BROWARD OFFICE OFTHE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
To: Pamela Madison, Acting Director, Broward O ffi ce of Economic and Small Business Development
From: John W. Scott, Inspector General /)tvf-Broward Office of the Inspector Generaf--'/
Date: June20,201 2
Subject: OIG Final Report Re: Vendor's Sclteme to Misrepresent County Business Enterprise Program Subcontractor Participation, Ref. 0/G 11-025
Attached please find the fina l report of the Broward Offi ce of the Inspector General (OIG) regarding the above-captioned matter. The OIG investi gati on determined that a subcontractor, Stanford and Sons Trucking Company (Stanford), orchestrated a scheme to cause the misrepresentation of County Business Enterpri se (C BE) participation to the Office of Economic and Small Business Development (OESBD) in connection with an approx imately $6.5 million doll ar public works project for the insta llation of underground water and wastewater utilities. As a result of its scheme, tanford over $400,000 in payments for which it was not eligible to receive. The investi gation also determined that tanford was assisted in its scheme by the Spearhead Development Group, Inc., which is owned by Donovan Amritt, the brother of Stanford Amritt, Jr. , the owner o f tanford. Finall y, the investi gation determined that the prime contractor, Giannetti Contracting Corporation, acquiesced in Stanfo rd 's scheme.
The OIG investi gation a lso revea led defi ciencies in the OE BD"s admi nistration of the CBE program. However, the OIG acknowledges that, pursuant to the release of O IG Final Report 11 0 12 (addressing the gross mismanagement of the Small Business Enterprise certification program), the County has advanced plans to revise ordinances and admini strati ve poli cies in an attempt to address various OES BD de fi c iencies.
Attachment
cc: Honorable John E. Rodstrom, J r., Mayor, Broward County and Members, Broward Board of County Commissioners
Bertha Ilcnry, County Admini stra to r Joni Armstrong Coffey, County Attorney Individua ls previous ly provided a Preliminary Report (under separate cover)
John W. Scott. Inspector General
One North University Drive. Suite Ill • Plantation. Florida 33324 • (954)357-7873 • Fax 954-357-7857
www.browardig.org • 954-357-TIPS
http:www.browardig.org
BROWARD OFFICE
OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT
===========================================================
OIG 11-025
JUNE 20, 2012
Vendor’s Scheme to Misrepresent County Business
Enterprise Program Subcontractor Participation
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 1 of 15
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT
COUNTY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
SUMMARY
This is the second report in a series of Broward Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigations
relating to Broward County’s Office of Economic and Small Business Development (OESBD)
programs. In December 2011, the OIG began an investigation into allegations that a subcontractor
was submitting, and causing to be submitted, false payment reports to the OESBD in connection with
an approximately $6.5 million dollar Broward County Water and Wastewater Services (WWS) public
works project (Project) administered pursuant to the County Business Enterprise (CBE) Program.
The OIG investigation substantiated the allegations. We determined that the Stanford and Sons
Trucking Company (Stanford), which was not eligible to participate in the Project as a CBE,
orchestrated a scheme to cause the misrepresentation of CBE participation to the OESBD and acquire
over $400,000 in payments that were allocated for a valid CBE subcontractor. In April 2011, the
prime contractor, Giannetti Contracting Corporation (Prime), was awarded a County contract for the
Project, which consisted of the installation of underground water and wastewater utilities. The
contract required that the Prime ensure 15% CBE participation on the Project, 5.76% of which the
Prime then assigned to a certified CBE (Certified CBE) selected by Stanford. In December 2011,
while the project was ongoing, the Prime submitted reports to the OESBD representing that the
Certified CBE had participated in the Project and had been paid $369,530.71 for its work. However,
the OIG investigation revealed that although the Prime had drafted a check in that amount for payment
to the Certified CBE, the Certified CBE had not, in fact, performed any work on the Project, and had
never had any communications with the Prime prior to the issuance of the check. Instead, Stanford,
who had been communicating with the Prime, arranged for the Certified CBE to be identified as the
required CBE subcontractor, but performed the work itself—for which it expected to be paid. In
furtherance of its scheme, Stanford attempted to pressure the Certified CBE into endorsing the check
and passing-through the payment. In addition, Stanford urged the Certified CBE to falsely represent to
the OESBD that it, rather than Stanford, had performed the work on the Project.
The investigation further determined that after the Certified CBE declined to falsely report to the
OESBD that it had participated in and been paid for services on the Project, the Prime sought and
received approval from the OESBD to replace it with another CBE, the Spearhead Development
Group, Inc. (Spearhead). The replacement was permitted despite the fact that the work in question had
been completed and Spearhead had not performed any of it. Spearhead immediately accepted the full
payment previously ascribed to the Certified CBE, and then forwarded virtually all the money to
Stanford, along with a subsequent amount of approximately $57,000 for work that was later performed
by Stanford. OIG Special Agents determined that the owner of Spearhead, Donovan Amritt, is the
brother of Stanford Amritt, Jr., the owner of Stanford.
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 2 of 15
Finally, the investigation determined that the Prime acquiesced in Stanford’s scheme. When
questioned by OIG Special Agents, the officers of the Prime indicated they were aware that the
Certified CBE had not performed the work assigned to it, but stated their belief that it was
subcontracting the work out to Stanford.1 Nonetheless, the officers admitted that the Prime had never
had any communications with the Certified CBE and that the original check, although made out to the
Certified CBE, had been given to Stanford. In addition, the officers admitted that they were aware
most of the proceeds would be passed through to Stanford. Further, despite contractual requirements
that the Prime obtain a written subcontract from each subcontractor, the Prime was unable to produce
any written subcontracts with the Certified CBE, with Stanford, or with Spearhead.
Although the evidence in this matter shows that no legitimate second tier sub-contracting arrangement
existed between any CBE and Stanford, the OIG investigation also revealed that CBEs have been
provided with inadequate guidance by the County with regards to second-tier subcontracting. The
CBE ordinance does not contain the same language relating to a “commercially useful function” which
acts as a guide for certified small businesses who interact with the OESBD. Further, no administrative
order or operating procedures have been developed or amended to explicitly regulate the CBEs in this
regard. However, the OIG acknowledges that, pursuant to the release of OIG Final Report 11-012
(addressing the gross mismanagement of the Small Business Enterprise certification program), the
County has advanced plans to revise ordinances and administrative policies in an attempt to address
various OESBD deficiencies.
OIG CHARTER AUTHORITY
Section 12.01 of the Charter of Broward County empowers the Broward Office of the Inspector
General to investigate misconduct and gross mismanagement within the Charter Government of
Broward County and all of its municipalities. This authority extends to all elected and appointed
officials, employees and all providers of goods and services to the County and the municipalities. On
his own initiative, or based on a signed complaint, the Inspector General shall commence an
investigation upon a finding of good cause. As part of any investigation, the Inspector General shall
have the power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, require the production of documents and
records, and audit any program, contract, and the operations of any division of the County, its
municipalities and any providers.
The Broward Office of the Inspector General is also empowered to issue reports, including
recommendations, and to require officials to provide reports regarding the implementation of those
recommendations.
1 The arrangement wherein a subcontractor further subcontracts out work to a third entity will be referred to as “second-tier
subcontracting” for the purposes of this report.
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 3 of 15
ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS COVERED IN THIS REPORT
Giannetti Contracting Corporation
The Prime, a Florida general contracting corporation, is the prime contractor on WWS UAZ 308,
Project No. 9051, a water, sewer and storm water project in Dania Beach, valued at $6,488,292. As of
early 2012, the Prime has completed three projects and is currently participating in five open County
projects valued at over $38 million dollars.
Stanford and Sons Trucking Corporation
Stanford is a Broward County roadway contractor owned by Stanford Amritt, Jr. (Mr. Amritt).
Stanford is listed by OESBD as providing hauling, asphalt, excavation and underground services, and
had been certified in one of the County’s business development programs since the mid-1990’s. The
company was certified as a CBE from November 16, 2007 through November 14, 20102, when its
certification expired. Stanford no longer meets the CBE certification requirements because its gross
revenues exceed the CBE maximum.
Spearhead Development Group, Inc.
Spearhead is owned by Donovan Amritt (Mr. Donovan Amritt) and has been certified as a CBE since
March 11, 2011. It is listed as providing general contracting, site development, demolition and
hauling services.
Stanford Amritt, Jr.
Mr. Amritt is a Florida licensed underground and excavation contractor, the owner of Stanford, and
the brother of Mr. Donovan Amritt.
Donovan Amritt
Mr. Donovan Amritt is a Florida licensed general contractor, and the owner of Spearhead, and the
brother of Mr. Amritt.
2 Stanford was originally certified in 2007 as a Community Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (CDBE); such designation
was reclassified in 2009 to a CBE. Although Stanford no longer qualifies for CBE certification, it retains its
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) certification.
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 4 of 15
RELEVANT GOVERNING AUTHORITIES AND BACKGROUND
County Business Enterprise Program
The CBE Program is governed by Section 1-81.1-5 of the Code of Broward County, referred to as the
Act of 2009. The Act of 2009 establishes a program by which certain companies can be certified as
CBEs. Those companies then become eligible for subcontracting possibilities set aside exclusively for
CBE participation. To attain certification, a business entity must meet the following criteria:
a. Does not (combined with any and all affiliated entities) have in excess of $5 million in average annual gross revenue calculated over the previous three (3) calendar years.
These maximum average gross revenue figures shall be indexed annually
commencing October 1, 2009, using the Council for Community and Economic
Research's ACCRA Cost of Living Index as applied in Broward County;
b. No person with an ownership interest (direct or indirect, legally beneficial) in the entity (or in any affiliated entity) has a personal net worth exceeding $750,000; and
c. Has a continuous operating presence in Broward County.
The Act of 2009 explicitly charges OESBD with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the
CBE Program. Since the adoption of the Act in 2009, no Administrative Orders or Standard Operating
Procedures have been enacted or amended to explicitly address the CBEs.
Contract for WWS UAZ 308, Project No. 9051
On April 5, 2011 the Prime was awarded the contract for the Project for $6,488,292. The contract
required 15% CBE participation. In its bid, the Prime committed to subcontract an amount equal to
5.76% of the contract to the Certified CBE, and a total of 9.24% to two other CBEs. (See January 28,
2011 CBE Participation Evaluation, attached as Exhibit 1) Specifically, the contract documents state:
12. “The successful Bidder agrees to enter into a formal contract with the CBE contractors
which are listed on the Schedule of CBE Participation upon execution of the contract with the
COUNTY.”
28.1. “CONTRACTOR shall have a continuing obligation to notify COUNTY and
CONSULTANT of any change in subcontractors.”
54.2.2. “CONTRACTOR agrees to enter into contracts with CBE subcontractors which are
listed on the Schedule of CBE Participation upon execution of this Agreement and to provide
copies of its contracts with such persons to the Contract Administrator and the Broward
County Small Business Development Division. Contractor may not deviate from the CBEs
delineated on Exhibit 6, CBE Performance Commitment, without the prior approval of the
SBDD (or designee).” (See relevant portions of the contract documents, attached as Exhibit 2).
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 5 of 15
INVESTIGATION
This investigation was predicated on information alleging that CBE-designated work was performed by
Stanford, a non-CBE, but that the Prime was submitting reports to OESBD indicating payments were made
to the Certified CBE. The investigation uncovered a scheme orchestrated by Stanford to cause CBE
participation in the Project to be misrepresented and, thereby, subvert the terms of County’s contract with
the Prime.
The investigation involved the review of substantial documentation by OIG Special Agents including, but
not limited to, OESBD materials such as contract and bid records pertaining to the Project, Letters of Intent
(LOIs), and monthly utilization reports (MURs); administrative authorities governing business enterprise
certification and participation; and bank records and other financial documents. OIG Special Agents also
conducted interviews of witnesses including officers of the Prime, County staff, Mr. Amritt, and Mr.
Donovan Amritt.
OIG Review of the Project and Subcontractor Participation
The OIG review revealed that even before the Project began, Stanford was disqualified from participating
because it had lost its CBE certification. Nevertheless, as described below, Stanford obtained over $400,000
in County funds from the Project as a result of its scheme to falsely represent that qualified CBEs, rather
than Stanford, had actually been the participants.
1. Stanford’s Disqualification as the Subcontractor for the Project
In November 2010, the Prime submitted its bid on the Project. At that time, the Prime
identified Stanford as one of the three CBEs to which it would subcontract a total of 15% of
the value of the Project. (See December 15, 2010 CBE Participation Evaluation, attached as
Exhibit 3) Specifically, Stanford was identified as a 5.76% participating CBE, offering
excavation and installation of roadways, grading and paving. However, prior to award of the
contract, the OESBD advised the Prime that Stanford had lost its CBE certification.
2. Stanford Provides the Certified CBE as Stand-in
According to officers for the Prime, they then asked Stanford for a recommendation for a
replacement CBE. Stanford recommended the Certified CBE, which would pick up the full
percentage CBE participation originally assigned to Stanford. Thereafter, on or about January
27, 2011, the Prime forwarded an LOI to the OESBD which memorialized its intent to utilize
the Certified CBE to provide hauling and road excavation services on the Project, despite the
fact that it had never communicated with the Certified CBE. (Exhibit 4) Instead, stated the
officers, Stanford had exclusively communicated with the Certified CBE and arranged to
provide the LOI to the Prime.
The officers for the Prime also stated that they believed Stanford had made the proper
arrangements with the Certified CBE, although they admitted that they knew that Stanford was
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 6 of 15
going to provide the subcontracting work for the Project. However, they stated, it was their
belief that Stanford was second-tier subcontracting the work from the Certified CBE. They did
not enter into a written contract with the Certified CBE.3
3. Stanford Performs All of the Work Designated for the Certified CBE
At all times, from the beginning of the Project through January 2012, the Prime communicated
only with Stanford concerning work on the Project. Both Mr. Amritt and officers for the Prime
admitted to OIG Special Agents that the Certified CBE had never actually participated in the
Project. Additionally, the OIG examined over 200 daily logs provided by the Prime’s on-site
personnel, none of which identified either the Certified CBE or Spearhead as being present on-
site.
4. Stanford Attempts to Pass the $369,530.71 Payment through the Certified CBE
In December 2011, an OESBD official received an MUR from the Prime reporting a
$369,530.71 payment to the Certified CBE. (Exhibit 5) The MUR purported to document that
the Prime had complied with the CBE contractual requirement as it pertained to the Certified
CBE. Officers for the Prime stated that it had drafted a check in that amount made payable to
the Certified CBE, and that the check was given to Stanford for delivery.4
On December 14, 2011, the Certified CBE received an e-mail from an OESBD official
requesting confirmation of receipt of the $369,530.71 payment from the Prime, as well as
confirmation that the Certified CBE had actually performed the work specified. (Exhibit 6)
The Certified CBE did not respond to the e-mail. The OIG investigation determined that,
despite knowing that the Certified CBE never participated in the Project, Stanford urged it to
accept the Prime’s payment, keep a small portion, and pass-through the remainder back to
Stanford. The Certified CBE refused to act as a pass-through.
5. Stanford Provides the Prime with Spearhead as a Substitute CBE, Which Passed the Payment Back to Stanford
Stanford then suggested that the Prime replace the Certified CBE with Spearhead, another CBE
which was owned by Mr. Amritt’s brother, Donovan Amritt. Stanford represented that
Spearhead would be willing to replace the Certified CBEs participation, and accept the pending
payment. Further, Stanford represented that it could do additional work on the project as a
purported subcontractor for Spearhead.
3 In January 2012, after the Certified CBE’s refusal to pass-through the monies to Stanford, the Prime did enter into a
formal contract with it to provide future aggregate hauling services on the Project, albeit of a minor nature. 4 Although, as discussed below, Mr. Amritt admitted receiving the check and attempting to negotiate it through the
Certified CBE, it has not been produced to the OIG.
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 7 of 15
Thereafter, the Prime sent the OESBD an MUR reporting that the $369,530.71 paid to the
Certified CBE was a “previous payment in error.” (Exhibit 7) The Prime also forwarded
paperwork requesting a reduction of the work assigned to the Certified CBE, and the
reassignment of that work to Spearhead. (Exhibit 8)
The OIG review of financial records revealed that the Prime issued two checks to Spearhead
totaling $427,548.11. The first, bearing the date of November 28, 2011, in the amount of
$369,530.71—the exact amount of the previous check made payable to the Certified CBE—
was deposited by Spearhead, but not until January 11, 2012. (Exhibit 9) Two days later, on
January 13, 2012, Spearhead issued a $364,530.71 check to Stanford. (Exhibit 10) As work
continued on the Project, the Prime issued a second check to Spearhead, dated February 1,
2012, in the amount of $58,017.40. (Exhibit 11) On February 10, 2012, Spearhead issued a check
for $57,017.40—exactly $1,000 less—to Stanford. (Exhibit 12)
Deficiencies in the Administration of the CBE Program
Although it is difficult to prevent the misconduct of individuals determined to undermine a program or
policy by falsely representing the facts, the OESBD’s CBE Program would benefit from explicit
guidance that might prevent misapplication in instances where the entities involved are acting in good
faith.
1. Failure to Enact Policies Governing CBE Second-Tier Subcontracting
An extensive analysis of the ordinances, administrative orders, operating procedures, and
contract documents relating to the CBE program reveals that there is presently no written
guidance in place which explicitly restricts CBE second-tier subcontracting to non-CBE
entities. The CBE application does not contain any language prohibiting such arrangements,
and interviews of the acting director of the OESBD and other OESBD officials revealed that
the department does not provide the CBEs with any guidance or training on this issue.5 By
contrast, the OIG found that language addressing this specific issue has existed for other
business certifications. Specifically, the 2004 business development programs contained a
requirement that the certified subcontractors engage in a “commercially useful function.” The
2004 Administrative Order (AO) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that governed
those certifications expanded upon the requirement by requiring the following:
“Consistent with normal industry practices, an M/WBE [Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprise] may enter into subcontracts. If an M/WBE contractor subcontracts a
5 Interviews with representatives of current and former CBEs revealed that the only information they received regarding
the CBE Program was gleaned from the CBE application. To the best of their knowledge, there are no informational
seminars offered by the County, no brochures, handbooks or any material in any format provided by the County
contemporaneous with the application and certification process that delineate the responsibilities of CBEs, including
limitations on second-tier subcontracting. OESBD staff stated that the County presents workshops for CBEs, but the
OIG’s review of those materials revealed no guidance relating to second-tier subcontracting.
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 8 of 15
significantly greater portion of the work of the contract than would be expected on the basis
of normal industry practices, an M/WBE shall be presumed not to be performing a
commercially useful function. An M/WBE may present evidence to refute this.”
“A M/WBE performing subcontract work shall not subordinate more than 49 percent of the amount of the subcontract work.”
“A M/WBE shall not subordinate any part of the agreed-upon subcontract work back to the Prime contractor.”
OESBD officials stated their belief that the “commercially useful function” requirement, and
the accompanying guidelines, do apply to CBEs. However, no mention of the criteria is made
in the Act of 2009. The OIG also notes that the AO and SOPs have not been amended since
2004 and do not explicitly appear to apply to CBEs. Thus, regardless of whether OESBD has,
in fact, applied the criteria to CBEs, CBEs have not received unambiguous written notice of the
criteria or the restrictions.
There are also no requirements or procedures currently in place for a CBE to report the use of
subcontractors, either CBE or non-CBE, to the Prime or the OESBD. In fact, the OESBD does
not require the CBE to ever file any reports with OESBD, other than an acknowledgement
from the CBE that it provided services on the project and received payment from the Prime.
2. Lack of Systemic Checks to Ensure that CBEs Are Not Used as Pass-Throughs
The contract for the Project required the Prime to enter into formal signed contracts with each
CBE subcontractor and to provide copies of them to the OESBD, but the OIG investigation
determined that the OESBD never requested copies of the signed subcontracts. Had it done so,
of course, it would have discovered that none existed.6
In addition, due to limited resources, the OESBD understandably cannot routinely conduct
field inspections to ensure compliance. Unfortunately, the OESBD has failed to avail itself of
an additional, readily available resource for program monitoring. Presently, a Field Inspector
(Inspector), an employee of the County’s contracted engineering consultant, daily visits a
project site for the purpose of reviewing and monitoring the technical aspects of the project,
and prepares a daily report (DR) which contains information on the progress of the project, and
includes a comment on the contractor and subcontractor companies performing on-site work
each day. The Inspector assigned to the Project informed OIG Special Agents that his DRs
indicate Stanford—but not the Certified CBE or Spearhead—was regularly working on-site.
6 OESBD staff have asserted that the LOI operates as a contract between a prime contractor and a CBE, so that –despite the
contract’s explicit language to the contrary—there were no further requirements that the Prime enter into formal written
contracts with its designated CBE subcontractors.
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 9 of 15
The Inspector also stated that no one from the County ever sought to confirm if the Certified
CBE or any other CBE was working on the Project. In addition, he stated that no County
official has ever made such inquiry in the past. Nor did OESBD staff conduct any review of
the Inspector’s DRs, which would have raised significant questions about the Certified CBEs
participation, as well as the propriety of substituting it with Spearhead after the work in
question had been completed.
INTERVIEW SUMMARIES
As a part of the investigation, OIG Special Agents conducted numerous witness interviews. Significant
interviews are summarized below:
1. Interview of the Owner of the Certified CBE
The owner of the Certified CBE (Owner) stated that sometime in January 2011, he was asked by
Mr. Amritt, a longtime associate and former employer, if the Certified CBE would be interested in
providing aggregate hauling services for the Prime on the Project. The owner stated that he agreed
to participate, and in furtherance of that participation, executed the acknowledgement of the
January 27, 2011 LOI (Exhibit 4).
The Owner stated that some months later, Mr. Amritt notified him that the contract for the Project
had been awarded. The Owner further stated that at the conclusion of a discussion regarding the
prices the Certified CBE would charge, Mr. Amritt told him that the prices were too high, and that
he was going to use a cheaper hauler.
The Owner stated that he heard nothing more about the Project until December 14, 2011, when he
received an email form an OESBD official requesting confirmation of receipt of a $369,530.71
payment from the Prime, as well as confirmation that the Certified CBE had actually performed
the work specified. After receiving the email, the owner received a telephone call from Mr.
Amritt, who asked to meet with him. The Owner stated that he then met with Mr. Amritt, who told
him that the Prime was going to, or had, issued a check to the Certified CBE for approximately
$369,000, purportedly for aggregate hauling and roadway construction services rendered for the
Project. The Owner further stated that Mr. Amritt admitted that the work had actually been
performed by Stanford. Mr. Amritt then asked the owner to accept the Prime’s check, deposit it
into the Certified CBE’s account, and write Stanford a check back for the full amount minus an
amount the Owner “believed he would have profited” had the Certified CBE actually performed
the work. The Owner stated that after considering the request, he contacted Mr. Amritt and
informed him that he would neither accept the check, nor acknowledge that the Certified CBE had
performed any work on the Project.
The Owner stated that during the ensuing weeks, both Mr. Amritt and Stanford employees called
him and urged him to accept the Prime’s check. The owner also stated that during those
conversations, Mr. Amritt and his employees offered him additional inducements, including
increasing the monetary compensation for the Certified CBE’s acknowledgement of participation,
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 10 of 15
and offering to find new work for it on the Project. In return for the inducements, the Owner
explained, he would be expected to negotiate the Prime’s payment as previously explained by Mr.
Amritt, and to “show on paper” that the Certified CBE had subcontracted the already completed
work to Stanford. The Owner stated that he again refused to collaborate with Mr. Amritt and his
company in that manner.
The Owner stated that in the first week of January 2012, the Certified CBE entered into a formal
contract with the Prime to provide only hauling services, with the expectation of receiving $70,000
worth of work, which represents approximately one percent CBE participation on the Project. The
Owner further stated that since that time, the Certified CBE has provided approximately 90,000
worth of hauling services for the Prime.
2. Interviews of the Officers of the Prime Contractor
As part of the investigation, OIG Special Agents interviewed the president, Rick Giannetti
(President), vice-president, Nicholas Apostol (Vice-President), and the chief operating officer
(COO) for the Prime. The President and the Vice President stated that they rarely visited the
Project worksite, and never discussed with the COO whether the Certified CBE was actually
participating in the Project. The President and the Vice-President also stated that they never met
the Owner, and never received any invoices from the Certified CBE. They further stated that they
believed that Stanford, which was the only entity responsible for hauling with which they
communicated, was a subcontractor of the Certified CBE.
The President and the Vice-President acknowledged that in December 2011, the Prime issued a
check payable to the Certified CBE in the amount of approximately $369,000, but gave it to Mr.
Amritt to deliver. They also acknowledged that the Prime forwarded the monthly MUR to the
OESBD, which reported that the payment was made to the Certified CBE. The President and the
Vice-President stated that after Mr. Amritt informed them that the Owner refused to accept the
check, they asked him to find another CBE that they could use to comply with the Prime’s CBE
goals and that in response, Mr. Amritt recommended Spearhead. They stated that the Prime then
made corrections to the January 2012 MUR and submitted the CBE substitution paperwork to the
OESBD, which approved the substitution of a substantial portion of the Certified CBE’s
participation.
With regard to invoices, the Vice-President reiterated that although the Prime had never received
any invoices from the Certified CBE, he believed that its work was reflected on the invoices the
Prime received from Stanford, so that he crossed out Stanford’s name on them and replaced it with
the name of the Certified CBE. The Vice-President further stated that he later learned that the
Certified CBE had never performed any work on the Project. He also stated that at some point, the
Prime had received invoices from Spearhead. In January 2012, the Prime paid Spearhead the
$369,530.71 originally ascribed to the Certified CBE, a substantial portion of which the Vice-
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 11 of 15
President admitted he knew would be passed on to Stanford.7 As with the Certified CBE,
however, the Vice-President stated that the Prime believed that Spearhead was then subcontracting
the job to Stanford, with whom it continued to exclusively communicate. The President and the
Vice-President stated the Prime has never executed written contracts with either Stanford or
Spearhead, and only executed a written contract with the Certified CBE in January 2012.8
The COO stated that he prepares daily reports on the Project, and is familiar with the
subcontractors providing services at the worksite. He stated at the time of the Prime’s original bid
submission, Stanford was listed as a participating CBE, and that Stanford had also subcontracted
roadway work from the Prime on other contracts. After Stanford lost its CBE certification, it
recommended the Certified CBE as a replacement, but represented that the Certified CBE would
subcontract some of its work on the Project to Stanford. The COO further stated that he believed
that CBEs were not prohibited from subcontracting work to non-CBEs.
The COO stated that until sometime in January 2012, only Stanford had performed any work on
the Project. He also stated that he would go through Stanford to schedule work, and that until
recently, he only dealt with Stanford. The COO stated he understood that an issue arose regarding
the Certified CBE’s participation, and that as a result, Spearhead was added as a CBE on the
project. However, he also stated, he still schedules all hauling and related work through Stanford.
3. Interview of Stanford Amritt Jr.
Mr. Amritt stated that at the time of the bid, Stanford was a CBE, but that before the contract was
awarded, its certification expired. Because Stanford’s revenues exceeded the CBE Program
limitations, its certification was ineligible for renewal. Mr. Amritt acknowledged that Stanford
was still performing, and had performed, the majority of hauling services on the Project from the
onset through January 2012, and had been, and continues to be the Project contact for the Prime.
