998 So. 2d 619 (2009) T.M. v. STATE. No. 3D08-2291. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. January 14, 2009. Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.

Established that proposed development will unduly burden a regional transportation facility and petitioner failed to show that adverse impact can be mitigated

Where agency fails to advise bidders of weight criteria for evaluation proposed award is invalid and agency should rebid

Where evidence shows numerous faults with bid process and evaluation, process appears tainted and award based thereon is arbitrary and capricious

These proceedings arose following a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Respondent, Department of Administration (Department), hereby the Department sought to contract for health maintenance organization (HMO) services for employees of the State of Florida. Based on the responses to its RFP, the Department proposed to award a contract to Health Options, Inc., d/b/a Health Options of South Florida (Health Options) and Heritage Health Plan of South Florida, Inc., (Heritage) for HMO services for state employees residing in south Florida (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties). Petitioners, Humana Health Care Plan (Humana) and Gulfstream Health Plan (Gulfstream), protested the proposed award. The parties presented 32 joint exhibits, which were marked as Hearing Officer's exhibits 1-21, 23-29, and 34-37, and received into evidence. Humana presented the testimony of Lloyd Rhodes; Wesley Burbank, accepted as an expert in actuarial underwriting science and the development, operation and administration of employee medical plans with special emphasis on health maintenance organizations; and, Robert Dobson, accepted as an expert in actuarial underwriting science and the development, operation and administration of employee medical plans with special emphasis on health maintenance organizations. Humana's exhibits 1, 2, and 4-7 were received into evidence.Agency's failure to comply with law requiring that it state the relative importance of the criteria in its Request For Proposal departed from the essentials of law.

1. Whether the proposals submitted by Consultec and EDS met the mandatory requirements of the Request for Proposals, and, if not, whether the proposal submitted by GTE met the mandatory requirements; (2) Whether the evaluation of the proposals by HRS was infected with substantial, material irregularities which resulted in an arbitrary scoring and evaluation process; (3) Whether GTE has standing to contest the award of the contract to Consultec; and (4) Whether GTE has waived any of the issues it has raised due to its failure to timely challenge the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposals.Failure to supply separate financial statements considered only minor irregularity and petitioner failed to prove its substantial interests will be affected.

STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS ARTHUR LEE THOMAS, Petitioner, EEOC Case No. n/a FCHR Case No. 84-1974Petitioner's impairment does not substantially limit major life activity and is not a handicap. There was no discrimination based on handicap.