Disclaimer from web administrator:  Minutes were modified to ensure people using speech or people who are colored blind would understand what text was deleted in the "Selection Process Improvements" and what new text was replaced.  Original text counted on "color only" as an indication of deleted text.  The text such as "the following was deleted" and where appropriate "replaced with" were added to minutes in the appropriate places to ensure that everyone could benefit from the details outlined in these minutes.  Context was in no way modified.


Mr. Sampadian called the meeting to order at 1:40 P.M. on Friday, November 5th.

Ms. Alger called the roll.

The minutes of the September 27th meeting were approved without change.

Mr. Sampadian made the following announcements:

  1. The Chair rejects Ms. Alger's resignation from the Grievance Board.
  2. The Chair appoints Mr. Spiliotis as Treasurer of the Committee.

Mr. Sampadian reported that Mr. Elliott had notified him of the Agency decision to award VF511, a highway rest stop in District 8, to Mr. Joe Garcia by administrative appointment because he has been adversely impacted by the loss of the Postal facility he formerly operated. Mr. Elliott agreed to make this a Type II LOFA in order that the Committee could discuss the issue.

Mr. Rigney asked how the Agency had lost the permit for the Postal facility in Tampa. Mr. Elliott responded that after consultation with Mr. Garcia the Agency submitted a proposal to the Postal authorities. The proposal was rejected and a contract has been signed with a private company. The Agency will monitor that company's compliance.

Mr. Fickett asked if Randolph-Sheppard priority had been violated and was told that Postal locations operate under permits and the conditions are different from other types of facilities.

Mr. Harper expressed concern that this action would create a precedent. Mr. Elliott stated that it would not.

Mr. Spiliotis stated his belief that using an administrative appointment to a high-volume Interstate is unfair to all vendors, that it may well represent a lifetime appointment.

Mr. Thompson agreed with Mr. Spiliotis and pointed out that when a facility he had managed closed he was informed that he had to apply for another like any other vendor. Several other members stated that the same had been true when they were displaced.

Mr. Angelicola made the point that administrative appointments made to remedy adverse impact are commonly to a like facility. A Postal cafeteria with vending is not comparable to a highway rest stop. There are comparable vacant facilities that have not been accepted after being announced. One of these would be appropriate.

Mr. Elliott stated that an appointment to #511 would not force Mr. Garcia to relocate to another part of the State. Several members objected to this as a reason for the appointment, saying that we all know that we may have to relocate; the Agency cannot make appointments based on what is convenient for us.

Ms. Malmberg suggested that displaced vendors be given 6-month Type II LOFA's.

Mr. Rigney stated his opinion that Mr. Garcia manipulated the permit negotiations with the goal of losing the facility.

Mr. Angelicola said the facility should be placed on a Type II LOFa and then advertised to all vendors. General agreement was expressed by Committee members.

Mr. Elliott's final decision is unknown.

Mr. Sampadian then announced Mr. Elliott's wish to remove VF533, a Laundromat in the Tallahassee FCI with estimated annual sales of $95,000, from the availabilities list. Mr. Elliott's reason is that he believes it is not a real job and that the revenues from this operation should go into unassigned vending. He believes the facility will produce almost 100% net profit because there is no cost of goods.

Mr. Spiliotis reminded the Committee that when the Interstate locations were being developed the Agency made a similar proposal that was rejected. He also provided information about the potentially high cost of repairs to the washers and dryers and also made the point that the Debitech machines are temperamental and require frequent attention. He suggested that it might be possible to assign part or all of these cost to the vendor.

Mr. Angelicola suggested the possibility of the Agency leasing the equipment to the vendor.

Mr. Elliott and Mr. Newcomb agreed that there are several options and that no one has the answers to these questions yet.

Ms. Alger moved to remove this facility from the current availabilities list, research our options and re-announce when we have better information. Ms. Malmberg seconded the motion.

The motion carried by roll call vote with 6 in favor and 4 opposed.

The Policy work group will work with Kathy Murphey and Tom Smith and report to the Committee.

Mr. Sampadian announced that Mary Hayes' term on the Selection Panel expired on November 1st and that the vacancy must be filled. He opened the floor for nominations.

