STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DINKAR B. KOPPIFAR, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE No. 89-2152BID

) ITB No. 88/89-119

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, )

)

Respondent. )

) DINKAR B. KOPPIKAR, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE No. 89-2153BID

) ITB No. 88/89-120

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDERS

Notice was provided and on May 25, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida, a formal hearing was held in this case to resolve a dispute concerning invitations to bid by Respondent. Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. Charles C. Adams was the Hearing Officer.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Dinkar B. Koppikar, pro se

2363 Tour Eiffel Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5931

For-Respondent: Gabriel Mazzeo, Esquire

John E. Hale, Esquire Office of Legal Services

200 East Gaines Street Room 412, Larson Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues to be resolved concern the appropriate disposition of Respondent's invitation to bid No. 88/89-119 seeking the services of a qualified actuary for rendering of expert services in health maintenance organizations and long term care insurance, which shall be referred to subsequently as Bid 119.

The issues for consideration also concern the appropriate disposition of the

Respondent's invitation to bid No. 88/89-120 seeking the services of a qualified actuary for rendering of expert services pertaining to review of health insurance rate filings, subsequently referred to as Bid 120.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

These recommended orders are being entered following the receipt and review of the transcript of hearing as filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 6, 1989. The exhibits admitted in the course of the hearing have also been examined. Petitioner filed proposed recommended orders on June 15, 1989, with supplemental information being filed on June 16, 1989.

Respondent's proposed recommended orders were filed with the Division on June 20, 1989. All of these items have been reviewed in preparation for the entry of the recommended orders. The suggested fact finding in the proposed recommended orders is discussed in an appendix to these recommended orders.

The cases had been originally set for hearing to be held on May 11, 1989; however, upon motion by Petitioner and agreement of Respondent the cases were continued until May 25, 1989.

In Bid 120 Respondent had noticed its intention to award a contract to Wakely and Associates, subsequently referred to as Wakely. Thereafter on April 27, 1989, a date beyond the time that the case had been submitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings for disposition, Respondent decided to reject all bids in this invitation. That notice was given by posting. On May 4, 1989, Petitioner and the apparent successful bidder Wakely were sent certified mail return receipt request letters informing them of the agency's choice to reject all bids. In the face of this notification and in furtherance of the instructions by the Respondent, the Petitioner sought to protest the Respondent's rejection of all bids in Bid 120. This series of events occurred at a time that the Petitioner's challenge in DOAH Case No. 89-2I53BID which was pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings had framed the issues as challenging the agency's choice to grant a contract to Wakely and to deny a contract to the Petitioner. In addition, although not pled, the initial case, DOAH Case No. 89-2I53BID carried with it the possibility that all bids might be rejected. As a consequence, while it was correct for the Respondent to notify the parties of its change in position as a party litigant from one of support of the Wakely bid to one of rejection of all bids, it was not necessary to create a new point of entry for the parties to contest that change in position. Nor was it necessary to consolidate the initial DOAH Case No. 89-2I53BID with a subsequent petition by this Petitioner in challenge to the notice of intent to reject all bids in Bid 120.

This attempted consolidation was followed by a motion to relinquish jurisdiction in DOAH Case No. 89-2153BID in favor of a case dealing with the rejection of all bids. This motion was received on May 22, 1989, and ruled on at the commencement of hearing. After discussion with the parties and having explained to the parties that the issue of rejection of all bids could be considered in the context of DOAH Case No. 89-2153BID, Respondent withdrew the motion to relinquish jurisdiction in DOAH Case No. 89-2153BID in favor of a new case which was associated with the agency's rejection of all bids.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On March 16, 1989, Respondent sent invitations to bid to actuaries who had been listed by the State of Florida, Department of General Services and with whom Respondent had some familiarity. These invitations pertained to two

   projects. The first project was one in which Respondent sought the services of qualified actuaries for the rendering of expert services in the area of rating requirements and procedures and the review of rate filings for health maintenance organizations and long term care insurance, Bid 119. The second invitation to bid was associated with the attempt to gain services from qualified actuaries pertaining to the review of health insurance filings, Bid 120.

   
   

2. Respondent also gave public notice of the invitations to bid in the two projects that have been described. This notice was given in the Florida Administrative Weekly in its publication of March 17, 1989.

   
   

3. On March 17, 1989, Petitioner obtained a copy of the bid materials in Bid 119. On March 20, 1989, he obtained a copy of the bid materials associated with Bid 120.

   
   

4. In both Bid 119 and Bid 120 there are set out general conditions which are the same for both invitations. Within the general conditions is found paragraph 5 which states:

   
   

   INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. Any actual or prospective bidder who disputes the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Bid, bid selection or contract award recommendation shall file such protest in form of a petition in compliance with Rule 13A-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.

   Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

   
   

5. In furtherance of the opportunity to ask questions concerning the conditions and specifications set forth in the two bid instruments Petitioner, by correspondence received by Respondent on March 20, 1989, submitted a separate list of questions for the two projects, Bid 119 and Bid 120. On March 21, 1989, Respondent offered its answers to the Petitioner. Copies of these questions and answers may be found as Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 5, pertaining to Bid

   120 and Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 6, pertaining to Bid 119, admitted into evidence.

   
   

6. No one took advantage of the opportunity set out in paragraph 5 to the general conditions in each invitation to bid, to dispute the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the invitations to bid within the prescribed time frame which is set out in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. That time requirement is to make known objections within 72

   hours of becoming apprised of the terms and conditions in the invitation to bid. It was only at the point in time at which Petitioner had been found unresponsive in the two bid circumstances and offered his formal written protest on April 11, 1989, that he attempted to advance claims associated with the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the invitation to bid. He made further attempts to criticize those terms within the invitation to bid through presentation at hearing and in the course of the proposed recommended orders. All these efforts were untimely.

   
   

7. The significance of Petitioner's failure to timely challenge the terms within the invitations to bid, that is the conditions and specifications, means that the facts in dispute are considered on the basis of whether the Petitioner and others who offered their responses to the invitations to bid have complied with those conditions and specifications as written, not as Petitioner would have them be.

   
   

8. Bid 119 was responded to by the Petitioner and Touche Ross & Company. Petitioner's response was timely. By committee review of the responses to the invitation to bid performed by the Respondent and approved by the Assistant Director of Administration, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, one Bruce Brown, a decision was reached to reject all bids. Petitioner and Touche Ross were made aware of this rejection. Petitioner made a timely challenge to the rejection of his bid in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, leading to the present hearing. Touche Ross did not challenge that decision and did not seek to participate in this hearing, although it was noticed of the pendency of these proceedings.

   
   

9. Petitioner and Wakely timely responded to the invitation in Bid 120. The review committee with the concurrence of Mr. Brown found Wakely to be responsive and Petitioner to be unresponsive to the terms of the invitation. Petitioner made a timely request to be heard on this decision by the agency leading to the present hearing. Wakely was noticed of the pendency of this hearing as well as the agency's choice to change from a position of accepting the Wakely bid to one of rejecting all bids and has not participated in the process.

   
   

10. The reason why the Respondent has chosen to reject the Wakely bid is based upon its belief that to do so would expedite the process of gaining the actuarial services which it seeks under Bid 120 and based upon some concern that if it sought to contract with Wakely, whom it believes to be the only responsive bidder in Bid 120, it would be met with disapproval by the State of Florida, Department of General Services. This resistance by the sister agency is premised upon the opinion that to contract with Wakely would constitute the use of a sole source contract in a setting in which there are numerous choices of actuaries who might be able to perform the work, and General Services who controls sole source purchases would not allow this.

    
    

11. Within Bid 119 are various special conditions. Among those is the stated purpose found in paragraph 1.0 and it says:

    
    

    The Division of Insurance Rating (hereinafter "Division") within the State of Florida's Department of Insurance (hereinafter "Department") is seeking one qualified actuary for the rendering of expert services in the area of rating requirements and procedures and review of the rate filings for

    Health Maintenance Organizations (hereinafter "HMO") and Long Term Care Insurance (hereinafter "LTC"). It is anticipated that the contract will be effective from April 1, 1989 to September 30, 1989, although the precise dates will be dependent upon the date the contract is signed and the schedules of department personnel.

