92-005399BID Edwards Macy Breeners, Inc.; Elizabethan Development, Inc.; Et Al. vs. Department Of Labor And Employment Security Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, November 24, 1992.

Summary: Property bid in foreclosure. Receivor and court had to approve and lease. Agent for owner having no authority to lease rendered bid unresponsive.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

EDWARDS MACY BREENERS, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-5399BID

)

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND )

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, )

)

Respondent. )

______________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this cause came on for final hearing before P. Michael

Ruff, duly-designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative

Hearings, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Daniel F. Mantzaris, Esquire

by Ms. Donlon, as agent for Sand Lake Plaza. A timely protest was filed; and

ultimately, the dispute was transmitted to the undersigned Hearing Officer for

resolution by formal proceeding, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes

(1991).

The cause came on for hearing as noticed. The Petitioner presented the

testimony of two (2) witnesses. The Respondent presented no witnesses

independently but did elicit direct testimony with witnesses presented by the

Petitioner. Six (6) exhibits were admitted into evidence. The proceedings were

transcribed and the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions

of law in the form of Proposed Recommended Orders, which are treated in this

Recommended Order and ruled upon specifically in the Appendix attached hereto

and incorporated by reference herein.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In June of 1992, the Respondent/Agency issued a request for proposals

and bid submittal form, seeking to obtain bids with regard to its intent to

lease approximately 7,792 square feet of professional office space in Orlando,

Florida. There is no evidence of any irregularities in the preparation or

issuance of the request for proposals ("RFP"). Three (3) bids were submitted

for the proposed lease. Connie Donlon, as agent for Sand Lake Plaza, submitted

Bid A. Alan Taylor, as agent for Hoffner Commerce Center, submitted Bid B. The

Petitioner, Edwards Macy Breeners, Inc., is interested in this proceeding as a

corporation which has a contract to purchase the Hoffner Commerce Center which

was the subject of Bid B by Alan Taylor, as agent for Hoffner Commerce Center.

Bid C was submitted by Connie Donlon, also, as an agent for a different

landlord. Bid C was deemed non-responsive at the outset, and the Department

only considered the Sand Lake Plaza bid and the Hoffner Commerce Center bid.

There is no issue concerning Bid C in dispute in this proceeding.

2. The bids were considered by six (6) evaluators of the Department,

utilizing a weighted scale and assigning an evaluation value based upon several

criteria. The maximum score which could be awarded by each evaluator was 100.

The evaluation scores awarded by the six (6) Department evaluators (evaluators

A-F) are as follows:

Sand Lake Plaza Hoffner Commerce Center

A. 96 93

B. 94 89

C. 99 97

C. 99 98

E. 99 97

F. 92 87

Thus, it can be seen that both bidders scored a high number of points on a

maximum 100 point scale with the Sand Lake Plaza bid scoring slightly more

points. Both were deemed responsive at the conclusion of the review process,

with the Sand Lake Plaza bid being deemed by the Department as somewhat more

responsive.

3. The bid for the Sand Lake Plaza was submitted by Ms. Donlon with a

letter of authority from Robert L. Diaz. The letter stated that Mr. Diaz was

the owner of Sand Lake Plaza. The record title owner of Sand Lake Plaza is

actually Sand Lake Plaza Associates, Limited, a limited partnership.

Apparently, Mr. Diaz was the managing general partner of that limited

partnership, which holds the record title to the property.

4. The bid of Hoffner Commerce Center was submitted by Alan Taylor and

Elizabethan Interiors, Inc., Mr. Taylor's company, with authority of CNL Group,

Inc., which is the agent for the Resolution Trust Corporation, which actually

owns Hoffner Commerce Center, the property involved in the Petitioner's bid.

The Petitioner has a contract to purchase the property from the Resolution Trust

Corporation.

5. Sand Lake Plaza Associates, Limited, is the defendant in a foreclosure

action filed by City Savings Bank to foreclose on the Sand Lake Plaza. The

action was filed in the circuit court having jurisdiction, and a lis pendens was

filed with regard to that action. William Frost, Jr., was appointed by the

court as receiver for Sand Lake Plaza during the pendency of the foreclosure

action. See Order Appointing Receiver, Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The order

appointing Mr. Frost as receiver directs that Mr. Frost take possession of Sand

Lake Plaza and that he perform all obligations of the landlord of Sand Lake

Plaza. At all times material to the submission and considerations of the bid at

issue, to lease the Sand Lake Plaza property, that property has been in the

possession of the receiver, Mr. Frost, by order of the circuit court.

6. The bid submitted by Connie Donlon for the lease of the Sand Lake Plaza

was done without the authorization, participation or knowledge of Mr. Frost.

Rather, Ms. Donlon acted on authority of the general partner of the limited

partnership, which holds record title to the property and which is the defendant

in the foreclosure action. The Petitioner established that in order to lease

the premises at Sand Lake Plaza during the receivership effected by order of the

court, either the record owner, its agent or the receiver, can obtain a

prospective tenant. If the receiver was not involved in the initial

negotiations, the owner or agent must bring the prospective lease to the

receiver's attention. The receiver then must submit the lease, with his

recommendation, to the court for approval. All leases, however, finally require

court approval. The receiver for Sand Lake Plaza has not submitted the lease

for court approval and, indeed, does not intend to do so. Mr. Frost, as the

receiver who has custody and control of the property, believes that the proposed

job service office is not an appropriate tenant for Sand Lake Plaza. He does

not intend to submit any such lease to the court for approval.

7. In awarding the bid to Connie Donlon, the Department relied upon the

letter of authority submitted by Ms. Donlon in response to that specification in

the RFP requiring that proof of ownership or control of the property be

supplied. No inquiry was made by the Department to actually determine who was

in ownership or control of the Sand Lake Plaza property. The bid specifications

and Rule 13M-1.015, Florida Administrative Code, require that the bidder submit

proof of his authority to offer the facility for lease.

8. Lynn Mobley is the Respondent's Facilities Administrator. She oversees

all aspects of the Department's occupancy of buildings across the State.

Included in her responsibilities was the supervision of the preparation of the

RFP and the bid opening procedures related to it. The bids of both the

Petitioner and Donlon were determined to be responsive by Ms. Mobley and Barbara

Bass, a staff member under her supervision. The bids were then submitted to the

evaluation committee comprised of six (6) employees of the Respondent, who

reached the evaluation results referenced above.

9. After Mr. Taylor was notified of the intended award to Donlon, he

furnished the Department a copy of the Order Appointing Receiver entered in the

foreclosure action. Ms. Mobley determined that that Order would have no effect

upon her prior determination that Donlon's bid was responsive, in her opinion.

She interpreted the Order Appointing Receiver as not requiring the receiver to

join in the bid or give prior approval to the bid. Since Mr. Frost has been

receiver in the foreclosure action, he has submitted five to seven leases to the

circuit court for its approval for various properties. It has been the past

practice that the owner of the property has actually solicited tenants for Sand

Lake Plaza. Mr. Frost is not aware of anything in the Order Appointing Receiver

which actually requires the owner to obtain his approval prior to submitting a

bid for lease of premises over which he is receiver. In the instant case,

however, Mr. Frost does not intend to actually execute a lease because he does

not believe that the Department's job service office is an appropriate tenant

for the property.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

10. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the

subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes (1991).

11. The Department has a wide discretion in determination of the lowest

responsive bidder, and that discretion will not be overturned unless exercised

arbitrarily, capriciously, dishonestly, in violation of law, or upon ignorance,

through lack of inquiry. See, William S. Berbusse, Jr., Inc. v. North Broward

Hospital District, 117 So.2d 550, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). The Hearing Officer's

responsibility is to determine whether the Department acted fraudulently,

arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in its initial bid award decision.

