The Issue Whether Respondent timely filed a written request for an administrative hearing, and, if not, whether the doctrine of equitable tolling provides a defense to the applicable deadline for filing a petition for hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing workers’ compensation coverage requirements in Florida, including the requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Following an investigation to determine whether Respondent had secured sufficient workers’ compensation insurance coverage, the Department served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent on September 10, 2015. The Department served an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent on October 15, 2015. The Department served a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (the “Penalty Assessment”) on Respondent on December 14, 2015. With the Penalty Assessment, the Department also provided Respondent a document entitled “Notice of Rights.” The Notice of Rights advised, in pertinent part: You have a right to administrative review of this action by the Department under sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. To obtain review, you must file a written petition requesting review. * * * You must file the petition for hearing so that it is received by the Department within twenty- one (21) days of your receipt of this agency action. The petition must be filed with Julie Jones, DFS Agency Clerk, Department of Financial Services, 612 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0390. FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WITHIN THE TWENTY- ONE (21) DAYS CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE AGENCY ACTION. Dale Russell, Compliance Investigator with the Department, personally served the Penalty Assessment along with the Notice of Rights on Respondent. As established by the Certificate of Service on the Penalty Assessment, as well as Mr. Russell’s testimony, Mr. Russell hand-delivered the documents to Respondent on December 14, 2015. Mr. Russell personally served the documents on Jose Fuentes, Respondent’s owner and general manager. Mr. Russell also reviewed with Mr. Fuentes the Notice of Rights. Mr. Russell discussed the import of the 21-day deadline to request a hearing to dispute the Penalty Assessment. Twenty-one days after December 14, 2015, is January 4, 2016. Respondent submitted to the Department a letter requesting review of the Penalty Assessment. Respondent’s letter is dated January 11, 2016. The Department received Respondent’s letter on January 12, 2016. At the final hearing, Mr. Fuentes testified regarding his handling of the Penalty Assessment and request for a hearing on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Fuentes acknowledged that he personally received the Penalty Assessment from Mr. Russell on December 14, 2015. Mr. Fuentes explained that his delay in submitting his letter to the Department was based on difficulties his family was experiencing at that time. His wife was facing surgery. Consequently, he was focused on her medical concerns, as well as caring for their three children. Unfortunately, he lost track of the time in which to file the petition. Based on the evidence set forth at the final hearing, the Department established that Respondent did not file its petition requesting administrative review with the Department within 21 days of Respondent’s receipt of the Penalty Assessment. Therefore, the legal issue to determine is whether Respondent’s petition should be dismissed as untimely filed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order dismissing Respondent’s request for an administrative hearing as untimely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees; and if so, (b) whether Petitioner assessed an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is responsible for enforcing the requirements Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, requiring employers to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for their employees. At all times relevant here, Respondent has been an active Florida corporation. Respondent’s business involves the installation of acoustic ceiling tiles. Respondent’s work in this regard constitutes construction. On March 16, 2010, Carl Woodall, Petitioner’s workers’ compensation compliance investigator, conducted a random compliance check at a construction site. The site was located at 707 Jenks Avenue in Panama City, Florida. Upon his arrival in the construction site, Mr. Woodall observed two individuals, Robin and Todd Calhoun, installing acoustic ceiling tiles in a commercial office building. The individuals informed Mr. Woodall that they were working for Jackie Shores. The individuals provided Mr. Woodall with contact information for Mr. Shores. Mr. Woodall initially contacted Mr. Shores by phone. Later, Mr. Woodall and Mr. Shores spoke in person at the construction site. Mr. Shores informed Mr. Woodall that he was employed by Respondent as a job supervisor. Mr. Shores also identified Robin and Todd Calhoun as Respondent’s employees. Mr. Shores informed Mr. Woodall that Respondent used Southeast Employee Leasing for workers’ compensation coverage, but that Robin and Todd Calhoun had not been signed up for coverage. Mr. Woodall then contacted George Kaspers from Southeast Employee Leasing to verify whether Respondent had secured workers’ compensation for Robin and Todd Calhoun. Mr. Kaspers confirmed that the Calhouns were not covered and that they did not have pending employee applications. On March 16, 2010, Mr. Kaspers faxed Mr. Woodall a list of Respondent’s employees that were covered by workers’ compensation insurance. The list did not name the Calhouns. Mr. Woodall next searched Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) for proof of a workers’ compensation policy or officer exemptions. CCAS is a database that lists workers’ compensation insurance policy information and all workers’ compensation exemptions. The database did not list a current policy for Respondent or any valid exemptions. Mr. Woodall also reviewed the website maintained by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. The review showed that Respondent had been an active corporation since May 7, 2002. Based on his investigation, Mr. Woodall determined that Respondent had not secured workers’ compensation coverage for all of its employees as required by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. On March 16, 2010, Petitioner issued, and served on Respondent, a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, together with a Request for the Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The business records request applied to the period of March 17, 2007, through March 16, 2010. The request sought production of payroll records, workers’ compensation policy documents, employee leasing documents, temporary labor service documents, and workers’ compensation exemption documents. Mr. Woodall did not initially request subcontractor payroll and workers’ compensation documentation from Respondent because he did not see any subcontractors on site. He did not want to burden Respondent with a request for more documents that were necessary to determine a proper penalty. However, after Respondent failed to produce the requested records within the required time-period, the case was assigned to Monica Moye, Respondent’s penalty calculator, to prepare a penalty based on Respondent’s imputed payroll. On April 8, 2010, Mr. Woodall personally served an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Order assessed a total penalty in the amount of $77,492.93 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On April 5, 2010, and April 7, 2010, Respondent provided bank records with check images to Petitioner for the period of March 1, 2007, through March 31, 2010. Ms. Moye used these records to calculate a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The second order was based on payments to employees and subcontractors that were not covered by workers’ compensation insurance or an exemption there from. The second order assessed a penalty in the amount of $13,018.63. After service of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Ms. Moye received additional information from Respondent regarding a subcontractor that was covered by its own workers’ compensation policy. After confirming the subcontractor's coverage, Ms. Moye removed all payments to that subcontractor from Respondent's penalty. Mr. Woodall subsequently issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent, assessing a penalty in the amount of $7,105.35. Later, Ms. Moye received information from Respondent, indicating that two additional subcontractors had workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. This information resulted in the issuance of a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a penalty in the amount of $6,675.91. Classification codes are four digit codes assigned to occupation by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI) to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. The codes are listed in the Scopes® Manual, which Petitioner has adopted by rule. After discovery was completed in this case, Petitioner determined that some of Respondent’s employees had been assigned an improper construction classification code of 5348 on the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Code 5348 encompasses ceramic tile, indoor stone, and marble installation. The proper code for Respondent’s employees was 5020, which encompasses the installation of suspended acoustical ceilings. Based on information provided by Respondent during discovery, Petitioner also determined that one of Respondent’s clerical employees should be assigned classification code 8810 rather than construction code 5348. Additionally, Petitioner discovered that payments to two entities were payments for material rather than labor. Based on information learned during discovery, Petitioner prepared a 5th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a total penalty in the amount of $8,621.46. To calculate the penalty of the 5th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Petitioner totaled the gross payroll paid to Respondent’s employees and subcontractors that were not covered by workers’ compensation for each period of non-compliance. Respondent conceded that all of the individuals and entities listed on the penalty worksheet performed services for Respondent during the time periods listed. Respondent also conceded that the gross payroll amounts were correctly calculated, that none of the individuals listed had secured an exemption, and that none of the payments to employees or subcontractors included in the penalty calculation were covered by a workers’ compensation policy. Approved manual rates are established by NCCI and adopted by Petitioner. The approved manual rates are calculated upon the risk assigned to the type of employment reflected by each classification code. Using the penalty calculation worksheet, Petitioner divided the gross payroll amount for each employee and subcontractor in each period of non-compliance by 100 and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate for the classification code assigned to that employee or subcontractor. The product was the amount of workers’ compensation premium Respondent should have paid for each employee and subcontractor if Respondent had been compliant. The premium amounts were then multiplied by 1.5 to arrive at the penalty for each employee and subcontractor. The penalties for each employee and subcontractor for each period of non-compliance were then added together to come up with a total penalty of $8,621.48.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order, affirming, approving, and adopting the 5th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Shores M & M Coop Construction Co., Inc. 1401 Minnesota Avenue Lynn Haven, Florida 32444 Holly R. Werkema, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services’ The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this bid protest matter is whether the decision of Respondent, Department of Transportation, to award the contract for the Centralized Customer Service System to Intervenor, Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., over Petitioner, Accenture, LLP, was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with planning, acquiring, leasing, constructing, maintaining, and operating toll facilities and cooperating with and assisting local governments in the development of a statewide transportation system. §§ 334.044(16)-(22), Fla. Stat. (2015).3/ The Department is authorized to enter contracts and agreements to help fulfill these duties. §§ 20.23(6) and 334.044(7), Fla. Stat. FTE is a legislatively created arm of the Department and is authorized to plan, develop, own, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, demolish, construct, improve, relocate, equip, repair, maintain, operate, and manage the Florida Turnpike System. FTE is authorized to cooperate, coordinate, partner, and contract with other entities, public and private, to accomplish these purposes. § 338.2216(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The Department has the express power to employ the procurement methods available to the Department of Management Services under chapter 287, Florida Statutes. § 338.2216(2), Fla. Stat. On November 1, 2013, the Department advertised the ITN, soliciting Proposals from vendors interested in participating in competitive negotiations for the award of a contract to provide a Customer Service System and associated Operations and Maintenance. The Department issued the ITN pursuant to section 287.057, Florida Statutes. The Department did not receive any challenges to the ITN specifications.4/ The Customer Service System is expected to process nearly all electronic toll transactions in Florida. It will be designed to replace not only the FTE's existing customer service center systems (or "back offices"), but the back office operations for the other three local tolling agencies in Florida as well. These local tolling agencies include the Central Florida Expressway (formerly known as the Orlando–Orange County Expressway Authority), the Miami–Dade Expressway Authority, and the Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority (collectively the "Local Authorities"). Under the terms of the ITN, the contract will include all systems and services connected with the customer service operations of toll roads and the payment of tolls to the FTE and Local Authorities including: processing and billing of transactions; identification of the registered owners of vehicles; operational and financial reconciliation; comprehensive system reporting; and website, mobile website, mobile app, and interactive voice response. The FTE, which oversees all Department tolling activities in the state, will execute and manage the Customer Service System contract. Through the ITN, the Department will enter a contract directly with the successful vendor. Thereafter, the Department will enter agreements with the Local Authorities to coordinate the joint use of the new tolling system. The initial contract term for the Customer Service System is seven years. Generally, the Department's ITN set forth a solicitation process consisting of two phases. Phase one involved: (a) the prequalification or short-listing of vendors to determine vendors' eligibility to submit Proposals; and (b) following Proposal submissions, the Department's evaluation and ranking of the vendors' Proposals. Phase two of the ITN is the negotiation phase which would culminate in the Department's award of the Customer Service System contract to the vendor that the Department determined would provide the "best value to the state." The ITN, section 2.26, NEGOTIATION PROCESS (as amended by Addendum 8), outlines the specific steps for the Department's solicitation and provides: Once Proposers have been ranked in accordance with Section 2.6.2 Proposal Evaluation, the Department will proceed with negotiations in accordance with the negotiation process described below. Proposers should be cognizant of the fact that the Department reserves the right to finalize negotiations at any time in the process that the Department determines that such election would be in the best interest of the State. Step 1: Follow the evaluation process and rank Proposals as outlined in Section 2.6 Evaluation Process. Step 2: The ranking will be posted, in accordance with the law (see Section 2.27), stating the Department's intent to negotiate and award a contract to the highest ranked Proposer that reaches an acceptable agreement with the Department. Step 3: Once the posting period has ended, the Negotiation Team will undertake negotiations with the first-ranked Proposer until an acceptable Contract is established, or it is determined an acceptable agreement cannot be achieved with such Proposer. If negotiations fail with the first-ranked Proposer, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked Proposer, and so on until there is an agreement on an acceptable Contract. The Department reserves the option to resume negotiations that were previously suspended. Negotiation sessions are not open to the public and all negotiation sessions will be recorded by the Department. Step 4: The Negotiation Team will write a short plain statement for the procurement file that explains the basis for Proposer selection and how the Proposer's deliverables and price will provide the best value to the state. Step 5: The Department will contract with the selected Proposer. Section 2.27.1 of the ITN, Ranking/Intended Award, provides that "[t]he Ranking/Intended Award will be made to the responsive and responsible Proposer that is determined to be capable of providing the best value and best meet the needs of the Department." Per ITN, sections 2.6 and 2.26, Step 1, the Department created a Technical Review Team and a Selection Committee which evaluated and ranked the Proposals in order of preference based on the vendors' technical approach and capabilities. The Selection Committee ranked Xerox first followed by Petitioner, then Cubic. The Selection Committee based its decision on Xerox's proven experience with other similar and large tolling projects, including some of the country's largest tolling systems. The Selection Committee further explained that, of the three vendors, only Xerox has fully operational tolling systems in the United States, bringing a "'comfort level' that did not exist with [Petitioner] and Cubic."5/ Thereafter, per ITN, section 2.26, Step 2, on April 10, 2014, the Department posted its ranking of vendors with Xerox first, Petitioner second, and Cubic third. The posting also announced the Department's intent to commence "sequential" negotiations. Under this process, the Department would start negotiations with Xerox as the first-ranked vendor. If negotiations with Xerox failed, the Department would then begin negotiations with Petitioner as the second-ranked vendor, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department negotiated an acceptable agreement. Phase one of the solicitation, which involved section 2.26, Steps 1 and 2 above, was the subject of a prior bid protest in DOAH Case No. 14-2322BID before ALJ Linzie F. Bogan (the "First Protest"). Following the Department's ranking of vendors and its notice of intent to initiate negotiations with Xerox on April 10, 2014, Petitioner and Cubic each filed formal bid protests. Following an administrative hearing, ALJ Bogan entered a Recommended Order recommending that Petitioner and Cubic's bid protests be dismissed. The Department issued a Final Order on October 6, 2014, adopting ALJ Bogan's Recommended Order in its entirety. As Petitioner and Cubic protested the Department's decision to enter negotiations with Xerox, and because of the automatic stay provision of section 120.57(3), the Department never commenced the negotiation phase (phase two) of the procurement as detailed in the ITN, section 2.26, Steps 3 and 4. However, once all litigation involving the First Protest concluded in January 2015, the Department continued with the solicitation process for the ITN.6/ The current bid protest proceeding relates only to phase two of the solicitation process, i.e., Steps 3, 4, and 5 above. Therefore, the undersigned specifically reviewed the negotiation phase of the Department's solicitation and the Department's ultimate decision to award the Customer Service System contract to Xerox. The Department initiated the negotiations phase for the ITN on February 9, 2015. The negotiations were conducted by a Negotiation Team appointed by Department Secretary, Jim Boxold, on February 9, 2015, in accordance with the requirements of section 287.057(16). Section 287.057(16)(a) provides that the agency head shall appoint "[a]t least three persons to evaluate Proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought." The Negotiation Team included: Sheree Merting, FTE's Contractual Services Administrator; Tim Garrett, the tolls program manager for HNTB Corporation ("HNTB"), which is a subcontractor for FTE; and John McCarey, of McCarey Consulting, a sub-consultant to FTE general engineering contractor, Atkins North America, Inc. Mr. Garrett was the project manager for the Customer Service System project. Mr. McCarey would serve as the chief negotiator. Ms. Merting is a Florida certified contract negotiator, a Florida certified contract manager, and a Florida certified contract purchasing manager. Ms. Merting has significant procurement experience with the FTE, including prior experience serving on a negotiation team. Mr. Garrett is employed by HNTB, an engineering consulting firm that provides tolling operations consultation to FTE. His full-time assignment for HNTB is as the tolls program manager for the FTE. Mr. Garrett has extensive knowledge of tolling systems and the software technology that the vendors presented in response to the ITN. Mr. Garrett was the project manager for the Customer Service System procurement and, together with Ms. Merting, oversaw the ITN procurement process from its inception. Mr. Garrett was familiar with the technical aspects of the ITN and was aware of the technology required to transfer the current back office system to the Customer Service System. Mr. McCarey has an extensive background in the transportation and tolling business and has participated in numerous contract negotiations for tolling system contracts. Mr. McCarey formerly worked for Lockheed Corporation for approximately 25 years, serving for a time as its chief operations officer who oversaw its transportation and tolling lines of business. Thereafter, he worked for five years for Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. ("ACS"), serving at one point as the chief financial officer for ACS's State and Local Solutions Group, which managed its tolling business. Mr. McCarey departed ACS in 2006. Xerox acquired ACS two years after Mr. McCarey left. The Negotiation Team's task, as stated in the ITN, section 2.26, Step 3, was to undertake negotiations with the first-ranked Proposer (Xerox) until it established an acceptable contract. If the Negotiation Team did not reach an acceptable agreement with the first-ranked Proposer, the Negotiation Team was to begin negotiations with the second-ranked Proposer (Petitioner), and so on until it achieved an acceptable contract. Once the Negotiation Team agreed with a Proposer on an acceptable contract, per the ITN, section 2.26, Step 4, it was to make a recommendation to the Department explaining how that Proposer would be the "best value to the state." The Negotiation Team was not to reevaluate the vendor Proposals or rankings previously conducted by the Technical Review Team and Selection Committee. Rather, the Negotiation Team was tasked to negotiate a contract with the first-ranked Proposer as listed on the Selection Committee's ranking and continue the process of determining the "best value to the state." The Negotiation Team members were aware that the Technical Review Team and Selection Committee considered the ITN, section 2.5.2, "Best Value Selection" criteria when they evaluated and ranked Proposals. The ITN, section 2.5.2 provides: The Department intends to contract with the responsive and responsible short-listed Proposer whose Proposal is determined to provide the best value to the Department. "Best value," as defined in Section 287.012(4), F.S., means the highest overall value to the state, based on objective factors that include but are not limited to: Company history Project experience and qualifications Proposed Project approach to the technical requirements Proposed approach to the Project plan and implementation Proposed approach to System Maintenance Proposed approach to Operations and performance Price Because the Technical Review Team and the Selection Committee had already evaluated each Proposal under the ITN selection criteria, the Negotiation Team did not revisit each technical issue listed in the ITN, section 2.5.2. The Negotiation Team's purpose was to negotiate with the vendor the Selection Committee ranked first. Nevertheless, the Negotiation Team members attended the vendors' oral presentations during the rankings phase of the procurement. They also reviewed the Technical Review Team's written evaluation summaries, as well as the vendors' Proposals. The Negotiation Team also considered Xerox's prior relevant experience in similar projects as required by section 287.057(1)(c)3. The ITN, section 2.24.2, Technical Proposal Section 9, required vendors, in their technical Proposals, to identify any exceptions and assumptions. "Exceptions" pertained to any and all exceptions Proposers had to the ITN terms and conditions. "Assumptions" related to any assumptions vendors' relied upon to develop their proposed contract price. Section 2.24.2, Technical Proposal Section 9, explained that the Department was not obligated to accept any vendors' exceptions and that the Department would consider any exceptions during the evaluation process at the Department's sole discretion. Section 2.24.2, Technical Proposal Section 9, provides: Technical Proposal Section 9: Exceptions and Assumptions If Proposers take exception to Contract terms and conditions, such exceptions must be specified, detailed and submitted under this Proposal section in a separate, signed certification. The Department is under no obligation to accept the exceptions to the stated Contract terms and conditions. Proposers shall not identify any exceptions in the Price Proposal. All exceptions should be noted in the certification provided for in Proposal Section 9. Proposers shall not include any assumptions in their Price Proposals. Any assumptions should be identified and documented in this Section 9 of the Proposal. Any assumptions included in the Price Proposals will not be considered by the Department as a part of the Proposal and will not be evaluated or included in any Contract between the Department and the Proposer, should the Proposer be selected to perform the Work. Failure to take exception in the manner set forth above shall be deemed a waiver of any objection. Exceptions may be considered during the Proposal evaluation process at the sole discretion of the Department. As allowed by the ITN, section 2.24.2, all vendors included a detailed listing of exceptions and assumptions in their Proposals. The Department intended to address the exceptions and assumptions during the negotiation phase of the procurement process. From the Negotiation Team's perspective, if the Negotiation Team resolved Xerox's exceptions and assumptions favorably to the Department, received acceptable answers to any questions regarding Xerox's Proposal, and obtained a price reduction, then the Negotiation Team would have achieved a contract that represented the "best value to the state." To accomplish its task, Mr. Garrett developed a comprehensive list of topics to guide the negotiations. From a practical standpoint, Mr. Garrett's list became the agenda for the Negotiation Team's first negotiation meeting with Xerox. The list addressed all of the exceptions and assumptions Xerox included in its Proposal, as well as the Negotiation Team's questions about Xerox's Proposal. On February 10, 2015, the Negotiation Team initiated negotiations with Xerox as the first-ranked Proposer. The negotiation sessions, some lasting multiple days, occurred in February, March, April, and May of 2015, and entailed approximately 80 hours of meetings. These meetings included face-to-face engagements between the Negotiation Team and Xerox, as well as internal strategy meetings between the Negotiation Team members where Xerox was not present. Negotiation meetings also were periodically attended by various personnel from the Local Authorities and HNTB who provided input to the Negotiation Team throughout the process. During these meetings, the Negotiation Team discussed negotiation points and reviewed information gathered from Xerox. During the negotiation meetings with Xerox, the Negotiation Team addressed each exception and assumption Xerox submitted with its Proposal. The Negotiation Team rejected most of Xerox's exceptions. However, the Negotiation Team did agree to certain exceptions that it believed would benefit the Department or improve the Customer Service System. These benefits included (1) the tolling system's potential inter- operability with other states' tolling systems, (2) a clause requiring at least 120 days' notice to exercise the contract renewal option, (3) the Department's access to Xerox's software source code to increase the Department's ability to operate and modify the system should Xerox cease to serve as the contracted vendor, and (4) limiting the use of interactive voice response ("IVR") technology to only customer service and not for user account set-up due to the frequency of errors associated with IVR usage. No evidence shows that the exceptions and assumptions the Negotiation Team accepted were detrimental to the Department. Neither did any evidence indicate that the exceptions the Negotiation Team approved would negatively impact the operational performance of the tolling system or increase the cost or risk to the Department. The Negotiation Team and Xerox also reviewed "in excruciating detail" every Department question about Xerox's Proposal. At the final hearing, Mr. McCarey recounted that the Negotiation Team wanted to ensure that "the record was clear as to what Xerox was actually going to provide as a result of their Proposal." By the conclusion of its negotiations, the Negotiation Team had thoroughly negotiated the exceptions and assumptions with Xerox and clarified all questions it had about Xerox's Proposal. In addition to favorably resolving all issues related to Xerox's exceptions and assumptions, the Negotiation Team obtained a significant price reduction from Xerox. At the Negotiation Team's insistence, Xerox agreed to reduce the price of its Proposal by over $20 million (roughly 3.5 percent). The Negotiation Team considered this price reduction a "big deal." The Department did not make any concessions to Xerox in negotiating the exceptions or assumptions. The Department was going to pay less for the Customer Service System contract and receive the same services from Xerox. Also during the negotiations, the Negotiation Team scrutinized Xerox's performance on two of its existing customer service system contracts. The first contract was Xerox's back office system for the SunRail commuter rail system operating in the Department's District 5 in the Orlando area. Prior to negotiations, Negotiation Team members became aware that the Xerox SunRail system was experiencing problems. Therefore, to address any concerns that these issues might manifest in Xerox's performance on the Customer Service System contract, the Negotiation Team required the Xerox personnel responsible for the SunRail system to attend the first negotiation session. The Negotiation Team directed Xerox to provide an overview of the SunRail difficulties and discuss how Xerox was addressing those issues. During the course of the negotiations, the Negotiation Team determined that Xerox's SunRail "transit" system was significantly different from its proposed FTE "tolling" system. The Negotiation Team learned that the SunRail system's account management and back office operations materially differed from the back office system Xerox planned to implement for the Customer Service System contract. SunRail is a transactional or card-based system. SunRail customers (commuters) purchase tickets ("fare media") from ticket vending machines for use on a transit (train) transportation system. The SunRail back office processes money stored by commuters on fare media. By contrast, the Customer Service System contract involves a "tolling" system for motor vehicles. In a tolling system, customers use electronic transponders, such as a SunPass or E-Pass transponder, mounted in or on their vehicle as they drive through a tolling plaza. The Customer Service System would also include a video transaction component where a photo or video might be taken of a vehicle license plate as it passes through the tolling plaza. The license plate information is processed by the back office to determine whether the driver's prepaid account may be charged for the transaction. If no customer account is associated with the vehicle tag, the driver is sent an invoice. The Negotiation Team discovered that the SunRail back office customer service problems primarily involved the operation of SunRail ticket vending machines. Ticket vending machines would not be used in the Customer Service System motor vehicle tolling operations. The Negotiation Team further ascertained that the Xerox business unit that would run the Customer Service System tolling system is a separate, independent business unit from the Xerox division that operates the SunRail transit system. The two business units would employ different personnel, different management teams, different reporting processes, and different technology. Moreover, the Negotiation Team determined that the technology Xerox used to operate the SunRail transit system is "very new" technology. Conversely, the account management product Xerox intends to use for the Customer Service System contract is its VECTOR 4G tolling technology. The VECTOR 4G system is a well-established product in the toll collection industry. The VECTOR 4G system is used by multiple state agencies and in some of the largest toll collection systems in the United States, including New York, New Jersey, California, and Texas. Fundamentally, the VECTOR 4G back office system tracks customer prepaid accounts from which money is withdrawn and replenished for transactions being processed. Xerox's longstanding operation of VECTOR 4G-based systems, as well as its status as one of the largest providers of back office electronic tolling systems in the United States, became a key factor in the Negotiation Team's ultimate determination that Xerox's Proposal provides the "best value to the state." Nonetheless, to alleviate any Department concerns and provide additional incentive for Xerox to perform as expected on the Customer Service System contract, the Negotiation Team took advantage of the negotiation process to strengthen the Department's position on the SunRail contract. The Negotiation Team demanded Xerox agree to a "cross-default" provision that would allow the Department to default Xerox and terminate the Customer Service System contract if Xerox defaulted on its responsibilities on the SunRail contract. The Negotiation Team believed the cross-default provision would pressure Xerox to ensure that it performed its duties under the smaller SunRail contract, as well as provide added protection on the Customer Service System contract. Although initially resistant, Xerox ultimately agreed to the addition of a cross-default provision to the Customer Service System contract. The second Xerox contract the Negotiation Team reviewed was a similar tolling system Xerox currently operates for the Texas Department of Transportation ("TxDOT"). The Negotiation Team followed up on reports it received regarding problems TxDOT was experiencing with its Xerox tolling system. The Negotiation Team learned that the TxDOT issues primarily concerned data migration from prior tolling system accounts. These issues, however, did not arise from Xerox's system. They primarily resulted from TxDOT's specific instruction to Xerox to collect outstanding tolling fees and fines that were two years old and had never been processed or invoiced by the previous vendor. In addition, the Negotiation Team learned that the issues with the TxDOT databases resulted from the use of duplicate accounts and database sources that were much larger than what Xerox would experience with the FTE. Following its review, the Negotiation Team was satisfied with Xerox's approach to data migration for the FTE and was not concerned that Xerox's issues with TxDOT would impact Xerox's management and operation of the Customer Service System contract. Ultimately, after considering all the problems Xerox experienced managing the SunRail and TxDOT contracts, the Negotiation Team concluded that any performance issues on the SunRail and TxDOT systems would not negatively impact or occur with the Customer Service System contract. Thereafter, the Negotiation Team concluded that Xerox could successfully implement and perform the toll collection system it proposed in response to the ITN. At the conclusion of negotiations with Xerox, the Negotiation Team members were confident that Xerox could deliver the toll collection system it proposed. All three Negotiation Team members agreed that the two sides had resolved all outstanding exceptions and assumptions, as well as questions regarding Xerox's Proposal. Further, the Negotiation Team reconciled to their satisfaction any lingering concerns about the SunRail and TxDOT tolling contracts. The Negotiation Team members were also very pleased with Xerox's $20 million contract price reduction.7/ Accordingly, the Negotiation Team believed that it had achieved an acceptable agreement with Xerox that was beneficial to the Department and consistent with the ITN. Therefore, the Negotiation Team made a final determination that Xerox provided the "best value to the state" and should be awarded the Customer Service System contract. In accordance with the ITN's "sequential" negotiation process detailed in ITN, section 2.26, step 3, the Negotiation Team only negotiated with Xerox, the first-ranked vendor. Once the Negotiation Team believed that it had established an acceptable contract with Xerox, it never initiated negotiations with Petitioner, the second-ranked vendor. Consequently, Petitioner was never provided the opportunity that Xerox received during the negotiation process to address any issues related to its exceptions and assumptions, answer any questions about its Proposal, or reduce its Proposal price. Upon negotiating an acceptable contract with Xerox, Mr. McCarey, with input from the other Negotiation Team members, prepared a written recommendation memorandum (the "Recommendation Memorandum") setting forth the Negotiation Team's recommendation for the Department to award the Customer Service System contact to Xerox. The Recommendation Memorandum, entitled "Recommendation of Negotiation Team to Diane Scaccetti, Executive Director of the FTE," included background information on the negotiation, a summary of the negotiation, a review of the Negotiation Team's objectives and strategy, and the basis for its recommendation of Xerox. The Recommendation Memorandum cited to several key factors, including Xerox's prior relevant experience in operating high-volume toll service centers, as well as the approximately $20 million contract price reduction. Mr. McCarey summed up the Recommendation Memorandum by writing: Recommendation As a result of the actions of the Technical Review committee, the selection committee, and the negotiations as noted previously, as well as, all of the recorded meetings, the negotiating team believes it is in the best interest of the state to contract with Xerox for the [Customer Service System] contract, as providing the best value resulting from the ITN process. Xerox's experience in operating high volume toll service centers and the negotiating team's negotiated price reduction, were key factors in arriving at the negotiating team's recommendation. Mr. McCarey concluded the Recommendation Memorandum with one additional recommendation that the Department establish a "peer review contract." Mr. McCarey wrote that: the team would also like to see the Turnpike engage an outside party, knowledgeable in large systems development and possessing toll industry experience to do a peer review of the Proposal, contract, schedule, etc to ensure the Turnpike has identified all risks, and recommend any improvements that may improve the success of the project moving forward. Recognizing that this ITN procurement involved the largest back office system in the United States for tolling, the Negotiation Team believed that it would be prudent for the Department to consider obtaining additional oversight to ensure that no issues or risks were overlooked during the procurement process. The ITN did not require a peer review contract. The Negotiation Team considered this recommendation independent and separate from its official recommendation to award the contract to Xerox as the "best value." The peer review