Mr. Amritt admitted that he solicited the Owner to execute an LOI as a substitute for Stanford to
fulfill the Prime’s CBE participation goals. He stated that because the Owner refused to accept the
Prime’s check and acknowledge that the Certified CBE had participated in the Project, the Prime
was forced to identify another CBE to comply with the CBE participation goals. Mr. Amritt
denied attempting to convince the Owner to accept the Prime’s check. He further stated that he
recommended Spearhead to replace the Certified CBE, to which the Prime agreed.
Mr. Amritt characterized Stanford’s participation as being a subcontractor of Spearhead. He stated
that the Prime paid Spearhead approximately $365,000, and that in turn, Spearhead paid Stanford
approximately $350,000. After OIG Special Agents questioned the propriety of the Prime’s
payment to Spearhead shortly after it had been approved as a replacement, Mr. Amritt stated that
the payment “had to be done that way” to meet the Prime’s CBE goal requirements. He further
7 The Vice-President stated that the Prime’s fiscal year ended on November 30, 2011, so that for tax purposes it had to
record the payment prior to that date. 8 They acknowledged, however, that the Prime had entered into a written contract with another CBE at the outset of the
Project.
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 12 of 15
stated that Spearhead has been leasing heavy equipment to Stanford, and is now also providing on-
site hauling.9
4. Interview of Donovan Amritt
Mr. Donovan Amritt stated that Spearhead has been a CBE since 2009 or 2010,10
providing
concrete, asphalt, excavation and site development services to various municipalities and the
Florida Department of Transportation on projects in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties. He also
stated that Spearhead has been providing services on the Project since July or August 2011,
although all the work is scheduled by or through his brother. Mr. Donovan Amritt further stated
that Spearhead does not have a contract with the Prime and that he has never communicated with
the President or the Vice-President, but that he has been in contact with the COO.
Mr. Donovan Amritt stated that at Stanford’s direction, Spearhead delivered aggregate and asphalt
to the job as needed. He also stated that he believed Spearhead possessed purchase orders from the
Prime, dating back to July or August of 2011, for services rendered. He further stated that the
Prime paid Spearhead after it received payment from the County, and that Spearhead’s invoices
included costs for materials.11
Mr. Donovan Amritt stated that Spearhead subcontracted to
Stanford to perform work on the Project, but that since Spearhead did not have enough available
cash to float the costs for materials until it was paid by the Prime, the materials went on Stanford’s
account and after the Prime paid Spearhead, Spearhead paid Stanford.
Mr. Donovan Amritt stated that Spearhead leases heavy equipment to Stanford, some of which is
used on the Project, for which Stanford is invoiced, and periodically pays Spearhead. He also
stated that Spearhead leases one dump truck from another of his brothers (not Stanford Amritt),
who also operates the truck while working on the Project. He further stated that he believes that
Stanford owns only one dump truck.
With regard to the check Spearhead received from the Prime dated November 28, 2011, which
Spearhead deposited on January 11, 2012, Mr. Donovan Amritt stated that he did not notice the
date of the check, but he was certain that he would have deposited it soon after receiving it, rather
than holding it for over six weeks. He also stated that he caused Spearhead to promptly issue a
check to Stanford for $364,503, which he stated was for materials that had been charged to
Stanford’s account.
9 As part of the investigation, the OIG requested that Stanford provide invoices, purchase orders, contracts, and other
materials from Spearhead. Although Stanford did not provide any materials in response to our request, at the conclusion of
the investigation, the Prime produced a series of invoices, purportedly prepared by both Spearhead and Stanford which
appear to reflect the work originally designated to be performed by the Certified CBE. The invoices do not bear any dates
of receipt. At any rate, Mr. Amritt has admitted that, in fact, Stanford performed the work. 10
OESBD records reveal that Stanford was actually certified as a CBE on March 11, 2011, at or about the same time
Stanford lost its CBE certification. 11
The OIG requested that Spearhead produce the documents described by Mr. Donovan Amritt, but it did not.
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 13 of 15
5. Interview of County Officials
During the investigation, OIG Special Agents interviewed numerous County officials including the
OESBD Small Business Manager and the Deputy County Administrator. The Small Business
Manager stated that he has held numerous leadership positions with the OESBD since 2001, and is
familiar with the Broward County Business Opportunity Act of 2004 (Act of 2004); the SOPs and
the AO; the ordinances referred to as the Broward County Community Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Act of 2007 (Act of 2007); as well as the Act of 2009. He explained that the Act of
2004 restated previous County ordinances that had established race/gender based criteria for
Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprises (M/WBE) related to set-aside programs for
County projects. The SOP and AO were specifically crafted to accomplish the intent of the Act of
2004, and substantially all the language contained in the SOP and AO was directly restated in the
Act of 2004, and the OESBD operated the program under the provisions of those directives.
The Small Business Manager stated that in 2009, the ordinance was again changed, creating CBEs,
a new race/gender neutral business definition. He further stated that the Act of 2009, like the Act
of 2007, required that the County, within 180 days, enact new standards regarding ownership and
control of CBEs, but no new standards were adopted for inclusion into the AO or SOP.
Additionally, he stated, there was no guidance from senior OESBD management, either in writing
or orally, on how to administer the new CBE program, or how to adopt and enforce the provisions
of the Act of 2004 or AO, other than the specific language of the Act of 2009, which does not
specifically address second-tier subcontracting by CBEs. The Small Business Manager explained
that with no new standards adopted or amendments made to the AO or the SOP, the OESBD staff
continued operating under the past practices of the division as established by the AO, and the
legacy of the M/WBE program, with the exception of applying race/gender criteria. He stated that
since there is no clear line connecting the CBE program with the Act of 2004, the AO and the
SOP, there is a void in governing rules, and by operation, the OESBD staff continues to use the
existing regulatory framework.
The Deputy County Administrator stated that she is currently overseeing the OESBD. She
explained that the Act of 2004 was the basis for the AO. She stated that the Act of 2004 was the
predecessor ordinance to the Act of 2009, which established the race and gender-neutral CBE
program. She further stated that the Act of 2009 affected the M/WBE portion of the Act of 2004,
but the provisions related to SBEs remained as stated in the Act of 2004. She stated her
understanding that the Act of 2009 contains language that references the Act of 2004, and that
language operates to make provisions of the Act of 2004, and the AO, applicable to the Act of
2009.
The Deputy County Administrator acknowledged that although the Act of 2009, as well as the
predecessor Act of 2007, mandated that within 180 days of enacting the ordinances, the County
Administrator was to make changes to the standards for ownership and control of CBEs, such
changes were never implemented. She stated that it was a failure by the previous administration of
OESBD, who have since left employment, to follow through with the mandates.
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 14 of 15
The Deputy County Administrator stated that the Prime was not a new contractor in the County, so
that it should have known that CBE participation is required, and that CBEs cannot subcontract to
non-CBEs and expect to receive credit for CBE participation. She also stated that the Prime
should know it cannot claim CBE credit for services provided by non-CBE subcontractors.
The Deputy County Administrator stated that prime contractors are informed of the rules related to
CBEs and CBE participation credit during pre-bid meetings conducted between the Purchasing
Division, OESBD and project managers. In addition, she stated her belief that CBEs are informed
of their limitations and requirements during presentations offered by the County. She also stated
that the intent of the CBE program and common sense should guide prime contractors and CBEs in
claiming CBE credit for the work of non-CBE subcontractors.
RESPONSES TO THE PRELIMINARY REPORT AND OIG COMMENT
In accordance with Section 12.01(D)(2)(a) of the Charter of Broward County, a preliminary version of
this report was provided to Stanford, Spearhead, the Prime, and the Broward County Administrator for
their discretionary written responses. The OIG received responses from an attorney for Stanford and
the County Administrator, which are attached and incorporated herein as Appendix A and Appendix
B, respectively. We appreciate receiving the responses.
1. Response of the Attorney for Stanford
In his response, the Attorney for Stanford stated that “there is no convincing evidence that
Stanford and Sons subverted or attempted to complete a scheme to misrepresent subcontractor
participation in the CBE Program.” The Attorney also stated that interviews by OIG Special
Agents were “not taken properly” because Miranda warnings were not given, and the witnesses
were not represented by counsel. He further stated that the preliminary report was “misleading”
because it inferred that Stanford received over $400,000 in compensation that the Certified CBE
did not, and that “regardless of who was to perform” services on the Project, the “majority of the
funds” expended by the County went to apparently deserving recipients. Finally, the Attorney
challenged the constitutionality of the CBE Program and the County’s other set-aside programs,
and supported his challenge with cites to selected court cases.
As we noted above, CBE Program guidelines and procedures currently fail to provide explicit
guidance that might prevent misapplication in instances where the entities involved are acting in
good faith. In its discretionary response, the County has described steps it is taking to address
deficiencies in the language and application of the CBE ordinance. However, the OIG declines to
engage in a broad-reaching debate concerning the constitutionality of the CBE ordinance. Here,
the facts unequivocally demonstrate—rather than merely infer, as suggested by the Attorney—that
far from acting under a good faith misapprehension of the law, Stanford intentionally sought to
deceive the County in order to enrich itself. Nor will we will be lured into a discussion of the
scope and applicability of the Miranda rule and the right to counsel, since it is beyond dispute that
neither are applicable in a non-custodial, administrative setting. The Attorney’s discretionary
response does not alter the findings reached by the OIG in the preliminary version of this report.
BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT RE: VENDOR’S SCHEME TO MISREPRESENT COUNTY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION
OIG 11-025
June 20, 2012
Page 15 of 15
2. Response of the County Administrator
In her response, the County Administrator stated that the OESBD has been diligently working to
revise governing ordinances and administrative policies in order to address operational issues, not
only in response to OIG Final report 11-012, but also based on the County’s ongoing commitment
to improving its programs and activities for the benefit of community businesses and the taxpayers.
She noted, however, that the OESBD relies upon the honesty and professionalism of contractors,
and that the “intentional scheming” of Stanford, Spearhead and the Prime deprive the County of its
bargained-for contractual expectations.
With regard to deficiencies in the administration of the CBE Program, the County Administrator
cited additional authorities that further provide guidance to CBEs and contractors, but also
acknowledged that “administrative orders or standard operating procedures have not yet been
adopted to explicitly effectuate the purposes” of the CBE program. She stated that the Act of 2009
does not prohibit second-tier subcontracting to a non-CBE, but that not only will such work not
count toward a prime contractor’s CBE goal obligation, those actions “may carry other
consequences that will affect the prime contractor’s contractual relationship with the County.” She
also concurred that the Field Inspector’s daily logs were available for review, so that the County is
working to incorporate them into its CBE Program compliance monitoring activities.
With regard to the actions of Stanford, Spearhead, and the Prime, the County Administrator
observed that each of those entities acted in concert in a manner which would have made detection
of their activities extremely difficult. She also stated that “without excusing or defending
Stanford’s misconduct,” it was entitled to be paid because it actually performed the work on the
Project, but that the Prime cannot claim of receive any credit towards CBE participation
requirements. Finally, the County Administrator stated that the OIG’s investigation necessitates
“immediate action by the County,” which may include legal action by the County Attorney against
Stanford, Spearhead, and the Prime.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The OIG investigation revealed that Stanford engaged in misconduct by executing a scheme to misrepresent
CBE participation to the OESBD, through which it obtained $421,548.11 in County funds that were
designated to facilitate participation by a certified CBE in a significant public works project. We previously
noted in OIG 11-012 that, absent administrative vigilance, the County’s set-aside programs are vulnerable to
abuse. The fact that Stanford was easily able to undermine the goals of the CBE program underscores the
need for the County to develop clear, unambiguous rules to ensure its continuing viability.
We are encouraged by the prompt specific remedial steps the County has stated will be undertaken to
improve its administration of the CBE Program—including steps otherwise identified in the body of this
report—in addition to the wholesale revisions which the County is currently undertaking regarding
governance by the OESBD. By way of this report, we specifically recommend that as a part of the legal
action contemplated in conjunction with the County Attorney, the County reassess the fitness of Stanford,
Spearhead, and the Prime to receive future contract awards.
OIG 11-025
EXHIBIT 1
Exhibit 2 Page 1of 2
gn~A!AA[).-.tgUNTY
F L 0 R I D A'
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT i . ~. One Nmlh Un1verBiy Drive • SuiteA-305 •Plantallon, FlOrida 33324 • 954-357-6410. • FAX 954-357-&40
·. I .
MEMORANDUM · Revised 1-28-11. '• ''
Date: January 28, 2011
To: ~mell Kimbrew, Coostructfon Management Specialist
Purchasing Division ·. , · ·.·
Anthony J. F4~strative Manager II
Public Worics Oepar:tment
From:
Subject CBE Participation Evaluation
·Bid Number. Y0864105C1
UAZ 308, Water and Sewer Improvements
... ,.
The Public Wprks Department evaluated ~e County Busin~ Enterprise (CB.E) parti(:ipation. for Jhe ;.. following bids submitted for this project. Ttlree .lowest of. $!X. bids were. ~viewed, the .results •are. as : . . follows: ·· · :.· ·· · · . ·' · · ~· ;.;.
! . Estabrtshed CBE Overall goal is 15%.
Met the CBE Requirements Sub-Contract Percent · ~ .. Giannetti Contracting Corporation CPrtmel
..f?ltln Diesel, Inc. CBE 5.76% 1\81188 Corp. CBE 8.20% 8 & M Lawn Service & Landscaping CBE 1.04%
Total 15.0%
Contractor's Bid Amount= $6,488,292.00• • Pro~ CBE Sub-Contract Amount:: .$973,243.80 • CBE Participation goal proposed: 15.0%
Man Con. Inc.. CPrimel
Elite Contractor Supply, LL CBE 12.50%
Green Earth Nu~ and SOd, Inc CBE . '1.02%
Southem Transport &Equipment, Inc. CBE 1.50%
Total 15.02%
Contractor's Bid Amount= $6,641,712.00•• Proposed CBE Sub-Contract Amount:= ~997,585.14 ,,. ' • CBE Pai11clpatlon goal 15.02%
Braward
SUI GunzllwVtr •Dale V.C. Hcilnm • Kll8lln D. JaCObo • Clllp Rllllr. Jolin E. RocMcm, Jt•• 8alb8ra Sllaller •lois ~-. '·
·: ~
http:997,585.14http:6,641,712.00http:6,488,292.00
Exhibit2 Page 2 of2
Ric-Man Construction. Inc., (Prime)
B & MLawn Service & Landscaping· CBE.· 1.07%
E & NConstruction, Inc CBE .11.52%
Moore Walters & Associates CBE. 2.42% .
Total 15.01%.
• Contractor's ·Bid Amount= $6,859,'154~00 . • Proposed CBE Sub-Contract Amount= $1,029,559.02 .. CBE participation goal proposed: 15.01%
The three submittals revieWed Were &~em6d compliant with, tile CB~ Program requirements> Giannetti Contracting Co,.Porationand.Man··con,lnc. original .. bid.was·compliarit.·at the time.of submittal,. however.· since that time tWo of the subcontractors. no longer qualify as·.· a. CBE.....Per the County .Business .· Enterprise. Act.· of 2009•. Sec. ··1-81.4(d), ... if the responders' documentation shows. that an·. attempt was ... made to comply with the CBE ·goal; responders have the. opportunity to· cure. any technical issues pertaining to the submission of incomplete information or.doc;umeiltation; within three (3) business days ·. after notification from the County~ .. Staff contacted both Giannetti Contracting Corporation and Man Con, Inc. to request letters of Intent and Schedule of CBE Participation be properly executed and submitted, ·. they both complied with the request. · · · ·· ·· ·· · · · · ·· ·.. ·
Office pfEccinorrilc and Smaii.Business Dev. Datei : ·... ··.··. •' ,•,' ··.··.··. ··, •'',/'
http:1,029,559.02
OIG 11-025
EXHIBIT 2
I I BROWARD COUNTY WATER & WASTEWATER SERVICES BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
I CONSTRUCTION OF
UAZ308I WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTSI
I WWS/WWED Project No. 9061
I BID NO. Y0864105C1
I VOLUME 1- BIDDING REQUIREMENTS, CONTRACT FORMS
AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT
I Engineer of Record I
I
I CONTRACT DOCUMENTS I VOLUME I BIDDING REQUIREMENTS, CONTRACT FORMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
CONTRACT
I VOLUME II TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (DIVISION 1-4)
I VOLUME Ill GENERAL DRAWINGS AND STANDARD DETAILS
I APRIL2010
CRAVEN THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
I 3563 N.W. 53rd Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309
I (954) 739-6400
I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
PROJECT MANUAL FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECT($):
UAZ 308
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
BROWARD COUNTY
through its
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
of
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
BID/CONTRACT NO.: _Y_0_86_4_10_5_C_1_____
CAF#170 (01-07-10)
I
I
I
I
I I
I I I I Approv~d by: wfh~f/i&t-~!?11~ lltJ/M cJn J;/u;;:L-/;t?rJf ~s j)j- /)]. I !J p ' 1"0. J) . ., /, ' ~~ /[ 1/t;_,u-t.l;J! ;{;;;ku~.J I I I I I
I
I
NOTICE
The attached Construction Contract Documents have been approved as to legal
form by the Office of the County (\ttomey, and approved by the Risk Management Division
and the Purchasing Division relating to their respective areas of responsibility, prior to the
public notice of the Invitation for Bid.
WATER AND WASTEWATER ENGINEERING DIVISION (Using Division)
(Director)
~ Craven Thorn son & Associates, Inc. ' . ? (CONSULTANT, if applicable)
Assistant County Attorney Purchasing Agent
• ) .··-: ·""> . ' _.:, '7 'I 'r·)
i ••• _; •..7-(/
,
Date
' .., ,,. -·-·~.....Risk N
Date ON cn"Pcrcz Alexander. c=US, o=Rr:.k Management. ou•Hroward County, ~'""til tlftlaMRAr4er@l!ro 'leill.org Dato: 2010 07.22 09:33:46 -04'00'
Date
CAF#170 (01-07-10) -ii~ I
http:leill.org
I I I
I I
I I I
·I I
I
I I
I I
I
I
10.6. COUNTY shall review each proposed Change Order that, by itself or aggregated with previous Change Order requests, increases the ContractPrice by ten percent (1 0%) of the initial Contract Price or Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), whichever is less, for opportunities to include or increase participation of CBE already involved in the Contract. The successful Bidder shall demonstrate that it makes good faith efforts to include CBE participation in Change Order work and shall report such efforts to the SBDD (or designee).
11. On-site reviews to monitor the successful Bidder's progress in achieving and maintaining contractual CBE obligations will be carried out by the ContractAdministrator in conjunction with the SBDD (or designee).