    By this Invitation to Bid (hereinafter "ITB"), the Division is requesting interested actuaries (hereinafter "respondent") to review the general and specific criteria outlined in this ITB and to present a bid.

    
    

12. Other instructions in Bid 119 at paragraph 3.0 state:

    
    

    Emphasis on each bid must be completeness and clarity of content. In order to expedite the evaluation of proposals, it is essential that bidders follow the instructions contained herein.

    * * *

    1. Bidder shall complete the attached Bid Sheet in its entirety. By affixing manual signature on this bid sheet the bidder states that he/she read all bid

       specifications and conditions and agree to all terms, conditions, provisions, and specifications.

    2. Respondent's Credentials and Capabilities Proposals must include substantial evidence of the ability of the respondent to undertake the work required within the parameters and time frames referenced in this ITB. The respondent must be a member of both the American Academy of Actuaries and the Society of Actuaries. Furthermore, the respondent must convincingly demonstrate his or her expertise in both the HMO and LTC areas. Such demonstration must include at least the following:

       HMO

       1. Significant consulting assignment or other work responsibility involving HMO ratemaking

          in 1988 or 1989. Particulars must be provided, including the specific work product requested, hours spent on the job, the results of the job, and the respondent's precise role.

       2. Convincing evidence of familiarity with the Health Maintenance Organization Amendments of 1988 to the Federal Health Maintenance Organization Act. Such evidence might include a completed or ongoing consulting assignment in which knowledge of the new legislation was critical, an article published on the new legislation, or a speech to a professional organization.

       3. Public demonstrations of the respondent's

          expertise in the HMO area, such as speeches, published articles, positions held in HMO professional organizations, or prior full-time employment by an HMO.

       4. Assistance in the preparation of HMO rate filings for review by the Department.

       5. Assistance in the preparation of rates for federally qualified HMOs.

       LTC

       1. Significant consulting assignments or other work responsibility involving LTC ratemaking in 1988 or 1989. Particulars

          must be provided, including the specific work product requested, hours spent on the job, the results of the job, and the respondent's precise role.

       2. Public demonstrations of the respondent's expertise, such as speeches, published articles, or positions held in professional organizations relative to LTC (i.e., committee assignments)

       OTHER

       The respondent should also include a description of prior work assignments

       involving consulting or other services to state insurance departments. This prior work need not be restricted to HMO or LTC.

       Note: Evidence of the respondent's expertise must be verifiable. Referenced consulting assignments must include the name, address, and telephone number of an employee of the client who can verify the nature of the assignment. Copies of published articles must be provided, along with the name and date of the periodical in which it was published.

       Also, copies of speeches must be provided, along with the name of the organization to which the speech was given, a contract person, and the date of the speech.

       * * *

       (f) Respondent's Bid In preparing a bid, the respondent should make sure that he or she has submitted at least the following information:

       1. A demonstration that all requirements in the "Respondent's Credentials and Capabilities" section are met;

       2. An explicit statement as to the proposed hourly rate;

       3. A clear statement that the respondent is able to perform the required tasks in the prescribed time frames, as described in "Specific Work Product Required". Such information must be provided together with the bid sheet provided in Section 11. A suggested format is shown in Section 10.

13. In both bid invitations, at paragraph 4.0 of the special conditions, bidders are reminded that bids which do not meet the mandatory technical requirements set out in 3.0 and its sub-parts will not be considered for selection and that the bids that are deemed responsive will be evaluated on the basis of cost and the award made to the lowest responsive bidder at an hourly rate of charges.

    
    

14. Both invitations at Paragraph 4.1 indicate that the state has reserved its opportunities to reject all bids if that is felt to be in its best interest.

    
    

15. Paragraph 5.2 of the invitation is a further reminder to bidders that any bidder desiring to file a protest arising out of the invitation to bid shall do so in a setting in which Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes controls.

