Leon FL Lawyers | Brian Francis McGrail -- eLawyers

98-003594BID NIPPON CARBIDE INDUSTRIES (USA), INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1998)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 07, 1998

The issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation (DOT) acted correctly in deeming the bid of Nippon Carbide Industries (NCI) to be nonresponsive.Petitioner cannot supplement its BID with regard to a material matter. The BID protest should be dismissed.

98-002186 HUGH ALLEN ODEN vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1998)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 12, 1998

The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner has standing to bring this action; and if so, (2) whether Respondent properly denied his application for a driveway/connection permit.Petitioner has no standing to challenge the denial of his driveway/connection permit because he has no ownership interest in the subject properly.

98-004062BID SANTA FE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1998)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 14, 1998

Whether the Respondent's decision to reject the Petitioner's bid proposal for Contract No. E4A83, Financial Project No. 231494-1-52-01, State Project No. 99904-3404, is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Lowest bidder proved by preponderance of evidence that Department of Transportation`s (DOT) decision to award contract to second lowest bidder was arbitrary and capricious. Bid protest should be sustained and contract awarded to lowest bidder.

98-003944BID WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1998)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 09, 1998

The issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation (DOT) acted correctly in deeming the bid of Petitioner White Construction Co., Inc. (White), to be nonresponsive for failure to meet the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for Project No. 220517-1-52-01 (the project) and whether the proposed award to Intervenor Mitchell Brothers, Inc. (Mitchell) is in accordance with governing rules and statutes or is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.BIDresponse did not list qualified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and must be deemed non-responsive.

97-004952 SHELL OIL COMPANY vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1997)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 21, 1997

In the absence of extenuating circumstances, late filed petition should be dismissed for failure to meet deadline.

95-004411 ROBERT SWIGER vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 01, 1995

The issues are whether the Respondent Department of Revenue, properly determined that Petitioner Robert Swiger's candidacy for property appraiser in Lake County, Florida would be a conflict of interest or an activity which would interfere with his state employment as an Appraiser II in the Property Tax Administration Program, and if so, whether he became a candidate in violation of Section 110.233(4)(a), Florida Statutes, when he filed a form appointing a campaign treasurer and designating a depository.Petitioner properly terminated because there was a conflict of interest and he became a candidate without proper authorization.

96-001973 FLOYD L. HYLTON vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (1996)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 26, 1996

The dispositive issues are: (1) whether this case should be dismissed because Petitioner Floyd L. Hylton did not qualify as a candidate for elective office on July 19, 1996 thereby rendering this matter moot; and, if not (2) whether Petitioner's proposed candidacy for Clay County Tax Collector involves a conflict of interest or an activity that interferes with his state employment.Petitioners request to run for the office of Clay County Tax Collector is moot because he didn't seek that office after being given the opportunity to do so.

96-001123F DOUGLAS REYMORE vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (1996)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 04, 1996

The issues presented are whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of (1) the reasonable attorney's fees and costs he incurred in DOAH Case No. 95-3137BID pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act and (2) his attorney's fees and costs incurred in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(c) [formerly 120.57(1)(b)5], Florida Statutes.Successful bid protestor entitled to fees for that proceeding and additional fees due to Department filing pleadings for improper purposes herein.

96-002275 TOMMY C. CHASTAIN, III vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (1996)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 10, 1996

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent, the Department of Revenue, should allow the Petitioner, Tommy C. Chastain, III, to remain an employee of the Department, as Property Appraiser II, if the Petitioner embarks upon a candidacy for the office of Property Appraiser for Bradford County, Florida. Essentially, it must be determined whether there would be a conflict of interest between his duties as an appraiser in the ad valorem tax administration program of the Department and his candidacy for the office of County Property Appraiser.Pet. failed to show no conflict of interest between his job as State Ad. ValoremTax Appraisor and office he sought election for; Company Property Appraiser; must resign.

95-003029BID MORALL AND CAREY vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 1995

The issues for determination are whether it was an arbitrary, fraudulent, dishonest or illegal exercise of agency discretion for Respondent to either: reject the proposal submitted by Petitioner, Morall & Carey ("Morall"), as unresponsive to the Solicitation for Proposals ("SFP"); or award the contracts for legal services for child support enforcement in Osceola and Seminole counties to Intervenor, rather than Petitioner, Sweeting & Halbert, P.A. ("Sweeting").Contract award was not arbitrary even though evaluation of proposals applied criteria not prescribed in Solicitation for Proposals and made mistakes in scoring.

Brian Francis McGrail