STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MEDICAL IMAGING SPECIALTIES, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 89-2837BID
)
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William R. Cave, held a formal hearing in the above- styled case on June 19, 1989, in Jacksonville, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Lawrence J. Hamilton, II, Esquire
GALLALGHER, MIKALS & CANNON, P. A.
200 Independent Square Post Office Box 4788
Jacksonville, Florida 22201
For Respondent: Joseph T. Barron, Jr., Esquire,
Associate General Counsel University of Florida
207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether the University of Florida acted arbitrarily and capriciously or abused its discretion by selecting C & S X-Ray Systems for the award of Lots I, II and II in Bid J89F-74, Radiology Equipment.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Respondent, University of Florida prepared specifications and issued an Invitation To Bid (ITB) for radiology equipment for the Department of Veterinary Radiology. The mailing date of the ITB was February 17, 1989, with a bid opening date of March 21, 1989, which was changed to March 28, 1989, by an addendum to the ITB on March 17, 1989. The ITB was divided into five lots.
Four vendors responded to the ITB but only C & S X-Ray Systems (C & S), Medical Imaging Specialties (MIS) and Siemens Medical Systems, Inc. (Siemens) submitted bids for Lots I, II and III which are in contention in this proceeding.
Following the receipt and evaluation of the three bids for Lots I, II and II, it was determined by the Respondent that although the bids of Siemens and MIS for Lot I were the lower bids, MIS being the lowest bid, neither bid met the
specifications and was, therefore, nonresponsive. The C & S bid for Lot I met the specifications and was the only responsive bid for Lot I. The C & S bids for Lots II and III were the lowest responsive bids. The Respondent recommended awarding the bids for Lots I, II and III to C & S. MIS filed a timely written protest and this proceeding ensued.
In support of its position, MIS presented the testimony of Emerson Ferrell, Fred Swearingen, Emily Hamby, Douglas Coon, Dr. Norman Ackerman and John Gibson. MIS had attempted to serve a subpoena on Michael Dehann to testify at the hearing but was unable to obtain service because Dehann was out of town. MIS made an ore tenus motion for continuance because of its inability to serve Dehann. The motion was denied with the understanding that MIS could renew its motion at the end of the hearing if it thought Dehann's testimony was critical to its case after presentation of all other evidence. MIS' exhibits 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 17 through 21 were received into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Norman Ackerman. Joint Exhibits 1 through 7 were received into evidence.
At the conclusion of the hearing, MIS renewed its motion to continue the hearing because MIS considered Michael Dehann's testimony necessary to its case and the parties were not agreeable to obtaining his testimony by deposition.
The undersigned determined that MIS had diligently attempted to serve Dehann for the hearing on June 19, 1989, but because time was short before the hearing was unable to obtain service. Therefore, over the objection of the Respondent, the hearing was continued until June 28, 1989. Subsequently, MIS requested that hearing date be cancelled, and without objection from the Respondent, the hearing was cancelled.
The parties filed a written waiver of the requirements of Section 120.53(5)(e), Florida Statutes. The parties timely submitted their post-hearing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Laws. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made as reflected in an Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found:
On February 17, 1989, the Respondent, University of Florida mailed an Invitation To Bid (ITB), Bid No. J89F-74 for certain radiology equipment for the Department of Veterinary Radiology. The ITB was divided into five lots in order to give more vendors an opportunity to bid.
Only Lots I, II and III of Bid No. J89F-74 are in contention in this proceeding. The Respondent received bids on Lots I, II and III from C & S X-Ray Systems (C & S), Medical Imaging specialties (MIS) and Siemens Medical Systems, Inc. (Siemens). The bid of MIS on Lot I was the lower bid but the bid was determined to be nonresponsive by the Respondent because the bid did not meet the specifications for the generator in Lot I. The bid of Siemens on Lot I was lower than the bid of C & S on Lot I, but Siemens' bid was determined to be nonresponsive by the Respondent. Siemens also bid a 100 kw generator in Lot I. The bid of C & S on Lot I was determined to be the lower responsive bid. The bids of C & S on Lots II and III were the lower bids and responsive. Dr. Norman Ackerman recommended, and the Respondent awarded the bids on Lots I, II and III to C & S.
Dr. Norman Ackerman, Chief of Radiology, Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, University of Florida, was the person responsible for drafting the specifications for the radiology equipment to be purchased by bid through the ITB.
In preparation for writing the specifications for the radiology equipment, Dr. Ackerman: (a) was advised by Fred Swearingen, purchasing agent for the J. Hillis Miller Health Center, that the specifications had to be as broad and generic as possible to prevent "lock-out" specifications and enhance competition; (b) attended the Radiology Society of North America (RSNA) convention in Chicago, Illinois, where he looked at different radiology equipment and spoke with company representatives, including Douglas Coon, President, Florida X-Ray Corporation of which C & S is a division; (c) discussed radiology equipment with colleagues at other universities; (d) reviewed brochures, drawings and engineering information from C & S, MIS, Siemens, Technomed, Quantel, Picker and Transworld; and (e) had discussions, other than at the RSNA convention, with representatives from C & S, Transworld, Picker and Siemens concerning radiology equipment.
Based on all the information received and reviewed by Dr. Ackerman, and his independent judgment, Dr. Ackerman wrote the specifications for the radiology equipment to be purchased through the ITB. These specifications reflect the requirements of the Respondent.
While the specifications written by Dr. Ackerman are very similar to the specifications for several pieces of radiology equipment for which C & S was vendor, they are not "lock-out" specifications because other radiology equipment handled by other bidders could meet those specifications. Also, the very nature of veterinary radiology requires certain radiology equipment to be customized because animals, such as horses, unlike humans, do not always move as directed, and the equipment has to be designed to move around the animal.
Under General Conditions of the ITB, the bidder is advised to follow the instructions to insure acceptance of the bid.
Section 4(c) and 7, General Conditions, of the ITB provides in pertinent part as follows:
MISTAKES: Bidders are expected to examine the specifications ... and all instructions pertaining to supplies and services.
Failure to do so will be at bidder's risk.... (Emphasis supplied).
* * *
INTERPRETATIONS: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed to this office... No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the University of Florida in response to reguests in full compliance
with this provision.
Under SPECIAL CONDITIONS of the ITB, the headings of AWARD and BID SPECIFICATIONS provide as follows:
AWARD
Award will be made on an "All-or-None Offer Per Lot" basis.
* * *
BID SPECIFICATIONS
Questions concerning the specifications setforth herein should be directed to Fred Swearingen, Phone Number (904) 393-2814.
Section I., A., 1, of the bid specifications for Lot I provides as follows:
Large animal Radiographic Equipment.
Generator
110 KW phased 12-Pulse Generator To Meet The Following Minimum Requirements
-Rated 1250 MA 90 KVP
1000 MA 100 KVP
600 MA 140 KVP
500 MA 150 KVP
MIS bid a 100 kv generator as follows: HD150B-30 400v Three Phase Generator
Rating:
12 pulses, 150 kVp, 1000mA, 100KW 1000 mA at 100 kV
700 mA at 125 kV
400 mA at 150 kV
Section I., F., 6., of the bid specifications for Lot I provides in pertinent part as follows:
Large Animal Radiographic Equipment.
* * *
F. Vertical Grid Cabinet Stand And Grid Cabinet To Meet The Following Requirements
6. ... The grid cabinet shall rotate 360 degrees about the horizontal axis of the transverse arm
MIS' bid on the Grid Cabinet (vertical bucky) for Lot I provides in pertinent part as follows:
The grid cabinet will be able to roll + & - 90 degrees around the axis of the telescopic arm
Although MIS did not have any experience in bidding on veterinary radiology equipment at the time Emerson Ferrell and John Gibson were discussing the MIS bid in response to the ITB with Dr. Ackerman, MIS did have experience in the bidding process, whereas this was Dr. Ackerman's first major involvement in
the bidding process. However, the Respondent's Purchasing Division relied on Dr. Ackerman for the technical aspects of the ITB and referred oral questions from bidders regarding the technical aspect to Dr. Ackerman for a response. Dr. Ackerman's responses were always oral.
MIS did not request or receive any written clarification of the specifications relating to the 110 kw generator set out under I.,A.,1. in Lot I. Instead, MIS interpreted oral communications between its representatives and Dr. Ackerman to mean that a 100 kw generator would be within the specifications for the generator in Lot I.
MIS did not request or receive any written clarifications relating to the required 360 degree rotation of the vertical grid cabinet (vertical bucky) set out under I.,F.,6. of the bid specifications for Lot I. Instead, MIS on its own initiative determined that the required 360 degree rotation of the vertical bucky was not necessary, and that a roll of + & - 90 degrees around the axis of the telescopic arm (180 degree rotation) was all that was required.
It has not been shown that Dr. Ackerman intentionally or unintentionally misled or encouraged MIS or Siemens into substituting a 100 kw generator for the 110 kw generator specified in Lot I because the x-ray tube specified for Lot I was only 100 kw.
The 100 kw x-ray tube gives a smaller focal point and a sharp image whereas the 110 kw x-ray tube gives a larger focal point and less sharp an image.
One of the reasons for specifying the 110 kw generator over the 100 kw generator was for the Respondent to have the flexibility to increase the kw rating of the x-ray tube when it needed replacing in the future so that if the Respondent preferred a larger focal point and was willing to sacrifice some of the image sharpness it could do so with the higher kw rating without having to upgrade or replace the generator.
A generator will last 7 to 10 years and can be repaired or replaced, while an x-ray tube will last 2 to 3 years and must be replaced with a new x-ray tube when it fails.
There was insufficient evidence to show that the 100 kw generator bid by MIS could be upgraded to a 110 kw or, that if could be upgraded, what it would cost to upgrade to 110 kw, notwithstanding any testimony to the contrary. However, there would be an additional cost in the bid if MIS upgraded the 100 kw generator to a 110 kw generator. Although there would be an additional cost in the bid if MIS had bid a 110 kw generator instead of a 100 kw generator, there was insufficient evidence to show what that cost increase would be, notwithstanding any testimony to the contrary.
Because Dr. Ackerman decided that the MIS bid on Lot I was not responsive due to the 100 kw generator not being within the specifications of Lot I and being a material variance that could not be waived, he did not call or contact MIS to clarify the matter of the rotation of the vertical bucky. The bid of MIS on the vertical bucky does not meet the specifications and, as such, is a material variance in the bid specifications that cannot be waived.
However, MIS agreed after the bid opening that it could, and would, provide a vertical bucky which would rotate 360 degrees about the horizontal axis of the transverse arm without extra charge.
22. The failure to bid a 110 kw generator in accordance with the specifications in Lot I was a material variance in the bid specifications that could not be waived, notwithstanding any communications between the representatives of MIS and Dr. Ackerman.
The specifications of Lot III for the Digital Flurography Unit required, among other things, that the unit be mobile, operate at normal room temperature without the need for additional air conditioning and have a disc capacity of 672 megabytes.
The unit bid by MIS was not mobile, required a separate air conditioner or water chiller and had a disc capacity of only 474 megabytes. This unit does not meet the specifications for the Digital Flurography Unit set out in Lot III, and would be a material variance in the bid specifications that could not be waived.
Nothing prevented MIS from bidding the same Quantel unit that C & S had bid and, thereby meet the specifications of Lot III. Instead, MIS interpreted Dr. Ackerman's oral communications, without requesting a written clarification, to mean that MIS could bid a unit that did not meet the specifications for the Digital Flurography Unit set out in Lot III. It was not shown that Dr. Ackerman misled or encouraged MIS into bidding the Sierra unit that did not meet the specifications of Lot III rather than a Quantel unit which did meet the specifications of Lot III.
MIS did not contest the specifications of any equipment in the ITB as provided for in Paragraph 14 of the General Conditions of the ITB before submitting its bid. However, in its letter of March 15, 1989, John Gibson stated, "The specifications, as you have listed them, are important to perform the necessary procedures."
Section I.,B.,3 of the specifications of Lot I provides as follows:
Large Animal Radiographic Equipment.
B. Over Head Tube Support System To Meet The Following Requirements:
3. - The tube and column shall be completely free of sway when extended. (Emphasis supplied)
The bid of C & S on Section I.,B.,3. of the specifications of Lot I provides as follows:
Transworld Custom Made Double Column OTS Model #C25202C
3) The motor driven vertical tube column is essentially free of sway.
(Emphasis supplied)
Because any sway of the tube column bid by C & S would be minute, the use of the term "essentially free of sway" by C & S means basically the same as the term "completely free of sway" and, should there be any deviation from the specifications, it would constitute a nonmaterial variance in the bid specifications that could be waived.
Section II.,G.,1. and 2. of the bid specifications for Lot II provide as follows:
II. Radiographic Fluoroscopic Equipment
Over Table Tube and Image Tube Support System With Following Specification:
- 21 foot longitudinal rails
- 12 foot transverse bridge for radiographic tube
The bid of C & S on Section II.,G.,1. and 2. of Lot II provides as follows:
G. Over Table Tube Support and Image Tube Support System as Follows:
1 Pair of 20 foot long longitudinal rails
The transverse bridge for the radiographic tube is 300 CM long
A notation at the end of C & S' bid on Lot II provides in pertinent part as follows:
... C & S X-Ray Systems bid meets or exceeds the bid specifications for all items in Lot II except the length of the transverse bridge
has been shortened from 12 feet to 9.8 feet to allow for proper room clearance.
C & S uses 300 CM and 9.8 feet interchangeably since 300 CM equals 9.8 feet.
On the first viewing of the room where the transverse bridge was to be installed, C & S prepared drawings showing a 12 foot transverse bridge and these drawings were made available to the Respondent. However, upon viewing the room at a later time, MIS determined that the x-ray tube would not go over the cabinets in the room. C & S reduced the length of the transverse bridge to accommodate the cabinets because Dr. Ackerman did not want the cabinets removed. C & S did not advise Dr. Ackerman of the reason for this change until Dr. Ackerman contacted C & S after the bids were opened.
After the bids were opened, Dr. Ackerman discussed the difference in the length of the transverse bridge with C & S. At this point, C & S explained its reason for bidding the 9.8 foot transverse bridge instead of the 12 foot transverse bridge shown on the drawings and in the specifications. Dr. Ackerman's was of the opinion that the x-ray tube would clear the cabinets and prefers to use the 12 foot transverse bridge.
C & S has agreed to furnish 12 foot transverse bridge at the same price as the 9.8 foot transverse bridge, provided the room will accommodate that length. C & S had received bids from its vendors to furnish the 12 foot transverse bridge at the same price as the 9.8 foot transverse bridge. If C & S had bid the 12 foot transverse bridge, its bid price for Lot II would have been the same.
It was not shown that MIS' bid on Lot II would have been lower had MIS known about the room configuration, and had been allowed to bid the 9.8 foot transverse bridge rather than the 12 foot transverse bridge, notwithstanding any testimony to the contrary. The MIS bid met the specifications of Lot II.
C & S bid a pair of 20 foot longitudinal rails rather than a pair of
21 foot longitudinal rails as set out in the bid specifications for Lot II because the support in the ceiling to which the rails would be attached ended approximately 6 inches from the wall, and extending the rails to the wall could create a potential liability in the event of an accident.
C & S did not bring to Dr. Ackerman's attention, before or after the bids were submitted, the reason for the difference in the length of the longitudinal rails. Dr. Ackerman became aware of the difference in the length of the rails at the hearing. However, it is Dr. Ackerman's opinion, considering the potential liability, that the effect of a 6 inch difference on each end of the longitudinal rails would be negligible on the use of the equipment.
It was not shown that the bid of MIS on Lot II would have been lower had it bid a 20 foot longitudinal rail instead of a 21 foot longitudinal rail. Nor was it shown that the bid of C & S on Lot II was lower because it bid a 20 foot longitudinal rail instead of a 21 foot longitudinal rail.
