vs. ) CASE NO. 84-0402BID
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ) REHABILITATIVE SERVICES and ) DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, )
KENNETH R. McGUNN, )
Intervenor. )
Consistent with the Notice Of Hearing furnished to all the parties, a hearing was held in this case before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, in Palatka, Florida on May 3, 1984.
The issue for consideration is whether Petitioner submitted the lowest and best bid to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Department of General Services.
For Petitioner: Donald E. Holmes, Esquire
William E. Townsend, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer D
For Respondent James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire DHRS: District III Legal Counsel
For Respondent Stephen J. Kubik, Esquire DGS: General Counsel
For Intervenor: H. Allen Pell, Esquire
Linda C. McGurn, Esquire 1717 Northeast 9th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS), in the latter part of 1983, solicited proposals from developers interested in constructing a building and site for lease to it. Several proposals were submitted by various bidders and on December 22, 1983, DHRS recommended to the Department of General Services (DGS), that the intervenor, Kenneth R. McGunn, be awarded this contract. DGS concurred in the recommendation by DHRS and, consistent with normal procedure, on January 11, 1984, notified all parties of its intent to recommend the proposal by McGunn to the Governor and Cabinet. Thereafter, Petitioners, Townsend, Sheffield and Underwood Ventures (TSU) filed a timely notice of protest of bid award. On January 20, 1984, TSU filed a petition formally challenging this award and thereafter, DGS requested a formal hearing at which McGunn was granted permission to intervene.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Mary G. Goodman, Chief, Bureau of Property Management for DGS; James Foust, Fiscal Officer for HRS District III; Dr. Joseph M. Perry, Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of North Florida; Robert Litza, HRS Facility Service Manager in Gainesville; Patricia J. Shinholster, a Clerk II at HRS's office in Gainesville; and George A. Smith, a Senior Management Analyst for DHRS in Tallahassee; and introduced Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 23.
Respondent, DGS, presented the testimony of Ms. Goodman and Dr. Elton Scott, a Professor of Finance Economics at Florida State University and a vice-president with Economic Research Associates; and introduced DGS Exhibits A through C. DHRS presented the testimony of Mr. Smith and introduced DHRS Exhibit I. Intervenor, Kenneth R. McGunn, testified in his own behalf.
The parties have submitted post-hearing legal memoranda which include proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. These proposed findings and conclusions have been adopted only to the extent that they are expressly set out in the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law which follow. They have been otherwise rejected as contrary to the better weight of the evidence, not supported by the evidence, irrelevant to the issues, or legally erroneous.
This case concerns what is called a "turnkey lease." The program was developed by the State of Florida in 1971. It encompasses a situation whereby agencies seeking space for their operation may, after a specific need is determined that cannot be filled by existing adequate space, solicit competitive bids from developers for the provision of land and the construction of a building there sufficient to meet the agency's needs, for lease specifically to the agency requesting it.
The Bureau of Property Management within DGS was given the initial responsibility to develop the guidelines, promulgate the rules, and seek statutory authority for such a program. The Bureau's current role is to work with agencies requesting this program. The agency certifies the need to the Bureau, in addition to the fact that there is no available existing space present. The Bureau then determines agency needs and gives the agency the authority to solicit the bids for the turnkey project. Once the bids have been
solicited and the preproposal conferences have been held, the bids are then received, evaluated, and a recommendation for an award is forwarded by the agency to the Department of General Services. DGS reviews the supporting documents required by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code and either concurs or does not concur in the recommendation. If DGS concurs, the submitting agency is notified and is permitted to then secure the lease. Once the lease has been entered into, it is then sent back to DGS for review and approval, as to the conditions, and thereafter the plans and specifications for the building are also referred to DGS for review and approval as to the quality and adequacy of the plans and specifications and code compliance.
Section 255.249 and Section 255.25, Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirement for soliciting and awarding bids for lease space in an amount in excess of 2500 square feet. This provision requires that an award of this nature be made to the lowest and best bidder, and DGS subscribes to that standard in evaluating and determining whether or not it will concur with an agency's recommendation.
In the instant case, DHRS advertised for bids for the construction of office space in Palatka, Florida for its District III facilities. Before seeking to solicit bids, District III staff conducted a search for other possible existing space within a five mile radius of the downtown area and located no adequate facilities. Thereafter, a certification of need was processed for a solicitation of proposals and approval was granted by DGS to follow through with the solicitation. A preproposal conference was advertised and held on October 14, 1983 and after review by those present at the conference, bid opening date was set for November 22, 1983. Thirty-two bid packages were distributed and twelve bidders submitted proposals. The public bid opening was held as scheduled at 2:00 P.M. on November 22, 1983, in Palatka, Florida by Robert E. Litza, Facilities Service Coordinator for DHRS District III.
Of the bids submitted by the twelve bidders, the lowest bid was rejected because of the failure of the bidder to comply with the requirements of the bid package. Of the remaining eleven bids, the four lowest were evaluated with the understanding that additional high bids would be evaluated if the four lowest were found to be unacceptable. Among the four bids considered were bids of Chuck Bundschu, Inc.; Kenneth McGunn, the Intervenor (Mr. McGunn submitted five price schedules for his bid and of these only one was considered); Elizabethan Development, Inc.; and TSU.
A recommendation by the evaluation committee which met at DHRS District III that Intervenor's bid be selected was forwarded to DGS in Tallahassee through the Director of DHRS's General Services in Tallahassee on December 22, 1983. The terms of the successful bid and the reasons for its being considered lowest and best are discussed below.
The successful bid for the lease in question, lease number 590:8030, was, upon completion of the committee's evaluation, also evaluated by Mrs. Goodman in the Bureau of Property Management of DGS. She also considered the McGunn bid as the lowest and best of the eleven non-disqualified bids. In that regard, not only Mr. McGunn's bid but all of the twelve bids received were considered and reviewed not only at the local level but at DHRS and DGS Headquarters as well.
In her evaluation of the proposal and the bids, Mrs. Goodman considered the documentation submitted by DHRS. This included a letter of recommendation supported by a synopsis of all proposals, the advertisements for bids, and any information pertinent to the site selection process.
The letter from DHRS dated December 22, 1983, which recommended award of the lease to Mr. McGunn, included Mr. Litza's December 21, 1983 analysis and recommendation letter which, itself, was attached to McGunn's primary bid documents. Her analysis did not include a prior award recommendation and analysis from Mr. Litza, dated December 8, 1983. It also did not include the site plan, the floor plan for the proposed building, or a survey of the site, but these areas are considered to be within the discretion of the leasing agency. Their absence is not considered to be particularly significant.
In her analysis, Mrs. Goodman found that Petitioner's bid was also responsive. However, comparing it with Mr. McGunn's bid, she and her staff found that the latter was the lowest bid submitted. The determing factor in her decision was cost.
In determining that McGunn's bid was the lowest as to cost of all bids, Mrs. Goodman compared the average rate per square foot per year for each. This did not take into consideration proration of costs per year, but strictly the average over the fifteen years of the term of the lease (10 year basic plus
5 year option) . According to Mrs. Goodman, this same method of calculating cost has been used in every lease involving a turnkey situation and in fact in every lease since 1958 - as long as she has been with DGS. This particular method, admittedly, is not set forth in any rule promulgated by DGS. However, the agencies are instructed by DGS to advertise and bidders to bid on an average square foot basis, the basis utilized by Mrs. Goodman and her staff in analyzing the bids submitted.
