Miami-Dade FL Lawyers | Robert Lane Powell, Jr. -- eLawyers

94-002916 MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1994)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 25, 1994

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (Petitioner or MCI), is entitled to recover its original claim in the amount of $38,138.17 and its addendum to its claim in the amount of $61,590.15 "for Owner caused delays, increased equipment costs, and noncooperation from and hindrance by the Owner". Additional issues concern whether the original and the addendum to the claim were filed timely and whether the claims were submitted for improper or frivolous purposes as proscribed by Section 120.57(1)(b)5., Florida Statutes, such that the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Respondent or Department), is entitled to attorney's fees and costs related to this proceeding.Contractor did not prove owner delay as basis for claim. The claim was untimely. Attorney Fee motion denied. Contractor claim not frivolus, etc.

92-006824BID UNEQ, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1992)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 12, 1992

The issues concern the question of the responsiveness of Intervenor's bid to the invitation to bid (ITB) 92-66BC. If the Intervenor is not responsive, then Petitioner asserts that it should be awarded the contract as the second ranked bidder. In particular Petitioner alleges that there are certain irregularities in the response by the Intervenor and that they constitute material deviations from the bid requirements. They are in turn: Whether Intervenor failed to submit its price on the second addendum bid sheet as required or to acknowledge that its bid was being submitted in accordance with Addendum No. 2. Whether Intervenor failed to include its references with its bid response. Whether Intervenor failed to fill in the space on the bid form calling for cash discount terms. Whether Intervenor failed to fill in the space on the bid form calling for delivery days. Whether Intervenor failed to initial changes or corrections to its price quotation.Apparent low bidder was responsive notwithstanding failure to put price quotes on last addendum, initial changes, provide referrences with response.

91-006750RU LINDA COOK ALLEN vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 23, 1991

Whether HRS "regulation" 60-10 s.5(a)(2) or any portion thereof amounts to an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that it comprises a "de facto" rule never formally promulgated?HRS "regulation" which is applicable only within HRS and is not "self- executing," does not constitute an Administrative Procedures Act "rule."

90-007044 RUBY A. BUSH vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1990)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 06, 1990

Whether respondent recovered too much money when it docked petitioner for leave without pay she took between January 5, 1989 and November 11, 1990?Recovery of salary overpayment outside career service commission jurisdiction. Employee did not prove that agency withheld too much as salary set-off.

90-007201BID LANIER VOICE RECORDING vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1990)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 16, 1990

Opinion of Petitioner`s expert that successful bid is technically non- responsive insufficient to invalidate intended bid award.

89-005624BID MOORE BUSINESS FORMS vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1989)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 16, 1989

This cause concerns the issue of whether the response of Moore Business Forms, the Petitioner, to an invitation to bid for "self-mailer packages" issued by the Respondent agency was the lowest, best, most responsive bid response and whether the Item 30.700 in the Invitation To Bid actually called for a sample of the bider's proposed "self-mailer package."Petitioner must attack specs by 72 hours agency reasonable in interpret spec to require submission of product sample failure to do so renders bid materially unresponsive

88-001327BID LAKEVIEW 435 ASSOCIATES, LTD. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1988)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Apr. 02, 1988

Petitioner's reliance on bid interpretations, given by sources other than that cited in the inviation to bid, are not sufficient to base estoppel.

86-000136 HEALTH QUEST CORPORATION (SEMINOLE COUNTY) vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1986)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Mar. 15, 1988

Need methodology properly applied. Shows need for 54 beds. Application for 60 or 120 beds denied as contrary to local health plan.

86-000058 FLORIDA HEALTH FACILITIES CORPORATION (OF POLK COUNTY), D/B/A IMPERIAL VILLAGE CARE CENTER vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1986)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Apr. 13, 1987

The broad issue for resolution is whether FHFC's application meets the criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) F.S. and Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. FHFC contends that its application meets all the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c) F.S., and when (1)(k) of Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. is properly applied, a net need for at least 93 beds results. DHRS contends that a need for only 17 beds exists when the numerical need methodology is applied consistent with its current policy. DHRS did not present any evidence on any criteria other than need. The more specific issue to be determined in this proceeding is focused on the data for current and future population used to calculate numerical need under Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. FHFC contends that the most recently released population estimates and projections should be used; DHRS asserts that the data available at the time of the application should be used. The parties' differing results in the net bed need (93 beds, as opposed to 17 beds) are based upon those separate theories for application of the rule.60 nursing home beds needed in Polk County when most recent population data is applied to need formula.

Robert Lane Powell, Jr.