Mr. Rigney nominated Jim Anderson. Mr. Harper seconded. Mr. Anderson accepted the nomination and stated his willingness to resign from the Committee if confirmed.

Ms. Malmberg nominated Mary Hayes. Mr. Harper seconded.

Mr. Angelicola nominated Bart VonWolfradtt. Mr. Bluschke seconded.

Mr. Thompson nominated Cathy Graham. Ms. Smart seconded.

Mr. Spiliotis was nominated but declined.

Nominations were closed and Mr. Sampadian announced that the vote would take place on Saturday. He asked the nominators to contact the persons and secure their acceptance if they are willing to serve.

Mr. Sampadian asked for the report from the Transfer and Promotion work group. He reminded the Committee that in order to vote on any proposed revisions at this meeting the Committee would need to invoke the emergency consideration clause under which proposals not on the agenda may be brought to the table. Motion was made and seconded and passed by unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Bluschke and Ms. Alger reported that three amendments to the selection process would be presented. These were: (1) a housekeeping section that would transfer the responsibility of scoring the test and computing the performance data elements from the Selection Panel members to the Compliance Director; (2) a modification of the interview structure; (3) a modification of the formula used to determine the threshold for entry to the interview.

Ms. Alger passed out copies of the first proposal to all members and asked Mr. Newcomb to act as the reader. When the proposal had been read Mr. Bluschke moved it be adopted. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.

Mr. Bluschke asked Ms. Alger to read the 2nd and 3rd proposals as they were handwritten. Ms. Alger did so, informing the Committee that these were drafts and that the wording might undergo some minor changes but that the meaning would remain unchanged. The text of all three amendments will appear as an addendum to these minutes;

Mr. Angelicola moved to accept the two amendments. Mr. Rigney seconded. Following discussion both amendments were approved for implementation in January by unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Sampadian adjourned the meeting at approximately 5 P.M.

Mr. Sampadian reconvened the meeting at 9:10 A.M. on Saturday, November 6th.

Ms. Alger called the roll.

Mr. Sampadian asked Mr. Rigney for a Purchasing Committee report.

Mr. Rigney reported as follows: until VISINITY's position is clarified his efforts are on hold because he has nothing to offer in negotiations with Coke or Pepsi. He needs to know if the Committee has any input as to which company gets the contract for unassigned vending. Pepsi would give us unified pricing if we could offer them the contract for all unassigned vending.

Mr. Sampadian announced that the vote to confirm a Selection Panel member would take place. He asked if the nominees had been contacted. Mr. Thompson reported that Cathy Graham declined the nomination. Ms. Malmberg reported that Mary Hayes accepted the nomination. Mr. Bluschke reported he had been unable to contact Bart Vonwolffradt.

Ms. Alger called the roll for each nominee. None of the three candidates received the 2/3 majority needed for confirmation.

Mr. Sampadian asked Mr. Elliott to present an update on the activities of Aramatic. The company is currently operating four facilities, two of which are on the current availabilities listing. Their contract will be up for renewal on June 30, 2005.

One of the locations now under Aramatic management is VF348, a small snack bar in the Regional Service Center in Ft. Myers. Mr. Elliott reported it will be announced vacant in January. Mr. Fickett recommended against this plan, stating that the building population will not sustain a food service operation. He believes it should be converted to full vending and attached to the vending route in district 11. Mr. Elliott will take the matter under consideration.

Ms. Alger reported that a situation in District 13 involving VF257, a small vending route currently on the availabilities list, had come to her attention. The current operator has been managing the facility for three years on a Type II LOFA and was unaware of that fact and was also unaware that the facility was going to be advertised vacant. She pointed out that this type of situation creates inequities both for the LOFA holder and any vendor who applies for the location. Discussion revealed that the facility had been advertised at least twice before being placed on a Type II and has not been advertised since. The Consultant's failure to convert the LOFa to a Type I has created a situation that should not have happened. Mr. Elliott agreed and has instructed the Consultant to convert the LOFA and pull the facility from the list.

Ms. Alger reported on another problem in District 13. This involves an operator who allegedly failed to submit any business reports for 22 months and whose LOFa was only recently cancelled. Mr. Newcomb informed the Committee that this was accurate and that the non-reporting was a secondary discovery when the LOFa was cancelled for other breaches of contract. The Committee made its usual plea for consistent enforcement of all contracts and asked how such prolonged non-reporting could go undiscovered. No cogent explanation was offered.

Mr. Elliott told the Committee that VISINITY is doing an excellent job and that unassigned vending revenue is up by about $17,000 for this fiscal quarter from the same period last year.

Mr. Sampadian then called for a second vote on the Selection Panel nominees. Mr. Harper had been forced to leave because of a family emergency so there were ten voting members present.

Ms. Alger called the roll and again no candidate received sufficient votes for confirmation.

Mr. Anderson presented an update on the archives database project. He has contacted several companies for cost estimates on converting the documents to a digital format and index them to specific categories for easy access. One of these has put in a bid of $10,000. Mr. Anderson observed that they may not realize how small this project is. The system will need to be set up for easy updates at no added cost. Mr. Newcomb asked him to find out if the system could be web based. A suggestion was made that perhaps the Agency might be able to fund this project, as it will be available to all vendors and staff persons. Mr. Elliott indicated that this might be feasible.

Mr. Fickett gave a report on plans for the 2005 Seminar. He plans to invite Governor Bush to be the keynote speaker. He has invited Ronnie Millsap to provide entertainment and will contact other celebrities as well. He would like to include a Safe Serve workshop with testing available. Ms. Alger has requested a Transfer & Promotion workshop. No decision has been made about having a food/trade show. Mr. Sampadian mentioned that the meeting rooms in the Orlando Convention Center are near the hotel and are much less expensive. He suggested contacting VSA and asking them to sponsor the event. He also suggested that we try to switch the contract to another of the Rosen hotels.

Mr. Sampadian announced that we would vote a third time for the Selection Panel nominees. Ms. Alger called the roll. Bart Vonwolffradt received the 7 votes required for confirmation. Mr. Elliott telephoned him and he accepted the position. He will serve a three-year term, effective immediately and expiring November 6th, 2007.

Mr. Thompson expressed concern that we are not focusing enough attention on vendor training and that our OJT program is not well managed. Mr. Sampadian removed Mr. Francis as Chair of the Training work group and appointed Mr. Thompson to the post.

Mr. Sampadian expressed reservations about our recommendation to pull the laundry facility from the availabilities list, saying that some who have applied may feel they have been adversely impacted.

Mr. Sampadian then stated his intent to research the means by which guests of the Committee should bring items to us for discussion. He believes that vendors should contact their Representative and have that person bring the issues to the table.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:30 P,M.

Respectfully submitted,

Gyorke Alger, vice-Chair/Secretary

Please see attached selection process documents.




SEPTEMBER 27, 2004


1. The Selection Panel will receive no personal identification data about applicants for facilities. This includes names, Social Security numbers, current facility number/location and any other information that could identify the applicant.

2. The oral exam with target bullets will be replaced by a standardized multiple choice written test. Each question will have only one correct answer. The test score will comprise 50% of each applicant's overall score.

3. Test questions and answers will be developed by persons agreed upon by the Division and the Committee from the following sources: FRA Safe Serve Manual; Crane National Snack Machine Manual; FAC Chapter 38K-1; BEP Policy Manual; BEP LOFA. Source references will be given for all questions and answers. Test questions will address the criteria listed in FAC Chapter 38K-1.

4. The test will be administered by a designated DBS staff person in the District Office where the vendor resides. The Compliance Director will transmit the required number of tests, to be kept sealed until administered, to each designated DBS staff person. BEP employees will not be permitted to administer the test. The test will be administered to all applicants on the same date and at the same time. The tests will be returned to the Compliance Director and kept sealed until the Selection Panel convenes.


5. When the Selection Panel convenes the sealed tests and other data to be scored will be delivered by the Compliance Director. All documents will be identified only by a letter or number designation assigned by the Compliance Director to each applicant.


