11-003284BID Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. vs. Department Of Transportation Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, October 24, 2011.

Summary: Petitioner did not prove that the evaluation of its response to the subject RFP was arbitrary or capricious.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, )

INC. , )

)

Petitioner, )

)

and )

)

ELIPSIS ENGINEERING AND )

CONSULTING, LLC, )

)

Intervenor , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 11 - 3284BID

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , )

)

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted on

September 8, 2011, at Tallahassee, Florida, before Claude B.

Arrington, a duly - designated Administrati ve Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: C. Denise Johnson, Esquire

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: Thomas H. Justice, III, Esquire

Thomas H. Justice III, P.A

1435 Lake Baldwin Lane, Suite A

Orlando, Florida 32814

For Intervenor: Thornton J. Williams, Esquire

Williams, McMillian, P. A.

119 South Monroe Street, Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether, in making a preliminary decision to award a

contract for the subject services, the Florida Department of

Transportation (Respondent) acted contrary to a governing

statute, rule, policy, or project specification; and, if so,

whether such misstep (s) was/were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or

capricious, or contrary to competition.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Respondent issued the subject Request for Proposals (RFP)

for a multi - year, continuing services contract (CSC) for

professional materials testing an d geotechnical services for its

District 5, which is headquartered in Deland. The RFP was

designated as " Financial Project ID Nos: 241084 - 2 - 32 - 09 &

241084 - 2 - 62 - 09. "

After initial responses were reviewed, three proposers were

shortlisted to submit proposal s. The three proposers were

Ellipse Engineering and Consulting, L.L.C. (Intervenor),

Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Petitioner), and Ellis &

Associates (Ellis). All three proposers were well - known to

Respondent, and all three are qualified to perf orm as the prime

consultant with the use of sub - consultants.

A Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC), consisting of three

of Respondent ' s employees , reviewed the proposals and each

employee separately assigned scores to the proposals. The RFP

explained to the proposers the areas that would be scored and

the maximum value of each area. The scores were added together. 1

The TEC ranked Intervenor first, Petitioner second, and Ellis

third. The selection committee thereafter decided to award the

CSC to Interve nor.

On March 21, 2011, Respondent posted its notice of intent

to award the CSC to Intervenor. Petitioner thereafter timely

filed a notice of protest and, subsequently, timely filed a

petition with Respondent on March 29, 2011. On June 28, 2011,

an Amend ed Petition challenging the proposed award was filed

with DOAH. 2 Ellis did not participate in this proceeding.

Along with the Amended Petition, Respondent referred to

DOAH on June 28, 2011, Intervenor ' s Motion to Intervene, which

was promptly granted.

Fol lowing a telephone conference call, the matter was

scheduled for hearing on September 8 and 9, 2011. The parties

waived the requirement that the hearing be scheduled within 30

days of the referral to DOAH.

Intervenor filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 2 5, 2011.

The motion was denied on September 1, 2011.

On September 2, 2011, Respondent filed a Motion for

Videoconference Appearance for Respondent ' s employee Frank

Smith. Following a brief telephone conference with the parties,

the undersigned authorized Mr. Smith to testify by telephone.

On September 6, 2011, the parties filed a Pre - hearing

Stipulation that contained certain stipulated facts. Those

facts have been incorporated into the Findings of Fact set forth

in this Recommended Order.

At the formal hearing, the parties submitted four joint

e xhibits, each of which was admitted into evidence. In

addition, Petitioner presented three sequentially - numbered

e xhibits, each of which was admitted into evidence. Respondent

and Intervenor offered no additiona l exhibits.

Petitioner presented the testimony of John Barker, P.E. (a

corporate officer and director of Petitioner); the telephonic

testimony of Mr. Smith (Respondent ' s District 5 Consultant

Manager for Materials and Research); Kathy Gray, P.E.

(Responden t ' District 5 Geotechnical Engineer and a member of

the TEC); and Roger Schmitt, P.E. (Respondent ' s District 5

Materials and Research Engineer and a member of the TEC).

