Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Mallory Alyssa Neumann
Mallory Alyssa Neumann
Visitors: 51
0
Bar #1011064(FL)     License for 6 years; Member in Good Standing
Tallahassee FL

Are you Mallory Alyssa Neumann? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

19-000126BID  SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 07, 2019
Whether Respondent’s intended decision to award a contract to Intervenor, Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL), for telecommunication services pursuant to an “INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE FOR INMATE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FDC ITN-17-122” (the ITN), is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, its rules, or the ITN specifications; and, if so, whether it was contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner failed to prove Respondent acted contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, and did not demonstrate the ITN process was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest or fradulent.
20-005570BID  BLUE SKY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, D/B/A THE INTEGRITY GROUP vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 29, 2020
Whether Petitioner waived its right to protest the Supplemental Notice of Intent to Award issued by the Department on December 1, 2020.Recommended dismissal based on Petitioner's failure to demonstrate standing.
20-000742BID  PAYIT, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 12, 2020
Whether the decision of Respondent, the Florida Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), to award the contract contemplated in its Invitation to Negotiate No. 1819-01 ITN TR, e-Payment Collection and Processing Services, to Intervenor, NIC Services, LLC (“NIC”), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the solicitation specifications; if so, whether that decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious; and whether Petitioner, PayIt, LLC (“PayIt”), has standing to protest DFS’s decision.Petitioner had standing to seek re-bidding based on flaws in process, but failed to prove contract award was contrary to governing statutes, rules, or ITN specifications, or was arbitrary or capricious, contrary to competition, or clearly erroneous.
20-002660BID  GATEWAY RETAIL CENTER vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 11, 2020
Whether the Department of Children and Families’ (“the Department”) intent to award the contract associated with Invitation to Negotiate No. 590:3161 (“the ITN”) to Midtown Centre Office, LLC (“Midtown”) was arbitrary or capricious, irrational, or otherwise contrary to the law.1Gateway has not carried its burden of demonstrating that the Department's intended award to Midtown is arbitrary or capricious.

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