12. The successful Bidder agrees to enter into a formal contract with the CBE contractors which are listed on the Schedule of CBE Participation upon execution of the contract with the COUNTY.
13. The successful Bidder shall be required to submit monthly reports to the ContractAdministrator on a form which may be obtained at the SBDD (or designee) regarding compliance with CBE obligations. In addition, the successful Bidder must inform COUNTY immediately when a CBE Subcontractor is not able to perform. If the successful Bidder is unable to substitute the unavailable CBE with another certified CBE, the actual substitution of a non-CBE subcontractor may not occur until the SBDD (or designee) has verified the good faith efforts of the successful Bidder to substitute the unavailable CBE firm with another certified CBE firm.
14. Nothing herein shall be construed to require a Bidder to award a subcontract to aCBE firm if it is not the lowest responsive, responsible bid.
15. Nothing herein shalf be construed to indicate that a higher level of CBE involvement above the stated goal in a solicitation will give that Bidder the right of award over other Bidders who have met the CBE goal or fully justified that they had made all reasonable efforts to do so.
16. The SBDD of COUNTY maintains a directory of CBE firms which is available for use by Bidders.
17. Any Bidder on this Contract shall be prohibited from entering into any agreement with a CBE firm whereby the CBE firm cannot offer its services to other Bidders on this Project.
18. NOT USED.
19. DEFINITIONS AND CBE QUALIFICATIONS:
Applicable definitions and CBE qualifications shall be as provided by COUNTY ordinance and administrative regulations, as amended from time to time, and shallbe available through the SBDD.
I CAF#170 (01-07·10) -27
I
http:50,000.00
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
CONTRACTOR might have under the Contract Documents including but not limited to, Article 24 hereof and any claim regarding latent defects.
26.4. Failure to reject any defective work or material shall not in any way prevent later rejection when such defect is discovered, or obligate COUNTY to final acceptance.
27. Taxes:
CONTRACTOR shall pay all applicable sales, consumer, use and other taxes required by law. CONTRACTOR is responsible for reviewing the pertinent statestatutes involving state taxes and complying with all requirements.
28. Subcontracts:
28. 1. Each subcontractor must possess certificates of competency and licenses required by law. CONTRACTOR shall have a continuing obligation to notifyCOUNTY and CONSULTANT of any change in subcontractors.
28.2. CONTRACTOR shall not employ any subcontractor against whom COUNTYor CONSULTANT may have a reasonable objection. CONTRACTOR shall not be required to employ any subcontractor against whom CONTRACTOR has a reasonable objection.
28.3. CONTRACTOR shall be fully responsible for all acts and omissions of its subcontractors and of persons directly or indirectly employed by itssubcontractors and of persons for whose acts any of them may be liable to the same extent that CONTRACTOR is responsible for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by it. Nothing in the ContractDocuments shall create any contractual relationship between any subcontractor and COUNTY or any obligation on the part of COUNTY to pay or to see the payment of any monies due any subcontractor. COUNTY or CONSULTANT may furnish to any subcontractor evidence of amounts paid to CONTRACTOR on account of specific work performed.
28.4. CONTRACTOR agrees to bind specifically every subcontractor to theapplicable terms and conditions of the Contract Documents for the benefit of COUNTY.
28.5. CONTRACTOR shall perform the Work with its own organization, amounting to not less than 50 percent of the Contract Price.
CAF#170 (01-07-10) -97
I
I I I I
I I
I I
I I I I I I I I
I
I
54.2.2 CONTRACTOR has committed to the CBE performance delineated on Exhibit 6, CBE Performance Commitment. CONTRACTOR shall, in performing services for this Project,incorporate by Exhibit 6 the names, addresses, scope of work, and dollar value of CBE participation on the Schedule of CBE Participation into CONTRACTOR's contracts. CONTRACTOR understands that each CBE firm utilized on the Project to meet the participation goals must be certified by the Broward County Small Business Development. CONTRACTOR agrees to enter into contracts with CBE subcontractors which are listed on theSchedule of CBE Participation upon execution of this Agreement and to provide copies of its contracts with such persons to the Contract Administrator and the Broward County Small Business Development Division. CONTRACTOR may not deviate from the CBE's delineated on Exhibit 6, CBE Performance Commitment, without the prior approval of the SBDD (or designee).
54.2.3 CONTRACTOR understands that it is the responsibility of the Contract Administrator and the Broward County Small BusinessDevelopment Division to monitor compliance with the CBE
· requirements. In that regard, CONTRACTOR agrees to furnish monthly reports in the form attached as Fonn 7, CBEParticipation Performance Report, to both the Contract Administrator and the Broward County Small Business Development Division on the progress of CBE participationcommencing with· the first payment application. All reports shall include the name and business address of each CBE firm solicited by CONTRACTOR to work as a subcontractor in thisAgreement and the responses received by CONTRACTOR to such solicitation; the name and business address of each CBE firm actually involved in this Agreement, adescription of the workperformed and/or product or service supplied by the CBE firms; the date and amount of each expenditure; the CBE status of any contractor performing any portion of this Agreement; and anyother information requested by COUNTY which may assist COUNTY in determining the CONTRACTOR's compliance with its contractual obligations, or may assist in the implementation andenforcement of the Act. The submission of the report required by this subparagraph shall be a condition of payment to CONTRACTOR.
CAF#170 (01-07-10) -117
I
OIG 11-025
EXHIBIT 3
i'liUIIJUC ~J~t&l m!PAm'M~Nf
OM Not!.ll Un~l'!¥Dll\!9 • Sv118MOO •~~~~n. Flomla ~ •91*357~10• FP.X tM·357~
Deoomber 15, 2010
·To: DimeO Kimbrew, Cofwtrudaon M®nagement Spooi~Hst Puuchasing Dlvl~
Anthony J. r:aw:;;:~nisntiv@Manager Bl
Public Works Depart'ment
CSE Participation EwJuat!on
IBid Number: V0004105C1
UAZ 300, Water and Sewer lmprovemoots
The Public Worts Department EM!IuatGd ihe County Business Enterpooe (CBE) patti~ tor the following ·bld8 submitted for this project Tine lowest of efx b~ were I'U\.'iewOO, the results are ss foiiOIMJ: :
EswtiHshOO cae Ovemll goal ts 1~%..
CIBE 5.76%
CBE 8.2%
CBE ..LM
15.0%
• Contmctor'e Elld Amount= $6,448,292.00 • Proposed CBE Sub-Contract Amount= $967,243.80 • CBE Participation goal proposed: 15.0%
Min Con. Inc.. (Primt) Eilt® Contrador Supply, U . Green Emth Ninety and Sod. Bnc StmOOrd & Sons Trucking Corporation
cae CBE cee
12.5% 1.02%
..1a Tcml . 15.02%
Contmctcms Bid Amount= $6,841,712.00 Proposed CBE Sub-Connct Amount= $997,585.14 CBE Parti~paUon goai 15.02%•
D.".l!imlla• Cltp L8MIIlaJ•IIIIII8 ; (JI{!II'A!Ilf
Ei!aGunBIIlJI¥• Dale V.C.I-Iolnass • ~ www.biO\Yald.OJV
www.biO\Yald.OJVhttp:997,585.14http:967,243.80http:6,448,292.00
. BiMkn Comtrug;lfqn. Inc.. lfdmt) B&MLawn Service &Land8cs!ping E& NConstruction, Inc
CSE CBE
1J)7% 11.52%
Moore Walters &Ae•oclatea CBE ~ Total 15.01%
e Contractor's Bid Amount= $6,859,154.00 • Proposed CBE Sub-Contract Amount =$1 ,029;559.02 0 CBE Participation goal proposed: 15.01%
cg Ccmp§!,!lnee Cgmmmts
All submittals W'em deemed mmpllarnt \I!Jith too CBE Program rsquimmems.
http:029;559.02http:6,859,154.00
BP-r:o~/\IAP\0 SCHEDULE OF (CBE) PARTICIPATION a COUNTY (Submit this form with an executed Letter of Intent from each CBE firm listed in this form} ~~~
Bid/RU/RFP #: Y08641 05C1 J Project Location: Dania Beach I Date Form Submitted: November 10, 2010 I IProject Name: UAZ 308 Water & sewer improvements I Project Start Date: To be determined I
Prime Contractor: Giannetti Contracting Corporation \ Address: 6340 Sims Dr Sterling heights, Ml 48313 Contact Person: Ricky L Giannetti I Telephone#: (954) 972-8104 Fax #:_(954) 972-8108
Sub-contract AmountCBE Expiration Type of Work to beAddressCBE Subcontractor Phone (Agreed Price ($) ordate Performed Percentage (%)
954 783-6922 ~. '7 b 00/o1081 NW 12th Terr Excavation, roadway Stanford & Sons 7/30/2011 Pompano Beach, FL 33069 installation & grading
Miguel Lopez Jr. Inc 954 749-7234 Asphalt paving 12/24/2010 7711 NW 74th Ave C0.2..0 /o Miami, FL 33166
954 484-6766 Sod, trees, &B & M Lawn Service &Landscaping 10/17/2013 3230 NW 18th St. l ... OL./ 0 /o landscapingr-ort Lauderdale, FL 33311
Total CBIE Partlci}>ation Total Contract Amount ~ ) lf "8 iSl '29;1.. •fji:)
CBE Subcontractor Participation Percentage (Total amount allocated to CBEs divided by Total Contract Amoun!}
% \S The listing of a CBE shall constitute a representation by the bidder/responder to Broward County that such CBE has been contactad and properly apprised of the upcoming County project. Bidders/Responders are advised that the information contained herein is subject to verification by the Office of Economic and SmaH Business Development {OESBD) and that submission of said information is an assertion of its accuracy, per the requirements of the OESBD Program.
I certifv that the above in Signatur~ Date:
Vice President .\)I(.)L Apr;},_.,....~
NT MUST BE PROVIDED WITH THE SUBMITIAL AND SIGNED BY THE PERSON SIGNING THE SUBMITIA
11/10/2010
OESBD COMPLIANCE FORM 2009-SOP
------------------------------------------
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
LETTER OF INTENT To Utilize a Ccu.aJroty BWJsiJro4ll$!5 Enterprise (CIBE) Su!llccntii'B!Ctor/Subtons&nltant I
From (Name of Proposer/Bidder}: Giannetti Contracting Corporation i l
Firm Address: 6340 Sims Or Sterling Heights, Ml 46313 i I
\ In response to Broward County's RLI/Bid No. Y0864105C1 , ttle I
I
undersigned hereby agree to utilize the CBE firm listed below if awarded the contract. The underslgned further certify that the firm has been contacted .and properly apprised of the projectefl work asaignment(s) upon execution of the contract with Broward County.
Name of CBE Firm: Stanford & Sons
Address of CBE Firm: 2121 WOakland Park Blvd. Suite 7 Oakland Pari~'~""t:::N!!!J"i::>.~lo2~.D:L...t.42:~~~!:!.·...::..,...~-:z,:.·------
I 1
I
\ I
I j
i
i
\ I
\
B~:OWARD ·• COUNTY
Project Description: UAZ 306 Water & Sewer Improvements
(Signature of Owner or Author Rep. Prime}
corred.
Subscribed and swam to before me this tO
[lJ003/00311/l;~/2010 i'lED U: 57 l?.!l.F. 3056r. ~.642 MIGUEL WPll& JR, UJC. :~::j
I
II
I
lETTER Of INTENT To Ulti~i:£® l'.lllCOQ.ili111lf f8.ll!ll®lll1loos Euut®rpl'isS (CIBlE) SulbctDntfad©rl$MibJ~@mtn8tamt
From (Name of Proposer/Bidder): Giannetti·-·c_o_nm:_ac_t_in_g_c_arp_o_ra_t_io_n----------
Firm Address: 6340 Sims Dr Starling Heights, Ml48313
Project IJ~crlpiion: UAZ 308 Water Q. Sewer lmprovemsnts
In response to. Broward County's RLI/Bid No. V0864105C1 , the undersigned hereby agree to utilize the .CBE firm listed below, If awarded the contract. The undeiTSigryed furth~r certify that the firm has been. contacted and properfy apprised of the projected work ass1gnm0nt(s) upon.executlon of the contract with Broward County.
Name of CBE Flllm: Miguel Lop~ Jr · ~-----------------------------------------
Address of CBE Firm: 7711 NW 741h Ave Miami, FL 33166
Expiration of CBE Certification: 12124121010 Projected CBE Work Asslgnmernt (description of work
assignment): A~phalt paving
Projected Percentage of Pli e's ContraCt Fees to ba AWarded to CBE:.-:-~.,--'?-_0_~----(Dollar Ami. or Percentage %)
I \-tO-lO
(Date)
Print Nama (owner or authorized Rep. Prime):~\ c._~ L G!-A......., r-:e:t!\
· i () · V FA!Fjfle.Q ·-""'
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ' da~ of ~e.J:\.~~bl[;;·.~igan
·! 1 · A/ ,;~ Countv o1· Macomb •'. ----(/.
.~.--------·r.-=.-.=~.~--
7171·, '-'"'p• 2'llf'-!
OIG 11-025
EXHIBIT 4
B ~RD COUNTY
LETTER OF INTENT To Utilize a County Business Enterprise (CBE) Subcontractor/Subconsultant
From (Name of Proposer/Bidder): ~I 0. v"\ 1"\.J(_ft 7 c~ ·f\ t re-
OIG 11-025
EXHIBIT 5
BF&NV,:nt. to b:.:;i:.:d~ al! !"t~':!sirm!'li. 1r; 1hq. cdg. oo:'::rc-·: 1.~t; (J.\r:":·.~·~~!"lt p3id tc ch~.!e to ~1;bsj
Total CBE Contract Amount $ $ 973,243.80 !Total CBE Paid to Date $ 390,122.55
Original Agreed amount to Sub
$67,490.00
$373,726.00
$532,034.94
Original Agreed Amount
Revised Agreed Amount (C/O's,
Amend.)
Revised Agreed Amount
%of Work Completed to .
Date
%of Work Completed to
Date
Ami. Paid ITotal Amount This Period Paid To Date
$10,871.841 $20,591.84
$369,530.711 $369,530.71
$0.001 $0.00
Ami. Paid This Period
Total Amount Pa\d To Date
Reason for Change
Comments
~
~
~ N .C>
DateApp~d
::;
w CD
i.'' ~
r-r-.f"~ :Z'::J> G':>·=:f -~~!:J
iij~S?·.£8
tnature, I attest that the information submil1ed for this Contract is, in fact, true and correct to the best of State of Florida, County of ":'\ owledge. ackn,pwledged befp{e me this I \!:. . day of )~'kee ~
l.,g \.At'~ (name ofperson acknowledging). (month),
NICHOLAS .J. APOSTOL· . Nota..Y·RabfiC~ of.
OIG 11-025
EXHIBIT 6
- ~ From: 11Chindiesel.com11
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:04:07
To:
Subject: Fw: Verification ofPayments from GIANNETTI CONTRACTING CORP 15
Sent from Chino's mobile
From: [email protected]
Date: 15 Dec 2011 11:01:12-0500
To:
Cc:
Subject: Verification ofPayments from GIANNETTI CONTRACTING CORP 15
DATE: 12/14/2011
Certified Finn: CHIN DIESEL INC
Contract: Y0864105Cl- UAZ 308 BP 3
Prime Vendor: GIANNETTI CONTRACTING CORP
..
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:detroitdsl(a{aol.com
)ear Sir/Madam:
JIANNETTI CONTRACTING CORP reported to the Broward County Board of County Commissioners that
·our firm was a certified sub vendor for the above agreement or contract.
~he Prime vendor, GIANNETTI CONTRACTING CORP,reported that your finn was paid a
otal amount of$369,530.71 for the services rendered as of the report date of 12/14/2011.
tis your responsibility to verify that the information provided is accurate. To do so, you first need to activate
rour vendor registration in the Vendor Self Serve application. Instructions for activation can be found here:
1ttp://www.broward.org/Purchasing/Pages/Registration.aspx Once your Vendor Self Serve account is active,
?lease log into your Vendor Self Serve account and access the iContractsCentrallin1c ·
Within iContractsCentral you will be shown the payment information which needs to be verified.
Click the GREEN CHECK mark in the CORRECT column to confirm that the information
provided by the prime vendor is accurate.Click the RED X in the NOT CORRECT
column and provide corrected information to what was provided by the prime vendor.
Under Florida law, most e-mail messages to or from Bioward County efllployees or officials are public records, available to any person upon request, absent an exemption. Therefore, any e-mail message to or from the County, inclusive of e-mail addresses contained therein, may be subject to public disclosure.
http:of$369,530.71
OIG 11-025
EXHIBIT 7
-------1
{).:; ·>t~:~Y·-~~ -_~r::~\r~ ~
~
.c::r:::·: .
By s1gna:ure, I arfust!t\at lha jnforiJlaifon su!/'rili(te!i loi,this Contrac! .is, ,in.lact, Irue and CClrr...ect to tha 'best'p.f1· ··S.ta.. i~ 0 lo(.id: ~·.·C··.0.•. fl. , .· ·.· . ··...··• .·• ···.··.·.,··.~. ·. ·. .. . ..·. l ......'. ·.·.· ... · ..··.·..'.. f: .. U ...t.'y····.o·'··.··.•• ·.···..•...•. ···•·•. ·. '.·"·. ·
re
..
...·n·s.tf'U.'.n.·
·
t·. w:. ...· •. .. ·.··'·.le··.d ..··o ~" ~?, .(mon··· th).,my lmowredge. • ...;··.T···,·.h.·!_··J·..o•. .. go·i·n··.9.· •..' •..•.·.l·e·,·ff.· a.·.·.··s ..a,....c.k.,,"·.o·····w·.· ... '.ge···!.l··· be····...:re me thi~.·, .. '$ - . da.y.of· 0_,;:J~.~~c (Y;n ·~· )st.k.;~_!~11-r~·· .(oame orperson acmowtedgin~J.~···· .·· · , -:·_ -~ .·.Fr:esi~nt: '1131201?,..-:-; l~tt·kr o:~.,:reu-, ~-\ ~ t\) l- \ v - t Title ·o,.teJ \ Namw=- .,, '~-~. ·~-- .. v\~-PJ~J)· \ .;f-3.::-_) No~*~~~
i C.. J '--------···----·--.....1 ij I .. $i{Jf!afU~'tfNotal· . . ·•,:eou~ofMatomb.< , ·... · . · ....•.. · .. ~ . ""';~%~·~!.!·Or ro-e&~';flllt!Mbi'--~IJ!I',2ol8·
(Name otNolary, 'P'int~!t~r,typed) rdenllfiCall
OIG 11-025
EXHIBIT 8
LETTER OF INTENT To UtiHZ\1. a County Business Enterprise (CS~} Subcqntractqr!Subconsl!ltant
·'·-,-----------·--
Firm. ·A'frl'e·s·" 6340 Sims Dr., Stedihg H-.:!.~hts. M! 483~3 !•'··.·· ~v~·"'· .::J. . ~·------~--------......._.._,;....;,__. __·•.