In its Amended Petition, Petitioner alleged " certain

elements of the scoring " by Jeremy Wolcott (the third member of

the TEC) and Ms. Gray were arbitrary, capricious, erroneous, and

applied standards that were not included in the RFP. At the

formal hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner

did not address the alleged deficie ncies in Mr. Wolcott ' s

scoring, but did offer evidence and argument as to Ms. Gray ' s

scoring. Consequently, this Recommended Order will conclude

that Petitioner has abandoned th e allegations pertaining to

Mr. Wolcott and will focus on the scoring of Ms. G ray.

A Transcript of the proceedings, consisting of one volume,

was filed September 22, 2011. Thereafter Petitioner and

Respondent party filed Proposed Recommended Orders, which have

been duly - considered by the undersigned in the preparation of

this Recom mended Order. At the conclusion of the hearing,

Intervenor announced that it would coordinate with Respondent in

the filing of its proposed recommended order. Intervenor did

not file a separate proposed recommended order.

All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2011).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida and is

the procuring agency in this proceeding.

2. Petitioner ' s N otice of P rotest and its Amended Petition

were timely filed.

3. The services being procured wer e advertised as the

" Continuing Services Contract for Materials Testing and

Geotechnical Services Request for Proposals. " The procurement

sought to secure the services of a prime consultant to support

Respondent ' s District 5 by providing professional serv ices in

the fields: soil exploration; geotechnical exploration testing;

highway material testing; foundation studies; pavement

evaluation; and construction materials sampling , testing , and

reporting.

4. Due to the nature of the services to be provided, t he

RFP contemplated that the prime consultant would have to use

sub - consultants for certain services. Each proposer was

required to list the sub - consultants it would use and identify

the fields of work the sub - consultants would perform.

5. There were no challenges to the specifications of the

RFP.

6. Petitioner, Intervenor, and Ellis were the three

shortlisted firms and submitted proposals, which included a

" Project Related Information Package. "

7. All three members of the TEC made an affirmative

findin g that all three proposers are qualified to perform the

required services as the prime consultant.

8. Roger Schmitt, Kathy Gray, and Jeremy Wolcott acted as

the TEC, and performed the evaluation and scoring of the

technical proposals submitted in response to the RFP. All three

are professional engineers. There was no issue as to whether

the evaluators were qualified to serve in that capacity.

9. The TEC was charged with evaluating the materials

submitted by the three proposers in accordance with the RFP

( J oint E xhibit 1) and Procurement Topic 375 - 030 - 002 - i, styled

Acquisition of Professional Services ( J oint E xhibit 4).

10. The responses could be awarded a maximum of 100

points.

11. A maximum of 30 points could be awarded under the

heading: " Management Plan. " A maximum of 15 of those 30 points

could be awarded under the subheading: " What is your Management

Plan for this Contract. " A maximum of 15 of those 30 points

could be awarded under the subheading: " Explain your ability to

provide services in a timely and effective manner. "

12. A maximum of 30 points could be awarded under the

heading: " Geotechnical Services. " A maximum of five of those

30 points were to be awarded under the subheading: " Describe

how you will provide Geotechnical support for Design. " A

maximum of 25 of those 30 points could be awarded under the

subheading: " Describe your approach to providing PDA [pile

driver analysis] testing and engineering. "

13. A maximum of 40 points could be awarded under the

heading: " Construction Ma terials Testing and Evaluations. " A

maximum of ten of those 40 points could be awarded under the

subheading: " What qualified technicians (including qualified

Pre - Stress inspectors) are available for this contract and what

Certifications do they currently hold? (See scope of services

for qualifications list.) " A maximum of 20 of those 40 points

could be awarded under the heading: " What is your plan for

staffing, oversight activities, recruitment, and training of VT

[verification technician] asphalt plan t technicians? How do you

plan to manage the program to make sure the asphalt plants are

staffed without disruption to construction and to keep costs in

check? " A maximum of ten of those 40 points could be awarded

under the subheading: " Describe your ex perience, commitment to

turnaround time and internal review process for performing

pavement survey evaluations. Describe how you propose to manage

the program for Maintenance of Traffic, lane closures, and

meeting the Department production for coring. "

14 . Mr. Barker is a professional engineer and a

professional geologist. He is a director and vice president of

Petitioner. He was actively involved with preparing the

proposal submitted by Petitioner. Mr. Barker is a former

employee of Respondent, having served as the District Materials

Engineer for Districts 1 and 7 until he moved to Petitioner five

years ago.

15. Frank Smith is the consultant project manager for

District 5 for Materials Research. Mr. Smith also assigned the

performance grade associate d with the most recent contract

between Petitioner and Respondent for District 5 materials

testing. Mr. Smith gave Petitioner a score of 4.7 out of a

possible 5 points.

16. Each TEC member scored each proposer pursuant to the

terms of the RFP. After the three TEC members scores were

compiled, Intervenor had a total score of 263 points (for an

average of 87.67), Petitioner had a total score of 262 points

(for an average of 87.33), and Ellis had a total score of 257

points (for an average of 85.67). The T EC ranked Intervenor

first, Petitioner second, and Ellis third. Respondent ' s

selection committee decided to award the RFP to Intervenor based

on the rankings of the TEC.

17. Ms. Gray is a 23 - year veteran with Respondent ' s

District 5. She has served on m any evaluation committees during

her employment with Respondent. She reviewed the RFP before it

was issued, and she participated in determining what entities

should be shortlisted.

18. Ms. Gray is very familiar with Intervenor and

Petitioner.

19. Ms. Gr ay read all information submitted by the three

proposers, with the exception of certain employee resumes,

before assigning scores t o any response. Her scoring reflects

her evaluation of the strength of each response as compared with

the other responses.

M ANAGEMENT PLAN

20 . As reflected above, under the subheading " Management

Plan for Contract , " a proposer could be awarded a maximum of 15

points. For that category, Ms. Gray awarded Intervenor a score

of 15, while awarding Petitioner a score of 10.

21 . In determining Petitioner ' s score for " Management Plan

for Contract " , Ms. Gray made the following notations on the

scoring form:

Good overall Plan and Project Manager.

Since we will only have two CSC Materials

and Research contracts in the future, the

poten tial for conflict of interest problems

is a bigger concern than in the past.

Universal has the highest conflict of

interest risk of the three firms.

Universal has a preference for maximizing

the use of in - house resources even when

qualified sub - consultan ts are available and

closer to the job. Their approach would be

stronger if the welfare of the project was

the highest priority.

The Firm only committed to 10% DBE

[Disadvantaged Business Enterprise]

participation. [ 3 ]

22 . It was reasonable for Ms. Gray to conclude that

Petitioner ' s response to the RFP stressed its in - house

capabilities.

23 . Mr. Smith gave advice to the TEC. Prior to the

review, Mr. Smith related to the TEC members that Mr. Barker

had , in the past, expressed a strong preference on the part of

Petitioner to use in - house resources rather than sub - consultants

when it could. It was reasonable for Ms. Gray to rely on

Mr. Smith ' s advice, particularly when she was familiar with

Petitioner and the way Petitioner operated.

24 . It was reasonabl e for Ms. Gray to consider the three

proposers ' potential for conflict of interests in scoring their

proposals.

25 . Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Gray ' s scoring

for this category, as compared with the other proposals, was

arbitrary or capricious .

ASSIGNMENT OF SU B - CONSULTANTS

26 . The Scope of Services, which is attached to joint

exhibit 1 as exhibit A, provides at page nine:

The assignment of dynamic pile

testing/analyses personnel to projects shall

be at the sole discretion of the District

Geot echnical Engineer.

