The issues in this case are whether the Fast Track Claims Process developed by the Bureau of Unclaimed Property is a statement within the meaning of a rule as defined by Section 120.52(15)(a)(1), Florida Statutes, and if so, whether rulemaking is feasible and practicable under Section 120.56(4)(b), Florida Statutes. If so, then whether the Department would be in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Unless otherwise stated, all references to Florida Statutes in this Final Order shall be to the 2006 version.Respondent`s statement used for processing claims is not an unpromulgated rule. The petition for relief is dismissed.
The issue is whether the Petition to Determine the Invalidity of Agency Statements should be dismissed.Collateral challenge to agency statements under s. 120.56(4) dismissed based upon United Wisconsin v. Department of Insurance because Petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the statements in the related s. 120.57(1) proceeding, Case No. 07-1218PL.
The issue is whether Smallwood Design Group/Smallwood Landscape, Inc. (Respondent), and its surety, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, owe funds to American Farms, LLC, (Petitioner) for the sale of agricultural products.Respondent owes payment for plants purchased from Petitioner.
Whether Respondent’s termination for alleged misconduct should be upheld based on the reasons stated in the termination letter dated July 25, 2005.The evidence did not show that Respondent committed or failed to report National Collegiate Athletic Association violations.
The issues in this proceeding are whether DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and whether Petitioner has standing under Chapter 120.The Division had no subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case, which challenged the Agency`s decision to terminate online access to its database. Petitioner did not show an injury in fact caused by the Agency`s decision to terminate online access.
The issues in this proceeding are whether DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and whether Petitioner has standing under Chapter 120.The Division had no subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case, which challenged the Agency`s decision to terminate online access to its database. Petitioner did not show an injury in fact caused by the Agency`s decision to terminate online access.
Various statements of the Department constitute rules-by-definition that have not been adopted under, and therefore violate, Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Whether Petitioner's and Intervenor's protest should be sustained?Evidence did not show department bias toward Petitioner in Request for Proposal process, and evidence did not show that adding a committee member after BID opening in order to comply with statute was material error.
Was the Department of Education's (Department) refusal to review and evaluate Nationwide Credit, Inc.'s (Nationwide) response to the Department's Request for Proposal, Collection Services for Defaulted Florida Guaranteed Student Loans and Delinquent Florida Teacher Scholarships Loans, No. 99-06 (RFP) contrary to governing statutes and rules, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious? Was the Department's failure to consider the reason for Nationwide's untimely delivery of its response to the RFP contrary to governing statutes and rules?Petitioner failed to establish facts to show that the Department of Education`s proposed action was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or proposal specifications.
The issue is whether the Department of Corrections' decision to select Intervenor as construction manager on Project No. VO- 04-CM was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, as alleged by Petitioner.Failure by challenger to file required items in Request for Proposal rendered its proposal non-responsive; all bids non-responsive.
