The issues in this preliminary hearing are whether the South Florida Water Management District (WMD) has jurisdiction and whether Petitioners have standing. In part, the issue of WMD's jurisdiction involves sub-issues as to Petitioners' timeliness in requesting an administrative hearing.Challenge to Water Management District was timely because filed within 21 days after actual notice; constructive notice ineffective. However, challenge dismissed because standing not proven. Alleged injuries either speculative or outside zone of interest.

The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making a preliminary decision to award a staff augmentation contract, Respondent acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, policy, or project specification; and, if so, whether such misstep(s) was/were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.Petitioner established that putative successful proposer had submitted materially non-responsive proposal, and that Respondent had incorrectly scored proposals in one respect. Recommended intended award be rescinded.

The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether proposed changes to a previously adopted Development of Regional Impact Development Order should be approved. The City Council for Boca Raton, Florida voted on July 24, 1990, not to approve two resolutions that would have amended a Development of Regional Impact Order approved by the City Council on January 12, 1988.1 On September 14, 1990, Petitioners submitted an Amended Notice of Appeal and Petition for Administrative Hearing. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer on November 21, 1990, and assigned to Hearing Officer Stuart Lerner on November 28, 1991. A formal hearing was scheduled for May 22, 1991. The matter was transferred to the undersigned on May 20, 1991. The parties waived a formal hearing and stipulated to substantially all of the evidence of record. The parties disagreed on the applicable burden of proof, and Respondent made evidentiary objections to three documents in the stipulated record. The parties agreed that issues regarding the burden of proof and evidentiary objections would be disposed of in this Recommended Order. The parties further agreed that rulings made in this Recommended Order regarding the burden of proof and evidentiary objections would not affect the quantity or quality of proof that would have been presented by either party if a formal hearing had been conducted. The stipulated record consists of 74 exhibits. The stipulated record was amended to include Exhibits 73 and 74 pursuant to the Order entered on July 2, 1991, granting the Joint Motion To Modify Order Of The 28th Day Of May, 1991, And Supplement The Record. /2 All exhibits were admitted in evidence pursuant to the stipulation of the parties except for Exhibits 70-72. /3 Ruling on the admissibility of Exhibits 70-72 was reserved for disposition in this Recommended Order. Since no formal hearing was conducted, there was no transcript. Proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law were timely filed by the parties on June 20, 1991. The parties' proposed findings of facts are addressed in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.Proposed changes to Knight Comm Centre in Boca Raton should be approved sub- ject to additional conditions even tho city council voted 3-2 against change