27 . As noted above, Ms. Gray is the District Geotechnical

Engineer. Ms. Gray testified that she has been instructed not

to tell prime consultants what sub - consultant to use for any

services, including PDA. Mr. Schmitt explained that the

foregoing provision is used to provide Respondent the authority

to prohibit a prime consultant from using an unqualified sub -

consultant. Because of this policy, Ms. Gray could not order

the prime consultant to use a sub - consultant instead of using

its in - house resources.

28. Mr. Barker testified that Petitioner had been asked by

District 5 project managers to use certain sub - consultants for

certain work. He further testified that Petitioner has never

refused such a request, even if it had to add a su b - consultant

to its list of sub - consultants. There was insufficient evidence

to establish that Ms. Gray had ever asked Petitioner to use a

particular sub - consultant.

APPROACH TO PDA

29 . As reflected above, under the subheading " Approach to

providing PDA testing and engineering , " a proposer could be

awarded a maximum of 25 points. For that subheading Ms. Gray

awarded Petitioner a score of 20 while awarding Intervenor a

score of 25.

30 . In determining Petitioner ' s score for " Approach to

providing PDA test ing and engineering , " Ms. Gray made the

following notations on the scoring form:

Universal has expressed a strong preference

for using in - house PDA resources; however,

their small in - house staff does not meet all

the scope requirements and is not located i n

the District. They have reluctantly used

sub - consultants in the past, but it is not

clear how committed they are to using the

most qualified and efficient resources

available. Some firms are more cooperative

in this area.

31 . In scoring this subheadi ng, Ms. Gray considered

Petitioner ' s response, which emphasized its in - house capability

to do PDA as required by the RFP. Ms. Gray was concerned that

Josh Adams, the person Petitioner identified as the employee

responsible for the in - house performance of PDA , was not

qualified to perform PDA services . After describing its in -

house resources for performing PDA, including equipment,

Petitioner ' s response included the following (at page 3 of J oint

E xhibit 2):

PDA testing field services and all

corresponding analyses/recommendations are

performed by our in - house staff (Josh Adams)

or by our subconsultants [sic] RS&H, CS,

GRL, F&GE of AFT. Our subconsultants [sic]

can provide additional equipment and have

performed PDA for numerous FDOT projects.

32 . Ms. Gra y was familiar with three of the proposed sub -

consultants and considered the three to be qualified.

33 . At the time of the technical evaluation and at the

time of the formal hearing, Josh Adams did not have the

qualifications to conduct the PDA required b y the RFP and could

not perform the services for Petitioner on an in - house basis.

Mr. Adams had recently joined Petitioner ' s employment to replace

an employee who had previously done the PDA work for Petitioner.

Petitioner ' s proposal did not discuss Peti tioner ' s future plans

for Mr. Adams or how it intended to develop in - house capability

to perform PDA work.

34 . Intervenor ' s response to the PDA inquiry indicated

that in addition to one other sub - consultant (URS) , which

Ms. Gray considered to be qualified , it would use the three

qualified sub - consultants to perform the PDA services identified

by Petitioner.

35 . Intervenor does not have in - house capability to

perform the required PDA services.

36 . Ms. Gray deducted points from Petitioner under the

subhead ing " Approach to providing PDA testing and engineering "

because of its " reluctance " to use sub - consultants and because

it failed to include URS as a sub - consultant. Ms. Gray ' s use of

the term " reluctance " was not supported by the evidence. While

there wa s sufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner had a

strong preference to use its in - house resources when it could,

there was insufficient evidence to establish Petitioner ' s

" reluctance " to use sub - consultants when necessary. Her

testimony explained t hat her concern was Petitioner ' s strong

preference to use in - house resources , when the use of a sub -

consultant would better serve the interests of District 5. She

was of the opinion that Petitioner ' s failure to include URS as a

sub - consultant signaled tha t Petitioner was not as committed as

the other proposers to using sub - consultants.

