welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Kellie D. Scott
Kellie D. Scott
Kellie D. Scott
Visitors: 41
0
Bar #432600(FL)     License for 25 years; Member in Good Standing
Tallahassee FL

Are you Kellie D. Scott? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

09-005068EF  DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION vs POLO NORTH COUNTRY CLUB, INC.  (2009)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 17, 2009
The issues in this case are whether Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), should impose on Respondent, Polo North Country Club, Inc. (Polo North), an administrative penalty in the amount of $10,000, require Polo North to take corrective action, and require payment of DEP's investigative costs for allegedly violating rules relating to above-ground storage tank (AST) systems.Petitioner proved failure to maintain financial responsibility, do closure assessment, and label used oil tank. Final Order: $7,500 fine and corrective action.
13-004113BID  CARE ACCESS PSN, LLC vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 17, 2013
The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making the decision to award Intervenor Prestige Health Choice, LLC ("Prestige"), a contract to provide Medicaid managed medical assistance services as a provider service network in Region 11 (covering Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties), Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. (In this protest, Petitioner Care Access PSN, LLC ("Care Access"), challenges AHCA's intended award to Prestige in Region 11, and only that award. Care Access does not seek to upset any other intended awards in Region 11 or in any other Region.)The agency's intended contract award, being contrary to the statutes and project specifications, is clearly erroneous and should be rescinded.
05-002804BID  HEMOPHILIA HEALTH SERVICES, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 03, 2005
The issue in this case is whether the proposed award of contracts by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to Caremark, Inc. (Caremark), and Lynnfield Drugs, Inc., d/b/a Hemophilia of the Sunshine State (Lynnfield), pursuant to AHCA's Request For Proposal (RFP) 0507, was contrary to AHCA's governing statutes, AHCA's rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.Respondent`s award of contracts was not shown to be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Petitioner would not have been awarded a contract even in the absence of the errors that were proven.
05-000920BID  TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES OF BROWARD, INC. vs COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED  (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 09, 2005
Whether the Notice of Intent issued by the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (Respondent) to award a contract for Medicaid Non-Emergency Transportation Services (Medicaid NET Services) to Medicaid beneficiaries in Broward County to LogistiCare Solutions, LLC (Intervenor) is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules, or policies; Whether the bid or proposal specifications relating to the receipt and evaluation of the Responses to the Requests for Proposals RFP-DOT-04/05-9021-LG (RFP) was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious; Whether an evaluator was improperly biased or legally unqualified to render a fair and impartial evaluation; and Whether the provisions of the RFP, Federal law, Chapters 286 and 287, Florida Statutes (2004), or agency policy were violated by the proposed award to Respondent concerning the provision of Medicaid NET Services in Broward County.A member of the evaluation committee for the Request for Proposals for transportation services in Broward County had the appearance of a conflict of interest. The evaluation of the bids was improper and clearly erroneous. Recommend a re-bid.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer