Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Diane Lindstrom Beach
Diane Lindstrom Beach
Visitors: 31
0
Bar #10113(FL)     License for 19 years
Pompano Beach FL

Are you Diane Lindstrom Beach? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

06-001541BID  BARTON PROTECTIVE SERVICES, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 28, 2006
Whether the protest of Barton Protective Services, LLC (Barton) challenging the Department of Transportation's (Department's) announced intention to commence negotiations with Faneuil, Inc. (Faneuil), "the firm ranked number one by the Selection Committee," for the contract advertised in ITN-DOT- 05/06-8007-EH "to provide Revenue Collection Services by staffing Department operated toll facilities" on the Florida Turnpike, should be sustained.Petitioner protester failed to show that the ranking of vendors replying to an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) was contrary to statute, rule, policy or the ITN`s specifications.
05-003144BID  UNISYS CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES  (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 30, 2005
The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the intent to award a contract by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) or (Department) for programming and programming analysis support services for the Florida Online Recipient Integrated Data Access System (the Florida System) to Intervenor, Deloitte Consulting LLP (Deloitte), is in accordance with the governing statutes, rules, and policies applicable to the Department's procurement, and to the specifications in the Request for Proposals (RFP). It must also be determined whether the decision by DCF to disqualify the Petitioner, Unisys Corporation (Unisys), for allegedly being unresponsive to the specifications and terms of the RFP in a material way, is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner failed to show a proposal sufficiently responsive to the Request for Proposal specs to be deemed responsive. Therefore, Petitioner could not have standing to attack the responsiveness of the other two vendors whom Respondent found responsive.

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