Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Christopher Dale McGuire
Christopher Dale McGuire
Visitors: 59
0
Bar #622303(FL)     License for 38 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Christopher Dale McGuire? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

18-002027BID  FOUR6 SKYWAY, LLC, AND DDA DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND EAGLE RIDGE APARTMENTS, LLLP  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 18, 2018
The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017-113 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.Petitioner failed to prove that Florida Housing's intended award of funding was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications; or, that Florida Housing should have waived Petitioner's error as a "minor irregularity."
18-002966BID  MADISON OAKS, LLC AND AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 08, 2018
Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”), decision to award funding, pursuant to Request for Applications 2017-111 (“the RFA”), to HTG Sunset, LLC (“Sunset Lake”); HTG Creekside, LLC (“Oaks at Creekside”); and Harper’s Pointe, LP (“Harper’s Pointe”), is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the RFA specifications; and, if so, whether the decision is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioners proved that Respondent's intended award of proximity points to Intervenor was contrary to the specifications of the RFA, and was clearly erroneous.
18-002967BID  STERLING TERRACE, LTD AND STERLING TERRACE DEVELOPER, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 08, 2018
Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”), decision to award funding, pursuant to Request for Applications 2017-111 (“the RFA”), to HTG Sunset, LLC (“Sunset Lake”); HTG Creekside, LLC (“Oaks at Creekside”); and Harper’s Pointe, LP (“Harper’s Pointe”), is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the RFA specifications; and, if so, whether the decision is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioners proved that Respondent's intended award of proximity points to Intervenor was contrary to the specifications of the RFA, and was clearly erroneous.
18-001558BID  MADISON HIGHLANDS, LLC, AND AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 26, 2018
The issue is whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing) intended decision on January 29, 2016, to award low-income housing tax credits for an affordable housing development in Hillsborough County pursuant to Request for Applications 2015-107 (RFA-107) was contrary to Florida Housing’s rules, policies, or solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioners failed to prove that Florida Housing's intended award of tax credits violated section 120.57(3)(f).
17-003996BID  WARLEY PARK, LTD, WARLEY PARK DEVELOPER, LLC, AND STEP UP DEVELOPER, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 17, 2017
The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making the decision to award funding pursuant to Request for Applications 2017-103, Housing Credit and State Apartment Incentive Loan ("SAIL") Financing to Develop Housing in Medium and Large Counties for Homeless Households and Persons with a Disabling Condition (the "RFA"), Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("Florida Housing" or "Respondent"), acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The question of whether the application of Northside Commons Residential, LLC ("Northside"), met the requirements of the RFA with respect to demonstrating the availability of water and sewer services as of the Application Deadline is the only question at issue in this case. No other parts of its Application are being challenged, and the parties all agree that its Application was otherwise properly scored. No parties have raised objections to any parts of Warley Park's application, and all parties agree that its Application was properly scored.Petitioner demonstrated that FHFC's intended grant was contrary to solicitation specifications because Intervenor's water and sewer letter was not development-specific and failed to show availability as of the application deadline.
17-002499BID  JPM OUTLOOK ONE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 25, 2017
At issue in this proceeding is whether the actions of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2016-110, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Medium and Small Counties (the “RFA”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious. Specifically, the issue is whether Florida Housing acted contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications in finding that the applications of Petitioners JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership (“JPM Outlook”) and Grande Park Limited Partnership (“Grande Park”) were ineligible for funding.Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing's decision to disqualify their applications was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to competition, or contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or the terms of the RFA.
17-002500BID  GRANDE PARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 25, 2017
At issue in this proceeding is whether the actions of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2016-110, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Medium and Small Counties (the “RFA”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious. Specifically, the issue is whether Florida Housing acted contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications in finding that the applications of Petitioners JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership (“JPM Outlook”) and Grande Park Limited Partnership (“Grande Park”) were ineligible for funding.Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing's decision to disqualify their applications was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to competition, or contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or the terms of the RFA.
17-003273BID  BLUE BROADWAY, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 07, 2017
Whether the intended decision of Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Respondent/Florida Housing) to fund the application of West River Phase 2, LP (West River/Intervenor), based on the scoring of its application, is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or solicitation specifications.Petitioner proved that Respondent's scoring decision regarding Intervenor's application was erroneous, and that Intervenor's application is ineligible for funding. Funding should be awarded to Petitioner.
16-006610RU  AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, MADISON HIGHLANDS, LLC; AND PATRICK LAW vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 14, 2016
The issues are (1) whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-48.002(95) and 67-60.010(3) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; and (2) whether certain statements in Request for Application 2016-113 (RFA-113) issued by Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Florida Housing or agency), are unlawful unadopted rules in violation of section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016).Petitioners did not prove that two existing rules were invalid or that various statements were unadopted rules.
16-006611RU  JONATHAN L. WOLF, BERKSHIRE SQUARE, LTD; HAWTHORNE PARK, LTD; AND SOUTHWICK COMMONS, LTD vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 14, 2016
The issues are (1) whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-48.002(95) and 67-60.010(3) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; and (2) whether certain statements in Request for Application 2016-113 (RFA-113) issued by Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Florida Housing or agency), are unlawful unadopted rules in violation of section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016).Petitioners did not prove that two existing rules were invalid or that various statements were unadopted rules.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer