Whether the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (“Respondent” or “FWC”) determination that Tallahassee Corporate Center, LLC (“Petitioner” or “TCC”), submitted a nonresponsive reply to FWC’s Invitation to Negotiate (“ITN”) No. 770-0235 is contrary to the Commission’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether it was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proposed agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition or arbitrary and capricious.
The issues to be determined in these consolidated cases are whether All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC (“the Applicant”), and Florida East Coast Railway, LLC (“FECR”), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit Modification authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system and related activities to serve railway facilities, and a verification of exemption for work to be done at 23 roadway crossings (collectively referred to as “the project”).Applicants demonstrated their entitlement to an Environmental Resource Permit Modification and a Verification of Exemption for a stormwater management system to serve express passenger train facilities.
Applicants demonstrated their entitlement to an Environmental Resource Permit Modification and a Verification of Exemption for a stormwater management system to serve express passenger train facilities.
At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Gainesville Woman Care, LLC, d/b/a Bread & Roses Well Woman Care (“Bread & Roses”), provided services in excess of the scope of its license by providing abortions to five patients beyond the first trimester of pregnancy, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.Agency failed to prove that the clinic provided abortion services beyond the scope of its license.
Whether Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, Inc. (Petitioner), is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against the Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA) pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b), Florida Statutes,1/ and, if so, in what amount(s).Petitioner entitled to attorneys' fees incurred in unadopted rule challenge prior to, but not after, the agency's publication of a Notice of Proposed Rule.
The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making the decision to award Intervenor Prestige Health Choice, LLC ("Prestige"), a contract to provide Medicaid managed medical assistance services as a provider service network in Region 11 (covering Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties), Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. (In this protest, Petitioner Care Access PSN, LLC ("Care Access"), challenges AHCA's intended award to Prestige in Region 11, and only that award. Care Access does not seek to upset any other intended awards in Region 11 or in any other Region.)The agency's intended contract award, being contrary to the statutes and project specifications, is clearly erroneous and should be rescinded.
The issues in the case are (1) whether the decision of the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to not select Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Dade County, Inc. (Little Havana), for the award of a contract for the provision of long-term care managed care services pursuant to AHCA Invitation to Negotiation Solicitation No. AHCA ITN 011- 12/13, entitled "Statewide Medicaid Managed Care--Long Term Care, Region 11" (ITN) was contrary to the AHCA's governing statutes, rules, polices or any applicable ITN specification, and, if so, whether such selection decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious; whether Little Havana's response to the ITN was responsive; whether Little Havana was a responsible vendor; and (4) whether Little Havana's protest is barred for failure to submit the required protest bond.Protestor did not have standing to protest contract awards because it was neither responsive nor responsible.
The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged by Petitioners.Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), which governs the cumulative impact analysis under the coastal construction control line permitting program, is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged by Petitioners.Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), which governs the cumulative impact analysis under the coastal construction control line permitting program, is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
This is a rule challenge proceeding in which the following specific issues are presented: Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.006 is an invalid delegation of legislative authority, and Whether application of the provisions of Section 112.011(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in its quasi-judicial capacity constitutes an agency statement of general applicability that requires rulemaking by the agency.An adopted rule repealed by the legislative action cannot be challenged under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. A related agency statement was not a rule.
