The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Arborwood Community Development District (Petition), dated November 17, 2003. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue Whether, in making a preliminary decision to award a contract for the subject services, Respondent acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, policy, or project specification; and, if so, whether such misstep(s) was/were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition. Specifically, Petitioner challenges the evaluation of the past performance section of the responses to the procurement document. Also at issue is whether Respondent violated the Sunshine Law in deciding to reject Petitioner’s bid protest.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida and is the procuring agency in this proceeding. Petitioner is a not-for-profit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Florida. On September 21, 2009, the Department issued the subject RFP. The RFP sets forth the purpose of the procurement (on Page 1 of the RFP) as follows: Request for Proposals (RFP): A 36-slot Facility-Based Day Treatment Program as described in the Services to be Provided (Attachment I) in a Provider owner/leased facility in Circuit 11, Miami-Dade County. The provider shall provide the day treatment program for youth placed on probation, and youth transitioning back into the community who are referred for conditional release or post-commitment probation services. The provider shall design, develop, implement and operate an evidence-based, facility- based day treatment program with the capability to provide an after- school/evening component. Petitioner submitted a timely response to the RFP. On December 18, 2009, Respondent posted its Notice of Agency Action which indicated its intent to award the contract to PSF. On December 28, 2009, Petitioner filed a Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Hearing (Petition) pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (2009), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-110.004. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2009), representatives from Petitioner and Respondent met in an attempt to settle or to resolve the formal bid protest filed by Petitioner. Respondent's representatives at the January 13, 2010, meeting included Tonja W. Matthews, Amy Johnson, Paul Hatcher, and Shahin Iranpour. Petitioner's representatives at the January 13, 2010, meeting were Thomas Petersen and Jennifer Fiorenza. No public notice was given ahead of, and no minutes were taken at, the meeting between Petitioner's representatives and Respondent's representatives on January 13, 2010. Respondent's representatives briefly met separately after hearing from Petitioner to determine whether or not any further questions or information was needed from Petitioner.1 After January 13, 2010, and before January 21, 2010, Respondent's representatives Amy Johnson, Rex Uberman, and Paul Hatcher individually or collectively discussed Petitioner's Bid Award Protest with some or all of the Respondent's personnel present at the January 13, 2010, meeting with Mr. Petersen and Ms. Fiorenza. They ultimately decided to uphold Respondent's Notice of Agency Action (issued December 18, 2009) as to the subject RFP. No public notice was given of the proposed agency action, i.e., Respondent's intended decision to uphold its Notice of Agency Action as to the subject RFP, nor were minutes taken which recorded this intended action. In a letter dated January 21, 2010, Respondent notified Petitioner of its decision to uphold its decision to award to PSF and inquired as to whether Petitioner wished to proceed with a formal hearing before DOAH. Petitioner responded in the affirmative, Respondent forwarded the Petition to DOAH, and this proceeding followed. Past Performance Section XIX of Attachment B sets forth "General Instructions for Preparation of the Proposal." Subparagraph F of Section XIX (found at page 17 of 73 of Joint Exhibit 1) provides, in part, as follows: F. Past Performance - (Volume 3) The purpose of this section is for the prospective Provider to demonstrate its knowledge and experience in operating similar programs by providing information requested on Attachment C, part I, II, and/or III. Each prospective Provider shall limit the Past Performance section to no more than 15 pages. These pages shall include the information requested on Attachment C, Parts I, II, and/or III and all required supporting documentation. . . . Attachment C, Part 1, is a form styled "Data Sheet: Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs" (page 21 of 73 of Joint Exhibit 1). That form has column headings for the vendor to insert the required information as follows: "Program Name," "Contract Number," "Program Type," "Contract Begin Date," "Contract End Date," "Most Recent QA Performance Percentage Score," "Most Recent QA Compliance Percentage Score (if evaluated prior to 2007)," "Failure to Report," "Number of Completions during FY 2006-2007," "2006-2007 Recidivism Rate," QA Deemed Status." Each column heading has a footnote that clarifies the type information required. For example, a footnote explains that QA is a reference to Quality Assurance. The column headed "Program Type" contains a footnote (footnote 3) which sets forth the non-residential programs that qualify for evaluation under the category "Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs" as follows: 3. During the past year from the date of the RFP issuance, the program type (Supervision, Day Treatment, Conditional Release, Respite, Independent Living, Diversion, Juvenile Assessment Centers) for the majority of the time the Vendor operated the program. Footnote 3 explicitly sets forth Diversion Programs and Juvenile Assessment Centers (JAC) as programs that will qualify for evaluation under the category "Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs." Petitioner did not file a challenge to the specifications of the procurement document within 72 hours of its posting as required by Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The scoring criteria and methodology for Past Performance are set forth in the RFP. Petitioner and PSF only operate programs in Florida. The scoring at issue in this proceeding is that of "Part I - Evaluation for Past Performance in Florida". Under that category, a vendor could receive a maximum of 420 points. Paul Hatcher is Respondent's employee who evaluated the responses to the Past Performance section of the RFP. Petitioner is the current provider of the services being solicited by the subject RFP. In its response to Attachment C, Petitioner listed that program in the appropriate columns of Attachment C. The program operated by Petitioner was appropriately listed because it is categorized by Respondent as being a non-residential program. There is no contention that Mr. Hatcher failed to appropriately evaluate Petitioner's Past Performance. Petitioner was awarded a total of 268 points under the Past Performance category, Part I - Evaluation for Past Performance in Florida. In its response to Attachment C, PSF listed one diversion program and two juvenile assessment centers (JAC) as non-residential programs it operated in the State of Florida. One JAC did not qualify for evaluation because it had not been in operation for a sufficient period of time. Mr. Hatcher evaluated PSF's Past Performance on the basis of the diversion program and one of the two JACs. PSF was awarded a total of 312 points under the Past Performance category, Part I - Evaluation for Past Performance in Florida. Mr. Hatcher appropriately included the diversion program and the JAC program in his evaluation of PSF's Past Performance for Non-Residential Programs because Footnote 3 explicitly includes those programs as programs non-residential programs that qualify for evaluation.2 There is no contention that Mr. Hatcher failed to score PSF's Past Performance in accordance with the scoring criteria and methodology set forth in the RFP. The RFP provides that vendors who operate DJJ contracted non-residential programs in Florida can be awarded a maximum of 1905 points. Respondent awarded PSF the higher overall score of 1422.27 points. Respondent awarded Petitioner a score of 1327.34 points. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent incorrectly scored the two responses to the RFP, and it failed to establish that Respondent incorrectly determined to award the procurement to PSF. Sunshine Law Section 120.57(3)(d)1., Florida Statutes, provides the following after a bid protest is filed: (d)1. The agency shall provide an opportunity to resolve the protest by mutual agreement between the parties within 7 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays, after receipt of a formal written protest. The purpose of the meeting on January 13, 2010, between the employees of Respondent and the representatives of Petitioner identified above, was to provide Petitioner an opportunity to argue why PSF should not be awarded the procurement. The group of employees represented Respondent's legal counsel and representatives from Respondent's Probation Programs (headed by Mr. Uberman) and its Bureau of Contracts (headed by Ms. Johnson). The purpose of the meeting was to determine the factual and legal basis for Petitioner's bid protest. The group of Respondent's employees who met with Petitioner's representatives on January 13, 2010, did not vote either during the meeting or after the meeting's conclusion. A day or two before she wrote her letter of January 21, 2010, Ms. Matthews contacted by telephone Ms. Johnson to determine whether the Bureau of Contracts thought some action other than the award of the procurement to PSF should be taken. Ms. Matthews also contacted by telephone Mr. Hatcher, who represented the Probation Programs, with the same inquiry. Ms. Johnson made the decision that the position of the Contract division was to uphold the award to PSF. Mr. Hatcher, after consulting with Mr. Uberman, made the decision that the position of the Probation Programs was to uphold the award to PSF. In separate telephone calls the Contract division and the Probation division advised Ms. Matthews that the award to PSF should be upheld. Ms. Matthews thereafter prepared and sent the letter that advised the vendors of the DJJ's decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order that denies Petitioner's bid protest and upholds the award of the procurement to PSF. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation located in Leon County, Florida. It prepares applications for CDBG funding for cities and counties. If those cities and counties are awarded grant funds, Petitioner administers the projects for the cities and counties. Having investigated the possibility for obtaining a grant to revitalize a water/sewer system in a neighborhood in Okaloosa County, and having rejected that project as infeasible, Petitioner made application for Okaloosa County for the project which is at issue here. The application was submitted to the Respondent on November 29, 1990, for grant award in the small cities CDBG housing category. The application stated that Okaloosa County had adopted a fair housing ordinance prior to the submission deadline date for applications that was consistent with state and federal housing laws. That feature in the application allowed Okaloosa County to receive 35 points in the scoring system in competition with other grant applicants. That 35 point score for the fair housing ordinance was crucial to the applicant's success in obtaining the grant funds. The record does not reveal that the Petitioner had any responsibility to assure itself that Okaloosa County had enacted a fair housing