Does Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (Positive), have standing to contest the intended award to Simply for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection of all proposals? (Case No. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Should the intended decision of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to contract with Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. (Simply), for Medicaid managed care plans for HIV/AIDS patients in Regions 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-Dade and Collier Counties) be invalidated and all proposals rejected? (Case Nos. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Must the Agency negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan (Community), about a plan to provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network (PSN)? (Case No. 18-3512) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3511) Must the Agency contract with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3513) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3514)AHCA did not follow ITN ranking process. Required to reject all responses. AHCA did not follow requirement to negotiate with responsive Provider Service Network offering specialty Medicaid managed care plans. AHCA must negotiate. Evaluators qualified.

Whether the Department of Health's ("Department") intended award of the contract under Request for Proposals DOH16-028, Local Early Step ("LES") Program offices ("the RFP"), to Intervenor A.W. Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Benchmark Human Services ("Benchmark"), is contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules, policies or the specifications of the RFP, and is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.The Petitioner did not prove that the Department's intended award to the Intervenor of the Department's Local Early Step program was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.

The issues in this bid protest are whether Respondent's preliminary decision to award low-income housing tax credits to Intervenor should be implemented, notwithstanding the fact that, unbeknownst to Respondent during the evaluation and scoring of the competing applications, Intervenor's application contained a material misrepresentation about a transit service, which Intervenor urges is a minor irregularity that can be waived; and, if the preliminary decision is set aside, whether Respondent should award the credits to Petitioner, who is next in line, but whose application, Intervenor alleges, contains material deviations from the specifications that render it nonresponsive.Intended award of tax credits to Intervenor should not be implemented because Intervenor's application contained a material misrepresentation, without which its application would not have been selected; recommended that award go to Petitioner.

Is Respondent, Department of Corrections' (Department), Notice of Intent to Award DC RFP-13-031 for Statewide Inmate Telecommunication Services to Intervenor, Global Tel*Link Corporation (Global), contrary to the governing statutes, rules, or policies or to the Department's Request for Proposal solicitation specifications?RFP did not require labeled subsections. Agency arbitrarily ranked responses not marked by subsection s omitted. Allowing 2 bidders to exclude commissions from blended rate when RFP said they must be included was arbitrary and capricious.

Is Respondent, Department of Corrections' (Department), Notice of Intent to Award DC RFP-13-031 for Statewide Inmate Telecommunication Services to Intervenor, Global Tel*Link Corporation (Global), contrary to the governing statutes, rules, or policies or to the Department's Request for Proposal solicitation specifications?RFP did not require labeled subsections. Agency arbitrarily ranked responses not marked by subsection s omitted. Allowing 2 bidders to exclude commissions from blended rate when RFP said they must be included was arbitrary and capricious.

The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to award low-income housing tax credits in Miami-Dade County through Request for Applications 2013-003 to HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC, and Allapattah Trace Apartments, Ltd., is contrary to governing statutes, the corporation’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.Respondent's determination that Petitioner APC Four Forty Four was ineligible was clearly erroneous, but Petitioners failed to prove Respondent's intended allocation of tax credits was contrary to governing statutes, rules, or solicitation specifications.

The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to award low-income housing tax credits in Miami-Dade County through Request for Applications 2013-003 to HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC, and Allapattah Trace Apartments, Ltd., is contrary to governing statutes, the corporation’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.Respondent's determination that Petitioner APC Four Forty Four was ineligible was clearly erroneous, but Petitioners failed to prove Respondent's intended allocation of tax credits was contrary to governing statutes, rules, or solicitation specifications.

The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to award low-income housing tax credits in Miami-Dade County through Request for Applications 2013-003 to HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC, and Allapattah Trace Apartments, Ltd., is contrary to governing statutes, the corporation’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.Respondent's determination that Petitioner APC Four Forty Four was ineligible was clearly erroneous, but Petitioners failed to prove Respondent's intended allocation of tax credits was contrary to governing statutes, rules, or solicitation specifications.

The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to award low-income housing tax credits in Miami-Dade County through Request for Applications 2013-003 to HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC, and Allapattah Trace Apartments, Ltd., is contrary to governing statutes, the corporation’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.Respondent's determination that Petitioner APC Four Forty Four was ineligible was clearly erroneous, but Petitioners failed to prove Respondent's intended allocation of tax credits was contrary to governing statutes, rules, or solicitation specifications.

The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making the decision to award Intervenor Prestige Health Choice, LLC ("Prestige"), a contract to provide Medicaid managed medical assistance services as a provider service network in Region 11 (covering Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties), Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. (In this protest, Petitioner Care Access PSN, LLC ("Care Access"), challenges AHCA's intended award to Prestige in Region 11, and only that award. Care Access does not seek to upset any other intended awards in Region 11 or in any other Region.)The agency's intended contract award, being contrary to the statutes and project specifications, is clearly erroneous and should be rescinded.