In that regard, the request for proposals does not, itself, indicate how the calculation of lowest cost would be made by DHRS and DGS but it does tell prospective bidders what information to submit. This procedure has been followed exclusively in situations like this for many years and many of the bidders have bid before using this same system. While Mrs. Goodman is not certain whether TSU has ever bid before, using this system, she does not consider it to be unfair because all bidders are considered on the same footing in an evaluation. They are notified of what information to submit and if they do so, their information will be considered along with all other bidders. Further, anyone who inquires as to the basis for evaluation will be given a straight and complete answer as to the method to be used. In the instant case, DHRS followed procedure for solicitation and evaluation utilized in the past and DGS followed its own policy in evaluating the submissions. In short, the primary consideration for DGS is the price factor and all other factors are considered to be within the expertise of the requesting agency. In Mrs. Goodman's opinion, based on the fact that she worked with the Florida Legislature on the development of the controlling statute, and helped develop the existing rule within DGS, that was the intent of the Legislature. Consequently since the statute requires award to the lowest and best bidder, it can be said that in this case the term "lowest" falls within the purview of both DHRS and DGS but "best" is solely within the purview of DHRS. Therefore, utilizing the lowest and best criteria and accepting the fact that the lowest
bid may not be the best bid, the determination of "non-best" should be based on the reasonable "end objective" of the agency and need not be based on a criterion which is set forth in the bid proposal. In other words, it is not necessary for the agency to set forth the manner of evaluation it will use or the factors it will consider, according to Mrs. Goodman.
With regard to the bid and evaluation committee process, Mr. Litza, the facilities manager for DHRS in Gainesville, was involved in putting together the bid package along with Mr. George Smith from Tallahassee, Litza's predecessor in the job in Gainesville. He worked with Mr. Smith in order to take advantage of Smith's experience in evaluating bids for leases. So far as he knew, the bid package contained minimum standards for all parts of the bid, and the package was, in fact, approved by officials in Tallahassee before being released.
While no particular factors were identified to prospective bidders as being significant, Mr. Litza did conduct a bid conference for them prior to the date the bid was due and was available to answer any questions that prospective bidders might have. He did not receive any questions regarding the significance of any particular factor from any bidder. The bids were advertised and when received, were opened and read properly in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.
When the bids were received and opened, it was seen that Mr. McGunn had submitted five different bids for the same project. Litza had not been confronted with this situation before and asked Mr. Smith what to do about it. Mr. Smith's reply was to put all five McGunn bids in with the rest and extract the lowest five of all bids. When this was done, Mr. McGunn was shown to have submitted two of the lowest five bids. In determining which were the lowest five bids, Mr. Litza utilized the average cost per square foot formula utilizing therein the entire 15,772 square feet authorized for the project.
Once the five lowest bids were determined, Mr. Litza selected an evaluation committee made up of local Palatka DHRS supervisors except for the fiscal member, Mr. Foust, Mrs. Shinholster, Litza's secretary and Litza himself. He gave each of the members a score sheet with point values for each area. Each member filled out the form independently. Though he gave very little briefing to the evaluation committee, he admits that he did, in advance, tell each member that Mr. McGunn was the lowest bidder and should be awarded the highest points for criteria number 1, which related to cost.
There were several irregularities in Mr. Litza's processing of the evaluation committee's results. For example, on the evaluation of the file conducted by member Sheryl Dollar, regarding criteria number 2, which relates to the conformity of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid (with a weight of 25 points), Mr. Litza admitted he lowered Mrs. Dollar's point award in that area from 35 to 25 without first checking with her to insure that his action would meet with her approval. While this is irregular, it is of little or no consequence since - the maximum number of points that could be given for that particular item was 25 and Mr. Litza's actions did not reduce that member's award to less than the maximum allowable. He contends that his action was based on what he considered to be a mistake on her part.
In another apparent irregularity, Mr. Litza prepared a recommendation letter based on his and the other committee members' evaluation of the files to DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee on December 8, 1983. In that letter, be indicated that McGunn would provide gas heat for the proposed building for free. Though McGunn had not specifically stated this, he implied it from the energy features paragraph in the Intervenor's bid. On the other hand, the bid by TSU contained an express comment offering to pay the utility charges. This specific provision was overlooked and omitted from the evaluation and report to Tallahassee by Litza, who contends that this omission was merely an oversight.
There are other discrepancies as well. In his testimony, Mr. Litza indicated Mr. McGunn proposed to build one building but his letter of December 8th and that of December 21, 1984, both reflect two buildings. Here again, Mr. Litza explains this as the result of his being confused. Nonetheless, this erroneous information was referred to Mrs. Goodman at DGS. This is significant in that at the evaluation committee meeting, when the forms were given out, several of the members expressed a preference for a two-building complex. After the award, Mr. Litza secured agreement from McGunn to build two buildings.
Mr. Litza admits that much of this was done in an attempt to insure that McGunn, as the low bidder, got the award. Mr. Litza equated the lowest bid with the best and had Petitioner been the low bidder, he contends he would have done the same thing. In most areas, he would not, however, have given Petitioner's four-building concept a high score because of the increased heat and air requirements of four buildings.
Mr. Litza also downgraded Petitioner on that bid criteria which relates to the proximity of offered space to the clients to be served because Petitioner's site, he contends, was too close to the clients to be served. In this case, a housing project for low income families which make up much of the clientele to be served by DHRS, was located across the street from the proposed site offered by the Petitioner. Mr. Litza contends that he was thinking of the potential damage to the building because of increased activity by virtue of the facility being so close.
There were other questionable areas in Mr. Litza's testimony. For example, he testified that though Petitioner provided 15 more parking spaces than Intervenor, this would result in mud being tracked in from the adjacent dirt road 200 feet away in greater quantities than in Intervenor's proposal. He also considered positively that the Intervenor's proposed site was closer to a restaurant than that of the Petitioner.
Though it was recommended by DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee that only two of the committee members be from the Palatka office, Mr. Litza disregarded that advice because, he contends, there was a morale factor in that office and the people assigned there wanted to have a part in this decision. Because of this, he allowed Ms. Stouffenberg to put five extra members of her staff on the committee.
Nonetheless, the evaluation committee serves only in an advisory capacity. Its recommendation is no more than an advisory opinion. The ultimate decision as to which of the bidders should be awarded the contract is made at DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee.
Ms. Shinholster, a Clerk IV in the DHRS Gainesville office, who works as a secretary to Mr. Litza and several others, was advised she would be on the committee for the evaluation at the same time she was given the bid file. She did not get an opportunity to meet with other committee members to talk about the standards to be used, nor was she given any standards by which to evaluate the files. All she was told by Mr. Litza was that McGunn was the lowest bidder. She cannot explain how she accorded points on her evaluation sheets except that she gave the low bidder the highest number of points.
Mr. George Smith, a Senior Analyst with DHRS in Tallahassee, relied on Mr. Litza's input when he made his recommendation to his superiors that the award should be made to McGunn. He also formulated his own opinion, based on his own analysis of the bids. He resolved any dispute regarding cost in favor of Mr. McGunn on the basis of the average rental, and regarding space, in favor of McGunn on the basis of the number of buildings.
Dr. Perry, an economist with the University of North Florida, testified to the Federal Government's policy regarding the desirability of using the present value of money methodology and the determination of an acceptable discount rate or index in calculating the actual cost of the bids. Both experts, Dr. Perry and Dr. Scott, who testified for DGS, agree that the present value methodology is valid and presents a more accurate analysis of cost than the average rental cost methodology which does not utilize this theory. The major difference between the two was primarily in the percentage to be utilized in applying the discount rate. Whereas Dr. Perry adopted the Federal policy and suggested a 10 percent discount rate, Dr. Scott testified that a more viable percentage rate in November, 1983, at the time the award was to be made, would have been 3.3 percent. If the 10 percent rate were used, then the Petitioner's bid would be the lowest of all submitted. On the other hand, if the 3.3 percent rate were used, Intervenor's bid would be the lowest. If a different discount rate, that of 5.7 percent were to he used, the bid of Elizabethan Development Corporation would be low. It is at about the 6 percent point and above that Petitioner's bid becomes the lowest. Nonetheless, the State has not adopted the present value of money theory and the policy followed by the State is not to consider that methodology in analyzing costs. State policy is to use only the average rental methodology.
There are no written instructions (rules) on evaluating bids for leases of this nature. Oral instructions given by DGS to each agency are that the average rate per square foot is to be computed using, if the square footage is constant, for each year of the lease, the basic square footage requested, multiplied by the rental rate proposed for each year of the basic lease, divided by the number of years. If the square footage is not constant in every year of the lease, evaluators are directed to apply the rate per square foot proposed in each year to the square footage to be utilized in that year, total up the annual rentals, total up the square footage involved, and divide to arrive at the average rate per square foot per year. Utilizing one or the other of those two methods in evaluating both the McGunn and the TSU bids, it becomes clear that the McGunn bid results in an average of $8.86 cost per square foot per year and the TSU bid an average of $9.58 per square foot per year. Recalculation of DHRS' evaluation by DGS showed the DHRS' figures as stated above were correctly arrived at. This procedure is followed on all turnkey and non-turnkey leases in the State of Florida.