ordinance prior to the application submission deadline, although Petitioner does render advice to local governments concerning adoption of ordinances and other necessary policies in support of CDBG programs. Petitioner also estimates costs of projects, participates in public hearings to get comments from the public concerning the projects that Petitioner is involved with in connection with CDBG grants. The support role by Petitioner includes preparing needed documentation and advising local governments about associated activities within the grant programs. Those grants are in association with the United States Housing and Urban Development Agency and are known as Block Grants. The grants are to provide funding for the housing category at issue here, as well as neighborhood revitalization, commercial revitalization and economic development program categories. Here use of the term "CDBG" refers to the Florida Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program. Respondent administers that program consistent with federal guidelines. In addition Respondent establishes applicant eligibility, application criteria, application procedures, a competitive scoring system for comparing applicants and specific program requirements for the various categories within the CDBG program, together with grant administration requirements for the various CDBG grant categories. On the same day that Okaloosa County, through Petitioner, submitted its application for CDBG funding in the housing category, it established procurement policies and procedures for CDBG programs and projects. That document pertains to the purchase or procurement of personal property, supplies, equipment and services, to be accomplished in accordance with applicable state and federal law. That document established a requirement for records keeping that basically indicated that appropriate arrangements would be made for generation and maintenance of all files, records and documentation that would be needed to evidence compliance with requirements delineated in the document itself. The document set forth procurement standards, procurement administration, procurement classification, solicitation and contract awards pursuant to invitations to bid and requests for proposals. The document spoke to the need for compliance with affirmative action/equal opportunity goals, contracts related to the provision of housing and the means to resolve protests over contracting procedures. The document was not designed to address the arrangements between Petitioner and Okaloosa County for administrative services provided to the county associated with the CDBG grant at issue. The agreement between Okaloosa County and the Petitioner by which Petitioner would provide administrative services was as set forth in a November 19, 1990 contract between those parties. Its effective date was contingent upon Okaloosa County receiving the applied for CDBG funding under an award agreement with Respondent. Subject to that award Petitioner agreed to provide services consistent with Section III to the contract with Okaloosa County which stated: III. Scope of Services Intent of the Contract CRA agrees, under the terms and conditions of this Contract and the applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, to undertake, perform, and complete the necessary Administration Services required to implement and complete the County's CDBG project in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Scope of Services The scope of services relevant to the CDBG project is included as Attachment "C" to this agreement. If the Agreement between the County and the Agency is amended, the scope of work for the project shall be amended to be consistent with the Agreement. The amount of consideration and the method of payment was as described in Section IV which stated: Consideration and Method of Payment Amount of Consideration CRA shall be paid by the County for Administrative Services the sum specified in the Scope of Work and Payment, attachment "C". Method of Payment CRA will submit a monthly (or other appropriate periodic) invoice specifying accomplishments toward meeting the Administration Services as specified in the Work Order. The invoice shall be submitted to the County for the County's review and approval. Payment will be issued within two days of approval of the invoice, subject to availability of project funds. Any intent to modify the terms of the contract between Okaloosa County and Petitioner had to comply with Section VII which stated: Modification of Contract Modifications of the provisions of this Contract shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing, duly signed by the parties hereto, and attached top the original of this Contract. CRA hereby agrees to amend the Work Order pertaining to each project to remain consistent with the County/Agency Agreement if said Agreement is amended. The amount of compensation to be paid to CRA will not be amended without mutual agreement of the County and CRA, formally executed in writing, subject to availability of funds from the Agency. The fee and payment schedule between Okaloosa County and Petitioner was set forth in attachment "C". It stated: Fee and Payment Schedule For Administrative Services, the County will pay CRA the sum of 15 percent of the grant award. No more than $5,000 shall be obligated by the County for CRA's services under Phase I. Upon the Department's Release of Funds, Phase II shall be initiated by CRA and the County. The fee amount shall be issued by the County to CRA in 24 equal monthly payments. If the project is completed before the 24 month grant period expires, the balance of the administrative fee will be paid to Clark, Roumelis and Associates, Inc., by the tenth calendar day of the month after completion and submission of the close-out report to DCA. Okaloosa County obtained the CDBG grant funding which it applied for and entered into an award agreement with Respondent as executed on June 28, 1991. The grant was subject to Sections 290.041 through 290.049, Florida Statutes, as amended; Public Law 93-383, as amended; 24 C.F.R. Part 570; Chapter 9B-43, Florida Administrative Code; OMB Circulars and 25 C.F.R., Part 85. The agreement between Okaloosa County and Respondent was for a period of 24 months after signature unless terminated earlier in accordance with Clause (14). Clause (14) dealt with suspension or termination and it stated: SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION. The Department reserves the right to suspend payments to a Recipient when the reports required in Section (9) of this Agreement are delinquent. The Department may terminate this Agreement for cause upon such written notice as is reasonable under the circumstances. Cause shall include, but not be limited to, misuse of funds; fraud; lack of compliance with applicable rules, laws and regulations; failure to perform in a timely manner; and refusal by the Recipient to permit public access to any document, paper, letter, or other material subject to disclosure under Chapter 119, Fla. Stat. as amended. Suspension or termination is an appealable action under Chapter 120, Fla. Stat. as amended. Notification of suspension or termination shall include notice of appeal rights and time frames. The Department reserves the right to exercise corrective remedial actions including, but not limited to, requesting additional information from the Recipient to determine the reasons for, or extent of non-compliance or lack of performance; issuing a written warning advising that the Agreement may be suspended or terminated if the situation is not remedied; advising the Recipient to suspend, discontinue or not incur costs for activities in question; or requiring the Recipient to reimburse the Department for the amount of costs. The Recipient shall return grant funds to the Department if found in noncompliance with laws, rules, regulations governing the use of CDBG funds or this Agreement. If at any time after the effective date of this Agreement, the Department determines that an activity to be funded is not eligible pursuant to 24 C.F.R. Part 570 or any subsequent federal regulation which supersedes it, the Department may unilaterally amend this Agreement to delete the ineligible activity and deobligate any unencumbered funds attributable to the ineligible activity. The funding for the grant was in an amount not to exceed $650,000 for Respondent's share subject to the availability of federal funds to support that amount. Requests for disbursement of funds were to be made in accordance with Clause (4)(d) to the agreement which stated: Each request for funds shall be for an amount of not less than $5,000 unless it is the final request for funds and shall be on a form approved by the Department and shall be certified by an agent of the Department and shall be certified by an agent of the Recipient who has been identified as having signatory power on the signature form received by the Department. The Recipient shall immediately notify the Department in writing of any change in agents. The reporting requirements of Okaloosa County under the terms of the agreement were as set forth in Clause (10) which stated in pertinent part: (a) At a minimum, the Recipient shall provide the Department with quarterly reports, and with a close-out report, on forms provided by the Department. If program income is produced, a semi-annual program income report shall be provided. * * * (c) The close-out report is due 45 days after termination of this Agreement or upon completion of the activities contained in this Agreement. Under the terms of the agreement Respondent was required to make periodic review of the performance of Okaloosa County in completing the program contemplated by the CDBG grant. Clause (13) to the agreement sets forth Okaloosa County's liability in its dealings with other entities, to include Petitioner and holds Respondent harmless against claims by those third parties that arise from performance of the work under the terms of the agreement. The validity of the agreement between Okaloosa County and Respondent was contingent upon the truth and accuracy of information in the application, as required by Clause (18) (b) to the agreement. In the event that the application was not found to be truthful and accurate, Respondent upon 30 days written notice to Okaloosa County could cause the termination of the agreement and the release of the Respondent from obligations to Okaloosa County. Should Okaloosa County fail to honor its agreement with Respondent, Petitioner in its obligation to Okaloosa County could suspend or terminate services which were affected by the breach of the agreement between Okaloosa County and Respondent. This was in accordance Section VIII (D) to the contract between Okaloosa County and Petitioner. Section VIII (D) stated: If the County shall fail to fulfill in a timely manner its obligations under this Contract or its Agreement with the Agency, CRA may, at its option and without liability, suspend afforded services until such time the County remedies the breach. CRA may also, without liability, terminate the affected portion of this Contract for breach within 10 days of giving written notice to the County of such termination and the reason(s) therefore. Neither of these options shall operate to deprive CRA of entitlement to remuneration for services rendered in accordance with this Contract. As Grant Administrator Petitioner was entitled to $97,500 should the full $650,000 grant funding be disbursed. If the full amount was disbursed over the 24-month life of the grant then Petitioner would receive $4,062.50 for each monthly installment. Commencing September 12, 1991, and ending on May 5, 1992, Petitioner submitted monthly invoices for reimbursement of costs associated with administrative services. Those invoices in the total amount of $40,625.00 were honored by Respondent. This approximated the monthly disbursement contemplated by the agreement between Petitioner and Okaloosa County. The arrangement was one in which the invoices had been approved by Okaloosa County and provided to the Respondent for reimbursement through Requests for Funds. The invoices described were for administrative services provided through April, 1992. The overall reimbursement in the project through Requests for Funds, to include the January 7, 1992 period, was $208,816.00. Those cost reimbursements pertain to housing rehabilitation, temporary relocation and administration. That overall amount also reflected the circumstance on May 13, 1992. On April 23, 1992, Judith J. Foxworth, a grants administrator for Petitioner and Robert J. Rase, an employee for the Respondent, were performing a monitoring visit concerning the grant program at issue. At that time Ms. Foxworth had been assigned as administrator to the Okaloosa County grant program. The purpose of the monitoring visit was to insure program compliance with requirements of state and federal law. Janice A. Mack attended the monitoring visit as representative for Okaloosa County. During the monitoring visit Mr. Rase raised the question of whether the fair housing ordinance that has been referred to before had been passed on November 20, 1990, which would have indicated that the fair housing ordinance was in effect at the time the application was made for grant funding. To assure himself concerning this topic Mr. Rase asked Okaloosa County to provide the minutes of the meeting at which the fair housing ordinance is said to have been passed. While the passage of a fair housing ordinance had been discussed, as noted in the November 20, 1990 minutes, the ordinance was not shown to have been passed on that date. With this revelation through the minutes of the meeting, Ms. Foxworth became aware of this fact as did Mr. Rase. Someone in this conversation between the representatives of the Petitioner, Respondent and Okaloosa County suggested the possibility that tapes of the November 20, 1990 meeting might reveal the passage of the fair housing ordinance and the possibility that it was an oversight that the passage of the fair housing ordinance had not been noted in the minutes, given the busy agenda being considered by the Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners on that date. Ms. Mack also referred Foxworth and Rase to Bob McQuire, a deputy clerk for Okaloosa County, to see if McQuire had some recollection of the passage of the fair housing ordinance on November 20, 1990. Mr. McQuire was unable to assist in the inquiry. Some other discussion was held with the clerk to the Board of County Commissioners about the possible transcription of tapes associated with the November 20, 1990 meeting. Ms. Mack indicated that they could possibly transcribe the tapes and listen to them; however, it was indicated that the county had some priority items to attend to and it probably would be several days or even a week before these arrangements could be made. No indication was given in the present record that tapes of the meeting of November 20, 1990 were prepared for consideration by the Petitioner or Respondent beyond April 23, 1992 or what the tapes of the meeting of November 20, 1990 may have revealed concerning the passage of the fair housing ordinance. However, based upon the record in this case, it has been established that the fair housing ordinance was passed upon a date subsequent to the time of the application for grant funding. This caused Respondent to revise the scores received by Okaloosa County. As a consequence Okaloosa County's application dropped below the fundable range in that inadequate points were received to allow the project to be funded. After April 23, 1993, neither Ms. Foxworth nor any other person affiliated with Petitioner took action to confirm that the fair housing ordinance had been passed on November 20, 1990. By contrast Respondent wrote to the Okaloosa County chairperson on May 20, 1992. The correspondence mentioned that Respondent had reviewed information received from the Deputy Clerk of Okaloosa County in response to a request to verify information in the application for funding. That review by Respondent's staff revealed that the fair housing ordinance had not been adopted until January 15, 1991, in a setting in which the deadline for submission of applications was November 29, 1990. As a consequence the 35 points were deducted from the application reducing the score from 824.18 to 789.18, hence the Okaloosa County application was outside the fundable range. The May 20, 1992 correspondence to the chairperson in Okaloosa County reminded the county that the Respondent believed that there had been a violation of Section 290.0475(7), Florida Statutes, which would allow rejection of the application based upon a misrepresentation in the application. Respondent was persuaded that the failure to pass a fair housing ordinance until January 15, 1991, in a setting in which Okaloosa County had reported the date of passage as November 20, 1990, specifically on March 1, 1991, in response to a completeness letter requested by Respondent on February 22, 1991, evidenced the misrepresentation by Okaloosa County. As a consequence, through the May 20, 1992 correspondence, Okaloosa County was given the following instructions by Respondent concerning the future of the CDBG award agreement: Based upon these findings, the Department is hereby providing the County with notice, pursuant to Section (18)(b) of your grant agreement, that the award agreement will be terminated in thirty (30) days from receipt of this letter. The validity of the award agreement was subject