5. The Compliance Director will score all tests using the answer sheet developed in conjunction with the test. The Compliance Director will also compute each applicant's performance element score and enter that score and the combined total of the test and performance element scores on each applicant's master score card. The Compliance Director will retain all score cards in a secure location until the interview score cards have been delivered by the Selection Panel.


6. The test and other documents will be independently scored by each member of the Panel on one master score card. Each component will be separately totaled. The component scores will then be totaled to produce each applicant's total score. When each applicant's score cards are marked they will be held by the Compliance Director until all applications have been evaluated.


6. Upon receipt of each Panelist's interview score cards, each of which is identified by the letter or number designated by the Compliance Director, two members of the Selection Panel and the Compliance Director will total and then average each applicant's interview score.

The combined total of test, performance element and interview scores will determine each applicant's ranking for the facility or facilities to which he or she has applied.

7. Until reliable verification processes for the evaluation of performance data are developed the Panel will consider only data that is currently verifiable. For the October selections these are limited to the following: timeliness of reporting; accounts receivable; number of months under LOFA in good standing beginning with January 1st, 1997; set aside fee payment. These items will be scored as follows:

Timeliness of reporting - Eight (8) points for no late reports. Two (2) points subtracted for each late report, no limit on subtractions dating from October 1st, 2002, when due date was changed to postmark date.

Accounts receivable - Eight (8) points for no monies owed. Four (4) points if monies owed and payment plan in place. Zero (0) points if monies owed and not paid as agreed.

Months under LOFA in good standing - 0.1 point (one tenth of one point) per month beginning January 1st, 1997; maximum of nine (9) points.

Set Aside Fee Payment - Any vendor who is required to pay set aside fee by money order or cashier's check will have two (2) points subtracted from the overall score.


8. As the test score and the performance data scores are quantifiable and not subject to interpretation, any discrepancies in scoring will be brought to the Panel by the Compliance Director for correction.


8. Applicants with less than six (6) months of performance data, as of the closing date for applications, will not be scored on performance elements, but will automatically be included in the final interview group.


9. For each facility, the top fifteen percentile of the top scores of the applicants shall be invited for an interview, for that facility


The high scoring five (5) applicants for each facility and anyone scoring in the top 10% of the highest score for that facility will be included in the interview for that facility, to be held in the Tampa DBS office, date and time to be established by the Selection Panel.


Each applicant will be asked the same five (5) questions and the responses will be scored independently by each Panel member with no consultations or discussions. Each question will have a value of five (5) points. The Panelists' scores will be averaged and the result added to the applicant's final score. (Please Note: Scores shall be determined by adding test score and performance data review results.)

The questions are to be open-ended and will focus on the areas of customer service and general business management principles. The intent is to allow the applicant to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of good business practices.

The text of the interview questions will be provided to each qualifying applicant prior to the interview.


10. The interview will be conducted as follows: Each qualifying applicant will be allowed up to 15 minutes to make a presentation to the Selection Panel. This will allow the applicant to demonstrate his or her skills and knowledge of business management, offer plans for improving performance of the facility being applied for, or any other information he or she believes is relevant and important. Selection Panel members may ask questions that are pertinent to statements made by the applicant.

11. Each Panelist will independently evaluate the applicant's presentation using a scale of 0 - 25 points. No discussion of the applicant's presentation will take place.

12 the Compliance Director will collect all score cards. To protect both the applicants and Panel members from scoring aberrations the high and low scores will be discarded. The remaining three (3) scores will be averaged and that score added to the applicant's total.

13.The Compliance Director will prepare an outline of suggested presentation topics to be provided to all applicants.

(Scriber's Note: Based on the above, an applicant's competitive rating shall be derived by adding the scores of the test (50 % designated as 50 points), performance data review (25% designated as 25 points) and interview composite rating (25% designated as 25 points).

Return to top of page

DISCLAIMER: Links on the Florida Division of Blind Services (DBS) website that are directed toward websites outside the DBS, provide additional information that may be useful or interesting and are being provided consistent with the intended purpose of the DBS website. DBS cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by non-DBS websites. Further, providing links to a non-DBS website does not constitute an endorsement by DBS, the Florida Department of Education or any of its employees, of the sponsors of the non-DBS website or of the information or products presented on the non-DBS website.