recommendation was not based on the Negotiation Team's concern over whether Xerox could perform the Customer Service System contract. The Negotiation Team felt the Department could choose to implement, or not implement, a peer review as it so determined. On June 2, 2015, the Department scheduled a public meeting to announce its notice of intent to award the Customer Service System contract. At that meeting, Mr. McCarey read the Recommendation Memorandum aloud to Ms. Scaccetti, who was present for the meeting. Ms. Scaccetti, in her capacity as FTE Executive Director, was delegated the general authority from the Secretary of the Department to award and execute contracts issued by the Department. As explained in the Recommended Memorandum, the Negotiation Team recommended that the Department award the Customer Service System contract to Xerox as the best value proposer. After Mr. McCarey read the Recommendation Memorandum, Ms. Scaccetti asked each Negotiation Team member if they concurred with the recommendation. Each member confirmed that they did. With that, Ms. Scaccetti accepted the recommendation to award the Customer Service System contract to Xerox as the best value proposer to the state. Ms. Scaccetti was satisfied that the Negotiation Team had performed its job under the ITN, and she endorsed the Negotiation Team's recommendation that Xerox provided the "best value to the state." Ms. Scaccetti also accepted the Negotiation Team's additional recommendation for a separate peer review contract. The Negotiation Team's Recommendation Memorandum was made part of the Department's procurement file. On that same day, the Department publicly posted its notice of intent to award the Customer Service System contract to Xerox. Ms. Merting, as the procurement administrator, was responsible for maintaining the ITN procurement file. Promptly after the June 2, 2015, meeting, Ms. Merting began drafting a "short plain statement" to be placed in the solicitation and contract files prior to the execution of the Customer Service System contract as required by section 287.057(1)(c)(5) and ITN, section 2.26, Step 4. At the time of the final hearing, however, Ms. Merting's short plain statement remained in draft format. Ms. Merting ceased working on her statement after Petitioner filed its notice of intent to protest the Department's intended award to Xerox. Ms. Merting testified that her "short plain statement" would have tracked the language of the Negotiation Team's Recommendation Memorandum and would have explained the basis for selecting Xerox and how Xerox's deliverables and price will provide the best value for the state. Ms. Merting placed her draft statement in the ITN procurement file. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the greater weight of the evidence presented at the final hearing does not establish that the Department's action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore, the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that the Department's decision to award the Customer Service System contract to Xerox contravened the Department's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications that apply to this procurement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order upholding its determination to award the Customer Service System contract to Intervenor, Xerox, and denying the Petitioner's Petition for bid protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 2015.
The Issue Whether Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation engaged in the construction industry with headquarters in Daytona Beach, Florida. On November 19, 2015, the Department’s compliance investigator, Scott Mohan, observed five individuals framing a single-family house at 173 Botefuhr Avenue in Daytona, Florida. Mr. Mohan interviewed the individuals he observed working at the jobsite and found they were working for Respondent on lease from Convergence Leasing (“Convergence”). Mr. Mohan contacted Convergence and found that all of the workers on the jobsite were employees of Convergence, except Scott Barenfanger. Mr. Mohan also confirmed that the workers’ compensation policy for Convergence employees was in effect. Mr. Mohan reviewed information in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System, or CCAS, for Respondent. CCAS indicated Respondent’s workers were covered for workers’ compensation by Convergence and that Respondent’s contract with Convergence was active. Mr. Mohan also confirmed, through CCAS, that Foster Coleman, Respondent’s president, had previously obtained an exemption from the workers’ compensation requirement, but that his exemption expired on July 18, 2015. Mr. Mohan then contacted Mr. Coleman via telephone and informed him that one of the workers on the jobsite was not on the active employee roster for Convergence, thus Respondent was not in compliance with the requirement to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. Mr. Coleman reported to the jobsite in response to Mr. Mohan’s phone call. Mr. Coleman admitted that Mr. Barenfanger was not on the Convergence employee leasing roster. Mr. Coleman subsequently obtained an application from Convergence for Mr. Barenfanger and delivered it to his residence. Mr. Mohan served Mr. Coleman at the jobsite with a Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (“BRR”). In response to the BRR, Respondent provided to the Department business bank statements, check stubs, copies of checks, certificates of liability insurance for various suppliers and subcontractors, and an employee leasing roster for most of the audit period from November 20, 2013, to November 19, 2015.1/ Respondent did not produce any check stubs for November and December 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that his bookkeeper during that time period did not keep accurate records. Mr. Coleman did produce his business bank statements and other records for that time period. Based on the review of initial records received, the Department calculated a penalty of $17,119.80 and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in that amount on February 18, 2016. On March 17, 2016, Respondent supplied the Department with additional records. Altogether, Respondent submitted over 400 pages of records to the Department. The majority of the records are copies of check stubs for checks issued on Respondent’s business bank account. The check stubs are in numerical order from 1349 to 1879, and none are missing. The check stubs were hand written by Mr. Coleman, who is 78 years old. Some of his writing on the check stubs is difficult to discern. On April 4, 2016, following review of additional records received, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $9,629.36. The Department assigned penalty auditor Sarah Beal to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Identification of Employees Ms. Beal reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and identified Respondent’s uninsured employees first by filtering out payments made to compliant individuals and businesses, and payments made for non-labor costs. However, the evidence demonstrated that the Department included on its penalty calculation worksheet (“worksheet”) payments made to individuals who were not Respondent’s employees. Neal Noonan is an automobile mechanic. Mr. Noonan was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Noonan performed repairs on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Noonan during the audit period were for work performed on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles. The Department’s worksheet included a “David Locte” with a period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The basis for including Mr. Locte as an employee was a check stub written on December 10, 2014, to a business name that is almost indiscernible, but closely resembles “Liete & Locke” in the amount of $100. The memo reflects that the check was written for “architect plans.” Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of David Locte as pertaining to David Leete, an architect in Daytona. Mr. Leete has provided architectural services to Respondent off and on for roughly five years. Mr. Leete signs and seals plans for, among others, a draftsman named Dan Langley. Mr. Langley provides drawings and plans for Respondent’s projects. When Respondent submits plans to a local governing body which requires architectural drawings to accompany permit applications, Mr. Leete reviews and signs the plans. Mr. Leete was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Mr. Leete by Respondent during the audit period was for professional architectural services rendered. Mr. Langley was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Langley during the audit period were for professional drafting services rendered. Among the names on the Department’s worksheet is R.W. Kicklighter. Mr. Kicklighter is an energy consultant whose office is located in the same building with Mr. Leete. Mr. Kicklighter prepares energy calculations, based on construction plans, to determine the capacity of heating and air-conditioning systems needed to serve the planned construction. Mr. Kicklighter was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Kicklighter during the audit period were for professional services rendered. Respondent made a payment of $125 on September 15, 2014, to an entity known as Set Material. Set Material is a company that rents dumpsters for collection of concrete at demolition and reconstruction sites. Removal and disposal of the concrete from the jobsite is included within the rental price of the dumpster. The Department included on the worksheet an entry for “Let Malereal.” The evidence revealed the correct name is Set Material and no evidence was introduced regarding the existence of a person or entity known as Let Malereal. Set Material was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Set Material during the audit period was for dumpster rental. The Department’s worksheet contains an entry for “CTC” for the penalty period of January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014. Respondent made a payment to “CTC” on April 11, 2014, in connection with a job referred to as “964 clubhouse.” The records show Respondent made payments to Gulfeagle Supply, Vern’s Insulation, John Wood, Bruce Bennett, and Ron Whaley in connection with the same job. At final hearing, Mr. Coleman had no recollection what CTC referred to. Mr. Coleman’s testimony was the only evidence introduced regarding identification of CTC. CTC could have been a vendor of equipment or supplies for the job, just as easily as an employee. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that CTC was an employee of, or a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The check stub for check 1685 does not indicate to whom the $60 payment was made. The stub reads “yo for Doug.” The Department listed “Doug” as an employee on its worksheet and included the $60 as wages to “Doug” for purposes of calculating workers’ compensation premiums owed. At hearing, Mr. Coleman was unable to recall ever having employed anyone named Doug, and had no recollection regarding the January 7, 2015, payment. The evidence was insufficient to establish that “Doug” was either Respondent’s employee or subcontractor during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air was not an employee of, nor a subcontractor to, Respondent for any work undertaken by Respondent during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air conducted repairs on, and maintenance of, Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Ken’s Heating and Air during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. Barry Smith is an electrical contractor. Mr. Smith was neither an employee of, nor subcontractor to, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Smith did make repairs to the electrical system at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Smith during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. The remaining names listed on the Department’s penalty calculation worksheet were accurately included as Respondent’s employees.2/ Calculation of Payroll Mr. Coleman’s exemption certificate expired on July 18, 2015, approximately four months shy of the end of the audit period. Payments made by Respondent to Mr. Coleman during the time period for which he did not have a valid exemption (the penalty period) were deemed by the Department as wages paid to Mr. Coleman by Respondent. Respondent’s business records show seven checks written either to Mr. Coleman or to cash during that time period in the total amount of $3,116.52. The Department included that amount on the worksheet as wages paid to Mr. Coleman. Check 1873 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $1,035.69 was made to Compliance Matters, Respondent’s payroll company. Check 1875 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $500 was made to Daytona Landscaping. The evidence does not support a finding that checks 1873 and 1875 represented wages paid to Mr. Coleman. The correct amount attributable as wages paid to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $1,796.52. Respondent’s employees Tyler Eubler, Brian Karchalla, Keith Walsh, and John Strobel, were periodically paid by Respondent during the audit period in addition to their paychecks from Convergence. Mr. Coleman testified that the payments were advances on their wages. He explained that when working on a job out of town, the crew would arrive after Convergence had closed for the day, and Mr. Coleman would pay them cash and allow them to reimburse him from their paychecks the following day. Unfortunately for Respondent, the evidence did not support a finding that these employees reimbursed Mr. Coleman for the advances made. The Department correctly determined the payroll amount attributable to these employees. The Department attributed $945 in payroll to “James Sharer.” The Department offered no evidence regarding how they arrived at the name of James Sharer as Respondent’s employee or the basis for the payroll amount. James Shores worked off-and-on for Respondent. Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of “James Sharer” as a misspelling of Mr. Shores’ name. Respondent’s records show payments totaling $535 to Mr. Shores during the audit period. The correct amount of payroll attributable to Mr. Shores from Respondent during the audit period is $535. The Department included wages totaling $10,098.84 to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance from November 20, 2013, to December 31, 2013. The Department imputed the average weekly wage to Mr. Barenfanger for that period because, in the Department’s estimation, Respondent did not produce records sufficient to establish payroll for those two months in 2013. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The voluminous records produced by Respondent evidenced not a single payment made to Mr. Barenfanger between January 2014, and November 19, 2015. Even if Mr. Coleman had not testified that he did not know or employ Mr. Barenfanger before November 19, 2015, it would be ludicrous to find that he worked weekly for Respondent during the last two months of 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that Mr. Barenfanger worked the jobsite for Respondent on November 18 and 19, 2015, but not prior to those dates. The evidence does not support a finding that the worksheet entry for Mr. Barenfanger in the amount of $10,098.84 accurately represents wages attributable to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance. The Department’s worksheet includes an employee by the name of Ren W. Raly for the period of noncompliance from January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014, and a Ronnie Whaley for the period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Mr. Coleman testified that he never had an employee by the name of Raly and he assumed the first entry was a misspelling of Ronnie Whaley’s name. Mr. Coleman testified that Ronnie Whaley was a concrete finisher and brick layer who did work for Respondent. Mr. Coleman testified that he submitted to the Department a copy of Mr. Whaley’s “workers’ comp exempt,” but that they must not have accepted it. The records submitted to the Department by Respondent do not contain any exemption certificate for Ronnie Whaley. However, in the records submitted to the Department from Respondent is a certificate of liability insurance dated February 25, 2014, showing workers’ compensation and liability coverage issued to Direct HR Services, Inc., from Alliance Insurance Solutions, LLC. The certificate plainly states that coverage is provided for “all leased employees, but not subcontractors, of Ronald Whaley Masonry.” The certificate shows coverage in effect from February 1, 2013, through February 1, 2015. Petitioner did not challenge the reliability of the certificate or otherwise object to its admissibility.3/ In fact, the document was moved into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit P1. Petitioner offered no testimony regarding whether the certificate was insufficient proof of coverage for Mr. Whaley during the periods of noncompliance listed on the worksheet. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Whaley was an uninsured individual during the periods of noncompliance. Thus, the wages attributed to Mr. Whaley by the Department were incorrect. Ms. Beal assigned the class code 5645—Carpentry to the individuals correctly identified as Respondent’s uninsured employees because this code matched the description of the job being performed by the workers on the jobsite the day of the inspection. Ms. Beal correctly utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for the carpentry classification code and the related periods of noncompliance to determine the gross payroll to the individuals correctly included as Respondent’s uninsured employees. Calculation of Penalty For the employees correctly included as uninsured employees, Ms. Beal applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty to be imposed. For the individuals correctly included as uninsured employees, and for whom the correct payroll was calculated, the correct penalty amount is $2,590.06. The correct penalty for payments made to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $571.81. The correct penalty for payments made to James Shores is $170.24. The correct total penalty to be assessed against Respondent is $3,332.11. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the audit period and that Respondent failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance for its employees at times during the audit period as required by Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent employed the employees named on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, with the exception of Ken’s Heating and Air, CTC, Don Langly, Ren W. Raly, R.W. Kicklighter, Dave Locte, Let Malereal, Ronnie Whaley, and “Doug.” The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it correctly calculated the gross payroll attributable to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Shores. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Beal correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalty for each of Respondent’s uninsured employees. The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the correct penalty is $9,629.36. The evidence demonstrated that the correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employees during the audit period is $3,332.11.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and assessing a penalty of $3,332.11. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 18th day of August, 2016.
The Issue Whether the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to excuse the late filing of Respondent's Election of Rights form.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating massage establishments pursuant to chapter 20 and section 20.43, Florida Statutes. Respondent is licensed as a massage establishment in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MM 33902. Respondent's address of record is 440 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida 33415. The August 5, 2016, Letter and First Response On or about August 5, 2016, the Department issued a letter to Respondent at its address of record ("August 5 Letter"), advising Respondent that the Department was conducting an investigation based on an internally generated complaint that on July 24 and August 1, 2016, Respondent ran an advertisement on www.backpage.com ("Backpage") with images "of Asia women dressed in swim wear and lingere," which was considered by the Department as designed to "induce sexual misconduct." The August 5 Letter also alleges that Respondent failed to include a license number in the advertisement. The advertisement in question was not provided to Respondent by the Department. The August 5 Letter advised Respondent that it could submit a written response within 20 days of receiving the letter and that it was not possible to estimate how long it would take to complete the investigation. Respondent, who at that time was owned by Ms. Jing Hui Guo, contacted a retired attorney, Jule Paulk, regarding the correspondence from the Department. Ms. Guo only reads and speaks Mandarin. Ms. Guo had purchased the business, formerly known as "Ocean Spa," about 15 months prior. She was not familiar with the advertising content of Ocean Spa. When she purchased the business, Ms. Guo changed the name to Kai Xin Spa, Inc., and she kept paying the invoice from the prior advertising agency. After receipt of the August 5 Letter, Ms. Guo provided a copy of it to her advertising agency and directed that they remove and/or stop running the offending advertisements. According to her testimony, she approved new advertisement content with the business license number and with none of the cited offending content. That new advertisement ran as of August 8, 2016. On August 15, 2016, Mr. Paulk drafted a written response to the August 5 Letter ("First Response Letter") on behalf of Respondent. The First Response Letter was electronically signed by Ms. Guo and it contained the new advertisement which included the business license number and removed the women in bathing suits and lingerie. The First Response Letter states: We have taken immediate steps to address the issues in the letter mentioned above. We will continue to do so until all issues are resolved. We hope this letter will show our sincere efforts to bring our business into compliance. (Emphasis added). Ms. Guo sold the business in the beginning of 2017 to Mr. Haibing Wang. Hearing nothing further from the Department prior to sale, she reasonably assumed the Department approved of her new advertising and that matter was closed. The April 12, 2018, Letter and Second Response Despite receipt of the First Response Letter, the Department continued to "investigate" Respondent's alleged misconduct. On April 12, 2018, 20 months after its original notification to Respondent, the Department issued a second letter to Respondent ("April 12 Letter"), advising Respondent that the matter was still ongoing. The Department's April 12 Letter was identical to the August 5 Letter except for the date. When it was received by the new business owner, Mr. Wang, he forwarded it to Ms. Guo telling her that it was her problem because she did not tell him about the investigation at the time of the sale. Ms. Guo provided the letter to Mr. Paulk. Mr. Paulk recognized the letter as identical to the August 5 Letter, but noted there was a new document included, dated August 1, 2016, which was styled "Health Care Provider Complaint Form." This form states, "[w]e will send a copy of the Complaint to the health care provider if the complaint is assigned for investigation." The Complaint with the Department of Health was certainly assigned for investigation in 2016, but this form was not given to Respondent until 2018. Mr. Paulk also noted the following additional discrepancies in the Health Care Provider Complaint form: It was dated August 16, 2016, but attached to a letter dated April 12, 2018. The form identified the reason for the complaint to be that of advertising. The box for sexual contact was not checked. Attached to the Health Care Provider Complaint Form was a document signed by Mr. Kevin Lapham dated August 1, 2016. Such document identified the same advertisements, which were the subject of the prior investigation which were published on August 1 and June 24, 2016, and which he thought was resolved. Further, the initial August 5 Letter included an attachment which specifically references advertising to induce sexual misconduct and identifies specific Florida Statutes. However, the Department's April 12 Letter, nor the attachments thereto, reference sexual misconduct or a statute dealing with sexual misconduct. On or about April 16, 2018, Mr. Paulk submitted a written response to the Department's April 12 Letter ("Second Response Letter"), on behalf of Respondent. The letter was electronically signed by Ms. Guo. The Second Response Letter states: Your letter of April 12, 2018 refers to 2016 Case Number 2016-20171. By our letter of August 15, 2016 (copy enclosed), we responded to this Case, assuring your office that we had taken steps to correct the concerns you had listed. We are not sure why you are still addressing this same Case. We assumed that our August 15, 2016 letter had satisfied the concerns. In addition, the concerns expressed in your August, 2016 letter involved a Backpage ad. We corrected those issues at that time. Now, Backpage has been removed from the internet. We hope this information resolved this matter. Please contact us if otherwise. Ms. Guo received no response from the Department to her Second Response Letter. The Administrative Complaint On June 28, 2018, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, alleging that Respondent inappropriately advertised to induce sexual misconduct and failed to include its license number in its advertising. The cover letter included with the Administrative Complaint stated: Please review the attached documents and return the Election of Rights form to my attention. You must sign the Election of Rights form and return the completed form to my office within twenty-one (21) days of the date you receive it. Failure to return this form within twenty-one (21) days may result on the entry of a default judgement against you without hearing your side of the case. (Emphasis added). The cover letter also referenced an enclosed Voluntary Relinquishment form for consideration described as "an offer to resolve this matter without the necessity of further proceedings and the expense of further proceedings." The Administrative Complaint contained a Notice of Rights section, which informed Respondent that "[a] request or petition for an administrative hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Department within 21 days from the day Respondent received the Administrative Complaint, pursuant to Rule 28-106.111(2), Florida Administrative Code." The EOR form included with the Complaint stated: In the event that you fail to make an election in this matter within twenty-one (21) days from receipt of the Administrative Complaint, your failure to do so may be considered a waiver of your right to elect a hearing in this matter, pursuant to Rule 28-106.111(4), Florida Administrative Code, and the Board may proceed to hear your case. (Emphasis added). The Department mailed the Administrative Complaint, a Notice of Rights, and an EOR form via certified U.S. mail to Respondent's address of record. On July 14, 2018, Mr. Wang received the Administrative Complaint and gave