Department of Transportation v. Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So.2d 912, 914

(Fla. 1988).

12. William Frost, Jr., as receiver for Sand Lake Plaza, was charged with

the responsibility to take possession, control and custody of the property

involved and to protect and conserve that property under the discretion and

direction of the court having jurisdiction in the foreclosure action related to

the property. The receiver has that authority set forth by statute, order of

court, or fairly to be inferred as derived from the practice of the court's

equity jurisdiction in such matters. Mr. Frost testified that all leases

entered into or considered during his tenure as receiver were negotiated with

the knowledge or participation of the receiver. Once agreement was reached, a

lease would be presented to the court for approval by Mr. Frost, as the

receiver, who would make appropriate recommendations concerning approval or

disapproval of those leases.

13. The course of conduct for leasing of space at Sand Lake Plaza since

the appointment of Mr. Frost, as receiver, was that Mr. Frost would be included

in all negotiations to lease the premises. Any lease would be submitted to the

court for approval before that lease could be considered valid. This was Mr.

Frost's authority, as derived from his order of appointment by the court, which

directed him to take possession of the premises and to handle all current and

future leases. Mr. Frost's testimony clearly shows that he had no knowledge and

did not participate in the preparation of the bids submitted by Connie Donlon.

Mr. Frost is of the opinion that if a prospective tenant intended to take

occupancy of those premises, the receiver should have been included in the

bidding process, which was not the case here.

14. The course of conduct for leasing these premises under order of the

court and the receivership of Mr. Frost also shows, however, that the record

title owner, its agent, or the receiver could obtain a prospective tenant; but

in order to enter the lease, it would require the participation and approval of

the receiver and later the court. Here, Connie Donlon did not negotiate the

terms of the lease nor enter into one. Connie Donlon, by engaging in the bid

process and submitting the lowest, responsive bid (at least facially), secured a

prospective tenant. Her securing of the "winning bid" does not, in itself, mean

that the lease has to be entered into because, with respect to the Sand Lake

Plaza property, the approval of the receiver and the court must be obtained

before the lease can be entered into and be enforceable.

15. Ms. Donlon, then, may have had authority from the owner to submit the

bid and that might have been in accordance with the course of conduct and

practice of the receivership of the property under the jurisdiction of the

court. However, she did not have authority to actually enter into a lease

contract because she was not the entity nor the agent of the entity who actually

controlled the property. In fact, Ms. Mobley, who testified on behalf of the

Department, acknowledged that if the party submitting the bid did not have

control of the property and she had known of it, then the bid would not have

gotten as far as the evaluation process. Rule 13M-1.015(4)(b), Florida

Administrative Code, provides that, in order for a bid for a lease of 2,000 or

more square feet of space to be considered, the bidder must include proof of the

bidder's authority to offer the facility.

16. Obviously, the bidder's authority to offer the facility for lease is

an essential requirement in the bid evaluation process because acceptance of the

bid by the government agency raises a binding contract. Once the bid has been

accepted by the agency, the contractual obligations of the bidder are

established and if the bidder did not actually have authority to offer the

facility, then the contract would be unenforceable. See, Desmond v. Escambia

County, 244 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Rule 13M-1.015(6)(a), Florida

Administrative Code, contemplates this in that it provides that once a bid for

lease premises has been selected, then the Department of General Services'

standard lease agreement shall be executed by the successful bidder. In

considering the responsiveness of a bid, it is essential that the authority of

the person offering the premises for bid be established so that upon award of

the bid, the otherwise enforceable contract can be consummated.

17. Ms. Mobley testified that she and the evaluators were not aware of the

pending foreclosure action and the appointment of the receiver having possession

and control of the plaza, until after the bids had been evaluated and the award

made. In fact, she was made aware of it by submission of a copy of the court's

Order Appointing Receiver to her by Mr. Taylor. During the evaluation process,

the bids were reviewed simply as submitted and site visits were made, but no

inquiries were made to determine the genuineness of Ms. Donlon's authority. The

Department was under notice of no fact which would prompt them to make such

inquiry because the bid by Ms. Donlon was facially responsive because it

asserted, in effect, that she had authority to offer the premises for lease

through bidding. If the Department had known of the receivership over the

property and the foreclosure action, it could have contacted the receiver, who

would have then informed them prior to the award that the lease was not

appropriate for the plaza and that he would not seek the court's approval to

enter into it.

18. Thus, it appears that by Ms. Donlon's failure to notify the Department

as to the actual circumstances regarding custody and control of the Sand Lake

Plaza property, the Department has awarded a bid which cannot be enforced and

consummated based upon the evidence in this record. This is not necessarily the

fault of the Department, because there are no facts to indicate that it was on

notice to inquire behind the facially responsive representation contained in Ms.

Donlon's bid concerning her authority to offer the premises for bid and lease.

19. Thus, it appears that the bid submitted by Ms. Donlon was facially

responsive to the bid specifications concerning ownership and control of the bid

property. The above-cited rule, as well as the RFP specifications themselves,

clearly contemplate that the party bidding the project have control of the

property with authority to enter a lease agreement upon award by the Department.

The lease then is to be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder.

20. The Department contends that the bid submitted by Ms. Donlon is

responsive facially because Ms. Donlon submitted the appropriate documents to

demonstrate her authority. The Department relied upon the statement from the

alleged owner of the plaza stating that Ms. Donlon had authority to bid the

project. It has developed through evidence adduced at hearing, and information

which came to the Department after the award of the bid, that there is really no

authority on the part of Ms. Donlon to enter into a lease with the Department,

although under the course of conduct under the receivership, she may have had

authority to act as agent for the title owner in securing a prospective tenant

through the bidding process. However, in order to actually enter into a lease,

it would be necessary to secure the receiver's approval and the court's

approval.

21. What has arisen is a situation where the bid submitted by Ms. Donlon

was facially responsive but later-developed information, culminating in the

facts proven in this proceeding, established that the bid is not responsive in

substance because the party with authority to enter into the lease, the

receiver, refuses and does not intend to enter into a lease for this office

space with the Department. Thus, the evidence has developed to show that, in

reality, the Donlon bid is not responsive because the acceptance of it cannot,

in fact or at law, result in a binding contract or lease for purposes of the

above-cited authority. If the Department persisted in seeking to award the bid

and enter a lease with Ms. Donlon as agent for the record title owner, it would

be acting arbitrarily and in violation of law because the entry of a lease for

such property requires the assent and approval of the receiver and the court

having jurisdiction over the premises through the foreclosure action and related

lis pendens. Consequently, the bid by the Petitioner remains the only

responsive bid based upon the preponderant evidence of record and culminating in

the above Findings of Fact. Mr. Taylor's principals, owning or having control

of the premises, desire to enter into a lease of the premises. The bid

submitted by the Petitioner was a responsive bid. Consequently, the lease

should be awarded to the Hoffner Commerce Center through the entry of a lease

with the entity, the Petitioner, having ownership or control of the Hoffner

Commerce Center or their successors in interest.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it

is therefore,

RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent/Agency awarding

the above-referenced bid to Alan Taylor and Elizabethan Interiors, Inc., as

agents for CNL Group, Inc., as agents for the owners of Hoffner Commerce Center,

and that a lease should be executed accordingly.

DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

___________________________________

P. MICHAEL RUFF

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 24th day of November, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5399BID

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact

1-18. Accepted.

19. Rejected, as immaterial.

20-21. Accepted.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact

1-6. Accepted.

7. Accepted, but immaterial.

8-9. Accepted.

10. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's

findings of fact on this subject matter.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ms. Shirley Gooding

Acting Secretary

Department of Labor and

Employment Security

303 Hartman Building

2012 Capital Circle S.E.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152

Cecilia Renn, Esq.