37 . Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Gray ' s scoring

for this category , compared with the other proposers, was

arbitrary or capricious.

CERTIFICATIONS

38 . As reflec ted above, under the subheading " Qualified

technicians and what Certifications do they currently hold , " a

proposer could be awarded a maximum of 10 points. Ms. Gray

awarded Petitioner a score of 8 while awarding Intervenor a

score of 10.

39 . In determini ng Petitioner ' s score for that subheading,

Ms. Gray made the following notations on the scoring form:

Universal has many qualified technicians.

However, it is not clear what they will do

for Prestress inspectors. Their Qualified

Personnel matrix shows on e good sub -

consultant we are familiar with, but the

other two Prestress technicians listed are

based outside the District and we have no

experience with them.

40 . Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Gray ' s scoring

of this subheading, compared with th e other proposals, was

arbitrary or capricious.

ASPHALT PLANT TECHNICIANS

41 . As reflected above, under the subheading " plan for

staffing, oversight activities, recruitment, and training of VT

asphalt technicians " , a proposer could be awarded a maximum of

20 points. Ms. Gray awarded Petitioner a score of 15 while

awarding Intervenor a score of 18.

42 . In determining Petitioner ' s score for that subheading,

Ms. Gray made the following notations on the scoring form:

Universal has a good group of qualified

A sphalt VT technicians.

However, it appears supervision of the

program is planned to be by the general

Contract Manager, who is not Plant

Certified. Other firms have a stronger

Asphalt Plant VT Quality Assurance oversight

plan.

43 . Although the RFP did not specifically address " Quality

Assurance , " the term " oversight activities " is sufficiently

broad to encompass " Quality Assurance. "

44 . There is no requirement for the supervisor to be

" Plant Certified. " Petitioner failed to establish that it was

inapp ropriate for Ms. Gray to consider whether the supervisor

was plant certified in comparing proposals. Petitioner failed

to establish that Ms. Gray ' s scoring of this subheading,

compared with the other two proposals, was arbitrary or

capricious.

BIAS

45 . T here was no evidence that Ms. Gray was biased in

favor of or against any proposer. Ms. Gray based her evaluation

of Petitioner on the basis of the criteria established by the

RFP using her background and experience dealing with the

proposers. There was n o evidence that the methodology she

employed in weighing the merits of the three proposals was

improper.

46. Respondent ' s selection committee acted reasonably in

selecting the consultant (Intervenor) that the TEC ranked first.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

47 . DOA H has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in

this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and

120.57(3), Florida Statutes. The parties have standing.

48 . An agency enjoys wide discretion when it comes to

soliciting and accepting proposal s in response to competitive

procurement. The agency ' s decision, when based on an honest

exercise of such discretion, should not be set aside even if it

appears erroneous or reasonable people may disagree.

49 . Pursuant to section 120.57(3)(f) the burden of proof

rests with the party opposing the proposed agency action, here

Petitioner. See State Contracting and Eng ' g Corp. v. Dep ' t of

Transp. , 709 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Petitioner

must sustain its burden of proof by a preponderance of the

evidence. Fla. Dep ' t of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., Inc ., 396 So. 2d

778, 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

50 . Section 120.57(3)(f) spells out the rules of decision

applicable in bid protests. In pertinent part, the statute

provides:

. . . Unless otherwise provid ed by

statute, the burden of proof shall rest with

the party protesting the proposed agency

action. In a competitive - procurement

protest, other than a rejection of all bids,

the administrative law judge shall conduct a

de novo proceeding to determine whet her the

agency ' s proposed action is contrary to the

agency ' s governing statutes, the agency ' s

rules or policies, or the bid or proposal

specifications. The standard of proof for

such proceedings shall be whether the

proposed agency action was clearly

erro neous, contrary to competition,

arbitrary, or capricious. . . .