the Administratve Complaint and EOR to Ms. Guo, who provided the documents to Mr. Paulk. Mr. Paulk consulted with counsel for Respondent, Mr. Samuel Holland, Esquire, about the EOR. Mr. Holland completed and signed the EOR on August 8, 2018. However, neither Mr. Paulk nor Mr. Holland returned the completed EOR to the Department until August 17, 2018, nine days later. Mr. Paulk testified that this nine-day delay was because he and Mr. Holland were "confused," "not quite sure how to proceed the best way," that he "needed to collect [his] thoughts," and that he needed to "do a little more looking into [the] matter" in order to decide the "best approach." This confusion is understandable and in large part created by the Department's own doing. At no time did the Department supply Respondent with a copy of the alleged offending advertisement. In fact, even the Administrative Complaint does not attach the advertisement at issue. The allegations in the Administrative Complaint deviate from the matters of which Respondent was provided notice were under investigation. For the first time, the Department indicates a concern that the advertisement contained hearts with arrows going through them, women in "sexually suggestive poses," and massage therapists described as "hot," "beautiful," and "young." The EOR and the penalty for failure to return such was not stated in absolute terms. The EOR form states, "[f]ailure to return this form within twenty-one days may result in the entry of a default judgment against you without hearing your side of the case." The use of the word "may" detracts from any finality to the consequences of failure to return the signed EOR. This sentence also suggests that a hearing will be conducted with or without the return of the EOR. Eventually, Mr. Paulk and Mr. Holland decided the best course of action would be to submit the EOR because "any further delay might be harmful." Twenty-one days from July 14, 2018, was August 3, 2018. The Department ultimately received the EOR via regular mail on August 20, 2018; 16 days after it was due. On or about September 12, 2018, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Holland ("Denial Letter"), denying Respondent's request for a formal administrative hearing. On October 15, 2018, the Department received a letter from Respondent ("October 9 Letter") contesting the Denial Letter. In the October 9 Letter, counsel for Respondent, Mr. Holland, explained the reason for the untimely filing and asked for a hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's request for a formal hearing under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, be permitted in accordance with the doctrine of equitable tolling. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 2019.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Deck King Corp., failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees, and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Department”) correctly calculated the penalty assessment imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of its employees. Respondent was a business providing services in the construction industry with its principal office located at 2200 Northwest 22nd Court, Miami, Florida 33142. On June 29, 2015, Marilyn Victores, the Department’s compliance investigator, observed Ivan Lopez Avila and Robert Jordan performing construction work on a job site at 150 South Hibiscus Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. She learned from the individuals working that they were performing the job on behalf of Respondent, Deck King Corp. After gathering the information at the job site, Ms. Victores spoke with her supervisor, Ms. Scarlett Aldana, and an investigation was performed. The Division of Corporations’ website was consulted to determine, among other things, the identity of Respondent’s corporate officers. Mses. Victores and Aldana learned that Respondent had three corporate officers and directors listed, Derek Barnick, Thomas Barnick, and Fausto Lopez. They also learned that the corporation was “active.” Ms. Victores consulted the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) for proof of workers’ compensation coverage and for any exemptions associated with Respondent. An exemption is a method whereby a corporate officer can be relieved of the responsibility of the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 440.05. CCAS is the Department’s internal database that contains workers’ compensation insurance policy and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report insurance coverage information to the Department which is then inputted into CCAS. Ms. Victores’ CCAS search revealed that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation policy or an employee leasing policy. Additionally, she discovered that no active exemptions were associated with Respondent. Based upon the information she gathered, Ms. Victores issued and served Respondent with a Stop-Work Order on June 29, 2015. Ms. King simultaneously issued and served Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (the “Request for Production”). The Request for Production sought documents to enable the Department to determine Respondent’s payroll for the time period of June 30, 2013, through June 29, 2015. In response to the Request for Production, Respondent provided the Department only bank statements. Ms. Eunika Jackson, a penalty auditor with the Department, was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Ms. Jackson believed the business records produced by Respondent were insufficient to calculate a penalty for the entire audit period as they did not specify payroll or payments made to employees other than two specific checks, which were credited against the penalty ultimately assessed against Respondent. Based upon Ms. Jackson’s calculations, on October 9, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent which was served on Respondent on that date. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment imposed a penalty of $148,923.16. To make the penalty assessment determination, Ms. Jackson consulted the codes listed in the National Council on Compensation Insurance’s (NCCI) Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are assigned to various occupations to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. Based upon Ms. Victores’ description of the activities Respondent’s workers were performing and the descriptions listed in the NCCI Scopes® Manual, Ms. Jackson determined that the proper classification for employees of Respondent was 5403. Ms. Jackson then utilized the corresponding manual rates for that classification code and the related periods of the alleged non- compliance. Based upon the information provided to her by Mses. Victores and Aldana, Ms. Jackson utilized the appropriate methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028, to determine the penalty of $148,923.16. The business records supplied by Respondent in response to the Department’s Request for Production consisted of two years’ worth of bank statements. No tax records, such as W-2s, W-4s, 1099s, or tax returns of Respondent, were provided to the Department to allow it to determine whether any of the workers were independent contractors, what salaries, if any, they were paid, or in any way to mitigate the penalty assessed by the Department. By not appearing at hearing or attempting to file any documents in explanation or mitigation of the penalty assessed against it, Respondent gave the Department nothing upon which to reach any conclusion of payroll other than through imputation. Using the Penalty Calculation Worksheet, Ms. Jackson determined the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. She imputed the income for Derek Barnick, Thomas Barnick, Ivan Lopez Avila, Robert Lopez, and Fausto Lopez, and used actual records provided by Respondent to determine the income of an individual identified only as “Mili” who received $105 in April 2014. Working through the calculations called for by the worksheet included the class code, period(s) of non-compliance, gross payroll, a divisor of 100 which was then multiplied by the approved manual rate, and then multiplied by two to calculate the penalty. The result was a penalty assessment of $148,923.16. By not appearing at hearing or offering any evidence to contradict the penalty assessed by the Department, Respondent waived its opportunity to prove the Department’s data used and calculations made were performed improperly. The Department properly determined the penalty using the worksheet prescribed by its statutes and rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order imposing a penalty of $148,923.16 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Tabitha G. Harnage, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Deck King Corp. 2200 Northwest 22nd Court Miami, Florida 33142 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment entered by Petitioner on July 25, 2013, and August 13, 2013, respectively, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency tasked with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of section 440.107(3), Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. Respondent, Mad Dog Marketing Group, Inc., is a corporation organized under chapter 607, Florida Statutes, and was registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, throughout the period of July 26, 2010, to July 25, 2013. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was engaged in the operation of a hardware store business with three locations in Florida. On July 25, 2013, based upon an anonymous referral, Tracey Gilbert, the Department's compliance investigator, commenced a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Respondent by visiting the job site, an appliance parts store at 730 West Brandon Boulevard, Brandon, Florida, and interviewing Sharon Belcher. According to Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Belcher informed her that she had 11 employees at the time of the site visit and that she did not have workers' compensation coverage for them. Ms. Belcher showed Ms. Gilbert an application for workers' compensation insurance and said she had not taken action with it since the company wanted a $10,000 premium. She also showed Ms. Gilbert some OSHA and workplace posters, but not the typical "broken arm poster" that describes workers' compensation coverage for a place of business. Ms. Belcher then gave Ms. Gilbert a list of Respondent's 11 current employees. On her laptop computer, Ms. Gilbert consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage or an exemption from the requirements for coverage for its employees. CCAS is the database Ms. Gilbert routinely consults during the course of her investigations. She determined from CCAS that Respondent neither had workers' compensation coverage for her employees nor had received an exemption from such coverage from the Department. Ms. Belcher's recollection of her meeting with Ms. Gilbert differs from Ms. Gilbert's. Ms. Belcher recalled that she had applied for insurance with ADP on July 11, 2013, received the "broken arm poster," and believed she was covered at the time Ms. Belcher conducted her investigation. She offered an exhibit showing photographs of posters (but not the "broken arm poster") on the office bulletin board. She also offered an exhibit she testified was the UPS label from the tube containing the "broken arm poster." No photograph of the "broken arm poster" was produced as an exhibit. Ms. Gilbert did not contact ADP to verify whether Respondent had coverage on the date of her site visit to the Brandon store. Ms. Gilbert issued a Stop-Work Order to Respondent and a concurrent Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation at 11:20 a.m. on July 25, 2013. Ms. Belcher first submitted an application for workers' compensation coverage on July 11, 2013, but coverage was not bound on that date. Ms. Belcher submitted the paperwork to bind her insurance coverage on the afternoon of July 25, 2013, according to Mark Cristillo, an employee of ADP Insurance. Mr. Cristillo testified that he had made several attempts during the month of July 2013 to obtain the signed documents from Ms. Belcher, including an attempt as late as July 23, 2013, at 11:45 a.m. Ms. Belcher told Mr. Cristillo at that time that she had not reviewed the quote package. At 11:20 a.m., the time Ms. Gilbert's issued the Stop-Work Order on July 25, 2013, Ms. Belcher had not bound her insurance coverage. When she submitted the payment with the signed documents to ADP later that afternoon, the coverage was bound effective 12:01 a.m. on July 25, 2013. The records produced by Ms. Belcher were given to Chad Mason, one of the Department's penalty auditors, to calculate the penalty. He reviewed the records and determined the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's employees during the three- year penalty period preceding the investigation during which Respondent was not in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirements. Using Respondent's bi-weekly payroll chart, Respondent's Florida Department of Revenue UCT-6 reports, and the classification codes for each employee, Mr. Mason calculated a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment of $42,251.43, based upon what Respondent would have paid in workers' compensation premiums had it been in compliance with Florida's Workers' Compensation Law. The order was issued on October 24, 2013. Mr. Mason determined that the appropriate codes for Respondent's employees were 8010 and 8810, which are hardware store employees and general clerical employees, respectively. These codes were derived from the Scopes Manual, which lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers' compensation. The manual is produced by NCCI, the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., the