373 B.R. 186 (2007) In re Theodore Carlton RICHARDSON, Debtor. Ron Peterson, as Trustee of the Jacqueline N. Overton Trust, Plaintiff, v. Theodore Carlton Richardson, Defendant. Adversary Nos. 94-86, 94-554. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. August 2, 2007. David P. Rankin, Law Offices of David P. Rankin, Lutz, FL, for Plaintiff. Daniel A Medeiros, Daniel A. Medeiros, P.A., Sarasota, FL, for Defendant. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT RICHARDSON'S N..

Did Respondent, Wayne P. Dean, Jr., fail to install radon measurement devices as required by law? (Count I) Did Mr. Dean unlawfully perform radon measurement without proper certification? (Count II) Did Mr. Dean practice fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in the performance of radon mitigation? (Count III)Warning light for radon mitigation system located in cabinet not visible to 5'11" persons or shorter with door open violated law. Department did not prove unauthorized radon measurement or fraud.

The issues presented for decision in this case are: 1) whether DEM’s proposed award of the contract pursuant to Request for Proposals, DEM 06/07-10 “Emergency Notification System Pilot Program” (RFP) to NTI is contrary to DEM’s governing statutes, rules, policies or the solicitation specifications; 2) whether DEM’s failure to reject Roam’s proposal as non-responsive is contrary to DEM’s governing statutes, rules, policies or the solicitation specifications; 3) whether DEM’s failure to disqualify Roam from consideration of a contract award because of Roam’s contact with DEM during the no contact period is contrary to DEM’s governing statutes, rules, policies or the solicitation specifications; 4) whether DEM’s failure to reject NTI’s proposal as non-responsive for failure to include pricing information beyond the seven month pilot period is contrary to DEM’s governing statutes, rules, policies or the solicitation specifications; 5) whether NTI has violated Section 287.075, Florida Statutes, and is ineligible for an award of the contract; and 6) whether pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, a de novo proceeding to determine whether DEM’s action deeming Roam’s proposal responsive to the RFP by virtue of scoring that RFP is contrary to DEM’s governing statutes, its rules or policies or the solicitation specifications.Petitioner failed to prove that the award by Respondent was done contrary to Respondent`s governing statute, rules or policies, or RFP specifications. Recommend Petitioner`s protest be dismissed and awarding contract to Intervenor.