Does Petitioner have standing to bring this action? Was Intervenor responsive to RFP L9424-SS issued by Respondent? If Petitioner had standing and Respondent was unresponsive to the RFP should the Petitioner be awarded the contract or should the project be readvertised for proposals? Subordinate to those issues is whether Petitioner failed to complete a public entity crime certification statement and failed to disclose that members of its board of directors are employees of the State of Florida. Both of these matters are alleged mandatory requirements in the RFP. Further is raised the issue concerning Intervenor's alleged failure to meet the program goals set forth in the RFP and an alleged over-allowance for administrative costs in its proposal, thereby rendering Intervenor's proposal unresponsive to the RFP. There is raised the question concerning the manner in which the evaluators rated the proposals by Petitioner and Intervenor. In addition the question is presented whether Intervenor was untruthful when it stated that it had not been awarded a contract by the Respondent on a noncompetitive basis to develop a program similar to that which is called for in the RFP. The formal written notice of protest by Petitioner made allegations concerning Intervenor's failure to properly format its response to the RFP by failing to number the pages to the response and that Intervenor did not adequately address Section 4.5 to the RFP concerning staff qualifications. Those two issues were not presented at hearing. Finally, in its formal written protest the Petitioner asked that the trier of fact reevaluate and rescore the proposals by the Petitioner and Intervenor by using rating criteria set forth in the RFP. The Hearing Officer refused. That process is deemed to be contrary to law. See Procacci v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 603 So.2d 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).Petitioner failed to file a responsive bid. Therefore it could not challenge the intent to award the contract to other vendor.

This cause concerns whether the proposal of Petitioner, Winchester Properties, in response to a request for proposal (RFP) by the Department of Transportation (DOT) for lease of office space, is the lowest and best response, based upon the evaluation criteria and weighting enumerated in that RFP.Clarification from petitioner vendor was "nonmaterial because both vendors had equal opportunity to do so; some evaluation standards not in Request For Proposal more points should be given

Whether or not Petitioner is eligible for recertification as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) pursuant to Section 288.703(1) F.S. and Rule 13- 8.005(4)(c) F.A.C.Disadvantaged or minority business enterprise critereon not met where number of permanent, full-time employees exceeded 25 in rule; constitutional issue.