    
    

16. Another specification found in both invitations at paragraph 10.0 entitled, "Respondent's (referring to the bid respondents) Credentials and Capabilities." Under that category it is stated that it is recommended that the format found on that page in the bid specifications be used in supplying the information needed to respond to paragraph 3.0 of the bid specifications for both invitations. Under that paragraph 10.0 there is a place for the respondent's name, the name of his employer, membership year in the AAA, membership designation in the 50A: FSA and ASA and year the 50A designation was awarded.

    
    

17. In Bid 119, beyond paragraph 10.0 are found paragraphs 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3, these paragraphs recapitulate those items and the various sub-parts to paragraph 3.0 and provide space for answers to be given to those inquires concerning the Petitioner's credentials and capabilities.

    
    

18. There is a paragraph 11.0 in both invitations entitled "Bid Sheet." It has lines related to the hourly rate, vendor name, name of actuary to render services, mailing address, city, state and zip code, authorized signature both

    manual and typed, telephone number, and the date of submission. This particular paragraph reminds the bidder that by affixing the signature, this is a verification that all bid specifications and conditions have been read and that the terms and conditions, provisions and specifications are agreed to and that certification is made that the services will be provided at the hourly rates stated.

    
    

19. Otherwise the basic format for Bid 120 in terms of special conditions is the same as described for the pertinent paragraphs in Bid 119 that have been set out before with the exception of Paragraphs 1.0, and 3.0 (c). They state the following:

    
    

    1.0 PURPOSE:

    The Division of Insurance Rating (hereinafter "Division") within the State of Florida's Department of Insurance (hereinafter "Department") is seeking one qualified actuary for the rendering of expert services pertaining to review of Health Insurance rate filings. It is anticipated that the contract will be effective from April 1, 1989 to September 30, 1989, although the precise dates will be dependent upon the date the contract is signed and the schedules of department personnel.

    * * *

    3.0 (c) RESPONDENTS CREDENTIALS AND CAPABILITIES.

    Proposals must include substantial evidence of the ability of the respondent to undertake the work required within the parameters and time frames referenced in this ITB. The respondent must be a member of both the American Academy of Actuaries and the Society of Actuaries.

    Furthermore, the respondent must convincingly demonstrate his or her expertise in rating the filing with the Department the following products:

    1. Individual Major Medical

    2. Medicare Supplement

    3. Long Term care

    4. Other types of coverage depending upon the needs of the Department and skills

    of the respondent.

    Such demonstration must include at least the following:

    1. A high degree of familiarity with Chapter 4-58 of the Regulations of the Florida Department of Insurance. Such familiarity should be demonstrated by the respondent providing evidence that he or she submitted at least twenty- five Health Insurance rate filings to the Department which were approved between January 1, 1988 and

       February 28, 1989.

    2. The consultant should demonstrate familiarity with Individual Major Medical, Medicare Supplement, and Long Term Care policies. Such familiarity should be demonstrated by the consultant providing evidence that he or she submitted at least three filings to the Department in each of those areas which were approved between January 1, 1988 and

    February 28, 1989.

    NOTE: Only those filings actually certified by the actuary, as provided in 4-58, may be counted in meeting the above requirements.

    
    

20. Bid 120 has paragraph 10.1 that refers back to sub-parts within paragraph 3.0(c) and provides space for answering the request for information concerning credentials and capabilities.

    
    

21. In both bids Respondent is critical of the Petitioner for not using the format suggested in the various portions of paragraph 10, in essence filling out the specification sheet in the space provided for the answers which the petitioner would give. Having reviewed these materials associated with each bid invitation, the format idea is not a mandatory requirement, it is a suggested

    requirement. What is incumbent upon the Petitioner is to comply in substance with the requirements set out in the invitations to bid. In that respect the Petitioner is deficient in a material manner.

