Leon FL Administrative law, Government contracts and Litigat -- eLawyers

18-001781BID HARRIS CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 05, 2018

The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent’s (Department of Management Services’), intended award of the Statewide Law Enforcement Radio Communications System to Intervenor, Motorola Solutions, Inc., was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.Petitioner had standing to initiate the bid protest. However, Petitioner failed to prove that the Department's intended award to Intervenor was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.

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.

17-005801RE NATURE'S WAY NURSERY OF MIAMI, INC. vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 19, 2017

The issues to be decided are (i) whether Emergency Rule 64ER17-7(1)(b)-(d) constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and (ii) whether Respondent's scoring methodology, which comprises several policies and procedures for determining the aggregate scores of the nurseries that applied for Dispensing Organization licenses in 2015, constitutes an unadopted rule.Rule 64ER17-7(1)(b)-(d) constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and the policies upon which Respondent based its scoring of nurseries in the 2015 dispensing-organization application cycle constitute an unadopted rule.

18-000720RU NATURE'S WAY NURSERY OF MIAMI, INC. vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 12, 2018

Rule 64ER17-7(1)(b)-(d) constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and the policies upon which Respondent based its scoring of nurseries in the 2015 dispensing-organization application cycle constitute an unadopted rule.

18-002838RP LOUIS DEL FAVERO ORCHIDS, INC. vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, OFFICE OF COMPASSIONATE USE (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 01, 2018

The issue in this case is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 64-4.002 (the “Proposed Rule”) is an invalid exercise of the legislative authority delegated to the Department of Health (the “Department”).Petitioner proved that the Proposed Rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

18-000721 NATURE'S WAY NURSERY OF MIAMI, INC. vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 12, 2018

The issue to be decided is whether Petitioner meets the "within-one-point" condition of eligibility for licensure as a medical marijuana treatment center under section 381.986(8)(a)2.a., Florida Statutes.Petitioner meets the "within-one-point" condition of eligibility for licensure as a medical marijuana treatment center.

17-000116 PLANTS OF RUSKIN, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 09, 2017

The issue to be decided is which of the Petitioners, based upon a systematic comparison of their relevant characteristics, is the most qualified, relative to the other, to receive a license to operate as a medical marijuana dispensing organization in Florida's southwest region.Based upon a comparative review, the Petitioners are, in fact, equally qualified to receive a dispensing organization license; both should be licensed, if possible, but if not, the Petitioner having the slightly higher score should be approved,

17-000117 TORNELLO LANDSCAPE CORP., D/B/A 3 BOYS FARM vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, OFFICE OF COMPASSIONATE USE, AND ALPHA FOLIAGE, INC. (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 09, 2017

The issue to be decided is which of the Petitioners, based upon a systematic comparison of their relevant characteristics, is the most qualified, relative to the other, to receive a license to operate as a medical marijuana dispensing organization in Florida's southwest region.Based upon a comparative review, the Petitioners are, in fact, equally qualified to receive a dispensing organization license; both should be licensed, if possible, but if not, the Petitioner having the slightly higher score should be approved,

16-004982BID PRINCE CONTRACTING, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 29, 2016

Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation ("Astaldi").Petitioner failed to prove that the various procedures implemented by the agency to internally manage its procurement process were unadopted rules.

16-001934 MCCRORY'S SUNNY HILL NURSERY, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 08, 2016

In 2015, pursuant to section 381.986, Florida Statutes (2014) (the Compassionate Use of Low-THC Cannabis Act), and implementing rules, McCrory’s was one of several applicants seeking approval to become the single dispensing organization (DO) of low-THC cannabis in the central Florida region. The Department evaluated the central region applications, which were assigned scores pursuant to the Department’s process set forth in its rules. The Department determined that another applicant, Knox Nursery, Inc. (Knox), achieved the highest aggregate score, and therefore, should be approved as the single DO for the central region. Other central region applicants, including McCrory’s, were notified that their applications were not approved because they did not achieve the highest aggregate score in the central region, and therefore, were not determined to be the best for that region. Several initially denied applicants, including McCrory’s, timely filed petitions for administrative hearings to contest the Department’s initial decisions to approve Knox’s application and deny their applications.Pet. cannot allege it rec'd highest score or that DOH determined Pet. did not meet a statutory requirement. Ch. 2016-123 s. 3(1) doesn't apply; claim that Pet. would have gotten highest score but for DOH clear errors can be pursued (and is) under s. 3(2).

Megan Schirman Reynolds