02-004806BID C. M. Security Group, Inc. vs. Department Of Corrections Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, February 26, 2003.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that its competitor was not the most responsive bidder according to price.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

C.M. SECURITY GROUP, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 02 - 4806BID

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

)

Respondent, )

)

and )))

)))

ARCHITECTURAL OPENINGS, INC., )))

)))

Interven or. )))

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Notice was provided and on January 13, 2003, a formal

hearing was held in this case. Authority for conducting the

hearing is set forth in Sections 120.569, and 120.57, Florida

Statutes. The hearing location was the offices of the Division

of Administrative Hearings, DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee

Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida. The hearing was conducted by

Charles C. Adams, Admini strative Law Judge.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Gerald Spenard, C.A.

Qualified Representative

C.M. Security Group, Inc.

19400 Cruickshank

Baie D'Urfe

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H9X 3P1

For Respondent: Obed Dorceus, Esquire

Department of Corrections

2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2500

For Intervenor: B. Forest Hamilton, Esquire

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A.

108 South Monroe Street

Post Office Box 10507

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 2507

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Should the Department of Corrections' (the Department)

decision to award a contract to Architectural Openings, Inc.

(Architectural Openings) in Bid No. 02 - Martin - 7475 (the Project)

for security windows be upheld ?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On November 19, 2002, bids were opened by the Department

related to the Project. Architectural Openings was a bidder.

C.M. Security Group, Inc. (C.M. Security) was a bidder.

Cornerstone Detention Products, Inc., was a bidder but its bid

was rejected as unresponsive. This left the bids of C.M.

Security and Architectural Openings to be considered on the

merits. Architectural Openings offered the lowest responsive

bid.

On November 21, 2002, C.M. Security filed i ts notice of

protest in writing with the Department contesting the decision

finding Architectural Openings the low responsive bidder. On

December 2, 2002, C.M. Security filed its formal written protest

concerning the decision finding Architectural Opening s the low

responsive bidder, together with a bond in support of that

protest. Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes.

The case was unresolved between the parties. On

December 13, 2002, the Department filed a notice with the

Division of Administrative Hea rings requesting the assignment of

an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a hearing in accordance

with Section 120.57(3)(e), Florida Statutes.

Initially the case was assigned to Barbara J. Staros,

Administrative Law Judge. The case was reassigned for he aring.

Architectural Openings petitioned to intervene. On

January 3, 2003, an order was entered granting the intervention.

The Department moved for summary recommended order or

alternatively for dismissal. Oral argument was held on the

motion. On J anuary 8, 2003, an order was entered denying the

motion without prejudice to raise its substance at final hearing.

Concerning the motion for summary recommended order, the issues

in the motion for summary recommended order are addressed by the

entry of th e recommended order.

The Department filed a motion to dismiss the formal written

protest for alleged violations by C.M. Security of Sections

607.1501(1) and 607.1502, Florida Statutes, and for lack of

standing to pursue the action for failure to comply w ith Section

4.3.12 of the Invitation to Bid the Project. Oral argument was

considered at the commencement of the hearing. Ruling on the

motion was reserved pending entry of the recommended order.

The parties submitted a prehearing stipulation as requir ed.

Joint Exhibits numbered 1 through 4 were submitted as part of the

prehearing stipulation and have been admitted. Proposed facts

set forth in paragraphs 1 through 5 to the prehearing stipulation

are admitted and will be reported in the findings of fac t.

Petitioner Exhibits numbered 1, 2, 3A - 3E, and 4 were denied

admission. The Department presented Charles Terry Pendergrass,

Purchasing Specialist with that agency, as its witness.

On January 28, 2003, a hearing transcript was filed with the

Division of Administrative Hearings.

The Department and Architectural Openings submitted proposed

recommended orders which have been considered in preparing the

recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

STIPULATED FACTS

1. In November of 2002, or approximately th ereof, the

Department issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) requesting that

qualified contractors submit bids to sell to the Department

stainless steel windows for Martin Correctional Institution.