to the truth and accuracy of all the information, representations, and materials submitted or provided by the County in the application, in any subsequent submission, or response to a Department request. The lack of accuracy thereof or any material change shall, at the option of the Department and with thirty (30) days written notice to the County, cause the termination of the agreement and release of the Department from all its obligations to the County under the agreement. The County should incur no additional costs from the date of receipt of this letter. While the Department has the ability to recover any costs incurred under this grant contract, due to the fact that the grant funds were spent on eligible activities to assist low and moderate income persons, the Department will not seek to recover monies already expended. However, no additional funds shall be disbursed from the contract. The correspondence offered Okaloosa County the right to contest the preliminary agency action concerning termination of the grant agreement by resort to a formal hearing in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, or an informal hearing in accordance with Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. In the end Okaloosa County accepted the termination upon the grounds stated in the May 20, 1992 correspondence. Okaloosa County received the notification of termination on May 26, 1992. Petitioner received a copy of the May 20, 1992 correspondence directed to Okaloosa County. The May 20, 1992 correspondence constituted notice to the county not to incur additional costs as well as notification of termination. Between April 23, 1992 and May 26, 1992, the dates when Petitioner first was made aware that there was a problem with passage of the fair housing ordinance and project fundability and the date upon which Respondent officially confirmed the significance of those problems, housing improvements contracts were entered into between home owners and contractors. A significant number of those contracts were entered into commencing April 28, 1992 and ending May 12, 1992. As project administrator Petitioner had been acting in the interest of the home owners in soliciting competitive bids from contractors who would do the home improvement work associated with the grant activities. Following the correspondence of May 20, 1992, Petitioner and Okaloosa County directed a number of inquiries to Respondent concerning proper use of remaining grant funds. As of May 20, 1992, when Respondent gave the termination notice, it had effectively informed Petitioner and Okaloosa County concerning Respondent's intention not to recover the $208,816.00 already disbursed, but had withheld details about the amount of money it might disburse in the future from what remained of the $650,000.00 award. Associated with the balance of the funds, what was known was that Respondent considered the agreement between itself and Okaloosa County terminated effective June 25, 1992. Respondent did not immediately honor a May 21, 1992 Request for Funds, which it mistakenly believed had been submitted subsequent to the May 20, 1992 notification to Okaloosa County that the agreement was terminated effective 30 days from receipt of notice of termination. Again the County did not receive that notice of termination until May 26, 1992, subsequent to its submission of the Request for Funds. One member of the Respondent's staff considered the submission of the May 21, 1992 Request for Funds to be a blatant attempt to obligate the balance of the grant monies with the "suspension pending". That was not the intention by Okaloosa County when submitting the May 21, 1992 Request for Funds. Suspension of funding is a consequence of the termination. By correspondence of June 17, 1992, directed to the chairperson of the Okaloosa County Commission, with a copy to Petitioner, Respondent replied to the inquiries from Petitioner and Okaloosa County concerning whether any additional costs could and would be reimbursed subsequent to the notice of suspension of funds and termination dated May 20, 1992. On June 17, 1992, Respondent informed Okaloosa County, and indirectly informed Petitioner, concerning the basis for determining cost reimbursement above the cost amounts already drawn and paid. Again, this is taken to mean that Okaloosa County and Petitioner were being told that $208,816.00 would not be reclaimed by Respondent and that the basis for deciding the issue of payment of other funds sought by Okaloosa County would be in accordance with guidelines set forth in 24 C.F.R., Part 85. In particular, Respondent had this to say concerning the basis for reimbursing any other costs: To aid the County, the Department offers the following guidelines which will be followed in determining which costs shall be reimbursed from the CDBG contract, beyond those already drawn and paid. The federal regulations in 24 CFR Part 85, Administrative Requirements for Grant to Sates and Local Governments, outlines the guidelines in the event of suspension and termination. Specifically, Section 85.43(c) states the following standards. Costs resulting from obligations incurred during a suspension or after termination of an award are not allowable without express authorization from the awarding agency, which in this case is the Department. Other costs during suspension or after termination which are necessary and not reasonably avoidable are allowable, provided the following tests are met. The costs result from obligations which were (1) properly incurred before the effective date of suspension or termination, (2) are not in anticipation of the suspension or termination, and (3) in the case of termination, whether the obligations are noncancellable; and The costs would have been allowable if the award had not be suspended or the contract had expired normally at the end of the funding