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 The issues in this case are whether Petitioner violated Subsection 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Martinez Construction is a construction business. On June 15, 2005, the Department issued Stop-Work Order No. 05-325- 1A. On June 20, 2005, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued against Martinez Construction assessing a penalty of $23,472.57. On June 21, 2005, Martinez Construction and the Department entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty in which Martinez Construction agreed to pay the Department a lump sum of $5,000.00 and to make 24 monthly payments of $769.69. On June 21, 2005, the Department entered an Order of Conditional Release from Stop- Work Order (Conditional Release), which conditionally released the Stop-Work Order that was issued on June 15, 2005. The Conditional Release provided: Until such time as the employer has paid the total assessed penalty of $23,472.57 in full, if the employer fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” the Stop-Work Order to which this order applies will be immediately reinstated, and the unpaid balance of the total penalty to be paid by the employer shall become immediately due. The Conditional Release listed Martinez Construction’s address as 1905 Michigan Avenue, Panama City, Florida. Martinez Construction made payments until July 2006, when it stopped making payments. The unpaid balance on the assessed penalty was $10,008.98. By letter dated May 24, 2007, the Department wrote Martinez Construction advising that it was issuing an Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order because of the failure to make payments as required by the payment schedule to which the parties had agreed. A copy of the Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order was enclosed with the letter and ordered: The Stop-Work Order issued to Employer on June 15, 2005, is immediately reinstated, and pursuant to such immediate reinstatement, the provisions of said Stop- Work Order are in full force and effect. The unpaid balance of the penalty in the amount of $10,008.98 is due pursuant to such immediate reinstatement. Pursuant to such immediate reinstatement, Employer shall cease all business operations in the State of Florida until the DEPARTMENT issues an Order releasing the reinstated Stop-Work Order upon a finding by the DEPARTMENT that Employer has come into compliance with coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and has paid the entire unpaid balance of the penalty assessed as specified in (7) above [$10,008.98]. The letter and Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order were sent to Martinez Construction by certified mail to its Michigan Avenue address. The letter and order were returned to the Department as undeliverable. In early January 2006, Hector Martinez (Mr. Martinez) and his family moved from 1905 Michigan Avenue, Panama City, Florida, to 1304 Delaware Avenue, Lynn Haven, Florida. They remained at that address until January 2008. Mr. Martinez was the manager and registered agent for Martinez Construction. The records of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, show that on February 2, 2006, the principal address and mailing address for Martinez Construction was changed to 1304 Delaware Avenue, Lynn Haven, Florida, and that the address for the registered agent was also changed to the 1304 Delaware Avenue address. The Department resent the May 24, 2007, letter and Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order by certified mail to Martinez Construction. The return receipt from the United States Postal Service shows that the documents were delivered to the 1304 Delaware Avenue address on June 1, 2007. The receipt bore a signature stating Luisa Martinez. On June 1, 2007, Mr. Martinez was married to Luisa Alvarez Diaz. Mr. Martinez claims that his wife did not sign the receipt for the certified mail and that he did not receive the documents. According to Mr. Martinez, his wife does not use his surname, but goes by the name of Luisa Alvarez. Mr. Martinez’s testimony is not credible. The letter and Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order were delivered to the 1304 Delaware Avenue address on June 1, 2007. On August 24, 2007, Robert Borden (Mr. Borden), an investigator for the Department, was conducting a random compliance investigation and found a crew working on a jobsite. When Mr. Borden questioned the crew concerning the name of their employer, they replied that they worked for Martinez Construction. Mr. Borden checked the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated Systems database and discovered that an Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order had been issued to Martinez Construction. Mr. Borden checked with the employee leasing company which Martinez Construction used and found that Martinez Construction had been employing crews for 70 days since the issuance of the Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order. On August 28, 2007, Martinez Construction was issued and personally served an Order Assessing Penalty for Working in Violation of Reinstated Stop-Work Order, assessing a $70,000.00 penalty which represented a penalty of $1,000.00 per day for the 70 days of violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order finding that Petitioner violated Subsection 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes, and assessing a penalty of $70,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2008.