The issue is whether the Department of Corrections (DOC) acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly when it decided to award the contract under Bid Number 94-CO-6355, for Inmate Pay Telephones and Long Distance Service (the Contract), to the number two-ranked bidder, North American Intelecom, Inc. (NAI).An agency's disregard of all advertised evaluation criteria and award of bid solely on basis of cost or lack thereof is totally arbitrary.

The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether certification of the corridor for the DeBary-Winter Springs 230 transmission line), including the construction required for the conversion of the Lake Emma Substation from 115 approved with conditions, or denied under the Transmission Line Siting Act, Sections 403.52 - 403.5365, Florida Statutes (1991).Application for certification of transmission line should by granted with conditions.

The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Reguest for Statement of Qualification for Petroleum Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. Attachment F to the solicitation sought information related to utilization of minority business enterprises as subcontractors. Points were available for said utilization. The Department awarded zero points to parties which failed to include the three pages of the attachment in the responses to the solicitation. The issue in this case is whether the Department acted in accordance with law in awarding zero points for failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F.Invitation To Bid requires submission of data, states noncompliance results in zero points. Enforcement of provision is appropriate, reasonable.

The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the corridor for the Seminole Plant-Keystone-JEA Firestone 230 kV Transmission Line proposed by the Applicants, Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Jacksonville Electric Authority, is proper for certification under the Transmission Line Siting Act, Sections 403.52-403.5365, Florida Statutes (1989 and Supp. 1990).The corridor adopted by applicants is proper for certification by the State sitting board.

This proceeding has been conducted pursuant to the Transmission Line Siting Act, Sections 403.52-403.536, Florida Statutes. Florida Power & Light Company seeks approval of a corridor in which it proposes to locate its Crane-Bridge- Plumosus 230 kV transmission line, and two other parties to this proceeding have proposed alternate corridors to a segment of the corridor proposed by Florida Power & Light Company. Accordingly, the issues for determination herein are as follows: Whether the corridor proposed by Florida Power & Light Company should be approved, in whole, or with appropriate modifications and conditions;Modifying proposed corridor by utilizing proposed alternate corridor and burial near residential areas meets statutory criteria for certification

The basic issue in this case is whether Rule 13A-1.001(1)(c) and (d), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Petitioner, MCI Telecommunications Corporation (hereinafter "MCI") filed a petition pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, contending that the rule is invalid. The Department of General Services (hereinafter "Department" or "DGS") contends that the rule is valid. The Intervenors, Microtel, Inc., and United States Transmission Services (hereinafter "Intervenors" or "Microtel" and "USTS", respectively), also contend that the rule is valid. The final hearing in this case was conducted at the same time as the final hearing in a related case in which MCI is contesting the award of certain contracts to other providers. At the final hearing, all parties offered evidence in support of their respective positions. By stipulation of the parties, several amendments to the petition were made at the hearing. The parties also stipulated to many of the facts alleged in the petition, as amended. The amendments to the petition were as follows: At paragraph 6 of the petition, the words "long distance telecommunications services" were deleted from the first sentence and the following words were added in place of the deleted words, "intermachine trunks, intrastate WATS, and interstate WATS." At paragraph 7 of the petition, the words, "awarded a contract for the telecommunications services" were deleted and the following words were added in place of the deleted words: "issued a CSA for intermachine trunks, intrastate WATS, or interstate WATS." At paragraph 16(b) of the petition, the words "Pursuant to that authority," were deleted and nothing was added in their place. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties decided to order a transcript of the hearing, which transcript was filed with the Hearing Officer on January 4, 1988. The parties also agreed to a deadline for the filing of proposed final orders of January 14, 1988. All parties filed timely proposed orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Those proposed orders have been carefully considered in the preparation of this final order and specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by all parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this final order.Petitioner lacked standing to challenge rule 13A-1.001(1)(c). Rule 13A-1.001(1)(d) is invalid

This is a proceeding brought by MCI Telecommunications Corporation (hereinafter "MCI") disputing the negotiation process, and contract awards made, by the Department of General Services (hereinafter "DGS") in the procurement of intermachine trunks (IMTs), intrastate WATS, and interstate WATS for the State of Florida. The disputed legal issues are described as follows by the parties in their Prehearing Stipulation: Whether IMTs are a commodity or a contractual service Whether intrastate WATS and interstate WATS are commodities or contractual services. Whether the negotiations for IMTs, intrastate WATS and interstate WATS were authorized by law. Whether IMTs, intrastate WATS and interstate WATS must be procured following the procedures set forth in Chapter 13C-2, Florida Administrative Code. If the negotiations were authorized by law, whether the methodology used to conduct those negotiations and determine which carriers should be awarded contracts was arbitrary and capricious. Whether the MCI protest was filed in a timely manner pursuant to the requirements of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and if not, whether this failure constitutes a waiver by MCI of any further proceedings under Chapter 120. Whether MCI, having fully and without protest or complaint, participated in the evaluation and negotiation process, and, having rejected an offered contract, can now protest the process and award, or is estopped from such a protest or is guilty of laches. Whether MCI, having fully and without protest or complaint, participated in the evaluation and negotiation process, and, having rejected an offered contract, now has standing to object to the process and the award. The two companies to whom contracts were awarded intervened in the proceeding. The Intervenors are Microtel, Inc., and United State Transmission Services (hereinafter "Microtel" and "USTS"). The final hearing in this case was conducted at the same time as the final hearing in a related case in which MCI is challenging the validity of Rule 13A- 1.001(1)(c) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. At the final hearing, all parties offered evidence in support of their respective positions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties decided to order a transcript of the hearing, which transcript was filed with the Hearing Officer on January 4, 1988. The parties also agreed to a deadline for the filing of proposed recommended orders of January 14, 1988. All parties filed timely proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Those proposed orders have been carefully considered in the preparation of this recommended order and specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by all parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.Agency negotiations for long distance telecommunications were reasonable and fair, even though somewhat unusual

Petitioner's bid more responsive than protestant's because provided more price information Protestant's bid omitted material price information and thus unfair competent advantage

The issues in this cause are related to the question of whether Admiral Corporation (Admiral) should be granted a construction and operation permit for a management and storage of surface waters system for the Hammock Dunes, Phase I, development. The agency with permit review responsibility is the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). This hearing is occasioned by the challenge by Petitioners to the notice of intent to grant the subject permit.Recommend grant of a permit for management and storage of surface water.

Applicant's certification to construct and maintain transmission of a transmission line and primary corridor is approved because they meet statutory criteria