Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Eduardo S Lombard
Eduardo S Lombard
Visitors: 100
0
Bar #153590(FL)     License for 26 years; Member in Good Standing
Tallahassee FL

Are you Eduardo S Lombard? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

07-002469BID  GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 01, 2007
The issue is whether the Department of Corrections' decision to award a contract to Intervenor Securus Technologies, Inc., is lawful.Petitioners alleged that Intervenor Securus was not responsive to Respondent`s Invitation to Negotiate. Contrary to Petitioners` assertion, Securus was responsive.
08-002566BID  HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 23, 2008
The issue in this case is whether Respondent’s proposed contract award for the Medicaid Third Party Liability Program, AHCA ITN 0805, is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, Respondent’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.Respondent`s proposed contract award pursuant to an invitation to negotiate was not contrary to the Agency for Health Care Administration`s policies or rules or the invitation to negotiate.
07-004410BID  INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION OF AMERICA vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 24, 2007
The issue is whether the proposed award of Contract No. E1G23 to DeAngelo Brothers, Inc. d/b/a DBI Services Corporation (DBI) is contrary to the Department of Transportation’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications in the Request for Proposals (RFP).Petitioner failed to prove that proposed contract award was erroneous. Recommended dismissal of petition.
20-000742BID  PAYIT, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 12, 2020
Whether the decision of Respondent, the Florida Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), to award the contract contemplated in its Invitation to Negotiate No. 1819-01 ITN TR, e-Payment Collection and Processing Services, to Intervenor, NIC Services, LLC (“NIC”), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the solicitation specifications; if so, whether that decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious; and whether Petitioner, PayIt, LLC (“PayIt”), has standing to protest DFS’s decision.Petitioner had standing to seek re-bidding based on flaws in process, but failed to prove contract award was contrary to governing statutes, rules, or ITN specifications, or was arbitrary or capricious, contrary to competition, or clearly erroneous.

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