period. Okaloosa County was further instructed in the June 17, 1992 correspondence as follows: The County should evaluate each cost that it seeks to have reimbursed from the grant and certify to the Department that the costs meet the above outlined standards. In addition, you should provide copies of all contracts obligating the costs, notices to proceed, and invoices for costs incurred to support each cost item requested for reimbursement. The Department will evaluate all costs on a case-by-case basis and make its determination applying the standards contained in 24 CFR Part 85.43(c). Once the determination is made, you will be notified in writing of the Department's final action. Consistent with the instructions set forth in the June 17, 1992 correspondence Okaloosa County through Petitioner submitted detailed documentation of costs incurred over and above the $208,816.00. The amounts claimed are discussed in Respondent's September 22, 1992 interoffice memorandum from Thomas Pierce, Planning CDBG Program to Pat Pepper, Director of the Division of Housing and Community Development. The memorandum describes the following costs claimed: Temporary relocation $ 1,600.00 Housing rehabilitation 214,967.36 Permanent relocation 88,063.00 Demolition 3,000.00 Administration 43,274.92 The memorandum sets out the position of the Respondent concerning payment of those costs where it says: Based on the review of the contracts submitted, the notices to proceed, and invoices, it appears that the direct assistance activity costs under temporary relocation, housing rehab, permanent relocation and demolition are justified for reimbursement. These costs were clearly obligated prior to our termination, and the contracts do not provide for costs avoidance in the event of grant cancellation. Therefore, the $307,630.36 for these direct assistance costs are recommended to be reimbursed by the grant to avoid undue hardship on the low and moderate income clients assisted. With regard to the payment of administrative costs, the review did not find adequate documentation to support reimbursement. The invoice submitted sought payment for preparation of the June 30, 1992 quarterly status report, attending a June 12, 1992 County Commission meeting and preparing request for funds and closeout reports. All of these are activities performed after the May 20 termination date, and therefore are not eligible for reimbursement, even though there was a contract executed for administrative services prior to the termination date. Therefore, we recommend that the administrative costs of $43,274.92 not be reimbursed by the CDBG Program. These costs are an obligation of County and would have to be paid by non-CDBG funds. Prior to this memorandum Respondent had received a July 8, 1992 Request for Funds and a July 23, 1992 status report which addressed the $43,279.92 claim for administrative costs. In addition, on July 1, 1992, Petitioner had prepared an Amended Administrative Services Invoice #15. On September 30, 1992, Okaloosa County wrote to Petitioner to inform Petitioner that the invoice was approved by Okaloosa County contingent upon receipt of funds from Respondent. On October 8, 1992, Petitioner transmitted this invoice to Respondent. Amended Administrative Services Invoice #15 gave the following account concerning claims for payment: DUE UPON RECEIPT Please issue payment to Clark, Roumelis and Associates, Inc., for services performed from May, 1992 through June 24, 1992, in accordance with out contract. Prepared and coordinated the signing of the final two rehab contracts. Prepared Notices to Proceed on the 3 demo/ relos and the final 12 rehabs. Monitored construction progress with inspections at least weekly on all the final units (3 demo/relos and 17 rehabs). Change Orders were prepared on three rehab units. Prepared and coordinated the necessary paperwork for pay request for the contractors, homeowners, rental unit and recording fees. Provided County Commission with project status report. Liaisoned with local financial record keeper to update and verify monthly financial transactions. Prepared Quarterly Status Report by compiling data on accomplishments and beneficiaries and thorough update of financial records on June 22, 1992. Discussed final Request for Funds and financial reimbursements by County for CDBG expenditure with Mike Arciola, Jan Mack and CRA housing Specialist. Prepared final Request for Funds on June 22, 1992, for signature by the County. Attended County Commission meeting June 16, 1992, to discuss alternatives associated with timely closeout of the grant contract. Presented an issue paper and pros/cons of various actions Attorney. Administrative Services discussed the with the County Contract amount $97,500.00 Previously Billed 40,625.00 Total billed to date including this invoice 83,899.92 Total Received to date 40,625.00 Total Due Upon Receipt 43,274.92 Later, when Respondent arrived at its proposed agency action concerning cost reimbursement it wrote to the chairman of the Okaloosa County Commission, with a copy to Petitioner. This correspondence was dated January 28, 1993. In its operative terms it stated: The Department of Community Affairs has reviewed the documentation submitted on the costs incurred under the above referenced Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) which was terminated by the Department in June 1992. Based on the provisions of 24 CFR 85.43 and our review of the documentation submitted, the Department finds that the following direct assistance costs were properly incurred before the effective date of the termination, were not incurred in anticipation of the termination, and were not cancellable. Further, the costs would otherwise have been eligible for grant reimbursement. These costs will be reimbursed by the Department immediately upon receipt of a Request for Funds form, signed