welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Douglas Dell Dolan
Douglas Dell Dolan
Douglas Dell Dolan
Visitors: 43
0
Bar #11121(FL)     License for 19 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Douglas Dell Dolan? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 1.01, 110.117, 119.07, 120.52, 120.53, 120.54, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.68, 129.03, 20.23, 213.30, 22.06, 259.07, 285.11, 287.055, 320.822, 334.044, 334.048, 334.187, 335.182, 335.1825, 335.184, 335.187, 337.015, 337.11, 337.14, 337.16, 337.164, 337.168, 337.401, 369.20, 440.01, 440.02, 440.05, 440.10, 440.105, 440.107, 440.12, 440.13, 440.16, 440.38, 447.13, 458.331, 460.403, 468.520, 489.101, 489.103, 489.105, 489.107, 489.111, 57.105, 57.111, 604.60, 618.15, 626.611, 626.621, 626.9541, 648.442, 648.45, 648.57, 648.571, 90.953

Florida Administrative Code: 14-96.011, 14-96.015, 28-106.109, 28-106.203, 28-106.211, 28-106.217, 69L-6.019, 69L-6.021, 69L-6.025, 69L-6.027, 69L-6.028, 69L-6.030, 69L-6.031, 69L-6.035

06-002509  DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs EARL MARSHALL AND JUSTIN MARSHALL, D/B/A MARSHALL AND SON PAINTING COMPANY  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 17, 2006
Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Stop Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and if so, what penalty should be imposed?Respondent did not secure workers` compensation coverage as required by Florida law, and Petitioner correctly issued a Stop Work Order and assessed a penalty of $45,649.40.
18-000279F  MICHAEL BOXBERGER AND KELLI BOXBERGER, D/B/A "THE FUNKY FIDDLER" vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 16, 2018
The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ Petitioners are entitled to such an award if: Petitioners were the prevailing parties in a previous administrative proceeding initiated by the Department of Transportation (“the Department”); (b) the Department’s actions were not substantially justified; and (c) no special circumstances exist that would make an award of fees and costs unjust.Petitioners failed to satisfy the requirements for an award of fees and cost pursuant to section 57.111.
18-000280F  COASTAL RESTAURANT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 16, 2018
The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ Petitioners are entitled to such an award if: Petitioners were the prevailing parties in a previous administrative proceeding initiated by the Department of Transportation (“the Department”); (b) the Department’s actions were not substantially justified; and (c) no special circumstances exist that would make an award of fees and costs unjust.Petitioners failed to satisfy the requirements for an award of fees and cost pursuant to section 57.111.
18-000281F  CRUM'S SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 16, 2018
The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ Petitioners are entitled to such an award if: Petitioners were the prevailing parties in a previous administrative proceeding initiated by the Department of Transportation (“the Department”); (b) the Department’s actions were not substantially justified; and (c) no special circumstances exist that would make an award of fees and costs unjust.Petitioners failed to satisfy the requirements for an award of fees and cost pursuant to section 57.111.
18-004208BID  PTV AMERICA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 10, 2018
Whether the Florida Department of Transportation’s (“Respondent” or “Department”) intended award of a contract for integrated corridor management modeling software to Aimsun, Inc. (“Intervenor” or “Aimsun”), is contrary to the Department’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether the decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner did not prove that the Department's intended award of the contract for software to the Intervenor was contrary to competition, contrary to the RFP specifications, or arbitrary.
17-003184BID  E.R. REEVES CORP., D/B/A ALL SEASONS AIR CONDITIONING vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 31, 2017
Whether Respondent, Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”), notice of intent to award a contract to Intervenor, Blue Ray’z Heating and Air Conditioning, LLC (“Blue”), for maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) equipment and components located at various facilities along Florida’s Turnpike System, is contrary to DOT’s governing statutes, rules, or the bid specifications, and contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious.Bid was nonresponsive, material, and contrary to competition where it failed to demonstrate experience requirement of ITB. DOT's failure to consider experience requirement was arbitrary and capricious.
18-000384BID  CALIPER SYSTEMS, INC., D/B/A CALIPER CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 22, 2018
The issue is whether, due to the nonresponsiveness or misscoring of Intervenor's proposal, Respondent's intent to award a contract to Intervenor based on its proposal submitted in response to a request for proposals known as Florida Travel Demand Modeling Software and License (RFP) is contrary to the governing statutes, rules or policies, or the RFP specifications, as provided by section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes.Proposal for travel demand software nonresponsive to requirements of conversion of existing travel demand software and affordable access to consultants and free access to universities in their teaching capacity.
17-003663BID  VE GROUP, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 23, 2017
Whether the Department of Transportation’s (“the Department”) decision to exclude VE Group, LLC (“VE Group”), from a shortlist of businesses seeking to provide value engineering professional services to the Department was contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that its exclusion from a shortlist was contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious.
17-000589BID  NATIONAL WATER MAIN CLEANING CO vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 24, 2017
Whether Respondent’s intended action to award Contract No. E3Q37 to VacVision Environmental, LLC, for “Milton Operations Routine Maintenance,” is contrary to Respondent’s solicitation specifications.Petitioner failed to prove that the Department of Transportation's intended award to Intervenor was contrary to the bid specifications, which required either an electronic or original paper bid bond.
16-004982BID  PRINCE CONTRACTING, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 29, 2016
Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation ("Astaldi").Petitioner failed to prove that the various procedures implemented by the agency to internally manage its procurement process 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