Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.010 enlarges, modifies or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, or is arbitrary or capricious, and thus constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Rule 64J-2.010, which determines the statewide need for new trauma centers, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.010 enlarges, modifies or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, or is arbitrary or capricious, and thus constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Rule 64J-2.010, which determines the statewide need for new trauma centers, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.010 enlarges, modifies or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, or is arbitrary or capricious, and thus constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Rule 64J-2.010, which determines the statewide need for new trauma centers, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

Whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 9992, filed by Sun City Hospital, Inc., d/b/a South Bay Hospital to establish a 112-bed replacement hospital in Riverview, Hillsborough County, Florida, satisfies, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for approval.The applicant for a replacement hospital did not prove that, on balance, it met the applicable statutory criteria for approval of its CON application.

Whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 9992, filed by Sun City Hospital, Inc., d/b/a South Bay Hospital to establish a 112-bed replacement hospital in Riverview, Hillsborough County, Florida, satisfies, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for approval.The applicant for a replacement hospital did not prove that, on balance, it met the applicable statutory criteria for approval of its CON application.

Whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 9992, filed by Sun City Hospital, Inc., d/b/a South Bay Hospital to establish a 112-bed replacement hospital in Riverview, Hillsborough County, Florida, satisfies, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for approval.The applicant for a replacement hospital did not prove that, on balance, it met the applicable statutory criteria for approval of its CON application.

The issue in this case is whether Respondent's intended award of a contract to Intervenor pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate No. 2011-18 is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, Respondent's rules and policies, and the specification of the solicitation.Vendor did not submit a responsive reply to invitiation to negotiate; therefore, vendor was not eligible to enter into negotiations.

The issue in this case is whether Respondent’s proposed contract award for the Medicaid Third Party Liability Program, AHCA ITN 0805, is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, Respondent’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.Respondent`s proposed contract award pursuant to an invitation to negotiate was not contrary to the Agency for Health Care Administration`s policies or rules or the invitation to negotiate.

The Petitioner, St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., d/b/a St. Joseph's Hospital (Petitioner, Applicant, or St. Joseph's) filed Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 9833 with the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency or AHCA). The application seeks authority to establish a 90-bed acute care satellite hospital in southeastern Hillsborough County, Florida. St. Joseph's intends to transfer 90 acute care beds from its existing location in Tampa to the new facility. The issue in this case is whether the Agency should approve the CON application.Petitioner`s satellite hospital will better serve the residents in the remote area of southeastern Hillsborough County so that emergency room access is enhanced and more readily available.

This is a bid protest proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, in which the primary issue raised by the Petitioner (who is the second-ranked proposer) is that the subject contract should be awarded to the Petitioner because the first-ranked proposer submitted a non-responsive proposal. The Petitioner's alternative arguments challenge the manner in which the proposals were evaluated and assert, alternatively, that, if properly evaluated, the Petitioner would be the first-ranked proposer, or that the evaluation was so flawed as to require that all bids be rejected and that the agency embark upon a new request for proposals. The first-ranked proposer intervened to protect its substantial interests. The primary issues raised by the first- ranked proposer are that its own proposal is responsive, that any flaws in the evaluation process are insufficient in nature and number to warrant embarking on a new request for proposals, and that the second-ranked proposer lacks standing to challenge the proposed agency action because the proposal of the second-ranked proposer is asserted to be non-responsive. The third-ranked proposer intervened primarily in a defensive posture to protect its interests from any adverse consequences that might flow from the issues raised by the other two proposers, as well as to benefit from any windfall that might result from the challenges to the sufficiency of the other two proposals.The response to the Request for Proposal with proposal guarantee and cost proposal in other names was non-responsive and should be rejected.