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's claim is barred by Section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes (1999), because Petitioner filed a request for hearing more than 35 days after the time prescribed in Section 760.11(3) for a determination of reasonable cause by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the "Commission"). (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner until June 15, 1995. Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission on July 10, 1995. The Charge of Discrimination alleges that Petitioner was forced to leave her position of employment because of Petitioner's religion. The Charge of Discrimination alleges, in relevant part, that Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment because she is Christian and "always trying to convert people." Time Limits The Charge of Discrimination was timely filed pursuant to Section 760.11(1). The filing date of July 10, 1995, fell within 365 days of June 15, 1995, which is the date of the alleged discrimination. Section 760.11(3) authorizes the Commission to issue a determination of reasonable cause within 180 days of July 10, 1995; the date Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination. Counting July 11, 1995, as the first day of the 180-day time limit, Section 760.11(3) authorized the Commission to determine reasonable cause no later than January 6, 1996. The Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause on January 31, 2000. Section 760.11(7) required Petitioner to file a request for hearing within 35 days of January 6, 1996. Counting January 7, 1996, as the first day of the 35-day period, Section 760.11(7) required Petitioner to file a request for hearing no later than February 10, 1996. Petitioner did not timely file a request for hearing. Petitioner first requested a hearing in the Petition for Relief filed on February 18, 2000. Petitioner filed her request for hearing approximately 1,468 days late and 1,503 days after the expiration of the 180-day time limit prescribed in Section 760.11(3). Petitioner did not respond to the Order to Show Cause to explain why she filed the request for hearing late. Section 760.11(7) statutorily bars Petitioner's claim. Section 760.11(7) expressly provides, in relevant part: If the aggrieved person does not request an administrative hearing within the 35 days, the claim will be barred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing this proceeding as barred by Section 760.11(7). DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Maria J. Green 1800 Biscayne Drive, Apartment 4 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Stephen H. Price, Esquire Cramer and Price, P.A. 1420 Edgewater Drive Olando, Florida 32804 Don Reynolds, Director American Home Companions, Inc. Post Office Box 547062 Orlando, Florida 32854
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.
The Issue Whether Gio & Sons, Inc. (Respondent) violated Sections and 440.38, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed. References to sections are to the Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing provisions of Florida law, specifically Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, which require that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent, whose principal is Giovanny Martinez, Jr. (Mr. Martinez), is in the business of providing drywall installation services. At all times material to this case, Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was legally obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for all persons employed by Respondent to provide drywall installation services within Florida. In particular, Chapter 440 requires that the premium rates for such coverage be set pursuant to Florida law. At all times material to this case, Respondent failed to obtain workers' compensation coverage on behalf of over 150 employees. It is undisputed that Respondent had not furnished the required coverage, and that there was no valid exemption from this requirement. Accordingly, on February 26, 2004, the Stop Work Order was properly entered. Thereafter, Petitioner reviewed Respondent's payroll records, which revealed that Respondent employed the individuals referred to in paragraph 5, whose identities are not in dispute, under circumstances which obliged Respondent to provide workers' compensation coverage for their benefit. Based upon Respondent’s payroll records, Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty amount imposed by law under all the circumstances of the case, and issued the Amended Order imposing a penalty assessment in the amount of $107,885.71. Mr. Martinez does not dispute the factual or legal merits of Petitioner's case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order that affirms the Amended Order in the amount of $107,885.71. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Thompson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Giovanny Martinez, Jr. Gio & Sons, Inc. 6910 Southwest 18th Court Pompano Beach, Florida 33068 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florid a 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, the following facts are found: The Petitioner, Anna Torres, (hereinafter "Torres") worked for the Department of Transportation as a toll collector at the Golden Glades toll plaza and was a career service employee at all times pertinent to this case. At the time of the events giving rise to this case, Torres had been employed by the Department for about eight years. Torres was authorized to be on approved leave from October 24, 1989, through November 8, 1989. Torres used that period of leave to drive from South Florida to California to visit her parents. Torres was accompanied on the trip by her roommate. Torres was expected to return to work on November 9, 1990. Torres' father had been sick for several years and during her visit his condition took a sudden turn for the worse, as a result of which it was necessary for her father to be hospitalized. Torres was very concerned about her father's medical condition and felt a need to remain in California until it could be determined whether her father was going to recover from his worsened condition. To facilitate a longer stay in California, Torres' mother offered to pay Torres' airfare from California to Florida in the event Torres could not obtain additional leave, and the roommate offered to drive the car back. On November 7, 1989, Torres placed a telephone call from her parents' home in California to the Golden Glades toll plaza. She spoke with Mildred Burham, who was, and is, the assistant manager at the Golden Glades toll plaza and the supervisor of one of the shifts. Mildred Burham was not the supervisor of Torres' shift. The essence of what Torres told Mildred Burham is that, because of a family emergency, Torres needed to stay in California for another two weeks and wanted a two week extension of her vacation. Torres also asked Mildred Burham to convey the message to Vera Hulse. 1/ Vera Hulse was, and is, the manager of the Golden Glades toll plaza. At that time, Torres did not have sufficient annual or sick leave to cover an additional absence of two weeks. During the November 7, 1989, telephone conversation, Mildred Burham told Torres that she (Burham) would "check into" the request for additional leave and would convey Torres' message to Vera Hulse. Ms. Burham did not tell Torres that the two week extension of her vacation was approved. 2/ During the November 7, 1989, telephone call, Torres did not give Ms. Burham the telephone number at her parents' house in California. Instead, she told Ms. Burham that if they needed to get in touch with her, they could call Torres' son at her home in Florida and he could give them the California telephone number. When Ms. Burham told Vera Hulse about the telephone call from Torres, something apparently got lost in the translation. The message communicated to Ms. Hulse was to the general effect that Torres had called and said that because of a family problem Torres would not be back to Florida for another two weeks. Ms. Hulse was not advised that Torres was requesting leave; only that Torres would be two weeks late getting back due to a family problem. Torres was scheduled to work on the following days: November 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, 1989. Torres did not report for work on any of those days, nor did she have any other communication with her employer after the telephone communication of November 7, 1990, until November 20, 1989, when Torres called again. Between November 9 and November 20, 1989, Ms. Burham and Ms. Hulse called Torres' home telephone number in an effort to contact her son and obtain the telephone number where Torres was staying in California. Those efforts were unsuccessful. On November 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, 1989, Torres was placed on unauthorized leave without pay. On November IS, 1989, the Department sent Torres a letter advising her that because she had failed to report for work and had been on unauthorized leave without pay since November 10, 1989, she was deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter a final order in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Anna Torres, did not abandon her position of employment with the Department and ordering that she be reinstated to her position as a toll collector with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of June, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 27th day of June, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed against Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers’ Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on March 3, 2008. Respondent’s registered business address is 952 TR Miller Road, Defuniak Springs, Florida. Ashley Adams is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent. On March 27, 2015, the Department’s investigator-in- training, Jill Scogland, and lead investigator, Sharon Kelson, conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance check at Lot 34 in the Driftwood Estates residential subdivision in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Ms. Scogland observed two men on site. David Wayne Gibson was operating a front-end loader spreading dirt on site. Colby Smith was shoveling dirt on site. While Ms. Scogland was inspecting the site, a third man, Ashley Adams, arrived driving a dump truck with a load of dirt. Mr. Adams identified himself as the owner of Gulf Coast, and stated that he had an exemption from the requirement for workers’ compensation insurance and that he thought Mr. Gibson did as well. Mr. Adams advised Ms. Scogland that he hired both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Smith to work at the site.2/ At hearing, Respondent challenged the evidence supporting a finding that Respondent hired Mr. Gibson.3/ Specifically, Respondent argues that Ms. Scogland’s testimony that Mr. Adams told her he hired Mr. Gibson is unreliable because Ms. Scogland did not include that information in her field notes. Respondent claims that Ms. Scogland’s status as investigator-in-training on the date of the inspection is indicative of her unreliability. To the