The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.Clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed a record-keeping violation and made deceptive or untrue representations in or related to the practice of medicine. Recommend letter of concern, $5,000 fine, and continuing education.

The issues in these cases are whether Respondent’s proposed contract award pursuant to a Request for Proposals for Medicaid Non-Emergency Medical Transportation in Palm Beach County, Florida, and whether Respondent’s proposed contract award pursuant to a Request for Proposals for Medicaid Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Services in Duval County, Florida, are contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, Respondent’s rules or policies, or the request for proposals.Proposals of Intervenor were not evaluated in accordance with the RFP.

The issues in these cases are whether Respondent’s proposed contract award pursuant to a Request for Proposals for Medicaid Non-Emergency Medical Transportation in Palm Beach County, Florida, and whether Respondent’s proposed contract award pursuant to a Request for Proposals for Medicaid Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Services in Duval County, Florida, are contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, Respondent’s rules or policies, or the request for proposals.Proposals of Intervenor were not evaluated in accordance with the RFP.

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.

Whether Petitioner's substantial interests are at issue in this proceeding; whether Respondent's decision to award a contract to Intervenor was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, illegal, dishonest, or contrary to competition; whether Petitioner brought this protest for an improper purpose; whether Intervenor should be awarded its attorney's fees for Petitioner's violation of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2005).Petitioner failed to prove bias or failure to follow mandatory requirements by the evaluators; the evaluation was not arbitrary; the bids are responsive. Recommend that the bid challenge be dismissed. Attorney`s fees are denied.

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.

Whether Petitioner is owed $545,124.00 after Respondent required Petitioner to return that amount originally paid under two separate contracts.The case represents an agreed "do over" on a post-payment contract/sub-contract audit. Numerous filing periods were discussed. Accord and satisfaction were found.

There are two issues in these cases: (1) whether Tampa Bay Desal, LLC ("TBD") provided reasonable assurances that its permit application to discharge wastewater from a proposed seawater desalination plant, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit Application No. FL0186813- 001-IWIS, meets all applicable state permitting standards for industrial wastewater facilities; and (2) whether Tampa Electric Company, Inc. (TEC) provided reasonable assurances that its proposed modification to an existing industrial wastewater facility permit, NPDES Permit Modification No. FL0000817-003-IWIS, meets all applicable state permitting standards.Application for industrial wastewater permit for desalination plant using power plant`s once-through cooling water provided reasonable assurance of compliance with permit requirements.

There are two issues in these cases: (1) whether Tampa Bay Desal, LLC ("TBD") provided reasonable assurances that its permit application to discharge wastewater from a proposed seawater desalination plant, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit Application No. FL0186813- 001-IWIS, meets all applicable state permitting standards for industrial wastewater facilities; and (2) whether Tampa Electric Company, Inc. (TEC) provided reasonable assurances that its proposed modification to an existing industrial wastewater facility permit, NPDES Permit Modification No. FL0000817-003-IWIS, meets all applicable state permitting standards.Application for industrial wastewater permit for desalination plant using power plant`s once-through cooling water provided reasonable assurance of compliance with permit requirements.

Whether the Respondents' decision to rank the Intervenor, Turner Construction Company (Turner) first for purposes of entering into contract negotiations was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition as alleged by the Petitioner, PCL/Centex Rooney, a joint venture comprised of PCL Civil Contractors, Inc. and Centex Rooney Construction Company, Inc. (PCL/Centex or Petitioner).Protest cannot challenge provisions of a Request for Statement of Qualifications not timely attached as an issue with the specifications.