The reason the State uses this process instead of the present value of money process is because it is easy. DGS statistics indicate that most landlords in the approximately $32,000,000 worth of leases presently existing with the State are "Mom and Pop" landlords. These people are not normally trained lease evaluators. By using the straight average rental rate method, there are no arbitrary variables. It has always worked because people can understand it and all agencies which lease property in the State of Florida follow this procedure. Also, this procedure does not require computer-based calculations, and it does not require economists to work with it. Both latter reasons are amplifications of the first. In Mrs. Goodman's estimation, if the present value of money system were to be adopted, her division would have to hire at least two $30,000 per year economists and buy an in-house computer to operate the system. This additional cost, she believes, would far outweigh the paper savings to be realized by utilizing the present value of money system. As of the hearing date, considering all the factors, in Mrs. Goodman's opinion, DGS would nonetheless still recommend Mr. McGunn's bid as the lowest and best bid.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these proceedings.
In its petition contesting the award of this lease to Intervenor, Petitioner argues two major contentions. These are:
The award process was improperly manipulated by DHRS officials (concurred in by DGS) to swing the award to Intervenor and away from TSU; and,
The TSU bid is the lowest bid and the award to McGunn violates the statutory requirements to award the lease to the lowest and best bidder.
This hearing was held not to review the action of DHRS in the evaluation of the bids submitted by the various bidders, but to, de novo, formulate final agency action for DHRS and DGS, MacDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Therefore, the entire bid process, from proposal to award, is considered with an independent analysis made and an appropriate action recommended. In so doing, it is necessary to examine both the statutory basis for this action and those rules pertinent to the procedure.
Section 255.25(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), states in part: (3)(a) No state agency shall enter into a
lease as lessee for the use of 2,000 square feet or more of space in a privately owned building except upon advertisement for and receipt of competitive bids and award to the lowest and best bidder. The division shall have the authority to approve a lease for 2,000 square feet or more of space that covers more than one fiscal year, subject
to the provisions of Section 216.311, if such lease is, in the judgment of the
division, in the best interests of the state.
At Section 255.249(2), Florida Statutes (1983), the legislature also provided that:
(2) The department shall promulgate rules pursuant to Chapter 120 providing:
Procedures for soliciting and accepting competitive proposals for leased space of 2,000 square feet or more in privately owned building, for evaluating proposals received, and for exemption from competitive bidding requirements of any lease the purpose of
which is the provision of care and living space for persons.
A standard method for determining square footage or any other measurement used as the basis for lease payments
or other charges.
Acceptable terms and conditions for inclusion in lease agreements.
Maximum rental rates, by geographic areas or by county, for leasing privately owned space.
Consistent with that authority, DGS drafted and published guidelines to implement this statutory mandate in Rule 13D-7.10, Florida Administrative Code, which, in part states:
Evaluation of proposals will be made jointly by the Division of Building Construction and Maintenance and the User Agency on the basis of price, design, characteristics of construction, completion date, location (including environment or characteristics of surrounding neighborhood) public transportation availability, availability of parking facilities, and availability of satisfactory dining facilities, and conformance to the User Agency program, performance specifications, and floor layout plan.
The User Agency then presents the entire "project review package" (including the User Agency's specific recommendation, justification in support of the recommendation, and the proposed lease contract) to the Division of Building Construction and Maintenance.
Treating Petitioner's second contention first, neither the pertinent statutes nor the rule promulgated thereunder stipulates a method for determining the "lowest" bidder. This decision is left to the discretion of the agency and DGS, since 1958, and certainly since "turnkey" leases were first utilized in 1971, has used the average rental value methodology as a matter of policy.
