455 B.R. 247 (2010) In re Paul OSBORNE and Donna Osborne, Debtors. Blake Barnett and Gabriella Barnett, Plaintiffs, v. Paul Osborne and Donna Osborne, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 6:09-bk-07645-ABB. Adversary No. 6:09-ap-00848-ABB. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division. October 19, 2010. *249 Paul Osborne, Clermont, FL, pro se. Donna Osborne, Clermont, FL, pro se. Edward P. Jordan, II, Law Office of Edward P. Jordan, Clermont, FL, for Plaintiffs. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDE..

In this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioners Florida Association of Insurance Agents (the "FAIA") and Professional Insurance Agents of Florida, Inc. (the "PIA") (collectively, the "Agents") allege that a process governing so-called "renewal keep-outs," which is set forth in a manual that was produced by Respondent Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association (the "Association") and approved by Respondent Department of Insurance (the "Department"), constitutes a rule-by-definition that was not adopted under, and therefore violates, Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. This case presents several issues. As a threshold matter, it must be determined whether the Agents have standing. If they do, the ultimate issue will be whether the challenged process constitutes a rule-by-definition in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Embedded in the ultimate issue, however, is the first-impression question whether the Association is an "agency" subject to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.Procedures governing "renewal keep-outs," as set forth in a manual produced by the Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association and approved by the Department of Insurance, constitute a rule-by-definition in violation of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Correctional Privatization Commission (Commission) correctly evaluated, tabulated and ranked the scores of the proposals for designing, financing, acquiring, leasing, constructing and operating a 600-bed secure civil confinement and treatment facility for sexually violent predators. Embodied within this general issue are questions concerning: Whether the proposal submitted by the Petitioner, Liberty-Clark, L.L.C. (Petitioner Liberty-Clark) is materially responsive to the RFP; Whether the Commission's treatment of the alternate design costs of Liberty-Clark is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious; Whether the Commission's interpretation of the cost- scoring provisions of the RFP is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious; Whether the Commission's interpretation of the insurance requirements of the RFP is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious; and Whether the Commission's scoring of the implementation schedule of the intervenor, Atlantic Shores Healthcare Inc., (ASH) is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.Petitioner failed to show its score and evaluation was sufficiently erroneous as to entitle it to highest ranking in Request for Proposal response evaluation. Score should be higher, but Intervenor entitled to more score also to preserve agency`s ranking.

The issue is whether WRP, Inc.'s application for an Individual Water Use Permit to construct five 24-inch diameter wells in Walton County, Florida, and to withdraw an average of 4.84 million gallons per day for twenty years, should be issued, as proposed by the agency on June 5, 1998.Applicant satisfied all rule and statute criteria for water use permit in Walton County; permit approved.