Chief Legal Counsel

Department of Labor and

Employment Security

307 Hartman Building

2012 Capital Circle S.E.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152

Daniel F. Mantzaris, Esq.

Edward A. Dion, Esq.

Department of Labor and

Employment Security

Hartman Building, Suite 307

2012 Capital Circle, S.E.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2189

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

ALL PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT TO THE AGENCY WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THIS

RECOMMENDED ORDER. ALL AGENCIES ALLOW EACH PARTY AT LEAST TEN DAYS IN WHICH TO

SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. SOME AGENCIES ALLOW A LARGER PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO

SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH THE AGENCY CONCERNING ITS

RULES ON THE DEADLINE FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

EDWARDS MACY BRENNERS, INC.,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 92-5399BID

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

FINAL ORDER

This cause involves a formal protest by Petitioner, EDWARDS MACY BRENNERS,

INC. (Brenners), under section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1991),

challenging the decision by Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

SECURITY (Department) to award a contract to lease certain office space in

Orlando, Florida. The hearing officer assigned by the Division of

Administrative Hearings (DOAH) in this cause submitted to the Department a

Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference,

that would direct the Department to award the contract to the next lowest

bidder. The Department timely submitted exceptions to the Recommended Order and

Brenners filed a response to those exceptions. The cause is before me for entry

of a final order. Section 121.57(1)(B)(10), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1992).

The record reflects that the Department issued a request for proposals for

office space in which to locate a job service office in Orlando. The Department

received proposals from Connie Donlon, agent for Sand Lake Plaza, from Alan

Taylor, agent for Hoffner Commerce Center, and from Connie Donlon, agent for

property later determined to be non responsive. Following evaluation of the two

responsive bids, the Department decided to award the bid to Connie Donlon.

Petitioner holds an executory contract to purchase the Hoffner Commerce Center

and filed a timely protest, arguing essentially that agent Donlon lacked the

authority to execute a contract for lease of the Sand Lake Plaza because the

property was in receivership and the receiver would decline to approve the

lease. Following hearing the Hearing Officer issued a Recommended Order that

would direct the Department to award the bid and execute a contract for lease

with the agents and owners of Hoffner Commerce Center. For reasons expressed

below, I decline to enter a final order as recommended by the Hearing Officer.

I. Rulings on Exceptions to Conclusions of Law

The Department contends that the record fails to support adequately the

hearing officer's conclusion of law that the receiver of Sand Lake Plaza must

approve the prospective contract for lease. Exceptions To Hearing Officer's

Recommended Order at para. 1. The Department correctly argues that it is the

court that appointed the receiver, rather than the receiver himself, that must

approve the lease of property subject to receivership. The receiver is an

officer of the circuit court and subject to its jurisdiction and control.

Technically, the receiver recommends rather than approves particular action

involving the receivership. Although the Recommended Order in several instances

states that the approval of the receiver is necessary before Sand Lake Plaza may

be leased, the Order also notes that the court must approve the lease of

property subject to receivership. Recommended Order at 1 2, para. 20. For this

reason, I find that the Department's first exception lacks merit.

The Department next contends that the hearing officer improperly concluded

as a matter of law that the receiver had authority to approve or deny the

prospective contract for lease of Sand Lake Plaza. I agree.

The fundamental question in this case is whether an agency that seeks to

award a contract to the lowest and best responsive bidder under section

120.53(5), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), and rule 60H-1.015 (formerly rule 13M-

1.105), Florida Administrative Code, must award the contract to the second

lowest responsive bidder when the agency learns after the initial award but

before execution of the contract that the agent for the first responsive bidder

may lack the authority to execute the contract?

Rule 60H-1.015 prescribes a two-step bid process, which begins with the

proposal and follows with contract execution. If signed by an agent, the

proposal must include written evidence of the agent's authority. Fla. Admin.

