph Number in Recommended Order Sentence in Letter of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1, 13-20 Not proposed findings of fact. 2-3 6. 4-6, 11-12 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 7-10 Not relevant to this proceeding. Copies Furnished To: Jo Ann Levin Senior Attorney Office of Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Louisa E. Hargrett Senior Attorney Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chriss Walker Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Leroy Wise, Jr. 1526-A Patrick Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether the Proposed Amendment of Rule 7E-6.007, Florida Administrative Code, is arbitrary and capricious and thus constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Hialeah, Inc., operates a race track (hereinafter referred to as the "Track") located in Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner is licensed by the Respondent. In December, 1981, the Petitioner was granted permission by letter from Bob Smith, then Director of the Respondent, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, to operate Tel-A-Betting. Robert Rosenburg, Director of the Respondent after Mr. Smith, also approved Tel-A- Betting in a letter to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has continuously operated Tel-A-Betting for more than six years. The Petitioner instituted Tel-A-Betting in reliance on the Respondent's approval of Tel-A-Betting. If approval had not been granted to the Petitioner from the Respondent, the Petitioner would not have established Tel-A-Betting. Tel-A-Betting is a procedure for placing wagers on races at the Petitioner's Track. Persons utilizing this system (hereinafter referred to as "Account Holders"), open an account with the Petitioner by making a deposit of $100.00 or more with the Petitioner and paying a $25.00 fee. The funds deposited with the Petitioner are received and accounted for in accounts maintained at the Track. Once an account is opened, a plastic card which contains, among other information, an account number and an "800," toll-free, telephone number is issued to the Account Holder. Wagers may then be placed with the Petitioner by the Account Holder calling the "800" number and placing a wager with a telephone operator/pari-mutuel clerk located at the Track. The Account Holder identifies himself or herself by giving the operator the account number and a code name designated by the Account Holder when the account is opened. The account number is programmed into a computer to determine whether the Account Holder has sufficient funds in the account to make the wager. If the funds in the account are sufficient to cover the wager, the wager is entered into the computer. If the Account Holder wins the wager, the payoff is entered into his or her account. Calls to place wagers through the Tel-A-Betting program can be made from anywhere in Florida and the person making the call and wager need not be physically present at the Track to make the wager. Wagers taken through Tel-A-Betting are only made on races at the Track. Tel-A-Betting allows the Petitioner to receive wagered funds as part of its pari-mutuel pool from persons located anywhere in the State of Florida. When a wager is made through Tel-A-Betting, the operator/pari-mutuel clerk cannot establish the age or identity of the person placing the wager. The Petitioner is the only race track permit holder in the State of Florida which employs Tel-A-Betting. The Proposed Amendment of Rule 7E-6.007, Florida Administrative Code, if valid, will prohibit the Petitioner from continuing the use of Tel-A-Betting. The Respondent has not received any complaints about the use of Tel-A- Betting by minors or any other abuses. No evidence was presented that minors have made, or attempted to make, wagers through the use of Tel-A-Betting. The Respondent has not received any objections to Tel-A-Betting or complaints about unfair competition from other racetrack permit holders.
The Issue Whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Respondent or Division), should deny West Flagler Associate, Ltd.’s (Petitioner or West Flagler) June 30, 2015, and July 1, 2015, applications for new summer jai alai permits under section 550.0745, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering activities in Florida pursuant to chapter 550. West Flagler is the owner of pari-mutuel permits and is authorized to conduct pari-mutuel pools on exhibition sports in Miami-Dade County pursuant to chapter 550. There are seven pari-mutuel permits for pari-mutuel pools on exhibition sports in Miami-Dade County. The permitholders are South Florida Racing Association, LLC (Hialeah Park)(“SFRA”); Fronton Holdings, LLC (Miami Jai Alai); Summer Jai Alai Partnership; West Flagler Associates, Ltd. (Flagler Dog Track); Calder Race Course, Inc.; Tropical Park, LLC; and West Flagler Associates, Ltd. (Magic City Jai Alai). Summer Jai Alai Partnership is the holder of a summer jai alai permit. West Flagler currently possesses a summer jai alai permit in Miami-Dade County. On June 30, 2015, West Flagler filed the June Application, pursuant to section 550.0745, for a “new permit” to conduct summer jai alai in Miami-Dade County. West Flagler’s June Application was based on its conclusion that a new summer jai alai permit was available because SFRA had the smallest total pool or handle in Miami-Dade County for two consecutive fiscal years, i.e., state fiscal years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, and that SFRA declined to convert its pari-mutuel permit to a permit to conduct summer jai alai. On July 1, 2015, West Flagler filed the July Application, pursuant to section 550.0745, for a “new permit” to conduct summer jai alai in Miami-Dade County. West Flagler’s July Application was based on its conclusion that a new summer jai alai permit was available because SFRA again had the smallest total pool or handle in Miami-Dade County for two consecutive fiscal years, i.e., state fiscal years 2013/2014 and 2014/2015, and that SFRA again declined to convert its pari- mutuel permit to a permit to conduct summer jai alai. On July 14, 2015, the Division denied the June Application on the grounds that there was not a summer jai alai permit available for fiscal years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 because SFRA did not have the smallest play or total pool in Miami-Dade County for those two consecutive years. The Division maintains that West Flagler (Magic City Jai Alai) had the smallest total pool in 2012/2013 and Summer Jai Alai Partnership had the smallest total pool in 2013/2014. That basis for the denial remains the position of the Division in this proceeding. On December 7, 2015, the Division issued an amended notice of denial that modified the denial of the July Application from one based on there being no lowest handling pari-mutuel permitholder for consecutive fiscal years 2013/2014 and 2014/2015, to one based on the grounds that 1) “West Flagler is incapable of converting its summer jai alai permit to a summer jai alai permit because there would not be an actual conversion as contemplated by statute”; and 2) “West Flagler has not shown that the issuance of a summer jai alai permit to West Flagler, which already holds a summer jai alai permit, would generate an increase in total state revenue over the revenue West Flagler generates under its current, identical permit.” West Flagler’s June Application does not seek to convert its existing summer jai alai permit to a summer jai alai permit. Rather, the application is predicated upon the creation of a new summer jai alai permit when SFRA declined to convert its pari-mutuel permit to a permit to conduct a summer jai alai fronton. West Flagler’s July Application does not seek to convert its existing summer jai alai permit to a summer jai alai permit. Rather, the application is predicated upon the creation of a new summer jai alai permit when SFRA declined to convert its pari-mutuel permit to a permit to conduct a summer jai alai fronton. The disagreement between the parties regarding the June Application revolves around whether “simulcast export” wagers should be included in calculating a permitholder’s “play or total pool within the county” for purposes of section 550.0745(1). The Division argues that a permitholder’s total pool includes live wagers, intertrack wagers, and simulcast export wagers. West Flagler argues that a permitholder’s total pool includes only live wagers and intertrack wagers.1/ A live wager is a wager accepted at a permitted Florida facility on a race or game performed live at that facility. Permitholders derive income, in the form of a commission, on live wagers placed at their facilities. Permitholders pay taxes on live wagers. An intertrack wager is a wager accepted at a permitted Florida facility on a race or game transmitted from and performed live at, or simulcast rebroadcast from, another permitted Florida facility. Permitholders derive income, in the form of a commission, on wagers placed at other Florida facilities on races or games transmitted from the permitholder’s facilities. Permitholders pay taxes on intertrack wagers. A simulcast wager is a wager placed at a Florida facility on an out-of-state race transmitted to the Florida facility. Permitholders pay taxes on simulcast wagers. An intertrack simulcast wager is a wager placed at a Florida guest track on an out-of-state race transmitted by the out-of-state track to a Florida host track, and then re- transmitted by the Florida host track to the Florida guest track. Permitholders pay taxes on intertrack simulcast wagers. A simulcast export wager is a wager accepted at an out-of-state facility on a race or game performed live at a permitted Florida facility. Permitholders derive income, in the form of a commission, on simulcast export wagers accepted by out-of-state facilities on races or games transmitted from the permitholder’s facilities. The Division does not know the commission structure between the permitholders and out-of-state facilities. Permitholders do not pay taxes on simulcast export wagers, and the state receives no revenue from simulcast export wagers. In sum, live wagers, intertrack wagers, simulcast wagers, and intertrack simulcast wagers are those placed at Florida pari-mutuel facilities, and subject to Florida taxation. Simulcast export wagers are those placed on Florida events at out-of-state facilities, and not subject to Florida taxation. Licensed betting facilities across the country -- and generally across the world -- contract with a licensed totalisator (the “tote”)2/ by which all wagers are accounted for. Data on all wagers placed on a hosting permitholder’s event (with uncommon exceptions when an out-of-state facility receiving a hosting permitholder’s simulcast broadcast forms its own pool) are sent by the tote to the hosting permitholder to be included in its total price pool, and used to determine payouts on winning wagers. The totes also capture simulcast export wagers for use in calculating the commission paid by the guest tracks. A permitholder’s pool amounts are reported to the Division by the tote company on a daily basis. The daily tote report includes live, simulcast, intertrack, intertrack simulcast, and simulcast export wagers. The daily tote reports are reviewed by the Division’s auditing section to ensure that wagers are accounted for and paid. The Division maintains a central monitoring system by which it captures the daily amounts for all wagers from the daily tote reports, and compiles them up to produce a cumulative report. A permitholder’s pool amounts are also reported to the Division directly by the permitholder in monthly pari-mutuel reports, and annual financial statements. The monthly reports and annual financial statements are reviewed by the Division’s revenue section. Since simulcast export wagers are not taxed by Florida, the Division’s monthly report and annual financial statement forms do not include simulcast export wagers as part of the facility’s handle. Due to the combination of low overall handles, and tax credits available for net operating losses, jai alai facilities (as opposed to cardrooms operating therein) do not generate any tax revenues for the state. Thus, the only revenues derived by the state from jai alai facilities are the $40 per game daily license fees and 15-percent admission tax required by section 550.0951. The parties stipulated that the Third District Court of Appeal considered only live wagers and intertrack wagers in its analysis of whether the “smallest play or total pool within the county” included only wagers physically placed within Miami- Dade County, as reflected in the Court’s opinion in South Florida Racing Association v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, So. 3d , 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11334, 2015 WL 4546935 (Fla. 3d DCA July 29, 2015).3/ If simulcast export wagers are excluded from a pari- mutuel facility’s play or total pool within Miami-Dade County, SFRA had the smallest total handle in Miami-Dade County for the 2012/2013 state fiscal year. If simulcast export wagers are included in a pari- mutuel facility’s play or total pool within Miami-Dade County, West Flagler Associates, Ltd. (Magic City Jai Alai) had the smallest total handle in Miami-Dade County for the 2012/2013 state fiscal year. If simulcast export wagers are excluded from a pari- mutuel facility’s play or total pool within Miami-Dade County, SFRA had the smallest total handle in Miami-Dade County for the 2013/2014 state fiscal year. If simulcast export wagers are included in a pari- mutuel facility’s play or total pool within Miami-Dade County, Summer Jai Alai Partnership had the smallest total handle in Miami-Dade County for the 2013/2014 state fiscal year.4/ If simulcast export wagers are excluded from a pari- mutuel facility’s play or total pool within Miami-Dade County, SFRA had the smallest total handle in Miami-Dade County for the 2014/2015 state fiscal year. If simulcast export wagers are included in a pari- mutuel facility’s play or total pool within Miami-Dade County, Summer Jai Alai Partnership had the smallest total handle in Miami-Dade County for the 2014/2015 state fiscal year. Regardless of whether out-of-state simulcast export wagers are included in the calculation of facilities’ “play or total pool,” a single pari-mutuel facility (either SRFA or Summer Jai Alai Partnership) had the smallest play or total pool within Miami-Dade County for the consecutive 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 state fiscal years. The Division did not notify West Flagler of any apparent errors or omissions in its July Application. The Division did not request that West Flagler provide any additional information with its July Application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that West Flagler Associate, Ltd.’s, June 30, 2015, and July 1, 2015, applications for new summer jai alai permits be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 20th day of June, 2016.
