02-000473 Civil Construction Technology, Inc. vs. South Florida Water Management District Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, October 25, 2002.

Summary: Minority owner failed to demonstrate adequate technical knowledge of her business; shared resources with a non-minority in the same field; and made a material misrepresentation on her application; MBE certification revoked.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER )

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 02 - 0473

)

CIVIL CONSTRUCTION )

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )

) *AS PER CORRECTIONS ON

Respondent. ) PAGES 6, 10, AND 14

______________________ ________)

*CORRECTED RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this matter was heard before the

Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned

Administrative Law Judge, Donald R. Alexander, on July 15 - 17,

2002, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Catherine M. Linton, Esquire

South Florida Water Management District

Post Office Box 24680

West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 - 2480

For Respondent: Bradford J. Beilly, E squire

Bradford J. Beilly, P.A.

400 Southeast 18th Street

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 - 2820

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent's certification as a

minority business enterprise should be revoked, as proposed by

Petitioner in its letter dated December 20, 2001.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This matter began on December 20, 2001, when Petitioner,

South Florida Water Management District, advised Respondent,

Civil Construction Technologies, Inc., that its certification

as a minority business enterprise was being revoked on the

grounds that Respondent "provided inaccurate, misleading or

incomplete information in its application for certification,"

and that Respondent did "not me et the criteria for continued

eligibility under the certification guidelines as delineated

in Section 40E - 7.653, Certification Eligibility of the M/WBE

Contracting Rule." Thereafter, Respondent filed a Petition

to Review Agency Action Initiating Decertif ication. The

matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings

on February 7, 2002, with a request that an Administrative Law

Judge be assigned to conduct a hearing.

By Notice of Hearing dated March 13, 2002, a final

hearing was scheduled o n May 22 and 23, 2002, in West Palm

Beach, Florida. Respondent's Motion to Continue Hearing was

granted, and the matter was rescheduled to June 26 - 28, 2002.

A second request for a continuance was filed by Respondent,

and the matter was continued to July 15 - 17, 2002, at the same

location.

At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony

of Cledwin R. Weldon, a professional engineer, certified

general contractor, and accepted as an expert; Candice B.

Boyer, staff business operations analyst; Danie l Sooker, lead

consulting auditor in the Inspector - General's Office; Bonnie

S. Cramer, president of Respondent; Ronald J. Coddington, a

professional engineer; Howard L. Searcy, a consulting civil

engineer; and Allan Vann, Inspector - General. Also, it offer ed

Petitioner's Exhibits 1 - 24 and 26 - 30, which were received in

evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Bonnie S.

Cramer, its president; David W. Kirchenbaum, a certified

public accountant and accepted as an expert; and Martin

Hanson, a civil engi neer. Also, it offered Respondent's

Exhibits 34 - 36, 37A and 37B, 38, and 39. All were received

except Exhibit 39. Finally, the undersigned took official

recognition of Part VI, Chapter 40E - 7, Florida Administrative

Code.

The Transcript of the hearing ( 4 volumes) was filed on

August 13, 2002. At the request of the parties, the time for

filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law was

extended to September 10, 2002. The same were filed by

Petitioner and Respondent on September 13 and 26, 2002 ,

respectively, and they have been considered by the undersigned

in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of

fact are determined:

a. Background

1. Respondent, Civil Constr uction Technologies, Inc.

(CCT), is a corporation engaged in the business of providing

earthwork, clearing, canal excavation, and erosion control

services for prime contractors. The firm was incorporated on

April 6, 2000, and until November 2001, it was l ocated at 1132

Northeast 48th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida. The business

was then relocated to 3100 Northwest Boca Raton Boulevard,

Boca Raton, Florida. The sole owner and shareholder is Bonnie

S. Cramer, a female who qualifies as a minority under the

Supplier Diversity & Outreach Program (Program) codified in

Part VI, Chapter 40E - 7, Florida Administrative Code. That

Program is administered by Petitioner, South Florida Water

Management District (District).

2. CCT's application for certification as a m inority

business enterprise (MBE) was filed with the District on

December 12, 2000, and was approved on December 15, 2000, in

the areas of earthwork, clearing, canal excavation, and

erosion control. The certification expires on December 15,

2003. Althou gh the District had "some concerns" regarding Ms.

Cramer's knowledge of the business during its review of the

application, it gave her "the benefit of the doubt on the

application because she had worked in the industry."

3. On August 22, 2001, the Distr ict held a "partnering"

meeting for all contractors, including CCT, on a pump station

project awarded to Beers Stanska, Inc. (the Beers project).

CCT was represented at the meeting by Ronald J. Coddington

(Ron Coddington), a non - minority professional engi neer who had

worked on other District projects in the past and owns an

earthwork company.

4. Coddington's attendance on behalf of a minority

contractor raised suspicions on the part of a District

contract administrator, Jessica Flathmann, who also atten ded

the meeting. Ms. Flathmann, who is now on active duty with

the military, prepared a short note the same date requesting

that the District's compliance section "[p]lease check out

[CCT's] information (minority status) with state on - line

info." The "st ate on - line info" refers to the Department of

State's web site for Florida corporations.

5. A subsequent name search under the Department of

State's corporation records revealed that since at least 1987

Ms. Cramer had been an officer and/or director in a number of

other corporations, including Team Land Holdings, Inc. (vice -

president, secretary, treasurer, and 50 percent owner), Team

Environmental Resources, Inc. (owner, president, vice -

president, and secretary - treasurer), Team Land Development,

Inc. (tr easurer), Team Offshore Services, Inc. (secretary -

treasurer), Team Marine Services, Inc. (director and

secretary - treasurer), and R.J. Coddington and Associates, P.A.

(vice - president). Except for Team Environmental Resources,

Inc., Ron Coddington was a pri ncipal in, and owner of, all of

the other corporations. Because Ms. Cramer had failed to

acknowledge a relationship with any other firms on her

application, the District decided to conduct an investigation

concerning CCT's eligibility for MBE status.

6. Based on a site visit to Ms. Cramer's office, and an

interview with her, the District determined that

decertification proceedings were appropriate. By letter dated

December 20, 2001, as later clarified during discovery, the

District alleged that CCT made a material misrepresentation on

its original application for certification in violation of

Rule 40E - 7.653(2), Florida Administrative Code; that CCT

"shared resources with a non - minority person or business in

the same or an associated field" in violation of Rule 40E -

7.653(6)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code; and that

CCT's owner, Ms. Cramer, "does not possess the knowledge and

technical expertise to manage the day - to - day activities of her

firm." Respondent denies all allegations. It also suggests

th at the District's real purpose in revoking the certification

is because of animosity between certain District personnel and

Ron Coddington, with whom Ms. Cramer has had a personal

relationship and is now engaged to marry.

b. Material Mispresentation

7. The District first alleges that Respondent made a

material mispresentation on its application for certification

by answering Question 20 in the negative. That question reads

as follows:

ARE ANY OWNERS, PARTNERS OR PRINCIPALS OF

YOUR COMPANY AFFILIATED W ITH ANY OTHER

FIRM(S) AS EMPLOYEES, SHAREHOLDERS, OR

DIRECTORS? If Yes, please list below,

attach a written explanation of the

business relationship and provide a

financial statement for the affiliate

firm(s).

8. Ms. Cramer answered Question 20 "No." A t the end of

the application, she executed a lengthy affidavit

acknowledging that all of the statements contained in the

application were "true, accurate and complete." When the

question was answered, Ms. Cramer was a vice - president,

secretary, treasurer, and part - owner of Team Land Holdings,

Inc., a corporation which owned the building listed as the

business address for CCT and two corporations in which Ron

Coddington was a principal. As to Team Environmental

Services, Inc. and Team Land Development, Inc ., however, the

parties disagree on Ms. Cramer's status in those corporations

at the time the application was filed. The other corporations

are not in issue since they are no longer active or Ms. Cramer

has resigned as an officer, director, or employee.

9 . Ms. Cramer was president, vice - president, secretary,

and treasurer of Team Environmental Services, Inc. and filed

the paperwork to incorporate the business. She indicated that

the corporation "never did any business," had no income,

closed its books in either April or August 2000, and filed its

final tax return for calendar year 2000. Even so, Ms. Cramer

continued to file annual reports with the Secretary of State

for two more years after the corporation allegedly closed its

books, and she did not file Articles of Dissolution for the

corporation until April 2002, or just before her deposition in

this case was taken. Given these circumstances, it is found

that Ms. Cramer was still affiliated with an active

corporation at the time she filed her applicati on, and this

information should have been disclosed.

10. Beginning in 1987 and continuing until May 2000,

Ms. Cramer was a director, officer, and employee of Team Land

Development, Inc., a firm engaged in the earthwork business

and owned by Ron Coddin gton. However, Ms. Cramer submitted

into evidence a letter to Ron Coddington dated May 10, 2000,

tendering her resignation as an officer and director. The

authenticity of that letter was not challenged. She also

testified that she resigned as an employe e around March 2000.

While the record shows that Ms. Cramer prepared and filed the

annual report for the company in 2001, or after she had

resigned as an employee, she explained that she was simply

helping out by doing some "extra accounting" for the firm even

though she was no longer on the payroll. In light of these

circumstances, there is less than compelling evidence that

Ms. Cramer was affiliated with Team Land Development, Inc. at

the time she submitted her application for certification, and

thus s he was not required to disclose her relationship with

that entity.

11. One of the purposes of Question 20 is to determine

if an applicant has a parent company, affiliates, or

subsidiaries. This information is then used by the District

to determine whethe r the applicant has true management and

control over the business or whether another entity has actual

control over the applicant. The information is also used to

determine whether the applicant meets the size standards for

MBEs when combined with the aff iliates. This is important

because District regulations establish certain size thresholds

(in terms of net assets and number of employees) which an

applicant cannot exceed. It can be inferred from the evidence

that for these reasons, the District conside rs the information

in Question 20 to be material since the information is

essential in order to properly review a MBE application.

12. Ms. Cramer, who signed the application, suggested

that Question 20 was ambiguous and unclear. However, Ms.

Cramer nev er sought guidance from District personnel to clear

up any confusion she might have, nor did she read the MBE rule

itself. Rather, she interpreted the question as requiring an

affirmative response only if she was affiliated with another

firm involved "in [a] similar or same field" as CCT. Because

the two corporations in which she was then affiliated did not

provide the same or similar services as CCT, she responded in

the negative.

13. Question 20 is clear and unambiguous. It simply

requires an applican t to identify any other corporation or

entity in which the applicant is affiliated. The question

does not mention, or even suggest, that an affirmative answer

is required only if the other entity is in the same or similar

field as the applicant's business . Respondent's contention

that the question was ambiguous and susceptible to more than

one interpretation has been rejected.

14. The only remaining issue is whether the omitted

information was "material" so as to constitute a ground for

revocation of the certification. As noted above, the District

considers the information derived from Question 20 to be

material since that information is necessary to carry out its

responsibility of determining an applicant's eligibility.

Therefore, the failure by Ms. Cr amer to disclose her

relationship with two corporations was a material omission, as

alleged in the letter of December 20, 2001.

c. Did CCT share resources with a non - MBE ?

15. Petitioner next alleges that CCT shared resources

with a non - minority person o r business which is in the same

field of operations in violation of Rule 40E - 7.653(6)(a) and

(b), Florida Administrative Code. Those provisions require

that the minority owner demonstrate its independence and that

the business does not share common owners hip, directors, or

facilities with a non - minority person or business in the same

or related field of operations.

16. Ron Coddington is the owner of Team Land

Development, Inc. (TDI), an earthmoving company which

performed contract work for the District un til January 2002,

and for whom CCT was a subcontractor on two District projects.