51 . The foregoing requires the party protesting the

intended award to identify and prove, by the greater weight of

evidence, a specific instance or instances where the agency ' s

conduct in t aking its proposed action was either:

(a) contrary to the agency ' s governing

statutes;

(b) contrary to the agency ' s rules or

policies; or

(c) contrary to the bid or proposal

specifications.

Further, the protester must establish that the agency ' s mis step

was:

(a) clearly erroneous ;

(b) contrary to competition; or

(c) an abuse of discretion.

52 . A capricious action is one taken without thought or

reason or irrationally. An arbitrary decision is one that is

not supported by facts or logic, or is despotic. Agrico

Chemical Co. v. State Dep ' t of Envtl. Reg. , 365 So. 2d 759, 763

(Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied , 376 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1979).

T he reviewing court must consider whether the agency: (1) has

considered all relevant factors; (2) has given actual, good

faith consideration to those factors; and (3) has used reason

rather than whim to progress from consideration of each of these

factors to its final decision. Id.

53 . The second district framed the " arbitrary or

capricious " review standard in these terms: " If an

administrative decision is justifiable under any analysis that a

reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar

importance, it would seem that the decision is neither arbitrary

nor capricious. " Dravo Basic Materials Co., I nc. v. State Dep ' t

of Transp. , 602 So. 2d 632, 634 n.3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). As the

court observed, this " is usually a fact - intensive

determination. " Id. at 634.

54 . The test for reviewing discretionary decisions has

been discussed as follows:

" Discretio n, in this sense, is abused when

the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful,

or unreasonable, which is another way of

saying that discretion is abused only where

no reasonable man would take the view

adopted by the trial court. If reasonable

men could dif fer as to the propriety of the

action taken by the trial court, then it

cannot be said that the trial court abused

its discretion. " Canakaris v. Canakaris ,

382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980), quoting

Delno v. Market St. Ry. Co. , 124 F.2d 965,

967 (9th Cir. 1942). Further, [t]he trial

court ' s discretionary power is subject only

to the test of reasonableness, but that test

requires a determination of whether there is

logic and justification for the result. The

trial courts ' discretionary power was never

int ended to be exercised in accordance with

whim or caprice of the judge nor in an

inconsistent manner. Judges dealing with

cases essentially alike should reach the

same result. Different results reached from

substantially the same facts comport with

neithe r logic nor reasonableness.

Canakaris , 382 So. 2d at 1203.

55 . Petitioner has failed to prove that Ms. Gray ' s scoring

of its proposal, when compared to the other two proposals, was

arbitrary or capricious.

56. Petitioner abandoned its allegations that

Mr. Wolcott ' s scoring was arbitrary or capricious.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation

enter a final order that denies Petitioner ' s bid protest and

upholds the award of the procurement to Intervenor.

DONE AND ENTERED this 2 4th day of October , 2011 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The De Soto 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 2 4th day of October, 2011 .

1 Two members of the TEC (Ms. Gray and Mr. Wolcott) ranked

Intervenor in first place.

2 In its Proposed Recommended Order, Respondent explained that

the initial petition was dismissed by Respondent because it did

not conform t o pleading requirements and there was no bond

filed. The Order of Dismissal entered by Respondent gave

Petitioner a deadline to file an amended petition and a protest

bond. Petitioner thereafter met that deadline, Respondent

referred Petitioner ' s Amended Petition to DOAH, and this

proceeding followed.

3 Petitioner ' s Amended Petition did not raise an issue as to DBE

participation.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Deanna Hurt, Clerk of Agency Proceedings

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450

Ananth Prasad, Secretary

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450

Gerald B. Curington, General Counsel

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450

C. Denise Johnson, Esquire

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Tho mas H. Justice, III, Esquire

Thomas H. Justice III, P.A

1435 Lake Baldwin Lane, Suite A

Orlando, Florida 32814

Thornton J. Williams, Esquire

Williams, McMillian, P. A.

119 South Monroe Street, Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SU BMIT 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.