    
    

22. A copy of the requirements Bid 119 may be found in Respondent's exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Petitioner's response to the invitation to bid in Bid 119 is found within Respondent's No. 4 admitted into evidence. In his statement of credentials and capabilities, Petitioner has not utilized the spaces provided in paragraphs 10.1 through 10.3. Instead he has enclosed a letter that includes a statement of work history and professional experience. Under the category of health maintenance organization, the special conditions of paragraph 3.0(c), there is no statement of a consulting assignment or other work responsibility that would involve HMO rate making in the years 1988 or 1989. Furthermore, there is no convincing evidence of familiarity with the health maintenance organization amendments of 1988 to the Federal Health Maintenance Organization Act. There is no reference to public demonstrations of the Petitioner's expertise in the HMO area to include speeches, published articles, positions held in an HMO professional organization or prior full-time employment by an HMO. While there is an indication of experience in rate review from the regulatory point of view in Florida and Massachusetts, there is no indication as required by the specifications and conditions of the preparation of rate filings to be reviewed by a regulator. Finally, under the category of HMO there is no indication of assistance in the preparation of rates for federally qualified HMOs.

    
    

23. In the long term care component of the credentials and capabilities portion of Bid 119, Petitioner has offered no explanation of his background.

    
    

24. Under the category "other" Respondent has included a description of prior work assignments involving consulting or other services to state insurance departments. On the other hand he has failed to evidence in more specific terms as the note to paragraph 3.0(c) requires, names, addresses and telephone numbers.

    
    

25. A copy of the requirements of Bid 120 may be found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. A copy of Respondent's reply to the invitation to bid may be found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. As with the previous Bid 119, in Bid 120 Petitioner did not utilize the space available in writing his answers in paragraph 10.1 which relates back to the requirements for credentials and capabilities as announced in paragraph 3.0(c). Instead Petitioner attached a letter in which he attempts to state his compliance with the requirements of the bid. He sets out comments about his work history and professional experience which do not pertain to rating and filing with the Respondent the products of individual major medical, Medicare Supplement, long term care and other types of coverage depending upon needs of the Respondent and skills of the Petitioner.

    
    

26. Within Bid 120 in the requirement for familiarity with Chapter 4-58 Florida Administrative Code Petitioner has indicated some involvement with that regulation. However, he has not shown where he had submitted at least twenty- five health insurance rate filings to the Respondent which were approved between the January 1, 1988 and February 28, 1989.

    
    

27. In Bid 120 on the topic of demonstration of familiarity with individual major medical, Medicare Supplement and long-term care policies, Petitioner did not demonstrate that he had submitted at least three filings with

    the Department in each of those areas which were approved between January 1, 1988, and February 28, 1989.

    
    

28. By contrast the Wakely response to the invitation to bid, a copy of which is found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 9 admitted into evidence, has adequately responded to the requirements of the Bid 120 in the areas where the Petitioner has been deficient, as well as other areas.

    
    

29. As alluded to before Petitioner has failed to make timely challenge to the conditions and specifications associated with the two invitations to bid. Moreover, while allegations in the formal written protest of April 11, 1989 and further remarks of April 20, 1989 addressed to the Insurance Commissioner, together with the proposed recommended order suggest problems with the conditions and specifications associated with the two invitations to bid, proof at hearing submitted by Petitioner did not confirm these allegations.

    
    

30. Except in those areas preferred to in the factual discussion above Petitioner's bid responses are adequate to meet the terms of the invitations to bid.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

31. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to these proceeding in accordance with Sections 120.53(5) and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

32. Petitioner has made a timely protest to the intended agency action following the bid opening and posting. See Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes.

    
    

33. Petitioner has the burden of proving in both cases that he submitted a responsive bid, that Wakely did not and that it would be inappropriate for the Respondent to reject bids in the two cases. See McDonald v. Department of Banking & Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) and Capeletti Bros. v. State Dept. of Gen. Ser., 432 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

    
    

34. To be responsive Petitioner must comply with Section 287.012(15), Florida Statutes, which states in part that a responsive bidder is:

    
    

    ... a person who has submitted a bid which conforms in all material respects to the invitation to bid or request for proposal.

    
    

35. In Bid 119 and Bid 120 Petitioner's bids are not responsive and fail in material respects. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to the award of the contracts. Moreover, he has failed to show that the Wakely bid is unresponsive.

    
    

36. Assuming the ability of the Petitioner to continue to challenge the agency's decision to reject all bids in Bid 119 and Bid 120 even absent a demonstration of his compliance with the material requirements of the two bids, he has failed to show that the agency has acted inappropriately in rejecting all bids in Bid 119 and Bid 120. Petitioner did not prove that the agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in its choice to reject the bids. See Department of Transportation v. Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1988); Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt and Sign Concrete, 421 So.2d 505 (Fla. 1982) and Culpepper v. Moore, 40 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1949).

37. Concerning the Petitioner's belated attempts to have considered the matter of the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the invitations to Bid 119 and Bid 120, he is untimely in that endeavor. As stated in the facts pertaining to both invitations, paragraph 5 to the general conditions and paragraph 5.2 to the special conditions alert the Petitioner to the necessity to challenge the terms and conditions in compliance with the requirements of Rule 13A-1.006, Florida Administrative Code and within the times prescribed by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and that the failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the right to proceed under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. As contemplated by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, Respondent gave no notice of the requirements, that is the conditions and specifications in terms of its invitations in Bid 119 and Bid 120 through those bid solicitations. This was achieved through the mail-out of the invitations to bid and through the delivery to the Petitioner of those bid instruments. Petitioner was made aware of the implications of not taking issue with the terms, conditions and specifications within 72 hours of receipt of the documents known as the invitation to bid, Bid 119 and Bid 120. As described in the facts, he did not file a protest of the terms, conditions and specifications within the

    72 hours contemplated by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and thereby waived the right to do so. Receipt of the invitations to bid constituted the receipt of the notice of the agency's decision to seek bid responses that would comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications set out in those invitations to bid and these were not challenged in a timely manner. See also Capeletti Bros., Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 499 So.2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)

    
    

38. The requirements set forth in Rules 4F-1.004 and 13A-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, carry forth the purposes of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, concerning the protest of agency decisions or intended decisions such as the announcement of terms, conditions and specifications in the invitations to bid, Bid 119 and Bid 120. Petitioner failed to comply with these requirements as it relates to a challenge to the terms, specifications and conditions within invitations to Bid 119 and 120. Finally, even if the Petitioner was deemed to be timely in his challenge to the terms, conditions and specifications as announced in his formal written protest and follow-up of April 11, 1989, and follow-up correspondence of April 20, 1989, the proof at hearing does not cause a rejection of any of the terms, conditions or specifications within invitations to Bid 119 and Bid 120.

    
    

39. Having considered the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDATION

That final orders be entered which dismiss the protests of the Petitioner in Bid 119 and Bid 120, and reject all bids in those two invitations.

DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1989.

APPENDIX

The proposed facts of the parties are spoken to as follows: Petitioner's Facts Paragraph 1-8 are subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 9 suggests facts in detail that were considered from a review of the Petitioner's response to Bid 119 and Bid 120, but need not be stated in this detail to resolve the factual dispute

Paragraphs 10 and 11 are an attempt to attack the bid terms, conditions and specifications and are not timely and constitute legal argument and are not accepted for fact finding purposes.

Paragraph 12 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 13 constitutes legal argument.

Paragraphs 14 and 15 are attempts to attack the terms, conditions and specifications of Bid 119 and Bid 120 and are unacceptable.

Paragraph 16 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

Paragraph 17 is an attempt to attack the terms, conditions and specifications in Bid 119 and Bid 120 and is unacceptable.

Paragraph 18 constitutes legal argument Paragraph 19 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 20 is irrelevant.

Paragraphs 21 and 22 constitute an attempt to attack the terms, conditions and specifications in Bid 119 and Bid 120. The suggestion in paragraph 23 that Petitioner has met the terms, specifications and conditions of Bid 119 and Bid

120 is rejected.

Paragraph 24 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are irrelevant.

Respondent's Facts Paragraphs 1-17 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 18 is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute.

Paragraphs 19-40 are subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 41 is not necessary to the resolution to this dispute. Paragraphs 42-50 are subordinate to facts found.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dinkar B. Koppikar, pro se 2363 Tour Eiffel Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5931

Gabriel Mazzeo, Esquire John E. Hale, Esquire Office of Legal Services 200- East Gaines Street Room 412, Larson Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and

Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

Touche Ross & Co.

900 Pillsbury Center

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Wakely and Associates, Inc. 1820 South Highland Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616

Docket for Case No: 89-002152BID

Orders for Case No: 89-002152BID