by the County. Line Item Amount Temporary Relocation $ 1,600.00 Housing Rehabilitation 214,967.36 Permanent Relocation 88,063.00 Demolition 3,000.00 TOTAL $307,630.36 With regard to invoice #15 for administrative costs, the Department does not find adequate contract authority in your agreement with the grant consultant to make a payment for $43,274.92. As your contract was a lump sum contract, payable in equal monthly installments, the Department finds that the only authorized payments would be the monthly payment for May, given receipt by the County on May 26, 1992 of the Department's notice of termination of your grant and notice to incur no additional costs from that date. Further, the Department reads Section IV (B) of the contract for administrative services to condition payments upon the availability of grant funds by the County. Given the notice of termination, the Department finds that the County did not have funding available beyond May 26, 1992 upon which to make payments. Therefore, the Department finds that the administrative costs were cancellable and as such would not be allowable under the federal guidelines contained in 24 CFR Part 85.43 (c) (1). The Department will, however, process a revised invoice that covers the monthly fee for May, as that cost was allowable and eligible prior to the notice of termination and notice to incur no additional costs. On May 5, 1992, $4,062.50 in administrative services costs was approved by Okaloosa County through invoice #1501. This amount was in addition to the $40,625 already paid for administrative services. It is included within the $43,274.92 in dispute. As described in the January 28, 1993 proposed agency action it is an amount that Respondent would pay, notwithstanding that the invoice was not submitted to it. However, the $4,062.50 from May 1992 has not been paid to Petitioner. Okaloosa County did not proceed to contest the determination concerning disbursement of funds as described in the January 28, 1993 correspondence. While Petitioner was not specifically noticed of its rights to administrative relief it sought and was granted the opportunity to contest the refusal to pay $43,274.92 in administrative costs set forth in Amended Administrative Services Invoice #15. Under the circumstances wherein Respondent terminated its agreement with Okaloosa County prior to the normally anticipated concluding date, Petitioner did not prepare a close-out report. Petitioner did provide a status report dated July 23, 1992, which sets out its administrative claim of $43,274.92. Petitioner believes that it has performed its obligations pursuant to the agreement with Okaloosa County and is entitled to receive the disputed $43,274.92.
Recommendation Based upon consideration of the findings of facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the final order be entered directing the payment of administrative costs in the amount of $43,274.92. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1306 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 7 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 8 through 14 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 16 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 19 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 20 through 22 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 23 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 24 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 25 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 26 through 28 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 29 through 31 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 34 through 37 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 38 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 39 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 40 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 41 and 42 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 43 through 46 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 47 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 48 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 49 and 50 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 53 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 54 constitutes a conclusion of law. Paragraph 55 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 56 through 59 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 60 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 61 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 with the exception of the second sentence is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are subordinate to facts found. The Second Paragraph 10 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 12 through 15 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 16 is not accepted in its suggestion that Petitioner as opposed to Respondent had some obligation to decide the point at which the agreement between Respondent and Okaloosa County would be terminated and the consequences that would pertain upon that termination. Paragraph 17 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 18 see discussion concerning Paragraph 16. Paragraph 19 is subordinate to facts found. The first two sentences to Paragraph 20 are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences within that paragraph are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 22 and 23 are subordinate to facts found with the exception that the date set forth in Paragraph 23 as September 19, 1992 should be September 20, 1992. Paragraphs 24 through 27 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 28 see discussion as to Paragraph 16. Paragraph 29 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Marc Slepin, Esquire 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred O. Bragg, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