Admittedly, this policy has not been incorporated in a published rule, but the evidence clearly reflects that it is well known among bidders on this type of contract and would be clearly explained to anyone who took the trouble to inquire. While the bid package here was silent on the question of what method of evaluating cost was to be used, there was no requirement that this information be published, gratuitously, in advance of bid.
Admittedly, when DGS elects not to incorporate its policy on determining cost in a rule but to rely on agency policy, it may be required, thereafter, to defend its policy when challenged. State, Department of Administration v. Harvey, 356 So.2d 323, 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). It must be prepared to show valid reason for its use of the policy. Here the agency showed, through the testimony of Mrs. Goodman, an official who has had considerable experience with bids of the very nature as considered here, that the use of the average cost methodology, in accordance with DGS policy, is valid for this type of procurement. It is simple and easily understandable by the type of bidder who, the witness indicates, makes up by far the largest class of bidder in these procurements. This is a valid reason for use of the average rental methodology. See also, Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 393 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Petitioner's contention that it was low bidder on this lease would be accurate if two conditions existed. These are:
that the present value of money methodology was used in evaluating the bids; and
in using it, the discount rate applied was 6 percent or more.
Neither of these conditions exists here, however. DGS has established without doubt that it has, historically and as a matter of policy, utilized the average rental cost methodology and has supported its policy. Even if this were not the case and it were to use the present value of money methodology, a substantial difference of opinion exists between the experts who testified here as to the rate to be applied. Here Petitioner, who had the burden of establishing its position, has not presented sufficient convincing evidence that both of the above conditions exist.
It having been concluded that Intervenor's bid was lowest, the remaining obligation in this area is to determine if it was also the "best" bid as is also required by the statute. Numerous factors other than cost were considered in evaluating the bids submitted here. No formulae exist to define the term "best." Each agency is given wide latitude in establishing what it considers the "best" submission and this is not inconsistent with the provision of Rule 13D-7.10, Florida Administrative Code, which requires DGS to coordinate with the user agency in evaluation of submittals. The agency's exercise of this discretion is to be given great weight in any judicial or quasi-judicial action arising out of it, Austin v. Austin, 350 So.2d 102, 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). If the agency thereafter acts reasonably and in good faith, its decision will not generally be overturned even if it appears to some to be erroneous or based on facts upon which reasonable men may differ, System Development v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 423 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Therefore, on the basis of the above and the fact that Petitioner's attack on the Intervenor's bid relates only to the issue of "lowest" and not to "best," there is no evidence to support a conclusion the DHRS decision that the McGunn bid was best was in error.
This conclusion has bearing as well on Petitioner's other contention regarding the alleged improper evaluation by DHRS officials. Petitioner's allegation that any impropriety in the evaluation was knowingly concurred in by DGS is not supported by any evidence of record. It is true that Mr. Litza's conduct of the evaluation process and his use of the evaluation "committee" was rife with at least the perception of irregularity. This evidence shows, inter alia, that the committee did not meet as a group; that it was given inadequate instruction as to the conduct of its duties; that it was not made up of the people who should have been on it; and that Litza appears to have misrepresented pertinent factors to his superiors in Tallahassee regarding the number of buildings to be constructed and who offered to provide gas heat as a part of the package.
All of this, however, is material if, and only if, it is shown to have a substantial impact on the integrity of the bidding process or to give an unfair advantage to one bidder over the others. That has not been shown here. The bid evaluation committee serves in an advisory capacity only. DHRS' procurement process encompasses numerous checks and requirements to insure the best bid is accepted. As long as it is clear that McGunn was not given an unfair advantage over Petitioner and the other bidders by these admitted irregularities, there is no valid basis, on their account, to overturn the award. As unprofessional as they may be, these irregularities, under the circumstances of this case, were not sufficiently material to destroy the competitive character of the bid process.
RECOMMENDED that DHRS lease Number 590:8030 be awarded to Kenneth R. McGunn.
RECOMMENDED this 5th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1984.
Donald E. Holmes, Esquire William E. Townsend, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer D
James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and
Stephen J. Kubik, Esquire Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
H. Allen Poll, Esquire
Linda C. McGurn, Esquire 1717 Northeast 9th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32301
David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and
Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services