2. On or about November 19, 2002, the Department received

bid s from three vendors, namely, Architectural Openings, Inc.,

C.M. Security Group, Inc., and Cornerstone Detention Products,

Inc. The bids were as follows:

Architectural Openings $175,885.92

C.M. Security $273,325.92

Cornerstone Detention Products, Inc. $301,392.00

3. Among the three bids received by the Department, only

Cornerstone's bid was found not responsive.

4. On or about November 19, 2002, the Department issued its

Notice of Intent to award to AOI, the lowest bidder.

5. Petitioner, as the second lowest bidder, filed its

Notice of Intent to protest on November 21, 2002. Petitioner's

formal protest was submitted to the Department on November 26,

2002, and received on December 2, 2002 .

STATED GROUNDS FOR PROTEST

6. Per form PUR 7028 Rev. 6/1/98 item 4, c, "Mistakes" it

may be possible there was a mistake in the extension of unit

price.

7. Per ITB 3.1.2, A. "Manufacturer shall be experienced in

the manufacture of stainless stee l detention windows of this type

and quality". To our knowledge the lowest bidder has no

experience with this type of window.

8. Per ITB 3.1.2, B. "Source quality control" Does the

manufacturer have independent test on hand for the type of window

requ ired? This includes ASTM E 283, ASTM E 331, ASTM A 627 and

ASTM A 629.

DISCUSSION OF PERTINENT PROVISIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT ITB

9. Under Section 2.1 Background of the ITB it is stated:

The Department of Corrections is seeking a

qualified ven dor to furnish security vendors to furnish

security windows for Martin Correctional Institution.

10. Under Section 2.2 Statement of Purpose of the ITB it is

stated:

The purpose of this Invitation To Bid is to secure

competitive bids from qualified ve ndors to furnish

security windows for Martin Correctional Institution,

1150 Southwest Allapattah Road, Indiantown, Florida

34956 - 4397. There are three (3) buildings included in

this project, each requiring 112 windows. The windows

are to be installed by inmate labor crews into

existing masonry openings measuring approximately 2' - 9"

wide by 2' - 9" high on the interior and 2' - 4" wide by

2' - 4" high on the exterior. The successful bidder

shall only furnish the product specified or an approved

equivalent. In stallation is not required.

11. Under the ITB 1.11, Vendor, Offeror and Bidder are

synonymous terms to describe those firms that would have the

opportunity to bid on the project where it is stated:

A legally qualified corporation, partn ership or

other entity submitting a bid to the Department

pursuant to this ITB.

12. The winner or successful bidder is defined at Section

1.12 in the ITB as:

The business or entity submitting the lowest

responsive bid, meeting all r equirements of the

Department's ITB.

13. The opportunities to do business with the Department

under the ITB are referred to at Section 4.3.12 State Licensing

Requirements, where it is stated:

All entities defined under Chapters 607, 617 or 620,

Flo rida Statutes, seeking to do business with the

Department shall be on file and in good standing with

the Florida Department of State.

14. The general conditions, Form PUR 7028, revised 6/1/98

at Paragraph 4.(c) states:

PRICES, TERMS AND PAYMENT: Firm prices shall be bid

and include all packing, handling, shipping charges and

delivery to any point within the State of Florida.

* * *

MISTAKES: Bidders are expected to examine the

specifications, delivery schedule, bid prices, and all

instructions pertaining to supplies and services.

Failure to do so will be at bidders risk. In case of

mistake in extension the unit price will govern.

15. The ITB at Section 5.5 refers to Cost Proposals. In

particular Section 5.5.1 Cost Proposal Submission Req uirements

states:

The Bidder shall submit the Cost Information Sheet(s)

(Table 1). By submitting a bid or bids under this ITB,

each Bidder warrants its agreement to the prices

submitted. Any qualifications, counter - offers,

deviations, or challenges sha ll render the bid non -

responsive.

16. Consistent with the ITB expectations C.M. Security and

Architectural Openings executed Table 1 - Cost Information and

submitted those tables with their respective responses to the

ITB.

17. Contrary to the claim b y C.M. Security concerning a

possible mistake in relation to the unit price by Architectural

Openings, no proof was advanced to establish that allegation.

