Whether Petitioner's protest, challenging Respondent's "identif[ication of] Associated Marine Institute[s], Inc. for potential award(s) [of] the contract" advertised in RFP No. K9018, should be sustained in whole or in part?The selection of a proposer for potential award of a contract was premature where cost proposals had not yet been evaluated.

The issues in this case are whether the Department of Transportation abused its discretion in deciding to replace an existing drawbridge with a fixed-span, high-level bridge and whether the Department of Transportation violated the statutory requirement of public hearings with effective public participation prior to selecting, siting, and designing the fixed-span, high-level bridge. Prior to referring this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, the Department of Transportation determined as a matter of law that Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the Florida Transportation Plan. The Department of Transportation therefore declined to refer to the Division Petitioners' challenge to the Florida Transportation Plan. For this reason, the recommended order does not address the issue whether the Florida Transportation Plan appropriately includes the proposed bridge or whether the Department of Transportation correctly determined that Petitioners lacked standing to raise this issue.DOT's decision to replace drawbridge with high-level fixed-span bridge was abuse of its planning discretion. DOT also failed to conduct design hearing

Whether the Department of Revenue has violated the requirements of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by failing to adopt the June 1998 edition of its Code of Conduct and the July 1995 edition of its Disciplinary Procedures and Standards as rules pursuant to the rulemaking procedures of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.Because the Department stipulated that its Code of Conduct Guidelines and Disciplinary Standards and Procedures were statements of general applicability implementing policy, documents are rules and violate Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

These cases result from separate petitions alleging the invalidity of certain Department of Transportation rules and policies, and challenging an administrative fine imposed after a terminal audit of H. B. Walker, Inc.'s (Walker) facility conducted by the Department of Transportation. This Recommended Order addresses only the latter petition and these issues: whether the violations alleged in a Safety Report and Field Receipt issued on August 1, 1995 occurred and, if so, what penalties are appropriate.Agency proved some, but not all of the alleged record-keeping violations- penalty of and 1200 recommended.

Whether Petitioners, Jonson and Hilliard, have standing to challenge portions of the proposed amendment to Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code.Petitioner`s intense interest in highway signs was insufficient for standing to challenge proposed rule.

In the absence of extenuating circumstances, late filed petition should be dismissed for failure to meet deadline.

The issues in this proceeding are whether Gilbert’s bid proposal was responsive to the Department of Transportation’s bid proposal, and whether the Department of Transportation (Department) erred in accepting the bid of Gilbert. State alleged that Gilbert failed to comply with the DBE bid information submittal requirements of Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.a., Florida Administrative Code, in filing the DBE forms for the project.Held that Department of Transportation (DOT) erred in accepting BID of bidder who claimed 100% credit for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation for work which the rules would only permit partial credit.

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern H. B. Walker's challenge to the validity of certain Department of Transportation (DOT) rules and certain DOT statements that H. B. Walker contends are un-promulgated rules. In its original petition and in a supplemental challenge filed on September 29, 1995 (styled "Supplement to H. B. Walker, Inc.'s Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss/For More Definite Statement"), H. B. Walker challenged existing rules 14A-1.004, 14A-1.007, 14-87.002 and 14-87.011(1), Florida Administrative Code. H. B. Walker also challenged these written and verbal statements as un-promulgated rules: Chapter 18 of the DOT Motor Carrier Compliance Operations Manual; Statements by Colonel Jack McPherson regarding the authority to impound a motor vehicle for nonpayment of penalties; and Statements by Captain E. A. Brown that a DOT Safety Report and Field Receipt is a lien document, effective immediately when issued at the conclusion of a terminal audit. More specifically, H. B. Walker contends that the DOT has no authority to require a motor carrier to pay a penalty, post a bond or surrender a vehicle to impoundment prior to hearing and final agency action when the motor carrier protests record-keeping violations alleged after a terminal audit by the agency. Rules, promulgated and un-promulgated, which provide that summary procedure, are invalid according to H. B. Walker's petition and supplemental filing. DOT contends that the issue is moot as the result of rule amendments and that the challenged statements are not rules, or they merely reflect provisions of existing rules.Written and unwritten statements that paraphrase rules are not rules. Challenged rules have been amended making the challenge moot.

The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Petitioners are entitled to relocation benefits as displaced persons or reestablishment benefits as a result of Departmental action, and if so, what benefits are appropriate and in what amount.Tenant in building of which a portion of parking lot was taken to widen road did not show need to move so as to justify payment of relocation benefits.

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether certain statements contained in written notices of delinquency issued to the Petitioners by the Respondent constituted agency statements of general applicability and in conformance with the definition of a rule, constitute violations of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, because the statements are not adopted as rules in conformance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.Petitioner could not show notation of delinquency met definition of rule; not a statement of general applicability; doesn't have independent effect of law because merely repeated exist statute and rule.