Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Steven Scott Ferst
Steven Scott Ferst
Visitors: 34
0
Bar #569925(FL)     License for 38 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Steven Scott Ferst? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

10-007524  CHARLOTTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 15, 2011
The issues in this case are: Whether computer software purchases by the Charlotte County School District (District or Petitioner) in fiscal year 2008-09, paid for with capital outlay millage funds or interest earned on capital outlay millage funds, were authorized equipment purchases under the version of section 1011.71(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), existing at the time of the purchases;1 Whether interest earnings on capital outlay millage proceeds are subject to the same expenditure restrictions as the millage proceeds; and Whether the Department of Education's (Department or Respondent) position that the District violated the expenditure restrictions in section 1011.71(2) is impermissibly based on an unadopted rule. See ยง 120.57(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2010).Respondent did not meet its burden of proving Petitioner's 2008 computer software purchases violated expenditure restrictions in section 1011.71(2), but did prove such a violation as to a 2009 purchase made after the law changed.
11-001662BID  INFINITY SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 01, 2011
The issue in this case is whether Respondent's intended award of a contract to Intervenor pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate No. 2011-18 is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, Respondent's rules and policies, and the specification of the solicitation.Vendor did not submit a responsive reply to invitiation to negotiate; therefore, vendor was not eligible to enter into negotiations.
95-001639BID  MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (1995)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 04, 1995
The issue is whether the Department of Corrections (DOC) acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly when it decided to award the contract under Bid Number 94-CO-6355, for Inmate Pay Telephones and Long Distance Service (the Contract), to the number two-ranked bidder, North American Intelecom, Inc. (NAI).An agency's disregard of all advertised evaluation criteria and award of bid solely on basis of cost or lack thereof is totally arbitrary.
93-000875BID  LINDER-FUNK-OERTEL INTEREST vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (1993)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 16, 1993
Whether the Department of Corrections (DOC) acted arbitrarily or illegally in selecting ARC Developmental Companies, Inc. (ARC) as the intended lessee under a proposed lease, Lease No. 700:0606? Whether, as DOC now advocates in its proposed recommended order, DOC should award the lease to LFFO because ARC's proposal is non-responsive? Whether DOC's interests would be best served by starting over?Offer to lease with purchase option not responsive to Request For Proposal requiring lessor to sign standard state lease. Bid bond also defective.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer