The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent, The School Board of Broward County, Florida’s (“SBBC” or “Respondent”), determination not to award a contract to Petitioner, Life Insurance Company of the Southwest, d/b/a National Life Group (“LSW” or “Petitioner”), is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary and capricious, and whether LSW should be awarded a contract under the request for proposals (“RFP”). Intervenor, AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company (“AXA” or “Intervenor”), has intervened in these proceedings to support its substantial interests in SBBC’s intended award to AXA under the RFP.Protester LSW failed to show Broward School Board's proposed contract award is contrary to governing statutes, policies, or specifications, or its actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary or capricious.

172 B.R. 122 (1994) In re Ruth M. NOLL, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 93-7545-8P1. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. August 24, 1994. David W. Steen, Tampa, FL, for debtor. Michael C. Markham, Clearwater, FL, for Republic Bank. Sara Kistler, Asst. U.S. Trustee, Tampa, FL. ORDER ON CONFIRMATION OF REPUBLIC BANK'S AMENDED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION ALEXANDER L. PASKAY, Chief Judge. THIS is a yet-to-be confirmed Chapter 11 case and the matter before this Court is the proposed Plan o..

Does Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (Positive), have standing to contest the intended award to Simply for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection of all proposals? (Case No. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Should the intended decision of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to contract with Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. (Simply), for Medicaid managed care plans for HIV/AIDS patients in Regions 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-Dade and Collier Counties) be invalidated and all proposals rejected? (Case Nos. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Must the Agency negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan (Community), about a plan to provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network (PSN)? (Case No. 18-3512) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3511) Must the Agency contract with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3513) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3514)AHCA did not follow ITN ranking process. Required to reject all responses. AHCA did not follow requirement to negotiate with responsive Provider Service Network offering specialty Medicaid managed care plans. AHCA must negotiate. Evaluators qualified.

Does Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (Positive), have standing to contest the intended award to Simply for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection of all proposals? (Case No. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Should the intended decision of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to contract with Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. (Simply), for Medicaid managed care plans for HIV/AIDS patients in Regions 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-Dade and Collier Counties) be invalidated and all proposals rejected? (Case Nos. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Must the Agency negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan (Community), about a plan to provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network (PSN)? (Case No. 18-3512) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3511) Must the Agency contract with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3513) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3514)AHCA did not follow ITN ranking process. Required to reject all responses. AHCA did not follow requirement to negotiate with responsive Provider Service Network offering specialty Medicaid managed care plans. AHCA must negotiate. Evaluators qualified.

Does Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (Positive), have standing to contest the intended award to Simply for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection of all proposals? (Case No. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Should the intended decision of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to contract with Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. (Simply), for Medicaid managed care plans for HIV/AIDS patients in Regions 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-Dade and Collier Counties) be invalidated and all proposals rejected? (Case Nos. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Must the Agency negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan (Community), about a plan to provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network (PSN)? (Case No. 18-3512) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3511) Must the Agency contract with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3513) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3514)AHCA did not follow ITN ranking process. Required to reject all responses. AHCA did not follow requirement to negotiate with responsive Provider Service Network offering specialty Medicaid managed care plans. AHCA must negotiate. Evaluators qualified.

Whether Respondent, Department of Transportation’s (“Department” or DOT”), notice of intent to award a contract to Intervenor, Archer Western De-Moya, Joint Venture (“AWD”), for a transportation project involving the design and reconstruction of federal and state roadways in Miami, Florida (“the Project”), is contrary to governing statutes, DOT’s rules, or the bid specifications; and, if so, whether the award is contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious.Petitioner did not prove the Department's intended award to the Intervenor for a design-build project pursuant to section 334.30, Florida Statutes, was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.

The issue is whether Petitioner took an in-service distribution from his Investment Plan retirement account, and if so, must either repay the distribution in full or terminate employment with all FRS-participating employers, including his current employer, Orange County (County), for at least six calendar months.By taking an in-service distribution of retirement funds, Petitioner was required to repay the distribution or terminate employment for six months.

The issue is whether Petitioner took an in-service distribution from his Investment Plan retirement account, and if so, must either repay the distribution in full or terminate employment with all FRS-participating employers, including his current employer, Orange County (County), for six calendar months.By taking an in-service distribution of retirement funds, Petitioner was required to repay the distribution or terminate employment for six months.

The issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation's (DOT) proposed award of a “design-build” contract to Prince Contracting, LLC (Prince), is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the specifications of the Request for Proposals (RFP).Award of contract is contrary to specifications and governing statute.

The issue is whether Petitioner, an elected circuit court judge, is entitled to renewed membership or is otherwise entitled to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS).A FRS rehire not reemployed by the state prior to July 1, 2010, and who had withdrawn all retirement contributions in 2008, was ineligible to reenroll in the FRS in 2013.