Whether Petitioners " . . . provide[d] direct services in a local fiscal agent's area (so that they may) . . . receive the same percentage of undesignated funds as a percentage of designated funds they receive . . . ", Section 110.181 (2)(e), Florida Statutes (2006), in relation to the 2006 Florida State Employees' Charitable Campaign (the 2006 Campaign).The remanded Recommended Order makes additional court required findings of fact, finding that certain (most) of the 21 Petitioners provided "direct" charitable services in United Way Fiscal Agent Areas and could claim disputed funds.

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Community Health Charities of Florida (CHC), is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs as a "prevailing small business party" pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2008), by being a prevailing small business party in the underlying case of Community Health Charities of Florida, et. al v. Florida Department of Management Services, DOAH Case No. 07-3547, Recommended Order February 29, 2008; Final Order May 29, 2008. Also, at issue is whether the Respondent Agency's actions, with regard to the underlying case, were substantially justified or whether special circumstances exist which would render an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust.Petitioner failed to prove it was a prevailing small business party for attorney fee claim. In the underlying case, the parties awarded benefits (Charities) who brought the attorney fee claim. Thus, it did not prevail in lower proceeding.

The issue is whether Respondent has a policy regarding the approval of on-line continuing education courses for bail bond agents, which are rules as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, and which have not been promulgated as required by Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.Petitioner did not prove that Respondent has policies to approve bail bond agent continuing education courses without a supervising instructor or a monitored examination.

This is a bid protest proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, in which the primary issue raised by the Petitioner (who is the second-ranked proposer) is that the subject contract should be awarded to the Petitioner because the first-ranked proposer submitted a non-responsive proposal. The Petitioner's alternative arguments challenge the manner in which the proposals were evaluated and assert, alternatively, that, if properly evaluated, the Petitioner would be the first-ranked proposer, or that the evaluation was so flawed as to require that all bids be rejected and that the agency embark upon a new request for proposals. The first-ranked proposer intervened to protect its substantial interests. The primary issues raised by the first- ranked proposer are that its own proposal is responsive, that any flaws in the evaluation process are insufficient in nature and number to warrant embarking on a new request for proposals, and that the second-ranked proposer lacks standing to challenge the proposed agency action because the proposal of the second-ranked proposer is asserted to be non-responsive. The third-ranked proposer intervened primarily in a defensive posture to protect its interests from any adverse consequences that might flow from the issues raised by the other two proposers, as well as to benefit from any windfall that might result from the challenges to the sufficiency of the other two proposals.The response to the Request for Proposal with proposal guarantee and cost proposal in other names was non-responsive and should be rejected.

The issues are whether Respondent had workers' compensation insurance coverage for the relevant time period as required by Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and if not, what penalty should be imposed.Respondent failed to provide its employees with workers` compensation insurance. Petitioner properly assessed a penalty in the amount of $423, 811.72.

The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race and gender.Petitioner did not prove that Respondent discriminated against her based on her race and gender.

Whether Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8)(a), Florida Statutes, by failing to disclose a gift with a value in excess of $100, which was received from a co-worker.Respondent successfully defended an allegation that he did not file a CE Form 9, Quarterly Gift Disclosure, by asserting that he did not believe that the gift was of a value in excess of $100.

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Department of Revenue (Department, DOR) acted clearly erroneously, contrary to competition, arbitrarily or capriciously when it evaluated the Petitioner's submittal in response to an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) for a child support enforcement automated management system-compliance enforcement (CAMS CE) in which it awarded the Petitioner a score of 140 points out of a possible 230 points and disqualified the Petitioner from further consideration in the invitation to negotiate process.Agency established that flexible standards for evaluation committee`s scoring of ITN proposals were appropriate in ITN initial sage of review, in complex computer system procurement, where evaluators were trained and sophisticated as to Agency`s needs.

The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the award of RFP-DOT-93/94-9025 instead of the Intervenor or, in the alternative, should all proposals be rejected.Agency fairly and consistently scored responses to Request For Proposal; Petitioner failed to establish agency acted arbitrarily or illegally.