Considering the potential liability, the negligible effect on the use of the equipment and that no price difference was shown, the change in the length of the longitudinal rails, although a deviation in the specifications, is a nonmaterial variance in the specifications that could be waived.
Since about 1980, Transworld, through C & S, has loaned the University of Florida, Veterinary Medicine School, general purpose radiology equipment, replacing it approximately every 3 years. When the equipment is to be replaced, it is bought by C & S from Transworld and sold by C & S after its removal.
In each of the last several years, Transworld and C & S have given a plaque and a cash award to an outstanding graduate of the Veterinary Medicine School at the University of Florida at the graduation dinner.
Neither the loaning of the radiology equipment nor the annual awards had any influence on Dr. Ackerman's recommendation or the Respondent's decision to award the bid on Lots I, II and III in Bid J89F-74 to C & S.
Paragraph 9 of the General Conditions reserves the right of the Respondent, among other things, to waive any minor irregularity or technicality in the bids received.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The bid of MIS in Lots I and III contained variances. The bid of C & S in Lots I and II contained variances. Rule 13A-1002(10), Florida Administrative Code, requires the agency to reserve the right to waive minor irregularities in an otherwise valid bid and defines a minor irregularity as "...a variation from the invitation to bid ... terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid ..., or give the bidder ... an advantage or
benefit not enjoyed by other bidders ..., or does not adversely impact the interest of the agency." The rule goes on to state that a variation which is not minor cannot be waived. The Respondent in this case reserved the right to waive minor or nonmaterial variances.
The Court in Tropabest Foods, Inc. v. State, Department of General Services, 493 So.2d 50 (1 DCA Fla. 1986), while discussing variances in the bidding procedure concluded that a nonmaterial variance may be waived by the awarding agency without the integrity of the bidding procedure being violated. However, the Court then concluded a material variance was unacceptable and must be disqualified, and defined a material variance as one that gives the bidder substantial advantage over other competing bidders, changes the price bid, or stifles the competitive process.
In the instant case the Respondent has determined that the variance in the bid of MIS in Lot I concerning the generator was a material variance, and was sufficient to disqualify or reject the bid of MIS in Lot I. The Respondent also determined that there was a material variance in the bid of MIS in Lot III, but because the bid of C & S in Lot III was the lower bid and responsive, this material variance played no part in awarding the bid to C & S in Lot III.
Although the bids of C & S in Lots I and II were determined to contain variances, it was determined that these variances were nonmaterial and did not result in disqualification or rejection of the bids.
An agency has wide discretion in evaluating proposals and in awarding contracts. Nevertheless, it may not act arbitrarily and capriciously. Wood - Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Roger J. Au & Son, Inc., 354 So.2d 446 (1 DCA Fla. 1978). If an agency acts in good faith, "even though it may reach a conclusion on facts upon which reasonable men may differ, the courts will not generally interfere with their judgment, even though the decision reached may appear to some persons to be erroneous." Volume Services Div., Etc. v. Canteen Corp., 369 So.2d. 369, 391 (2 DCA Fla. 1979), quoting Culpepper v. Moore, 40 So.2d 336, 370 (Fla. 1949). Absent a finding that a agency has acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly to subvert the competitive bidding process, its decision cannot be overturned. Department of Transportation v Grooves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1988); Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., 421 So.2d 505 (Fla. 1982). The facts in this cause will not support such a finding.
As the party asserting an affirmative issue before an administrative tribunal, the burden of proof is on MIS to prove the truth of the allegations. Florida Dept. of Trans. v. J. W. C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (1 DCA Fla. 1981). MIS has failed to sustain this burden.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact the Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witness, it is, therefore
RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, University of Florida enter a Final Order denying the protest of Petitioner, Medical Imaging Specialties to the award of Lots I, II and III of Bid J89F-74, Radiology Equipment, to C & S X-Ray Systems.
DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
WILLIAM R. CAVE
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 25th day of August, 1989.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Robert Bryan, President University of Florida
226 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611
Judy Waldman, Esquire General Counsel University of Florida
207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611
Lawrence J. Hamilton, II, Esquire GALLAGHER, MIKALS & CANNON, P. A.
