The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Correctional Privatization Commission (Commission) correctly evaluated, tabulated and ranked the scores of the proposals for designing, financing, acquiring, leasing, constructing and operating a 600-bed secure civil confinement and treatment facility for sexually violent predators. Embodied within this general issue are questions concerning: Whether the proposal submitted by the Petitioner, Liberty-Clark, L.L.C. (Petitioner Liberty-Clark) is materially responsive to the RFP; Whether the Commission's treatment of the alternate design costs of Liberty-Clark is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious; Whether the Commission's interpretation of the cost- scoring provisions of the RFP is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious; Whether the Commission's interpretation of the insurance requirements of the RFP is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious; and Whether the Commission's scoring of the implementation schedule of the intervenor, Atlantic Shores Healthcare Inc., (ASH) is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.Petitioner failed to show its score and evaluation was sufficiently erroneous as to entitle it to highest ranking in Request for Proposal response evaluation. Score should be higher, but Intervenor entitled to more score also to preserve agency`s ranking.

1. Whether three certificate of need applications omitting the assets page of the audited financial statements are incomplete and should be rejected by the agency.Omission of assets page of audited financials is not basis to reject three of six nursing home applications filed in same batching cycle.

At issue in this proceeding is whether the application of First Hospital Corporation of Florida (First Hospital) for a certificate of need to establish a 48-bed short-term adolescent psychiatric facility in Palm Beach County, Florida, should be approved.Financial feasibility not demonstrated where feasibility of nonreviewable part of facility that was to carry portion of operating expenses not shown

The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issued a Request For Proposals for a computer system for the Miami branch of the Department's Office of disability Determinations. Wang Laboratories was found by the Department's evaluation committee to have submitted the best proposal of the three received. IBM's proposal was ranked in second place by the committee. Subsequent to the receipt and evaluation of proposals, the Department withdrew the RFP," declared that an emergency existed, and proceeded on an expedited basis to purchase IBM equipment. The issue in this case is whether, during the course of these events, the Department acted according to the requirements of law.DHRS acted inappropriately in rejecting low bid and declaring emergency to allow purchase from higher bidder.

This hearing dealt with the consideration of the adequacy of the proposals by the Petitioner and Intervenor which were offered in response to the Respondent agency's RFP inquiry about a contract for the delivery of health services. Consideration of the dispute was as envisioned by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. Respondent had determined that the Petitioner's proposal was unresponsive, and the proposal of the Intervenor was found to be acceptable. Petitioner challenged this opinion, leading to an assessment through the hearing process of the responsiveness of the proposals submitted by the Petitioner and Intervenor.Petitioner's challenge to intervenor's proposal as unresponsive and to the determination by the agency that petitioner was unresponsive rejected.