Moreover, Section 6.2 to the ITB, Incomplete Cost Information

Sheet, contemplates the opportunity fo r the Department to proceed

in its award of a contract even in the event of some

inconsistencies or inaccuracies in price extensions where it

states:

Any cost information sheet that is incomplete or in

which there are significant inconsistencies or

ina ccuracies may be rejected by the Department. No

deviations, qualifications, or counter offers will be

accepted. The Department reserves the right to reject

any and all bids. All calculations will be reviewed

and verified. The Department may correct mat hematical

errors; however, in the event of any miscalculations,

unit prices shall prevail.

18. This exercise of discretion in addressing the matter of

unit cost and total cost is supported in the definition at

Section 1.5 Desirable Conditions which sta tes:

The use of the words 'should' or 'may' in this ITB

indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are

permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of,

such a desirable feature, will not in itself cause

rejection of a proposal.

eatme nt of unit costs and total costs by the

Department does not fall within the expectations of Section 1.6

Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements which states:

Terms, conditions or requirements that must be met by

the bidder to be responsive to this ITB. Th ese

responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to

meet these responsiveness requirements will cause

rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to

meet mandatory responsiveness requirements will not be

further reviewed.

20. The manner in which the Department addresses unit cost

and total cost is not perceived under Section 1.7 Material

Deviations to constitute a material deviation within the meaning

of that definition which states:

The Department has established certain requirement s

with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The

use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple

futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or

condition from which a material deviation may not be

waived by the Department. A deviation is ma terial if,

in the Department's sole discretion, the deficient

response is not in substantial accord with this ITB 's

require - ments, provides an advantage to one bidder over

other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on

the quantity or quality of it ems bid, or on the cost to

the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived .

21. Taken in the context of provisions within the ITB any

problems perceived concerning unit price or total cost can be

addressed under Section 1.8 as a Minor Irregularity wherein it is

stated:

A variation from the ITB terms and conditions which

does not affect the price of the bid or give the bidder

an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other

bidders or does not adversely impact the interest of

the D epartment.

22. At Section 4.3.6.1 Mandatory Responsiveness

Requirements are further discussed. At Section 4.3.6.2 Material

Deviations are described again. At Section 4.3.6.3 Minor

Irregularities are referred to for a second time. In essence,

these discussions at Section 4 mirror the definitional statements

in Section 1 on those topics.

23. The statement of unit cost controls in ranking the

bidders for purposes of cost of the project, in the event that

unit cost extension in arriving at total cost is an error.

24. Most importantly, by a simple mathematical exercise it

can be seen that 336 units called for, multiplied by a unit cost

of $523.47, leads to a total cost of $175,885.92 as represented

in Table 1 to the Architectural Openi ngs' submission.

25. Section 3 to the ITB contains product information that

further describes the nature of the windows being purchased.

Section 3.1.1 under Specifications summarizes the nature of the

product where it is stated:

B. Type of security windows on project is a stainless

steel unit with fixed vision glass and operable

ventilation dampers protected from vandalism by

security screens.

C. Glazing: Window units shall be glazed with 1/2"

clear translucent polycarbonate.

26. Section 3 .1.2 to the ITB describes the need for quality

assurance as:

A. Manufacturer shall be experienced in the

manufacture of stainless steel detention windows of

this type and quality.

B. Source quality control:

1. Air infiltration test

a. ASTM E 28 3

b. Maximum air infiltration .5 cfm per ft. of crack

length with pressure differential across the window

unit of 1.56 PSF.

2. Water penetration test

a. ASTM E 331

b. No water penetration for 15 minutes when the window

is subjected to a rate of flo w of 5 gal./hr./sq. ft.

with differential pressure across the window of 2.86

PSF.

3. Upon request, the window manufacturer shall provide

a test report from a qualified independent testing

laboratory regularly engaged in testing windows.

4. Tool - Resis tant Steel (when specified)

Submit test reports from a qualified independent

testing laboratory showing that the tool - resistant

steel used in the windows conforms with ASTM A 627 and

A 629.

C. Design Criteria: Drawings indicate size and

profiles of th e existing mason opening only. Shop

drawings for the security windows and trim are to be

based on the dimensions indicated.