TDI's business address was 1132 Northeast 48th Street, Pompano

Beach, which is the same address used by CCT until November

2001. In addition, R.J. Coddington & Associates, I nc., an

engineering firm owned by Ron Coddington, also listed that

street address as its business address for the years 2000 and

2001. That firm provides engineering services through

Mr. Coddington's professional engineering license. Thus, the

three corporations shared the same address from April 2000

(when CCT was incorporated) until November 2001.

17. A small office building is located at 1132 Northeast

48th Street and is owned by Team Land Holdings, Inc., a

company in which Ron Coddington and M s. Cramer each owns 50

percent of the stock.

18. The exact configuration of the offices within the

building is not clear although Ms. Cramer testified that the

building once had three separate "suites," each with a

separate entrance, and that CCT occupied an office in the back

of the building with a conference table that was used for all

CCT meetings. However, when District investigators visited

the building for an interview with Ms. Cramer in October 2001,

they entered a common entrance, met her in a "fr ont" office

area, and were not invited into a separate office in the back

of the building. Likewise, when they interviewed Ron

Coddington during the course of this proceeding, he also met

them in the same front area and did not invite them into a

separate office.

19. Respondent contended that the three firms only

shared a fax machine and a kitchen area used primarily for

storage purposes. Even so, the more clear and convincing

evidence supports a finding that three corporations, including

at least one engaged in the same business as CCT, were sharing

facilities, as prohibited by the rule. Therefore, it is found

that from December 2000 when it was first certified, and until

November 2001, CCT shared facilities (offices) with a non - MBE

business (Team Lan d Development, Inc.) which was engaged in

the same business (earthmoving) as CCT.

d. Did Ms. Cramer possess the knowledge and experience

to operate her business ?

20. Finally, the District alleges that Ms. Cramer "does

not possess the knowledge and techn ical expertise to manage

the day - to - day activities of her firm," as required by Rule

40E - 7.653(5)(c)4., Florida Administrative Code. That rule

requires that Ms. Cramer have "managerial and technical

capability, knowledge, training, education and experienc e

required to make decisions regarding that particular type of

work." To support this allegation, the District relies upon a

report prepared by the District's Inspector - General on

December 6, 2001; the results of an interview with Ms. Cramer

conducted in January 2002 by a professional engineer; and the

deposition of Ms. Cramer taken during the spring of 2002 in

preparation for the final hearing.

21. Ms. Cramer's background is in accounting and

bookkeeping. She is not an engineer. Indeed, on her personal

income tax return for the year 2000, she listed her occupation

as an accountant. She also admits that she is not an expert

in earthmoving, nor does she have experience working at job

sites overseeing that type of work.

22. According to the resume atta ched to her application,

and before CCT was incorporated, Ms. Cramer was employed in

the following positions, some of which were apparently part -

time: (1) bank teller and branch manager of a bank (1972 -

1981); (2) bookkeeper for an upholstery firm (1981 - 19 98); (3)

owner of a music store (1982 - 1985); (4) accounting assistant

for a general contractor (1985 - 1987); (5) accounting assistant

to a certified public accountant (1987 - 1998); and (6)

treasurer of Team Land Development, Inc. (1987 - 1999).

23. The same r esume represents that CCT's "typical work"

includes canal excavation, erosion control and dewatering, and

wetland construction. It also indicates that the firm

provides "earthwork and construction solutions for prime

contractors," as well as "skilled, kno wledgeable personnel

providing a variety of earthwork, erosion control and site

environmental mitigation services."

24. In issuing its proposed agency action, the District

relied in part upon an investigation conducted by Mr. Sooker,

a certified public ac countant in its Inspector - General's

Office. Mr. Sooker performed an on - site "audit" of CCT on

October 30 and 31, 2001. The audit included an interview with

Ms. Cramer and the examination of various documentation

related to the business. In his report, M r. Sooker concluded

that CCT did not meet eligibility standards for a MBE for

several reasons, including an opinion that Ms. Cramer "d[id]

not possess the background, experience, and technical

expertise to manage and control job site work activities."