contrary, Ms. Scogland’s testimony regarding both the persons and events on the date of the inspection was clear and unequivocal. While Ms. Scogland admitted her field notes were not as detailed on the date in question as they are for more recent inspections, she was confident that her investigation of the facts was thorough. The fact that Ms. Scogland did not write down what Mr. Adams said does not render her testimony unreliable. The undersigned finds Ms. Scogland’s testimony to be clear and convincing. Ms. Scogland reviewed the Department of State, Division of Corporations’ online information and identified Mr. Gibson as President and Registered Agent of David Wayne Gibson Tractor Service, Inc. According to Ms. Scogland, the online records indicated the corporation had been administratively dissolved in September 2013. Ms. Scogland next accessed the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and determined that Mr. Gibson had obtained a workers’ compensation coverage exemption for himself, but the exemption had expired on February 15, 2015. The information contained in CCAS is information on new policies, cancellations, etc., reported to the Department by insurance agencies as required by administrative rule. Next, Ms. Scogland accessed the Division of Corporations’ website, verified Gulf Coast as an active corporation, and identified Mr. Adams as the sole officer of Gulf Coast. Ms. Scogland then accessed CCAS and determined that, although Gulf Coast did not have workers’ compensation coverage, Mr. Adams had an active exemption effective from February 12, 2014 through February 12, 2016. Mr. Adams had a prior exemption that expired on April 14, 2013, but had no valid exemption in place between April 14, 2013 and February 12, 2014. After contacting her supervisor, Michelle Lloyd, Ms. Scogland served Mr. Adams, on behalf of Gulf Coast, with a site-specific Stop-Work Order for failure to ensure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Ms. Scogland also served Mr. Adams with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The request was for Gulf Coast’s payroll, account, and disbursement records, as well as records identifying its subcontractors, payments thereto, and workers’ compensation coverage thereof, from March 28, 2013 through March 27, 2015 (the penalty period).4/ Mr. Adams did not provide any records to the Department in response to the records request. The Department’s penalty auditor, Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Gulf Coast for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance during the penalty period. The penalty to be assessed against an employer for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage is two times the amount the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance premiums when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during the penalty period. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Ms. Jackson consulted the Scopes Manual, which is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), and identified class code 6217--Excavation and Drivers-- as the appropriate construction class code for the work being performed at the worksite. Respondent contests the assignment of class code 6217 to Mr. Adams, who was driving a dump truck and delivering a load of dirt to the site. Respondent admits that Mr. Gibson’s operation of the front-end loader was properly classified as Excavation and Drivers. NCCI Scopes Manual provides the following with regard to classification code 6217: Includes burrowing, filling or backfilling. * * * Code 6217 is applied to specialist contractors engaged in general excavation including ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling provided such operations are not otherwise classified in the manual. The operations involve the removal of earth, small boulders and rocks by power shovels, trench diggers or bulldozers and piling it at the jobsite for backfill. The material may also be removed by dump trucks for fill in some other area. Code 6217 includes excavation in connection with building foundations, swimming pools, landscape gardening and waterproofing operations. * * * This classification also is applied to specialist contractors engaged in grading land and landfilling, provided these operations are not otherwise classified in this manual. This classification includes ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling, and operations such as scraping, cutting, piling or pushing the earth to rearrange the terrain. These operations utilize equipment such as bulldozers, motor graders and carryalls. [emphasis supplied]. Mr. Adams’ operation of the dump truck falls squarely within the definition of Excavation and Drivers. The material in the dump truck was fill for the site under excavation, a purpose which is directly addressed in the manual under code 6217. Under Respondent’s interpretation, fill removed from the site by a dump truck would be an excavation activity, but would no longer be excavation when the dump truck arrived at another site (or at another location on the same site) with the fill. That interpretation is illogical. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that typical operation of a dump truck in preconstruction was classified by a different code in the Scopes Manual. It is found that Ms. Jackson properly applied the Scopes Manual in assigning code 6217 to the work being performed by Mr. Adams on the site. Having no payroll records from Gulf Coast, Ms. Jackson had to impute the statewide average weekly wage as Respondent’s payroll for Mr. Adams and his subcontractor, Mr. Gibson. The average weekly wages were calculated based on the Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability approved rate manual also published by NCCI and adopted by the Department by administrative rule. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of two times the workers’ compensation insurance premiums that would have applied to the purchase of insurance for Mr. Adams and Mr. Gibson during periods of non-compliance during the penalty. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Adams was April 15, 2013 to February 11, 2014, during which time his exemption had lapsed. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Gibson was February 16, 2015 to March 27, 2015, during which his exemption had expired. § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Utilizing the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027, Ms. Scogland calculated a penalty of $12,181.42. On May 20, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Gulf Coast in the amount of $12,181.42. The Department correctly calculated the penalty based on the statutory formulas and adopted rules governing workers’ compensation insurance.
Recommendation Having considered 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 upholding the Stop-Work Order and Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 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 14th day of January, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Section 11B(3) of the Florida Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2004 Second Edition, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The petitions filed by FFVA and TIC challenge the validity of Section 11B(3) of the 2004 Manual,4/ which prior to October 1, 2007, was adopted by reference as part of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501(1). Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501(1) was amended effective October 1, 2007, to adopt by reference the Florida Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition ("the 2006 Manual"). Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501(1), as it existed when the petitions were filed and as it currently exists, adopts by reference the 2006 Manual, not the 2004 Manual. The 2004 Manual is no longer adopted by reference as part of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501, or any other rule. AHCA applied the 2004 Manual in the reimbursement dispute initiated by HRMC against FFVA under Section 440.13, Florida Statutes, as reflected in the determination letter issued by AHCA on October 24, 2007, which was attached to FFVA's petition. The reimbursement dispute is the subject of the pending DOAH Case No. 07-5414. AHCA applied the 2004 Manual in a reimbursement dispute involving TIC under Section 440.13, Florida Statutes, as reflected in the determination letter issued by AHCA on January 9, 2008, which was attached to TIC's petition. The reimbursement dispute is the subject of the pending DOAH Case No. 08-0703.
The Issue Whether KP Roofing Masters, LLC ("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 ("Department"), correctly calculated the penalty imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent was a business providing services in the construction industry. Its principal office is located at 7100 Northwest 12th Street, Suite 210, Miami, Florida 33126. The Investigation. On September 26, 2014, the Department's compliance investigator, Cabrera, observed two individuals performing roofing work on a house in Coral Gables, Florida. Investigator Cabrera interviewed the individuals, identified as Rodolfo Moscoso and Jairo Alvarado. Both men informed Cabrera that they worked for Respondent. Cabrera then checked the permit board located at the jobsite and confirmed that Respondent pulled the permit for the roofing work. After gathering the information at the jobsite, Cabrera consulted the Division of Corporations’ website to determine, inter alia, the identity of Respondent's corporate officers. Cabrera found that Jorge Cappelleti ("Cappelleti") was Respondent's sole corporate officer. Cabrera then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") for proof of workers' compensation coverage and for exemptions associated with Respondent. An exemption is a method in which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. (2014). CCAS is the Department's internal database that contains workers' compensation insurance policy information and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which is then input into CCAS. Cabrera's CCAS search revealed that Respondent did not have a workers' compensation policy or an employee leasing policy. Cabrera additionally discovered that Cappelleti had a valid exemption. Cabrera then called Cappelleti who confirmed that the two men at the jobsite were his employees and that the employees were not covered by workers' compensation insurance. Based on the information gathered, on September 26, 2014, Cabrera issued Respondent a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. On September 29, 2014, Cabrera served Respondent with the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. Cabrera simultaneously served Respondent with the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("BRR"). The BRR requested documents that would enable the Department to determine Respondent's payroll for the time period of September 27, 2012, through September 26, 2014. In response to the BRR, Respondent ultimately provided the Department with bank statements, check details, a general ledger, and other records. Penalty Calculation. In October 2014, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Ruzzo to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Ruzzo reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and properly identified the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's employees on which workers' compensation premiums had not been paid. Ruzzo researched Respondent and Respondent's subcontractors to determine those periods when they were not compliant with chapter 440 during the audit period. Ruzzo determined that Respondent was not compliant for the period of September 27, 2012, through September 26, 2014. However, Respondent's corporate officer was not included in the penalty for the periods in which he had an exemption. Additionally, Respondent's compliant subcontractors were not included in the penalty. The business records ultimately produced by Respondent were sufficient for Ruzzo to calculate a penalty for the entire audit period, except for September 26, 2014. For that day, Ruzzo imputed the payroll. On June 2, 2015, based on Ruzzo's calculations, the Department issued a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent. On September 1, 2015, the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Respondent. The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a penalty of $68,525.42. For the penalty assessment calculation, Ruzzo consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department of Financial Services 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. Ruzzo assigned the class codes based on information provided to him by Cappelleti. Ruzzo then utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for those classification codes and the related periods of non-compliance. Ruzzo applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty. The Penalty Associated With Subcontractor Emerald. Respondent only disputes the portion of the penalty associated with its subcontractor, Emerald, in the amount of $8,434.86 for the period of non-compliance from January 1, 2014, through April 8, 2014. Section 440.10(1) provides in relevant part: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. A contractor shall require a subcontractor to provide evidence of workers’ compensation insurance. A subcontractor who is a corporation and has an officer who elects to be exempt as permitted under this chapter shall provide a copy of his or her certificate of exemption to the contractor. Noticeably absent from the statute is the time period within which this evidence of coverage must be provided to the contractor or the nature of the required evidence. Rule 69L-6.032(1) provides: In order for a contractor who is not securing the payment of compensation pursuant to Section 440.38(1)(a), F.S. to satisfy its obligation to obtain evidence of workers’ compensation insurance or a Certificate of Election to Be Exempt from a subcontractor pursuant to Section 440.10(1)(c), F.S., such contractor shall obtain and provide to the Department, when requested, the evidence specified in subsections (2), (3), (4) or (5) herein. (Emphasis added). Rule 69L-6.032 sets forth the contractor requirements for obtaining evidence that the subcontractor possesses workers' compensation insurance. If a subcontractor is a client company of a leasing company, such as Emerald, rule 69L-6.032(3) specifies that the evidence shall be a Certificate of Liability Insurance ("Certificate"). According to the deposition testimony of Cappelleti (Exhibit 11, offered into evidence by the Department), when Emerald began providing services to Respondent in January 2014, Emerald represented that its workers were covered by a policy through an employee leasing company. In fact, a Certificate, obtained by Respondent sometime before it was requested by the Department, indicates that Emerald had coverage for the period of January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. This period encompasses the period of time for which the Department now seeks to penalize Respondent. Although Respondent obtained proof of coverage from Emerald, this occurred after Emerald was paid by Respondent for work occurring between January 1, 2014, and April 8, 2014. Ruzzo checked the CCAS and found that the Certificate for Emerald was inaccurate. Emerald apparently did not join the leasing company insurance policy until April 9, 2014. Although a contractor does not have a duty to further investigate when presented with what appears to be a valid Certificate, Ruzzo's calculations penalized Respondent for the period of non-compliance of Emerald because Respondent did not seek the proof of coverage until after Emerald's workers were already on the job for Respondent. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent employed Mr. Moscoso and Mr. Alvarado on September 26, 2014; that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the period of September 27, 2012, to September 26, 2014; and that Respondent failed to carry workers' compensation insurance to cover its employees as required by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law from September 27, 2012, to September 26, 2014. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Ruzzo correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. However, the Department failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that a penalty for Emerald's period of non-compliance, in the amount of $8,434.86, should be included in the total penalty assessment of $68,525.42.
