The basic issue in this case is whether the School Board of Broward County, Florida, acted in a fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal, or dishonest manner in determining to award the Group Vision Care contract under RFP 96-029S to Vision Care, Inc., d/b/a Vision Service Plan. The Petitioner described the following subsidiary issues in its unilateral Proposed Pretrial Stipulation: That the School Board's and the Insurance Committee's scoring of the cost, willing and able, and M/WBE sections of RFP No. 96-029S was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious, for reasons including, but not limited to, the fact that the scoring was conducted based upon VSP's proposed rate which is inadequate under Florida law governing prepaid limited health organizations. That Vision Service Plan's ("VSP") response to RFP No. 96-029S without making a rate filing with the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") and without DOI's approval of the proposed rate was illegal, fraudulent, and dishonest. RFP No. 96-029S is illegal insofar as it relies upon minority based classifications in violation of the Florida and United States Constitutions, and that the RFP is fraudulent and illegal insofar as it does not disclose that union or collective bargaining agent participants on the Insurance Committee could overrule the Insurance Committee's scoring and choice of a vision care provider by demanding impact bargaining.Evidence was insufficent to show that agency award of contract was arbitrary illegal, fraudulent or dishonest.

Whether the School Board of Broward County's award of a contract for Excess General and Auto Liability insurance coverage to United National Insurance Company is barred because of illegality?Authorized insurer required to be given precedence over surplus lines insurer by School Board that issued Request for Proposal (RFP) for General Liability/Auto Liability insurance coverage.

Petitioner, PCA Health Plans of Florida, Inc. ("PCA"), has challenged The Broward County School Board's proposed award of the group health plan HMO contract pursuant to Request for Proposals 96-030S. The ultimate issue presented is whether the School Board's proposed award is fraudulent, arbitrary, dishonest, or illegal. PCA framed the following subsidiary issues in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation ("JPS"): Whether committee members were arbitrary and capricious in rating HIP and Humana Respondent, proposals as the only proposed products that exceeded current benefits (Criterion #3). Whether committee members were arbitrary and capricious by scoring PCA's mental health benefit package lower than Humana's (Criterion #5). Whether committee members were arbitrary and capricious by scoring PCA significantly lower than competitors in the area of willing- ness to comply with requested services, where PCA's proposal was either identical to or exceeded the proposal of the successful bidders (Criteria #10 and #11). Whether some of the voting was the result of bias for or against a particular proposer so as to affect the integrity of the RFP process to the damage of PCA. Whether the Board's vote on August 15, 1995 to approve the contracts with HIP and Humana, while PCA's protest was outstanding and unresolved, violated the terms of the RFP, School Board rules and Florida law, and tainted and poisoned the Board's hearing of PCA's formal protest. Whether committee members acted arbitrarily and capriciously by scoring PCA significantly lower than competitors in the M/WBE category, where the Board's own study suggested that PCA was at or near the top in this category, and was certainly superior to the successful bidders. One committee member gave PCA a zero. Whether some of the scoring was illegal because some of the insurance committee members had alternates. Whether some of the scoring was illegal because at least one of the insurance committee member's scores was collaborative. In addition, PCA filed a memorandum of law requesting a finding of fact that the School Board's M/WBE policy is unconstitutional.Evidence in bid protest proceeding was insufficient to prove that agency action was illegal, dishonest, fraudulent or arbitrary.

This is a bid protest proceeding in which the primary issue is whether, in view of allegedly ambiguous language in the bid specifications, it would be arbitrary and capricious for the School Board to disqualify one of two tied bidders and award the contract to the other.It is arbitrary and capricious for agency to reject a bid on the basis of unwritten requirements not included in text of Invitation To Bid.

Whether Broward County School Board Project Number 2611-88-01 pertaining to construction at Bair Middle School should be awarded to James B. Pirtle Construction Co., Inc. (Pirtle). The resolution of this issue turns on whether Pirtle failed to comply with the minority business enterprise subcontractor participation goals contained in the bid specifications so as to make its bid non-responsive.Bidder made good faith efforts to comply with MBE participation goals and should not be disqualified.

The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended decision by the School Board of Broward County to reject Roma Construction, Inc.'s, bid proposal, as not being the lowest responsible bidder, for a construction project departed from the essential requirements of law.Petitioner's bid should be rejected as not being the lowest responsible bidder even though it was the lowest bidder.

The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the School Board of Broward County properly awarded Bid 92-143T for the procurement of propane gas for the school system for three years.Unsuccessful bidder whose bid did provide amount called for in solicitation cannot have award set aside if confusion not timely noted.

The issue is whether the protest filed by Tel-Star Systems, Inc., to the notice that the School Board of Broward County intended to award bid number 90- 579T for the purchase of a computerized fuel system, with trade-in, to E. J. Ward, Inc., should be upheld.Bids for fuel dispensing and in-tank monitoring rejected for latent ambiguity. Board intended bids to include both systems, not just compatibility

School board decision to reject all bids and relet contract sustained where specifications contained an ambiguity.

Deny petition for retirement as co-ordinator when the school board had abolished that position prior to Petitioner's retirement. Dismiss.