D. The design of the ventilators, security screen, and

insect screen shall be such that at least 90 sq. in. of

free area for ve ntilation is provided.

27. Contrary to the allegations by C.M. Security, the

provision at 3.1.2 A. taken in the context of the overall ITB

does not require that Architectural Openings be a manufacturer of

the form of stainless detention windows of the type and quality

sought, it is only necessary that Architectural Openings as a

successful bidder furnish the kind of product specified or an

approved equivalent. Section 2.2. To that end the manufacturer

of the product would have to be experienced in manufacturing

stainless steel detention windows of the type and quality

specified or an equivalent. Section 3.1.2 A. The windows when

provided would then be installed by inmate labor crews.

28. Section 3.1.2 B. reminds the bidder of the degree of

quality control necessary in manufacturing the windows as to the

air infiltration test and water penetration test and the prospect

that upon request the window manufacturer might be called upon to

provide a test report from an independent testing laborato ry.

There is also the discussion in the instance where there would be

tool - resistant steel of further test reports from a qualified

independent testing laboratory. Nothing in the quality assurance

statement at 3.1.2 D. requires that this supporting test

information be made available with the responses to the ITB.

Neither responsive bidder, C.M. Security or Architectural

Openings, provided this information with the responses, not being

called upon to do so. What is intended by the ITB is that the

product be capable of withstanding the test regime for air

infiltration and water penetration and the prospect of additional

testing if requested or specified.

29. The mandatory information to be provided with the

responses to the ITB is identified at Section 5.1 Mandatory

Responsiveness Requirements where it is stated:

The following terms, conditions, or requirements must

be met by the bidder to be responsive to this ITB.

There responsiveness requirements are mandatory.

Failure to meet these responsivenes s requirements will

cause rejection of a bid.

5.1.1 It is mandatory that the bidder supply one (1)

original, signed bid. The envelope shall be clearly

marked "ITB - #02 - MARTIN - 7475."

5.1.2 It is mandatory that the bidder complete, sign

and return PU R Form 7028, State of Florida ITB/Bidder

Acknowledgement, which is the front cover of this ITB

document. The bidder must return either the original

or a copy (front & back) with an original signature .

5.1.3 It is mandatory that the bidder complete, sig n

and return TABLE I -- Cost Information, which consists

of page No. 31. The bidder must return the entire

TABLE I -- Cost Information section dated and with an

original signature .

30. Source quality control information under 3.1.2B. is not

among th e items mandated to be provided with the bid response so

that it may be verified in determining responsiveness for

purposes of then comparing the bids of the competitors. The

determinations concerning quality control are left for another

occasion when the winner in the competition has been chosen.

31. When the winner is chosen, the nature of the process is

further described at Section 3.1.3 Submittals where it is stated:

A. Shop Drawings: Within two weeks after receipt of

purchase order, submit five ( 5) sets of shop drawings,

including wall elevations at 1/4" scale, typical unit

elevations at 3/4" scale, and full size detail sections

of every typical composite member. Show anchors,

hardware, operators, and other components not included

in manufacturer 's standard data. Include glazing

details.

Submit shop drawings to:

Bob Rogers

Fort Lauderdale Service Center

Second Floor

1400 West Commercial Blvd.

Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 3309 - 3752

Phone (954) 202 - 3819

B. Samples, Submit one complete unit of type required,

prior to job production, for review of construction and

finish. After approval, sample may be used in actual

construction.

The owner reserves the right to requi re additional

samples which show fabrication techniques and

workmanship of component parts, and design of hardware

and other exposed auxiliary items.

C. Certification: Where manufacturer's standard

window units comply with requirements and have been

t ested in accordance with specified tests, provide

certification by manufacturer showing compliance with

such tests; otherwise, perform required tests through a

recognized testing laboratory or agency and provided

certified test results.

32. The n ature of the materials to be used are described in

Section 3.1.5. The act of fabrication is described in Section

3.1.8 to the ITB.

33. In association with the allegations in the formal

written protest, to the extent that C.M. Security misapprehended

a ny of the instructions in the ITB concerning matters that needed

to be submitted with the responses to the ITB and other

requirements, it was instructed on those subjects at Section

4.3.7 Bid Inquiries, in particular at 4.3.7.2, 4.3.7.3 and

4.3.7.4 where i n it is stated:

4.3.7.2 The bidder shall examine this ITB to determine

if the Department's requirements are clearly stated.

If there are any requirements which restrict

competition, bidder may request, in writing, to the

Department, that the specificat ions be changed. The

bidder who requests changes to the Department's

specifications must identify and describe the bidder's

difficulty in meeting the Department's specifications,

must provide detailed justification for a change, and

must recommend changes to the specifications. Requests

for changes to this ITB must be received by the

Department no later than the date shown for written

inquiries in the "Calendar of Events." A bidder's

failure to request changes by the date described above

shall be conside red to constitute bidder's acceptance

of Department's specifications. The Department shall

determine what changes to this ITB shall be acceptable

to the Department. If required, the Department shall

issue an addendum reflecting the acceptable changes to

this ITB, which shall be sent to all bidders in order

that all bidders shall be given the opportunity of

proposing to the same specifications.

4.3.7.3 Any inquiries from bidders concerning this ITB

shall be submitted in writing, identifying the

submitter, to the individual identified in Section 4.1

of this ITB and must be received no later than the date

and time specified in Section 4.2 of the Calendar of

Events. (E - mail inquiries are preferred with the

bidder following up by mailing or fax ing a hard copy.)

It is the responsibility of the bidder to confirm

receipt of e - mailed and faxed inquiries.

4.3.7.4 Failure to file a protest of the bid

specifications within the time prescribed in Section

120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the

bond or other security required by law within the time

allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of

proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

34. The record does not reflect any attempt by C.M.

Security or other bidders t o avail themselves of the opportunity

for clarification. This meant that the ITB must be interpreted

and applied as originally written.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

35. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the p arties in

accordance with Sections 120.569(1) and 120.57(1) and (3),

Florida Statutes.

36. There is pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss the

formal written protest for Petitioner's alleged violation of

Sections 607.1501(1) and 607.1502, Florida St atutes, and for lack

of standing pursuant to Section 4.3.1 of the ITB.

37. Section 607.1501(1), Florida Statutes, states:

A foreign corporation may not transact business in this

state until it obtains a certificate of authority

from the De partment of State.

38. Section 607.1502(1), Florida Statutes, states:

A foreign corporation transacting business in this

state without a certificate of authority may not

maintain a proceeding in any court in this state

until it obtains a certif icate of authority.

39. Exceptions to the transaction of business are further

addressed in Sections 607.1501(2) and (3), Florida Statutes,

wherein it is stated:

(2) The following activities, among others, do not

constitute transacting busine ss within the meaning of

subsection (1):

(a) Maintaining, defending, or settling any

proceeding.

(b) Holding meetings of the board of directors or

shareholders or carrying on other activities concerning

internal corporate affairs.

(c) Maintaining b ank accounts.

(d) Maintaining officers or agencies for the transfer,

exchange, and registration of the corporation's own

securities or maintaining trustees or depositaries with

respect to those securities.

(e) Selling through independent contractors.

(f) Soliciting or obtaining orders, whether by mail or

through employees, agents, or otherwise, if the orders

require acceptance outside this state before they

become contracts.

(g) Creating or acquiring indebtedness, mortgages, and

security interests in real or personal property.

(h) Securing or collecting debts or enforcing

mortgages and security interests in property securing

the debts.

(i) Transacting business in interstate commerce.

(j) Conducting an isolated transaction that is

completed within 30 days and that it not one in the

course of repeated transactions of a like nature.

(k) Owning and controlling a subsidiary corporation

incorporated in or transacting business within this

state or voting the stock of any corporation which it

h as lawfully acquired.

(l) Owning a limited partnership interest in a limited

partnership that is doing business within this state,

unless such limited partner manages or controls the

partnership or exercises the powers and duties of a

general partner.

(m) Owning, without more, real or personal property.

3. The list of activities in subsection (2) is not

exhaustive.