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 determining that Respondent, KP Roofing Masters, LLC, violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage, and imposing upon it a total penalty assessment of $60,090.56. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2016, 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 2nd day of March, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent may levy upon property belonging to Petitioner (specially, funds in Petitioner's account, number 300126719, at Admiralty Bank), as proposed in Respondent's March 30, 2000, Notice of Intent to Levy?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner operates a Chevron station at 4109 Northlake Boulevard in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, at which it engages in the business of selling motor fuels at posted retail prices. Petitioner maintains a business account at Admiralty Bank. The number of its account is . Petitioner's Local Option Motor Fuel License number is 60-023068. Petitioner was delinquent in remitting to the Department "local option gas tax" payments for the period from July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. The Department provided Petitioner notice of Petitioner's failure to make these payments. The Department filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County a Tax Warrant "for collection of delinquent local option gas tax[es]," in the amount of $106,904.62, plus penalties (in the amount of $59,556.47), interest (in the amount of $12,026.25), and the amount of the "filing fee" ($12.00), for a "grand total" of $178,499.34. Rafael Fanjul is the president and sole owner of Petitioner. On May 2, 1997, Mr. Fanjul, on behalf of Petitioner, entered into a Stipulation Agreement with the Department, which provided as follows: THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ELF SERVICES, D/B/A PALM BEACH CHEVRON S/S THE TAXPAYER, TAX IDENTIFICATION NO. 60- 123068, HEREBY AGREE THAT THE $178,024.29 TAX LIABILITY IS DUE THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THE SUM OF TAX, PENALTY, AND INTEREST REFERENCED ON THE WARRANT OR WARRANTS DATED 02/20/97 IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: The taxpayer will retire the tax, penalty, and interest shown on the Tax Warrant or Warrants whose dates or dates are shown above. The taxpayer waives any and all rights to institute any further judicial or administrative proceedings under S.72.011, F.S., with respect to this liability and; The taxpayer further agrees to meet each payment term which is detailed on the Amortization Schedule and Payment Coupons provided by the Department of Revenue. IN THE EVENT THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MEET THE PAYMENT TERMS DETAILED ON THE ENCLOSED AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT COUPONS OR FAILS TO TIMELY REMIT ALL TAXES WHICH BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT, ANY UNPAID BALANCE OF TAX, PENALTY, AND/OR INTEREST SCHEDULED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE. Mr. Fanjul had the authority to bind Petitioner to the terms set forth in the Stipulation Agreement. There has been no showing that, in so doing, he acted involuntarily or under coercion or duress. Petitioner made some, but not all of the payments, set forth on the Amortization Schedule incorporated by reference in the Stipulation Agreement. 4/ On May 1, 1998, Petitioner entered into a second Stipulation Agreement with the Department, which provided as follows: THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ELF SERVICES, D/B/A PALM BEACH CHEVRON S/S 4806, THE TAXPAYER, TAX IDENTIFICATION NO. 60- 123068, HEREBY AGREE THAT THE $142,701.38 TAX LIABILITY IS DUE THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THE SUM OF TAX, PENALTY, AND INTEREST REFERENCED ON THE WARRANT OR WARRANTS DATED 02/20/97 IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: The taxpayer will retire the tax, penalty, and interest shown on the Tax Warrant or Warrants whose dates or dates are shown above. The taxpayer waives any and all rights to institute any further judicial or administrative proceedings under S.72.011, F.S., with respect to this liability and; The taxpayer further agrees to meet each payment term which is detailed on the Amortization Schedule and Payment Coupons provided by the Department of Revenue. IN THE EVENT THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MEET THE PAYMENT TERMS DETAILED ON THE ENCLOSED AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT COUPONS OR FAILS TO TIMELY REMIT ALL TAXES WHICH BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT, ANY UNPAID BALANCE OF TAX, PENALTY, AND/OR INTEREST SCHEDULED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE. Mr. Fanjul had the authority to bind Petitioner to the terms set forth in the second Stipulation Agreement. There has been no showing that, in so doing, he acted involuntarily or under coercion or duress. Petitioner made some, but not all of the payments, set forth on the Amortization Schedule incorporated by reference in the second Stipulation Agreement. 5/ On August 12, 1999, Petitioner entered into a third Stipulation Agreement with the Department, which provided as follows: THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ELF SERVICES, D/B/A PALM BEACH CHEVRON S/S 4806, THE TAXPAYER, TAX IDENTIFICATION NO. 60- 123068, HEREBY AGREE THAT THE $88,375.04 TAX LIABILITY IS DUE THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THE SUM OF TAX, PENALTY, AND INTEREST REFERENCED ON THE WARRANT OR WARRANTS DATED 02/20/97 IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: The taxpayer will retire the tax, penalty, and interest shown on the Tax Warrant or Warrants whose dates or dates are shown above. The taxpayer waives any and all rights to institute any further judicial or administrative proceedings under S.72.011, F.S., with respect to this liability and; The taxpayer further agrees to meet each payment term which is detailed on the Amortization Schedule and Payment Coupons provided by the Department of Revenue. IN THE EVENT THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MEET THE PAYMENT TERMS DETAILED ON THE ENCLOSED AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT COUPONS OR FAILS TO TIMELY REMIT ALL TAXES WHICH BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT, ANY UNPAID BALANCE OF TAX, PENALTY, AND/OR INTEREST SCHEDULED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE. Mr. Fanjul had the authority to bind Petitioner to the terms set forth in the third Stipulation Agreement. There has been no showing that, in so doing, he acted involuntarily or under coercion or duress. The Amortization Schedule incorporated by reference in the third Stipulation Agreement required Petitioner to make 47 weekly payments of $1,000.00 each from August 12, 1999, to June 29, 2000, and to make a final payment of $28,994.57 on July 6, 2000. As of January 12, 2000, Petitioner was five payments behind. Accordingly, on that date, the Department sent a Notice of Delinquent Tax to Admiralty Bank, which read as follows: RE: ELF SERVICES INC. DBA: PALM BEACH GARDENS CHEVRON STA 48206 FEI: 65-0055086 ACCT: ST#: To Whom It May Concern: You are being notified, under the authority contained is Subsection 212.10(3), Florida Statutes, that the referenced dealer is delinquent in the payment of gas tax liabilities in the amount of $75,581.47 to the State of Florida. You may not transfer or dispose of any credits, debts, or other personal property owed to the dealer, that are to become under your control during the effective period of this notice. Any assets in your possession exceeding the dollar amount shown above may be released in the ordinary course of business. This notice shall remain in effect until the Department consents to a transfer or disposition or until sixty (60) days elapse after receipt of this notice, whichever period expires the earliest. Please furnish a list of all credits, debts, or other property owed to the dealer in your possession and the value of these assets to the Department. Chapter 212.10(3), F.S. requires this list within five (5) days. If you fail to comply with this notice, you may become liable to the State of Florida to the extent of the value of the property or amount of debts or credits disposed of or transferred. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at the telephone number below. On or about January 18, 2000, in response to the foregoing notice, Admiralty Bank advised the Department in writing that "the balance being held" in Petitioner's account at the bank was $2,223.53. On February 10, 2000, the Department sent Admiralty Bank a Notice of Freeze, which read as follows: RE: Elf Services Inc. DBA Palm Beach Gardens Chevron FEI: 65-0055086 ACCT: ST#: Dear Custodian: You are hereby notified that pursuant to Section 213.67, Florida Statutes, the person identified above has a delinquent liability for tax, penalty, and interest of $75,581.47, which is due the State of Florida. Therefore, as of the date you receive this Notice you may not transfer, dispose, or return any credits, debts, or other personal property owned/controlled by, or owed to, this taxpayer which are in your possession or control. This Notice remains in effect until the Department of Revenue consents to a transfer, disposition, or return, or until 60 consecutive calendar days elapse from the date of receipt of this Notice of Freeze, whichever occurs first. Further, Section 213.67(2), F.S., and Rule 12-21, Florida Administrative Code, require you to advise the Department of Revenue, within 5 days of your receipt of this Notice, of any credits, debts, or other personal property owned by, or owed to, this taxpayer which are in your possession or control. You must furnish this information to the office and address listed below. Your failure to comply with this Notice of Freeze may make you liable for the amount of tax owed, up to the amount of the value of the credits, debts or personal property transferred. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions please contact the undersigned at the telephone number listed below. On March 22, 2000, the Department sent to Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy upon Petitioner's "Bank Account # , in the amount of $2,320.07, . . . in the possession or control of Admiralty Bank" "for nonpayment of taxes, penalty and interest in the sum of $75,581.47." After receiving information from Admiralty Bank that Petitioner actually had $7,293.36 in its account at the bank, the Department, on March 30, 2000, sent Petitioner a second Notice of Intent to Levy, which was identical in all respects to the March 22, 2000, Notice of Intent to Levy except that it reflected that Petitioner's account at Admiralty Bank contained $7,293.36, instead of $2,320.07. Petitioner's account at Admiralty Bank does not contain any monies paid by a third party to Petitioner as salary or wages. The amount of the Petitioner's current outstanding delinquent "tax liability" is $75,581.47.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order upholding its March 30, 2000, Notice of Intent to Levy and proceed with the garnishment of the funds in Petitioner's account at Admiralty Bank. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2000.
