STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JUVENILE SERVICES PROGRAM, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 82-2631BID

) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE )

SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Marvin E. Chavis, held a public hearing in the above-styled case on November 23, 1982, in Tampa, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Christopher Ferguson, Esquire

5656 Central Avenue

St. Petersburg, Florida 33707

For Respondent: Amelia M. Park, Esquire

District VI Legal Counsel Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614

ISSUES

The matter for consideration in this case concerns Petitioner's challenge to the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services', award of a contract for services to provide treatment of youth in the Juvenile Alternative Services Projects (JASP) for Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. In particular, Petitioner contends that it did not receive due and fair consideration in accord with the criteria established by law. Petitioner stipulated, during the hearing, that it was not challenging the sufficiency of the Request for Proposal (RFP) pursuant to which bids were submitted nor the sufficiency or propriety of the criteria contained within the RFP.

WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS

Petitioner presented as witnesses Dr. Peter Parrado, Executive Director of Juvenile Services Program, Inc.; Mr. Jack F. Wood, Program Supervisor, Children, Youth & Families (HRS); Mr. Patrick Keefe, District VI Intake Supervisor for HRS; Judge James P. Calhoun, Circuit Judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; Mr. John Benito, Assistant Public Defender for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit;

and Mr. Andrew Alexandre, District VI Intake Supervisor for Respondent (HRS). By stipulation of counsel, the direct testimony of Mr. Benito and Mr. Alexandre were presented by deposition and counsel for Respondent had the opportunity to cross examine those two (2) witnesses during the hearing. Respondent called as its witnesses Mr. Larry Lumpee, an employee of Respondent and Mr. William F. Bowman, Director of Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.

The parties presented twelve (12) joint exhibits. Joint Exhibit I was the Request for Proposal for the Manatee County JASP and Joint Exhibit 2 was the Request for Proposal for the Hillsborough County JASP. Joint Composite Exhibits

3 and 4 were the proposals or bids of Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., for Manatee and Hillsborough Counties respectively. Joint Composite Exhibit 5 was the proposal or bid of Boy's Club of Manatee County, Inc., for the Manatee County JASP. Joint Composite Exhibits 6' and 7 were the proposals or bids of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., for Manatee County and Hillsborough County respectively. Joint Composite Exhibit 8 was the rating sheets of the selection committee for Hillsborough County and Joint Composite Exhibit 9 was the rating sheets for the selection committee for Manatee County. Joint Exhibits 10, 11 and 12 were the letters of notification of action dated May 28, 1982, from the Respondent to Boy's Club of Manatee County, Inc., Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., respectively. Those exhibits were admitted. Petitioner also offered the depositions of Mr. John Benito and Mr. Andrew Alexandre and with agreement of counsel for Respondent, these were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2. Petitioner had marked for identification its letter of protest dated June 10, 1982. This was not admitted as an exhibit. Respondent offered no exhibits other than the Joint Exhibits listed above.

Counsel for both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such findings of fact are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has, since 1979, operated the Juvenile Alternative Services Project. The program provides diversion and treatment for first-time less serious juvenile offenders prior to an adjudication of delinquency by the courts. The JASP program came into existence in 1979, through a pilot program in HRS Districts V, VI and VII. The pilot program in District VI was operated by Youth Program Services, Inc., based in Orlando, Florida. The JASP pilot program in District V was operated by Juvenile Services Program, Inc., the Petitioner in this case. The contract for District VI, which consists of Manatee and Hillsborough Counties, was re-bid annually. The Requests for Proposal used in the years 1980, 1981, and 1982, except for very minor changes, were virtually identical.

   
   

2. The contracts which are the subject of this case were let for bid pursuant to two (2) Requests for Proposals (hereafter RFP) dated April 23, 1982. (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2) These two (2) RFPs advertised for two (2) separate contracts for the Manatee County JASP and Hillsborough County JASP. Proposals under both RFPs were required to be submitted no later than May 14, 1982, at 5:00 P.M.

   
   

3. The Boys' Clubs of Manatee County, Inc.; Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., submitted timely proposals for the Manatee County program. (Joint Exhibits 3, 5 and 6)

4. Timely proposals for the Hillsborough County program were received from Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. (Joint Exhibits 4 and 7)

   
   

5. The proposals were evaluated by selection committees for each county. Members of the selection committee for Hillsborough County were Judge James Calhoun, Marcia Leonard Bailey, John Benito, Jack Wood, Patricia Moran, Andrew Alexandre and Patrick Keefe. These persons included a Circuit Judge, Assistant State Attorney, Assistant Public Defender, a citizen at large, and three (3) HRS employees. A similar committee performed the evaluation for Manatee County.

   
   

6. In addition to reviewing the written proposals, the committees heard oral presentations from those parties which had submitted written proposals.

   
   

7. Following the oral presentations, the committee members rated the various proposals by filling out rating sheets containing the various criteria contained in the RFP and used by the selection committee in arriving at a recommendation. (Joint Exhibits 8 and 9) The criteria were:

   
   

   1. A programmatic expertise;

   2. Prior experience--personnel history;

   3. Organization abilities;

   4. Qualifications of personnel--abilities to hire qualified personnel;

   5. Budget in cost effectiveness program; and

   6. Overall adequacy of personnel.

      
      

      The committee for Hillsborough County rated the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., very closely, with Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., receiving 677 total points and Juvenile Services Program, Inc., receiving 668 points.

      
      

8. Following their evaluations, the committees recommended Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., as the entity to provide JASP programs for both Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. Thereafter, Juvenile Services Program, Inc., timely and properly filed its protests and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 120.57(1).

   
   

9. Both Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., were qualified to perform the services requested by the RFPs. No evidence was presented relating to the selection process in Manatee County and there was no evidence that the Petitioner did not receive a full, fair, and proper evaluation of all criteria in the RFP for the Manatee County program. All five

   (5) committee members from the Hillsborough County selection committee who were called as witnesses testified that both the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., were well qualified.

   
   

10. The major contention of the Petitioner focused on the fact that Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., was a new corporation and would not be able to perform the administrative and financial functions of the JASP programs as well as Juvenile Services Program, Inc., which had been in existence since 1976.

    
    

11. There was no evidence presented which showed that the selection committees failed to evaluate each and every criterion established by the RFP. This was borne out by the rating sheets as well as the five (5) committee members called as witnesses by Petitioner. Dr. Peter Parrado, Executive

    Director of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., also testified about the inquiry by the committee into the various criteria during the oral presentations. Both the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services were evaluated by the committee in all criteria areas.

    
    

12. The committee specifically inquired into the fact that Bay Area was a new organization, incorporated in April, 1982, and was satisfied that that would not interfere with the proper performance of the services requested by the RFP. Mr. William F. Bowman, Director of Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., and one (1) of the members of its Board of Directors appeared before the selection committee. The entire existing District VI staff of Youth Programs, Inc., was to continue in place with Bay Area Youth Services.

    
    

13. Both Dr. Parrado and Mr. Bowman had been involved in the JASP program since its inception in 1979. Dr. Parrado was executive director of the Petitioner which had had the JASP contract for District V since the pilot program in 1979. Mr. Bowman, as a former employee of Youth Program Services, Inc., was the program director for the JASP program in District VI and had performed that function since the pilot program in 1979. Both men were well qualified to supervise the JASP programs for District VI.

    
    

14. There was a specific requirement that the providers submitting proposals be able to have the projects operational by July 1, 1982. The committee was concerned with the ability of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., to step inland take over a program with which it was not familiar. The JASP program in District VI operated differently than the program in District V where Juvenile Services Program was already operating JASP. Mr. Bowman and the staff of Bay Area Youth Services were the same staff that had previously operated the JASP program in District VI for Youth Programs, Inc. Mr. Bowman and his staff were thoroughly familiar with the operation and procedures of the JASP program in District VI.

    
    

15. The Committee was also concerned with continuity of the existing JASP operations in District VI and Dr. Parrado had not given assurance as to what, if any, of the existing staff would be retained if Juvenile Services Program, Inc., was awarded the contract. Bay Area Youth Services already had its staff and physical operation in place and would be less disruptive of the program'5 continuity if awarded the contract.

    
    

16. The key individuals in the supervision and operation of JASP in District VI by the two (2) bidders would have been Dr. Parrado and Mr. Bowman. JASP in District VI would be the only program operated by Bay Area Youth Services and Mr. Bowman would be giving one hundred percent (100 percent) of his time to that program. On the other hand, Dr. Parrado's organization would have been operating JASP in three (3) other districts as well as several other youth programs in other counties. The budget submitted by Juvenile Services Program reflected that Dr. Parrado would spend fifteen percent (15 percent) of his time supervising the District VI JASP. Dr. Parrado testified that he would give as much time to District VI required but gave the committee no firm estimate as to how much of his time he would be able to be personally involved in District VI.

    
    

17. The witnesses rated the performance of Mr. Bowman and his staff as excellent for the previous years they had operated JASP in District VI. Some administrative problems had developed while Youth Programs, Inc., provided JASP services in District VI. These were in the nature of late payrolls and delays in paying bills. The problems emanated from the Orlando office and were not attributable to Mr. Bowman and the staff in District VI.

18. Because of the problems which had occurred with the large organization of Youth Programs, Inc., the committee was concerned that the same types of problems might arise with Juvenile Services Program, Inc., which is also a large organization.

    
    

19. To aid in handling the administrative details of JASP, Bay Area Youth Services had retained an outside firm to do the payroll and tax and other payroll-related functions. A local accounting firm had been retained to monitor and take care of accounting and bookkeeping functions. The committee was satisfied that Mr. Bowman's organization would be able to adequately handle the administrative details of JASP in District VI.

    
    

20. Although much of the administrative and personnel matters under Youth Programs, Inc., were handled out of the Orlando Central Office, Mr. Bowman had for three (3) years been responsible for all hiring, firing, and supervision of personnel in the District VI JASP. He also did all local buying of supplies and related items. He also was responsible for locating and obtaining office space and equipment.

    
    

21. The director of the program in District VI performs a liaison function between the provider and those entities using the services such as the State Attorney's office, Public Defender's office, and the Circuit Judges responsible for juvenile matters. Mr. Bowman had developed good rapport and credibility with each of these entities as well as HRS counselors in District VI and had done an excellent job in selling the JASP program to these agencies.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

22. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these proceedings.

    
    

23. Florida Statutes, Chapter 287, controls the procedures to be followed by a state agency in procuring contractual services and provides in Part:

    
    

    The award shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined

    in writing to be most advantageous to

    the state taking into consideration price and the other criteria set forth in the request for proposals. Fla. Stat.,

    Sec. 287.057 (3)(1982).

    
    

24. Respondent made no objection nor raised any issue as to the sufficiency of the RFPs or the criteria set forth in the RFPs.

    
    

25. There was no evidence presented which showed improper procedures were used in the formation of or review by the selection committees.

    
    

26. Both the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., were qualified to perform the services prescribed in the RFPs.

    
    

27. It was within the discretion of the selection committees and the District Administrator, taking into account all criteria as a whole, to conclude that Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., had the most advantageous proposal for the State of Florida and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

28. There was evidence presented which tended to show that the Petitioner, because of its size and length of existence, could better perform administrative functions under the contracts and that it had greater financial resources available to it. However, the administrative advantages of the Petitioner were more than offset by the continuity which would be maintained with Bay Area Youth Services' staff and facilities. The executive director of Bay Area Youth Services would also be able to give full-time attention to the programs in District VI, whereas there was a substantial question as to how much personal involvement and supervision Dr. Parrado, Executive Director of Petitioner, would be able to give the District VI program. Bay Area Youth Services' staff was more familiar with the procedures used in the District VI JASP and had performed in an excellent fashion in the past.

    
    

29. There was no specific evidence presented by Petitioner relating to the selection process and criteria used in evaluating the Manatee County proposals. Therefore, the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition as to the Manatee County contract is granted.

    
    

30. In summary, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that, under the criteria of the RFPs and Florida Statutes, Section 287.057(3), Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and not Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., is entitled to the award of the contracts under the RFPs dated April 23, 1982. (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2) Based upon a full consideration of the facts found, conclusions of law reached and being otherwise informed, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered which awards the contracts for the Juvenile Alternative Services Projects for Hillsborough and Manatee Counties to Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.

DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.

MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1983.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Christopher Ferguson, Esquire

5656 Central Avenue January, 1983. St. Petersburg, Florida 33707

Amelia M. Park, Esquire District VI Legal Counsel Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614

David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 82-002631

Orders for Case No: 82-002631