25 . After the letter of December 20, 2001, was issued,

Ms. Cramer requested a meeting with the District to

demonstrate that she had the necessary experience to manage

the day - to - day operations of an earthmoving company. The

meeting was held in January 20 02. At that time, a District

professional engineer, Mr. Weldon, who has extensive

experience in earthmoving, posed a series of questions to

Ms. Cramer regarding her knowledge of that business. While

Respondent contends that Mr. Weldon's interview was flawed in

many respects, it is found that the interview was a reasonable

and appropriate way in which to test Ms. Cramer's

qualifications to operate an earthmoving business.

26. In response to many of the questions, Ms. Cramer

simply stated that she would rely on her foreman and project

manager to resolve the issues raised by the engineer. As to

the remaining inquiries, she failed to demonstrate any

technical expertise in the area. Thus, the meeting

reconfirmed the District's preliminary conclusion (foun d in

Mr. Sooker's report) regarding Ms. Cramer's lack of technical

expertise in the area for which CCT was certified.

27. During a deposition taken prior to hearing,

Ms. Cramer was also asked a series of questions pertaining to

earthmoving to ascert ain the degree of experience and

competence that she possessed. Again, Ms. Cramer failed to

demonstrate that she had the requisite experience necessary to

manage her business. For example, Ms. Cramer was unfamiliar

with the term "shrinkage," a term commo nly used in the

business; she could not describe a method for estimating canal

excavation or factors necessary to make that estimate; she

could not state what type of equipment would be used if the

material being excavated had dense sand, weak limestone, o r

cemented shells; she was unaware that soil borings would

indicate the presence of rock in the material being excavated;

and she could not describe the process for excavating and

constructing a berm "with haul that would affect equipment

collection." An experienced person in the field of

earthmoving would be expected to correctly answer most, if not

all, of these inquiries. Thus, Ms. Cramer did not demonstrate

any level of experience or firsthand knowledge in operating an

earthwork company. While she wa s able to respond more

accurately to some of these same questions at the final

hearing, it is most likely that she could do so only because

the intervening time between the deposition and final hearing

allowed her to consult with experts and prepare her an swers.

28. In addition, Ms. Cramer acknowledged that she has

never been a project manager for any construction job,

including those that CCT has contracted to perform; she has

never operated any heavy equipment; she has never personally

prepared job estim ates involving plans and specifications by

herself; she cannot read construction plans and

specifications; she has not negotiated any contracts for CCT;

and she has never attended any meetings that the District has

held for the Beers project.

29. On the B eers project, in which CCT is a

subcontractor for the prime contractor, notices of safety

violations by CCT employees are sent to Ron Coddington's

attention, and the first subcontract agreement between Beers

and CCT was also sent to his attention. In fact , in

correspondence to CCT, the Beers office manager for the

project assumed that Ron Coddington was president of the firm.

30. At the same time, Ms. Cramer relies heavily on her

foremen and Ron Coddington (who serves as a $1,600.00 per week

consultant) to deal with all technical aspects of her business

and to answer questions regarding the Beers project. She

further acknowledged that she has delegated a number of tasks

on the Beers project to Ron Coddington, such as providing

estimates and bid takeoffs ; providing on - site project

management; preparing project schedules and monthly estimates;

making on - site inspections; coordinating on - site surveys and

quality control with CCT employees; assuming responsibility

for owner and prime contractor conduct on th e District pump

station projects; and representing CCT at all job coordination

meetings.

31. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent contends that

the Inspector - General's report dated December 6, 2001, is the

primary underpinning for the District's case and that the

report is flawed in numerous respects. For example, the

Inspector - General's Office has an operations manual which

spells out the manner in which investigations shall be

conducted. Contrary to specific requirements in the

operations manual, Mr. Sooker did not prepare, sign, and file

a statement of independence, and he did not maintain and

preserve working papers, outlines of questions, and interview

notes in the investigative file. These deficiencies were

confirmed through the testimony of Respo ndent's expert, Mr.

Kirchenbaum, a certified public accountant, as well as the

Inspector - General himself.

32. While Mr. Sooker's investigation admittedly did not

fully conform with the operations manual, his conclusions

regarding Ms. Cramer's experience were independently verified

and reconfirmed through the interview with Ms. Cramer in

January 2002 and the answers given by her in the deposition

taken in April 2002. Therefore, even if Mr. Sooker's report

is ignored, there is other compelling evidence to support the

allegations in the letter of December 20, 2001.

33. For the foregoing reasons, it is found that

Ms. Cramer does not have managerial and technical capability,

knowledge, training, education, and experience required to

make decisions rega rding the type of business in which she is

certified, as alleged in the letter of December 20, 2001.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

34. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto

pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

35. Because Respondent's certification as a MBE is at

risk, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by clear and

convincing evidence that the allegations in its letter dated

December 20, 2001, are correc t. See , e.g. , Ferris v.

Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292, 294 (Fla. 1987).

36. Part VI, Chapter 40E - 7, Florida Administrative Code,

governs the District's Program for minority business

enterprises. Respondent is required to satisfy all of the

requirements in the rules in order to remain eligible for MBE

certification.

37. The District has proposed to decertify CCT for three

reasons: Respondent made a material misrepresentation on its

application; Respondent shared resources with a non - minority

in the same fi eld; and the minority owner does not possess the

necessary knowledge and technical expertise to manage the day -

to - day activities of her firm.

38. Rule 40E - 7.653(2), Florida Administrative Code,

requires that a MBE applicant use Form No. 0964, which form

h as been adopted and incorporated by reference. An important

part of the form is the affidavit executed by the applicant

which provides, among other things, that "any material

misrepresentation [on the application] will be grounds for

. . . de - certifica tion." By clear and convincing evidence,

Petitioner has established that Ms. Cramer failed to disclose

on her application that she was a part - owner, officer, and

director of another corporation, Team Land Holdings, Inc., and

that she was the sole owner of Team Environmental Services,

Inc. Because these omissions are material in nature, the

first allegation has been sustained.

39. Rule 40E - 7.653(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code,

requires in part that an applicant demonstrate that it does

not "share . . . facilities . . . with a non - minority person

or business concern which is in the same or an associated

field of operation." By clear and convincing evidence,

Petitioner has established that between April 2000 and

November 2001 CCT shared the same facilit ies (offices) with

Team Land Development, Inc., which is engaged in the same

business as CCT. Therefore, a violation of the foregoing rule

has occurred.

40. Finally, Rule 40E - 7.653(5)(c)4., Florida

Administrative Code, provides that the minority owner must

have "managerial and technical capability, knowledge,

training, education and experience required to make decisions

regarding that particular type of work." The evidence is

clear and convincing that Ms. Cramer lacks the necessary

technical capability , knowledge, training, education, and

experience required by the rule. While it is true that the

rule allows the minority owner to delegate management and

technical responsibility to others, as Ms. Cramer has done

here, the owner must still demonstrate th at she has the

knowledge and capability to perform the functions that have

been delegated. Therefore, the allegation has been proven.

41. Given the foregoing violations, decertification of

CCT's MBE certification is appropriate.

42. Finally, Respondent' s Motion for Attorney's Fees

under Section 120.595(1)(b), Florida Statutes, is denied.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management

District e nter a final order revoking the MBE certification of

Civil Construction Technologies, Inc.

DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2002, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

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 28th day of October, 2002.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Henry Dean, Executive Director

South Florida Water Management District

Post Office Box 24680

West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 - 4680

Catherine A. Linton, Esq uire

South Florida Water Management District

Post Office Box 24680

West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 - 4680

Bradford J. Beilly, Esquire

Bradford J. Beilly, P.A.

400 Southeast 18th Street

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 - 2820

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCE PTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days of the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will render a final order in this matter.