40. Having in mind the discussion concerning business

transactions in Florida for purposes of the receipt of a

certificate of aut hority, the statute does not contemplate that

the submission of a response to an invitation to bid constitutes

the transaction of business in this state. With that outcome,

even if it is assumed that the prohibition against maintaining a

proceeding in a c ourt in the state without benefit of a

certificate of authority, has application to the Division of

Administrative Hearings in its consideration of the

administrative action by a formal written protest to the intent

to award the contract to Architectural Openings, the statute does

not preclude the maintenance of the present action.

41. As a consequence, C.M. Security is a legally qualified

corporation for purposes of the definition at Section 1.11 with

the ITB.

42. Finally, Section 4.3.12 to the I TB in its admonition

that C.M. Security would be seeking to do business with the state

as a foreign corporation described in Chapter 607, Florida

Statutes, only in the instance where the contract was being

offered to C.M. Security. On that occasion it co uld not do the

business or transact the business without obtaining a certificate

of authority from the Department of State. Otherwise,

C.M. Security would not be in good standing with the Florida

Department of State as contemplated both in the stat ute and

Section 4.3.12 to the ITB.

43. On the merits, C.M. Security has the burden of proof to

demonstrate that the proposed agency action by the Department

which concluded that Architectural Openings has offered the

lowest responsive bid and was entit led to an award of the

contract was incorrect in that it was contrary to the

Department's governing statutes, its rules or policies or the

specifications in the ITB. The decision finding Architectural

Openings to the be lowest responsive bidder by price q uotation

entitled to the award when considered under the terms of those

governing statutes or rules or polices or the ITB must be shown

to constitute clear error, to be contrary to the competition,

arbitrary or capricious. Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida St atutes.

Facts to be found in making the determination are based upon the

preponderance of the evidence. Section 120.57(1)(j), Florida

Statutes.

44. C.M. Security has failed in its proof of the grounds

alleged in the formal written protest, which seek s to overturn

the proposed agency action finding Architectural Openings to be

the lowest responsive bidder entitled to the contract award. The

allegations are not compelling for reasons as described in the

fact finding.

45. Architectural Openings and C.M . Security have complied

with the mandatory requirements to be considered responsive to

the ITB. There were no material deviations from the terms of the

ITB. There were no irregularities material or minor that have

been shown. No mistakes were proven in the provision of unit

cost by Architectural Openings or the extension of the unit price

in offering a statement of total cost. No showing has been made

that Architectural Openings must be a manufacturer of the called

for windows to participate or to have any former experience with

this type of windows sought. The obligation is for the winner in

the competition to deliver windows from an experienced

manufacturer that comply with the terms of the ITB as have been

described and to verify the window design q uality consistent with

the ITB when orders are made for the product. There was no

obligation by the bidders concerning the final allegation in the

formal written protest, the consideration of source quality

control at the time the bid responses were made. In summary,

those claims of noncompliance with specifications that would lead

to the rejection of the bid by Architectural Openings pertaining

to "mistakes" under PUR 728 rev. 6/1/98 item 4.(c). or related to

Section 3.1.2A. and 3.1.2B. to the ITB are re jected.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration, it is

RECOMMENDED :

That a final order be entered which dismisses the formal

written protest and upholds the proposed agency action finding

Architectural Openings to be the lowest responsive bidder by

price and entitled to an award on the project described in Bid

No. 02 - Martin - 7475.

DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2003, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS

Administrative Law J udge

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 26th day of February, 2003.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Obed Dorceus, Esquire

Department of Corrections

2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Fl orida 32399 - 2500

B. Forest Hamilton, Esquire

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A.

108 South Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

James W. Markel, Esquire

Graham, Builder, Jones, Pratt

& Marks, LLP

369 North New York Avenue

Winter Park, Florida 3279 0

Gerald Spenard, C.A.

Qualified Representative

C.M. Security Group, Inc.

19400 Cruickshank

Baie D'Urfe

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H9X 3P1

James Crosby, Jr., Secretary

Department of Corrections

2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32 399 - 2500

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 10

days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

issue the final order in this case.