Code R. 60H-1.015(4)(b). The Hearing Officer found that Connie Donlon submitted

a responsive proposal that comported with this requirement. Recommended Order

at 11, 19. This fact is undisputed. Second, the rule requires the prospective

lessor to "[p]rovide Full Disclosure Statements of Ownership if awarded bid."

Fla. Admin. Code R. 60H-1.105(3)(c)(5)(emphasis added); Department's Request for

Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form at para. 13(b). The Department has not

yet completed the contract award process, nor could it at this time. See

120.53(5)(c)1 Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1992).

The hearing officer's reliance on the receiver's testimony that he would

not execute the lease is unsound for several reasons. First, the owner of Sand

Lake Plaza filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under the federal

bankruptcy law, and relief was ordered on October 15, 1992. Exceptions to

Hearing Officer's Recommended Order at para. 2. That action vests jurisdiction

of the subject estate exclusively in the bankruptcy court and operates as an

automatic stay of the state court receivership. 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a)(3);

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Holme Circle Realty Corp., 146 B.R. 135, 137

(Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1992). Therefore, the Hearing Officer erroneously concluded

that as a matter of law the "assent and approval" of the receiver was required

before the owners could lease their property to the Department. Recommended

Order at para. 12.

Second, the Hearing Officer can only speculate on the ultimate outcome of

the receiver's choice not to recommend the lease of Sand Lake Plaza. For

instance, the Hearing Officer omitted to consider that the decision of a

receiver over receivership property is subject to challenge. See, e.g., Murtha

v. Steijskal, 232 So.2d 53, 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)(noting that receiver may be

sued without leave of court for unauthorized acts or contracts or for

misfeasance or negligence); 29 U.S.C. Section 959(a)(1968)(receivers may be sued

"with respect to any or their acts or transactions in carrying on business

connected with such property"). It is premature for the Hearing Officer to

anticipate the decision of the circuit court regarding the receiver's

recommendation. In ruling on a challenge to the decision of the receiver, the

circuit court may be guided by facts not introduced and legal arguments not

raised in the administrative hearing. Yet, the Hearing Officer in this instance

implicitly approved the propriety of the receiver's decision.

I also note that the Hearing Officer left the owners of Sand Lake Plaza

without recourse of seeking approval of the bankruptcy trustee to execute the

lease contract. Thus, the Hearing Officer effectively disabled the Department

from consummating the procedure prescribed by the legislature and administrative

code and awarding the contract to the "lowest" and "best" bidder. See

Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. State Department of Health & Rehabilitative

Servs., 606 So.2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

II. Conclusion

After reviewing the complete record and ruling on all exceptions filed in

this matter, it is ORDERED that the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer is

rejected, and that the Department reinstitute the contract award process with

the owner of Sand Lake Plaza.

This Final Order constitutes final agency action. Judicial review of this

proceeding may be instituted by filing a notice of appeal in accordance with

section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the district court of appeal where the

agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Such notice must be

filed in the district court within thirty (30) days of the date that this order

is filed in the official records of the Department of Labor and Employment

Security, as indicated in the clerk's certificate below, or further review of

this action will be barred.

DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 28th day of January, 1993.

_______________________________

JAMES E. BLOUNT, Director

Division of Administrative Services

Florida Department of Labor and

Employment Security

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order

has been furnished by U.S. Mail to DANIEL F. MANTZARIS, ESQ., Attorney for

Petitioner, at Drage, de Beaubien, Knight, & Simmons, 120 South Orange Avenue,

Orlando, Florida 32802, and by hand delivery to Cecilia F. Renn, General

Counsel, and Edward A. Dion, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Labor &

Employment Security, 307 Hartman Building, 2012 Capital Circle SE, Tallahassee,

Florida 32399, this 28th day of January, 1993.

_______________________________

Nelda J. Atkinson, Agency Clerk

cc: Clerk, Div. Admin. Hearings

DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399