Whether the intended award of the lease to Rouse and Associates should be set aside due to the competitive advantages obtained by this bidder prior to the submission of sealed proposals. Whether the consensus decision making approach used by the committee caused an unfair result when the evaluation criteria was reviewed. Whether the responses to the request for bid proposals in RFP No. 045-91 were arbitrarily evaluated by the review committee charged with the responsibility to make the evaluation on behalf of the user agency. Whether the Petitioner, Peter Tsokos, was the lowest responsive bidder who should be granted the award. Whether the current Notice of Intended Award should be approved.Consensus decision approach by agency did not negatively impact bidders possible unfairness not established by protestant.

Whether the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' proposed contract awards for Zones One through Five pursuant to Request for Proposal 3646-89 should be approved by the Governor and Cabinet?DHSMV proposed award of contracts on request for proposals for vehicle emis- sion inspection stations was proper.

Challenge to specifications of Invitation To Bid for driver license photo- graph equipment dismissed. No competitive advantage proved.

This case arises out of a petition filed by Paul R. Layton challenging the validity of rule 23-21.09, Florida Administrative Code. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner narrowed his challenge to only that subsection of Rule 23-21.09 which contains the matrix time range for setting the presumptive parole release date. The specific provision challenged then is Rule 23 21.09(5), Florida Administrative Code. At the final hearing, the Petitioner called Mr. Jay Dee Farris as its only witness. The Petitioner offered and had admitted composite Exhibit 1A - 1P and Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The Respondent called as witness Cynthia Burt and Ray Howard. Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. Subsequent to the final hearing, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as being not supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.Matrix time range for parole release dates set in rule isn't arbitrary or capricious because it's reasonably related to statute implemented.

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William E. Williams, held a public hearing in this cause on December 7, 1983, at Union Correctional Institution, Raiford, Florida. APPEARANCES For Petitioner: Gary M. Piccirillo Authorized Representative Lake City Community Correctional Center Post Office Box 777The pet. chall. rule as inval. exerc. of deleg. legis. auth. RO: rule does not unlawfully extend stat. def. of ""new info"" as challenged. Dismiss.

The matters presented here concern rules challenges against the Rule 15C- 1.08, Florida Administrative Code, and certain other policies of the Respondent which the Petitioner claims to be rules within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(14), Florida Statutes. The initial challenge in this Petition deals with the aforementioned Rule 15C-1.08, Florida Administrative Code, and the Petitioner, by this attack, argues that the rules provision in question is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, due to an alleged impermissible expansion of the statutory scheme for the licensure of new motor vehicle dealers in the State of Florida as contemplated by Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, by this action, also takes issue with the alleged policy of the Respondent dealing with the acceptance of protests from previously licensed motor vehicle dealers selling motor vehicles of the same manufacturer as the proposed licensee, filed in opposition to the grant of a license to the proposed licensee which protests are filed prior to the time of application on the part of the proposed dealer. The Petitioner, in addition, challenges the alleged policy of the Respondent which would cause the Respondent to accept protests by existing dealers directed against the licensure of a proposed dealer, without reference to whether the protestant is located in the same "community or territory," based upon the fact that the existing dealership is located in a county adjacent to the county of the proposed dealership. Both of the described policies, according to the Petitioner, are invalid for reason that they fail to meet the requirements for rule adoption as set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and for reason that they are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, in that the policies are contrary to the enabling legislation found in Section 320.642, Florida Statutes.When potential dealer & manufacturer abandoned case, they had no standing to chall. rule granting authority for existing dealers to challenge licensure.

Petitioner failed to show employee evaluation was based on factors other than job performance. Recommended Order: affirm agency`s Final Order.

DHSMV is seeking to acquire electronic data processing equipment in order to fulfill its responsibilities to improve systems for issuing and maintaining records of drivers licenses, motor vehicle title certificates, and motor vehicle registrations. The primary purpose of the acquisition is to develop an "on-line system" for updating license, registration, and title information. The system will permit personnel at local tax collector offices to directly program data respecting renewals or changes into DHSMV data processing equipment.Deny Petitioner's appeal from R.espondent's denial of issuance of change order for computer equipment.

Rule about weight for troopers is invalid rulemaking which doesn't fall under Ch. 120; can't validly be enforced. RO: the 2 rules are invalid.

Petitioner did not convert property, but was negligent by not preparing reports or putting it in safe custody. Should suspend 16 hours without pay.