"C"r.; ~ 1 ~'•5,.... iIn response to Bro"vard (;oqiJry·s RL.IfBid No.. I ''-'"" ..... ·~ ·----· thiil undersigned hef'eby agree to JJ\ill:::e th.e CBE hrm listed .below, if awarded the contract. The undersigned further c~nifY tho\ ~be firm h,as been co~,tactE~q and propt:rly apprised of the projeCted work assignl'nerH(s) t.!p
~~ ;- "'.
Zt-z.~ l ''1...
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 115 S. Andrews Avenue • Suite A-550 • Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • 954-357-6410 • FAX 954-357-6340
February 2, 2012
Giannetti Contracting Corporation 2660 N.W. 15th Court Suite 108 Pompano Beach, Fl. 33069
Subject: Project Number: 9061 UAZ 308 Water and Sewer Improvements
Nick Apostol,
Thank you for your letter requesting reduction of the work assigned to Chin Diesel, Inc. and reassigning it to Spearhead Development Group, Inc.
The Public Works Department evaluated the revised County Business Enterprise (CBE) participation for the above project that you submitted for approval.
Established CBE Overall goal is 15%.
Giannetti Contracting Corporation (Prime) Status Sub-Contract Percent Original Revised
Chin Diesel, Inc. CBE 5.76% 1.08% Kailas·corp. CBE 8.20% 8.20% B & M Lawn Service & Landscaping CBE 1.04% 1.04% Spearhead Development Group, Inc CBE 4.68%
Total 15.00% 15.00%
The above revised CBE adjustment does not change the original commitment of 15% and the realignment adds Spearhead Development Group, Inc. as a new CBE firm. The above is approved as submitted and should be reflected on your next Monthly Utilization Report submission.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 954-357-6475.
/ .t.'l. . i// / 1 ·- --- •/j_,-;~~·~c_.l;t,t~}( ..•ze/r Anthoof:f. Fattizzi Administrative Manager II
cc: Freddy Castillo, OESBD
Broward County Board of County Commissioners · Sue Gunzburger ·Dale V.C. Holness • Kristin Jacobs· Chip LaMarca • Ilene Lieberman • Stacy Ritter • John E. Rcdstrom. Jr. ·Barbara Shariei • Lois Wexler
www.broward.org
http:www.broward.org
OIG 11-025
EXHIBIT 9
*ti+"*''IWe•ew4§$i:I.J:Jilli1i!i.fdt§S1Bii·libj!.jlii·ifj!fjj;hl.gi:!·*311J?!·!!iiljtt.jt1•!A#·IitrfJ·'·U·Nl!:tt•re
GIANNETTI CONTRACTING CORPORATION 6340 SIMS DRIVE
STEALING HEIGHTS. Ml ~6313 PH: (586) 268·2090
.FAX: (586) 268·7099
TCF NATlONAL BANK STERLING HEIGHTS, Mt 48313
74-7154f272•
1'fliitE 1 *S..,QiiMhRAMN ORO I~
11 !u/to( 1 I I
'!< •• . ..
I .l
.. I
I
.. !
... . I
(
I•· ("
I < I
" I
iZ3935190?
Date: March 13, 2012 Branch Banking and Trust Page 2 of2
Reference: 10000306152040:10000306153040:10000305175043
Date 20120111 Account Number Amount 36953071 CR-DR Serial Number 0000043286 Transaction Link 011425230885808411
OIG 11-025
EXHIBIT 10
ORDER OF ---,---------------------------' L ' • l I Three hundred sixty four thousand five hundred thirty & 711100 •••••••••••••
DOLLARS ___________________________________________________
ID ;:.::BRANCH BANKINQ AND TRUST COMPANY
1-800-BANK BBT BBT.eom
UAZ 308 FOR-------- .......~ ...
SPEARHEAD DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC 1152 1484-4 SW 54TH ST
MIRAMAR, FL 33027 January 13. ~ .,.,,_.,.,20
PAY To THE Stanford and Sons Trucking Corp. $ '3645307·1~
I •
'I~~; ~ ...
~ ~.
3d953ZS
Date: March 13, 2012 Branch Banking and Trust Page 2 of4
Reference: 10000306152029:10000306153029:10000305175034
20120120 Account Number Date Amount 36453071 CR-DR Serial Number 0000001152 Transaction Link 010836230515366720
OIG 11-025
EXHIBIT 11
Ae:count Number
. 9865826038l\T TCF
·+·. 1 ~A1IONALB4NK
43524
t=&1 6~~GIUlU~ f ,' I $"'ea.OtT.AO I r:Ll t I J
! IIPEAAIVJ)DE\tE.OPM~ ~;);~fi.~..;.~~~~ ~·DCU.Aiilt t.L 'It ., ~'t.j .... ... ~ IA!MO •
•o.. iS2.._.
-~-.. -~ -t ~11laJimd~Wtd4~~:;..... i ~i'-71~
:
.. I I
., loJ I •
f4l 002/002)3/06/2012 14:54 FAX 248 740 1642 TCF BANK TROY LENDING
Page 1 ofl
---
http:ea.OtT.AO
OIG 11-025
EXHIBIT 12
SPEARHEAD DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC 1203 14844 SW 54TH ST MIRAMAR, FL 3:1027 OHI3~c2631--Lt¥~/0;;...__20./2..__
f.OO().BANK BBT BBT.oom
FOR~~ .. ~.4ldJL u•OO L 20 ju•
t ~ "-'.•·•• .l- , ·,
• •\ I , I' -~ . •• -· !._ \ • \ \.
' .,... I "'\ '"' : - ~- ·~- .. - ..
\
' . \ • -:1.
)
2012032698000002:0000~~-~-~f!!~~~-9~!-0-.R.-CHMGR by Operator K2USER4 on Mar 26, 2012 at .v:2I:54 AM- Page 68 of 137.
:~
OIG 11-025
APPENDIX A
I LAW OFFICES • ' "'!. . .. ! ..... . . ~ ·~,-. ·_. .. .
rfORRE & SoBEL, P.A. 8211 \\ E~T BHMHD Rot LE\ \IW 1 StiTE 2.30 1 Pl.'~T\TIO\, FL :rn2 ~ BHm\ \ IW% 1.781.1 u 1 1 ~-'' \ 9.3 1. 16.3.2590 1 To1.r. FH EE soo. 7:n.1:wo
REPLY TO BROWARO OmCEDAVID S. TUPLER Dn iPI£1\@SIEGffilfOI.AW.COM
June 14, 20 12 Via Hand Delivery
Mr. John W. Scott, Inspector General Broward Office of the Inspector General One North Un iversity Drive, Suite Ill Plantation, FL 33324
Re: Stanford and Sons Truck ing, Inc. OIG Preliminary Report, Reference No. OIG I 1-025
Dear Mr. Scott:
Enclosed is Stanford and Sons Trucking, Inc. Response to the OIG Preliminary Report Reference No. OIG 11 -025. Please direct a ll future communications to the undersigned on behalf of Stanford and Sons Trucking, Inc.
Sincerely,
SIEGFRIED, RIVERA, LERN ER, DE LA TORRE & SOBEL, P.A.
UJS~ David S. Tupler
DST/tp
cc: Stanford & Sons Trucking
J
mailto:iPI�1\@SIEGffilfOI.AW.COM
LAW OFFICES SoBEL, P.A. I 821 1 \\ E~T BHO\\ \HD Bm LE\ \H D 1 sun: 250 1 Pu \T \TIO\ . FL :n:~2 1 BHm\ \IW 9.> 1.78 1 . 11 :~ 1 1 F\\ 95 1.165.2590 1 TOLL FHEE soo.1:n.1:wo
RESPONSE BY STANFORD AND SONS TRUCKING, INC.
TO THE OIG PRELIMINARY REPORT REF. NO. OIG 11-025
INTRODUCTION
The Office of the Inspector General claims that Stanford and Sons Trucking, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as ··stanford and Sons'·) attempted a scheme to misrepresent subcontractor partic ipation in the CBE Program. There is no convincing evidence that Stanford and Sons subverted or attempted to complete a scheme to misrepresent subcontractor participation in the CBE Program. Additionally, the Ordinance in question is not pursuant to law and unenforceable. The law in question is Broward County Ordinance Number 2009-40, which states in its preamble that this is known as the County Business Enterprise Act of 2009. .. establishing cumulative goal for County business enterprise partic ipation and County contracting opportunities; ...and provid ing that community disadvantage enterprise goals in pending contracts be met. Add itionally it is stated that the County is attempting to insure participation by small , Broward based firms in County contracting opportunities which benefits the health, safety, and welfare of County residents and ... insures a more level playing field in pursuit