nation's most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers' compensation. The parties stipulated prior to hearing that all of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were "employees" in the state of Florida of Respondent during the periods of non-compliance listed on the penalty worksheets. However, Respondent claimed that some of the employees were out-of-state and not subject to Florida law. Ms. Belcher testified that, as of July 25, 2013, three of its employees, Fred Hasselman, Douglas Strickland, and Josh Hyers, were employees of the Tennessee store and not subject to a Florida penalty. Mr. Hyers was a Florida employee prior to July 1, according to Ms. Belcher. However, all three of the employees were listed on the Florida Department of Revenue's UCT-6 form for the time period of the non-compliance. The UCT-6 form lists those employees who are subject to Florida's Unemployment Compensation Law. Mr. Mason reasonably relied upon the UCT-6 filings for the relevant time period to calculate Respondent's gross payroll in Florida. No evidence was produced to show them listed as Tennessee employees on that state's comparable tax form or any official document from outside Florida. The logical assumption is that they are Florida employees under the law. Accepting all the employees disclosed by Respondent as Florida employees led Mr. Mason to make his calculations of the penalty assessment using the appropriate codes from the Scopes Manual for hardware store and general clerical workers, 8010 and 8810. All the named employees on the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were paid by Respondent in the amounts indicated on the penalty worksheet that accompanies that assessment during the penalty period of July 26, 2010, through July 25, 2013. Even though small discrepancies came up at the hearing regarding the classifications of some of Respondent's employees, the parties had stipulated to the accuracy of the classifications of those employees so those numbers will be accepted for purposes of this decision. Based upon the testimony at the hearing and the pre-hearing stipulations of the parties, the penalty assessment in the amount of $42,251.43 is accurate. Mr. Mason correctly applied the methodology for determining the amount of coverage required, determining that the appropriate premium for the three- year period would have been $28,167.50. When multiplied by the factor used to calculate the penalty, 1.5 times the premium, the total amount due is $42,251.43. The Department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that at the time the Stop-Work Order was issued and served on Respondent on the morning of July 25, 2013, Respondent had not secured workers' compensation coverage for its employees as required by chapter 440. On two occasions, August 2 and August 21, 2013, Ms. Gilbert returned to Respondent's Brandon location after the Stop-Work Order had been issued. The first was to serve the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and the second was to serve the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. On both occasions, the business was open in violation of the Stop-Work Order. A business under a Stop-Work Order may elect to enter into a payment plan after a ten percent down payment to keep the business open while a challenge to DOAH is under way. Respondent had not entered into such a plan. Therefore, the Department seeks $1,000 penalty for each of the days Ms. Gilbert visited the Brandon store and saw it open for business. This total additional penalty of $2,000 could have been greater had the Department further investigated whether the business remained open on other days after the Stop-Work Order had been imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order upholding the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $42,251.43. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Department fine Respondent an additional $1,000 per day for the two days Respondent did not comply with the Stop-Work Order, resulting in a total penalty of $44,251.43. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kristian Eiler Dunn, Esquire Dickens and Dunn, P.L. 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Ocala Exterior Solutions, Inc., failed to properly maintain workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for ensuring that all employers maintain workers' compensation insurance for themselves and their employees. It is the duty of the Department to make random inspections of job sites and to answer complaints concerning potential violations of workers' compensation rules. This case arose as a result of a random inspection. Respondent is a business created by Johnny Busciglio on or about October 16, 2012. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was duly licensed to do business in the State of Florida. Its business address is 140 Southwest 74th Lane, Ocala, Florida 34476. On May 22, 2015, the Department’s investigator, William Pangrass, made a random site visit to a construction site located at a residence at 9189 Southwest 60th Terrace Road, Ocala, Florida. He saw two men installing soffit as part of the construction which was going on. Pangrass remembers the men identifying themselves as Derek McVey and Frank Deil. When Pangrass inquired as to their employer, the two men were initially not certain for whom they were working. One of the men made a telephone call and then told Pangrass they were employees of Sauer & Sons. Interestingly, Respondent said the two men on-site that day were McVey and a man named James Van Brunt. Pangrass contacted Sauer & Sons and were told that neither McVey nor Deil (or Van Brunt) were employees of that company. He was told by a representative of Sauer & Sons that the men were in fact employees of Respondent. Pangrass then verified that Respondent was a current, viable company and checked whether the company had workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees. He found that Respondent had a workers’ compensation insurance policy for a short time in 2014. Two of Respondent’s employees, however, did have exemptions from coverage. Those two were Johnny Busciglio and Anthony Wayne. Based on his findings, Pangrass issued a SWO which he posted at the work site he had visited. He posted the SWO on the permit board in front of the job site on May 26, 2015. On May 29, he served a Request for Production of Business Records on Respondent, seeking information concerning Respondent’s business for purposes of calculating a penalty for failure to have workers’ compensation insurance in place. Respondent emailed the requested business records to Pangrass. The Department requested additional records and clarification concerning some of the records which had been provided. Busciglio made a good faith effort to respond to each of the Department’s requests. After review of Respondent’s business records, the Department calculated a penalty and issued an amended OPA. That amended OPA was issued on September 8 and served on Busciglio (as agent for Respondent) on October 1, 2015. The amount of the penalty in the amended OPA was $9,896.32. Within a few days after receiving the amended Order, Busciglio obtained workers’ compensation insurance for his employees, paid a down payment of $1,000 to the Department, and Respondent was released to resume its work. The penalty in the amended OPA was based upon information obtained from Busciglio concerning Respondent. Using the bank records supplied by Busciglio, the Department determined that Respondent had the following employees: Eric McVey, Frank Dorneden, Jeff Burns, Jordan Anchondo, Anthony Wayne, Nikki Smith, Johnny Busciglio, and Jason Bridge. Their wages were used by the Department to calculate the penalty. The penalty was calculated by the Department as follows: The business was assigned class code 5645, construction on residential dwellings; The period of non-compliance was set at two years; The gross payroll amount for that two-year period was established at $30,905.14; The gross payroll amount was divided by 100, resulting in the sum of $309.05; The approved manual rate, i.e., the amount the employer would have paid if insurance was in place, was assigned for each employee; The gross payroll was multiplied by the manual rate; And the penalty amount was established, taking the figure in (f), above, and multiplying by two. Busciglio established by credible testimony, unrefuted by the Department, that Nikki Smith was a person from whom he bought tools; she was never an employee of Respondent. The same was true for the person listed as Jason Bridge (although his real name may have been Jason Woolridge). As for Eric McVey, he worked for Frank Dorneden, who paid McVey directly. There were no payroll records or checks from Respondent provided to the Department which were attributable to McVey. Dorneden had begun working for Respondent on December 22, 2014. On May 22, 2015, he was asked by Busciglio to visit the work site; he found McVey working there and Deil/Van Brunt was also on the site. Neither the Department nor Respondent offered any further explanation about Deil/Van Brunt, nor did the Department attribute any penalty to Van Brunt as a putative employee. His status in this matter is a mystery. When the penalties associated with McVey, Smith, and Bride are subtracted from the calculation, the amount of the penalty would be $9,454.22.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services requiring Respondent, Ocala Exterior Solutions, Inc., to pay the sum of $9,454.22. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 November, 2015.
The Issue The issue to determine in this matter is whether equitable tolling applies to excuse Respondent Mac Mar, LLC’s, late-filed petition for administrative review.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation located in Clermont, Florida, engaged in the roofing industry. On March 5, 2018, Department Investigator Keith Howe conducted a workers’ compensation compliance check at a residence located in Daytona Beach, Florida, where Petitioner was installing a new roof. The purpose of Mr. Howe’s visit was to determine whether Petitioner had workers’ compensation coverage for its employees, as required under chapter 440. Mr. Howe made a preliminary determination that persons working at the residence were not covered by workers’ compensation insurance. After Mr. Howe’s visit, on March 6, 2018, the Department issued and served on Respondent (via hand-delivery) a Stop-Work Order and Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The Stop-Work Order alleged that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance for those individuals at the Daytona Beach worksite, in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1), and 440.107(2). On June 27, 2018, the Department served Respondent with the Amended Order via certified mail. The Amended Order includes two deadlines. The deadline referenced on the first page of the Amended Order states: Pursuant to Rule 69L-6.028, Florida Administrative Code, if the Division imputes the employer’s payroll, the employer shall have twenty days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to provide business records sufficient for the Division to determine the employer’s payroll for the period requested in the business records request for the calculation of the penalty. The employer’s penalty will be recalculated pursuant to subsection 440.107(7)(d), F.S., only if the employer provides all such business records within the twenty days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment. Otherwise, the first amended order of penalty assessment will remain in effect. The Amended Order’s other deadline is found in the “Notice of Rights” on the second page, and states: You must file the petition for hearing so that it is received within twenty-one (21) calendar days of this agency action. The petition must be filed with Julie Jones, DFS Agency Clerk, Department of Financial Services, 612 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0390. FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WITHIN THE TWENTY- ONE (21) DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THIS AGENCY ACTION CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE AGENCY ACTION. Ms. Anderson, who previously served as an attorney for the Department, testified that the Department assigned her to a separate workers’ compensation matter involving Respondent (case 18-069-D7). Ms. Anderson testified that she contacted Ms. Lairsey, Respondent’s chief operating officer, on July 20, 2018, to discuss whether Respondent would agree to waive the 21- day deadline to file the petition in that matter. By that date more than 21 days had already passed from Respondent’s receipt of the Amended Order. Ms. Lairsey’s testimony confirms this conversation. Ms. Lairsey testified that she returned Ms. Anderson’s call, to discuss case 18-069-D7, as well as the instant case. At the time and date of this phone call, Respondent had not filed a petition for relief in the instant case, and the Department had therefore not assigned it to a Department attorney. During this telephone conversation, both Ms. Anderson and Ms. Lairsey testified that they discussed the potential for settlement in case 18-069-D7, and that Ms. Lairsey asked Ms. Anderson if the Department would consider consolidating that case with the instant case. Ms. Anderson testified that, during this telephone conversation, she was unaware of the instant case because Respondent had not yet filed a petition. After reviewing the Department’s database, Ms. Anderson testified that she discovered the Amended Order, but noted to Ms. Lairsey that Respondent had not yet filed a petition, and that if it did, the Department would consider it to be beyond the 21-day deadline, and thus late. Ms. Lairsey’s testimony is consistent with Ms. Anderson’s testimony concerning the discussion of the presumed lateness of the yet-to-be-filed petition in the instant case. Ms. Lairsey testified: So I understood that I was going to be late with the petition, or actually, I didn’t realize—I don’t remember—I didn’t know until that time that I was going to be late, but I wanted to know if I could get an extension of time or somehow find out a way to respond with why it was going to be late because of all the documentation that I needed to create the response. Ms. Anderson testified that she explained to Ms. Lairsey that because the Department would consider a petition in the instant case to be late-filed, it would issue an order to show cause, which “would give her a chance to respond to the Department and tell us why she believed her petition was late and to see if any of those reasons would amount to anything under the law where the Department could, in fact, look at the petition.” Ms. Lairsey testified that she believed that Ms. Anderson told her that a “response” would be accepted after the filing deadline. Ms. Lairsey also testified that she needed to obtain, review, and provide documentation concerning the allegations in the Amended Order to provide the Department with an “honest answer.” Ms. Lairsey also testified that she did not understand the deadlines stated in the Amended Order, although she ultimately testified, “Yes. I knew that it was—this is the one that was the 21 days from filing[.]”1/ Ms. Anderson testified that Respondent’s deadline for filing a petition in the instant matter was July 18, 2018. The undersigned finds that the Department served the Amended Order by certified mail that was received on June 27, 2018, and that July 18, 2018, is 21 days after the service of the Amended Order. The Department received Respondent’s petition for hearing on July 25, 2018, which was seven days after the filing deadline.2/ Thereafter, on August 7, 2018, the Division issued an Order to Show Cause, providing Respondent 21 days to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely, and to address whether any basis existed for the Department to equitably toll the 21-day deadline for filing the petition. On August 28, 2018, Respondent responded to the Order to Show Cause. The response states, in part: In this instance, there is sufficient evidence to support equitable tolling. Amanda Lairsey, Chief Operations Officer of MAC MAR, LLC, has been in continuous contact with the Division of Worker’s Compensation regarding matters that had arisen with MAC MAR, LLC. Specifically, Ms. Lairsey had been in communication with Taylor R. Anderson, Attorney for Workers Compensation. It is imperative that it be stressed in abundant clarity that MAC MAR, LLC does not believe that there was any responsibility or inaction or inappropriate action undertaken by Attorney Anderson. In Ms. Lairsey’s experience, she had been extremely helpful and professional in helping MAC MAR, LLC resolve its issues for which she was representing the Division. No representative of the Division was appointed or communicated for MAC MAR, LLC for the present matter. When Ms. Lairsey received the amended Order of Penalty Assessment on June 27, 2018, she asked Attorney Anderson whether or not she could be the assigned representative for the Division in this matter and explained that MAC MAR, LLC would need additional time to provide adequate information to the Division. Attorney Anderson indicated that she could not be the representative. Attorney Anderson stated that Ms. Lairsey would need to respond to the Order and that, if she failed to do so timely, that MAC MAR, LLC would receive a letter (which is apparently the Order to Show Cause) and would have to explain why it was filed untimely. Although it is apparent now that Attorney Anderson was properly communicating the requirements, Ms. Lairsey understood the statement to mean that MAC MAR, LLC could respond, and if it failed to do so timely, an explanation would be sufficient. Although it appears that it was not Attorney Anderson’s intention to lull Ms. Lairsey into thinking she could respond even if it was untimely, that is the unfortunate effect of Ms. Lairsey’s understanding of the communication from Ms. Anderson. Ms. Lairsey is not an attorney and did not appreciate the significance of the requirements of Equitable Tolling. The undersigned finds that Ms. Lairsey’s testimony at the final hearing contradicts Respondent’s response to the Order to Show Cause. Ms. Lairsey testified that she understood that Respondent’s petition in the instant matter was late. She testified that she did not understand the deadlines contained in the Amended Order, although Respondent apparently was able to timely file a petition in case 18-069-D7. And, Ms. Lairsey testified that she was aware that she would have an opportunity to respond to the Department’s Order to Show Cause to explain why the Respondent was filing a late petition--not that she believed she had the opportunity to have the Department accept a late- filed petition. Ms. Lairsey testified that she needed additional time to obtain, review, and provide documentation concerning the allegations in the Amended Order, in order to submit an accurate petition. However, the undersigned finds that Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.2015(5)(a) through (e) sets forth the substantive requirements for a petition for hearing. The subsections of this rule do not require a respondent to submit or identify documents or records relevant to the dispute. The undersigned finds that neither the Department nor Ms. Anderson lulled Respondent into inaction. Rather, the evidence adduced at hearing demonstrated that Ms. Anderson adequately explained to Ms. Lairsey that any petition filed in this matter was beyond the filing deadline, which Ms. Lairsey acknowledged she understood. Ms. Anderson explained that if Respondent filed a petition beyond the deadline, it would have an opportunity to respond to an Order to Show Cause, which it did. The undersigned further finds that Respondent has provided no evidence that it was, in some extraordinary way, prevented from exercising its rights, or that it timely asserted its rights mistakenly in a wrong forum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Department dismiss Respondent’s petition for hearing as untimely. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III 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 31st day of May, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The parties agree to the following facts as set forth in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, a Florida corporation, was engaged in business operations in the state of Florida from November 16, 2010, through November 15, 2013. Respondent received a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on November 15, 2013. Respondent received a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation from the Department on November 15, 2013. Respondent received a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on March 11, 2014. Throughout the penalty period, Respondent was an “employer” in the state of Florida, as that term is defined in section 440.02(16), Florida Statutes (2013).1/ All of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were “employees” in the state of Florida (as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)) of Respondent during the periods of non-compliance listed on the penalty worksheet. None of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment had a valid Florida workers' compensation coverage exemption at any time during the periods of non-compliance listed on the penalty worksheet. Respondent did not secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage, nor have others secured the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage, for any of the individuals named on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment during the periods of non-compliance listed on the penalty worksheet. None of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were “independent contractors” (as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)(d)1.) hired by Respondent for any portion of the periods of non- compliance listed on the penalty worksheet. Wages or salaries were paid by Respondent to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet, whether continuously or not, during the corresponding periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. The gross payroll amounts (column “c” of the penalty worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment) for the employees listed on the penalty worksheet are correct. Respondent was engaged in business operations in the state of Florida as an auto recycling store from November 16, 2010, through November 15, 2013. The store operated by Respondent is called A&A Auto Recycling and is located at 5507 9th Street East, Bradenton, Florida. The store consists of an enclosed retail area and an open yard area where vehicles are kept. John Austerman is the business owner and president. Respondent employed at least ten employees at any given time during the period from November 16, 2010, through November 15, 2013. Employees working in the retail area check inventory on the computer, perform customer service, and sell parts. Employees working in the retail area also “mark parts,” such as fenders, when customers bring them in for purchase from the area on Respondent’s property where vehicles are kept (the yard). Respondent does not dispute the assignment of classification code 3821 to the employees identified as such on the penalty worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent does dispute, however, that classification code 3821 should be assigned to John Austerman. John Austerman conducts physical inventories of approximately 100 vehicles a month that arrive at the store for recycling. Mr. Austerman’s inventories include opening the doors and popping the engine hoods of the vehicles. Mr. Austerman walks the auto salvage yard approximately once per week for ten to fifteen minutes so as to ensure that the property is being properly maintained. In addition to vehicle and property inspections, Mr. Austerman also performs customer service, accounting, and clerical work for the business. The National Council of Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”), is the rating bureau that establishes class codes for the workers' compensation industry in Florida. NCCI classification code 3821 provides as follows: Code 3821 contemplates dismantling or wrecking of used automobiles, motorcycles and trucks for the salvaging of parts. Auto dismantling may consist of the simple removal of saleable parts by means of hand tools and retaining the frames and bodies for future sale to outside scrap collectors. Some dismantlers will also break up stripped chassis and bodies with acetylene torches or shears to be sold in the form of iron or steel scrap. In addition to the dismantling work, salvaged parts may be reconditioned or repaired and sold over the counter. New parts may also be stocked. In the case of larger risks, a number of other functions may often be performed such as auto repairing, gas station operations, glass reconditioning, brake relining, cylinder re-boring, piston grinding, and battery or tire repair. * * * Special Conditions: Store employees who do not engage in other operations and have no yard exposure are classified to Code 8046. NCCI classification code 8046 provides as follows: Code 8046 applies to those employees of automobile recyclers who are engaged in store operations and have no yard exposure to the yard. Duties conducted by these store employees include but are not limited to greeting and assisting customers, checking inventory on computers, pulling smaller parts from an inside parts warehouse an [sic] taking payments. These store employees may appear to have clerical duties but are properly classified to Code 8046. Refer to Code 3821 for all other employees of automobile recyclers. NCCI classification code 8046 applies to auto salvage employees who only work in the retail area of the store and have no yard exposure. For auto salvage employees, like John Austerman, who engage in other salvage related operations and who have exposure to the yard, code 3821 is the proper classification for such employees. Respondent asserts that all employees assigned the classification code of 8046 on the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment should be classified as code 8810 because these employees have clerical duties. The credible evidence does not support such a finding.2/ As previously noted, NCCI classification code 8046 provides: “These store employees may appear to have clerical duties but are properly classified to Code 8046.” Petitioner correctly assigned Respondent’s employees appearing on the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to classification code 8046. Petitioner assigned the proper classification codes to each of Respondent’s employees. Respondent, in its Proposed Recommended Order, makes no argument with respect to the approved manual rates and only argues that the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment be amended “to reflect that all employees on the penalty calculation worksheet not classified as ‘3821’ [be] properly classified as ‘8810.’” Given that there is no dispute regarding whether Petitioner applied the appropriate approved manual rates, it is determined that Petitioner assigned the appropriate approved manual rates to assess the workers' compensation insurance coverage premium amounts that Respondent would have paid during the penalty period had Respondent obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order assessing a penalty in the amount of $99,571.67 against Respondent, Austerman, Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 2014.