200 Independent Square Post Office Box 4788
Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Joseph T. Barron, Jr., Esquire Associate General Counsel University of Florida
207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DIVISION OF UNIVERSITIES
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
MEDICAL IMAGING SPECIALTIES,
Petitioner,
v. CASE NO. 89-2837BID
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
The University of Florida has received and considered the Recommended Order in the above matter, dated August 25, 1989, from Hearing Officer William R. Cave. Neither Medical Imaging Specialties nor the University of Florida has filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. The undersigned, as Interim President of the University of Florida, adopts as the Final Order the Recommended Order, attached hereto and incorporated herein, including the Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law, the Recommendation and the Appendix of the Recommended Order. Accordingly, the Petition of Medical Imaging Specialties is DENIED.
Section 120.68, Fla. Stat., allows for judicial review of this Order by filing, pursuant to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, a Notice of Appeal in the District Court of Appeal for the first District of Florida within thirty
(30) days of the date of this Order, and by filing a copy of such Notice with the Clerk of the University of Florida.
DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 1989 in Gainesville, Florida.
Robert A. Bryan, Interim President University of Florida
Filed with the Clerk of the University of Florida this 22nd day of September, 1989.
Clerk of the University
COPIES FURNISHED:
William R. Cave Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Joseph T. Barron, Jr. Associate General Counsel University of Florida
207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611
Lawrence J. Hamilton, II, Esquire Gallagher, Mikals & Cannon, P.A. Post Office Box 4788 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
=================================================================
ORDER AMENDING RECOMMENDED ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MEDICAL IMAGING SPECIALTIES, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 89-2837BID
)
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, )
)
Respondent, )
)
ORDER AMENDING RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Rule 221-6.032(2), Florida Administrative Code, it is, sua sponte,
ORDERED that:
The Appendix to the Recommended Order in the above captioned matter entered on August 25, 1989 is amended by adding Petitioner, Medical Imaging Specialties where the asterisk (*) appears in the introductory paragraph on page 19 and by substituting Medical Imaging Specialties for Health Quest in the heading immediately preceding the introductory paragraph on page 19.
A copy of the amended page is attached for your records.
DONE and SUBMITTED this 29th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
WILLIAM R. CAVE
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 29th day of August, 1989.
APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 89-2837BID
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner, Medical Imaging Specialties in this case.
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Medical Imaging Specialties
Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the Petitioner's proposed finding of fact: 2(43,44); 4- 5(4); 6(14); 9(2); 14(14); 15-16(22); 17(16,22); 19(38); 20-21(31-33, 35-42); 23(32,33,36).
Proposed findings of fact 1 and 3 are unnecessary to the conclusion reached in the Recommended Order.
Proposed findings of fact 24 (but see Finding of Fact 31-37 and 39-42) and
25 (but see Findings of Fact 4) are rejected as not being relevant or material.
Proposed findings of fact 7 (but see Finding of Fact 6), 8, 10-11 (but see Finding of Fact 15 & 17), 18 (but see Finding of Fact 28-30); 22 (but see Finding of Fact 38 & 41) and 26-29 are rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record.
The first sentence of paragraph 12 is adopted in Finding of Fact 11, otherwise not material or relevant. The balance of paragraph is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record.
The first sentence of paragraph 13 is adopted in Finding of Fact 22. The second sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, otherwise not material or relevant. The third sentence is not material or relevant.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Robert Ryan, President University of Florida
226 Tigert Hall Gainesville, FL 32611
Judy Waldman, Esquire General Counsel University of Florida
207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, FL 32611
Joseph T. Barron, Jr., Esquire Associate General Counsel University of Florida
207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, FL 32611
Lawrence J. Hamilton, II, Esquire GALLAGHER, MIKALS & CANNON, P.A.
200 Independent Square
P. O. Box 4788 Jacksonville, FL 32201
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 25, 1989 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sep. 22, 1989 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 25, 1989 | Recommended Order | Absent a finding that an agency acted fraudulently,dishonestly, arbritrarily or illegally subvert the bidding process its decision will not be overturned. |
