STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RAMCO RECYCLING SYSTEMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-0799BID

) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to written notice a formal hearing was held in this case before Larry J. Sartin, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on February 22, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Steven W. Huss, Esquire

1017-C Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303

For Respondent: Chris D. McGuire

Assistant General Counsel

Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether the Department of Environmental Regulation's proposed award of contracts for innovative recycling projects pursuant to a Request for Proposal, solicitation number 9002C, is proper?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), issued Request for Proposal, solicitation number 9002C, on November 3, 1989, seeking innovative recycling projects. The Petitioner, Ramco Recycling Systems (hereinafter referred to as "Ramco"), filed a response to the Request for Proposal. On January 17, 1990, the Department posted its list of proposed contract winners. Ramco was not one of the ten proposed contract winners. On January 18, 1990, Ramco filed a letter with the Department indicating its intent to protest the proposed awards. On January 29, 1990, Ramco filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department. The Petition was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 7, 1990.

On February 21, 1990, the parties filed a Prehearing Stipulation.

At the formal hearing Ramco presented the testimony of Joe Dean Ramsey.

Seven exhibits were offered by Ramco and were accepted into evidence. The Department presented the testimony of William Kahn, Barry A. Swihart and Julie Gissendanner.

On February 23, 1990, a letter was filed on behalf of Trimax Plastic Lumber, Inc., seeking to intervene in the proceedings. By letter dated February 28, 1990, Trimax Plastic Lumber, Inc., was informed that intervention could not be granted because the request to intervene had not been filed within the time period required by Rule 22I-6.010, Florida Administrative Code.

The parties have filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order or the proposed finding of fact has been accepted or rejected in the Appendix which is attached hereto.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Parties.

   
   

   1. Ramco is a sole proprietorship owned by Joe Dean Ramsey. Mr. Ramsey is engaged in the business of recycling roofing materials.

      
      

   2. Ramco currently operates three sites in Florida which accept roofing debris: Manatee, Lee and Duval Counties. Ramco operates two machines which grind roofing debris for use as road and base material.

      
      

   3. The Department is the agency of the State of Florida assigned responsibility for regulating solid waste management.

      
      

2. The Request for Proposal.

   
   

   1. Pursuant to Section 83(12), of Chapter 88-130, Laws of Florida, the Department was appropriated $750,000.00 to be used "for grants to private persons for innovative recycling projects which will demonstrate applications and products from recyclable materials."

      
      

   2. On November 3, 1989, the Department issued a Request for Proposal, solicitation number 9002C (hereinafter referred to as the "RFP"), seeking proposals for awards of the $750,000.00.

      
      

   3. The RFP proposed to award grants of "up to $75,000.00" to the winning proposals. Therefore, the RFP required at least ten winning proposals be selected by the Department. The Department also decided to designate the eleventh through fifteenth best proposals as alternates.

      
      

   4. Section A.10 of Attachment B of the RFP provides, in part, the following "Description of Work Being Procured":

      
      

      The 1988 Solid Waste Act Appropriated $750,000 from the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund to be used by DER for grants to private persons for innovative recycling projects. . . .

      The ultimate goal of the Innovative Recycling Grants is to help manage the state's solid waste and to foster

      the expansion of markets for recyclable materials. Eligible projects, therefore, must demonstrate applications and products derived from recyclable materials which have the potential for significantly reducing the amount of waste that requires disposal in Florida's landfills. [Emphasis added].

   5. "Innovative recycling projects" are defined in the RFP as follows: "Innovative recycling projects" means recycling

      processes and techniques which have not been fully proven under the circumstances of their contemplated use and which represent a significant advancement over the state of the art, when compared to an appropriate conventional technology in terms of the following:

      1. significant waste reduction;

      2. cost reduction;

      3. environmental quality; and

      4. increased energy conservation or recovery Innovative recycling projects can also mean an unusual application of an existing technology.

         
         

   6. The Description of Work Being Procured section of the RFP also provided that "[p]rojects received should be considered commercially available recycling technology not presently in widespread use. Research and development should be substantially completed." [Emphasis added].

   7. The terms "commercially available" are defined in the RFP as follows: "Commercially available" means a recycling process or

      technique in which research and development are substantially completed and the process or technique has been shown to be technically feasible.

      
      

   8. Finally, Section A.10 of Attachment B of the RFP provided that "[o]ther projects will be considered, if the proposals fully explain how the project will be innovative and meet the criteria in this request for proposal."

      
      

   9. The RFP was not challenged by Ramco or any other substantially affected party.

      
      

   10. The parties included the following stipulated fact concerning the issuance of the RFP in their Prehearing Stipulation:

       
       

       The procedures followed by the Department in developing and promulgating the RFP, including all notices to all bidders, were consistent with Chapter 287, F.S., and all rules promulgated thereunder.

       
       

   11. In pertinent part, the RFP provided that proposals received in response to the RFP were to be ranked as follows:

       
       

       Each RFP will be reviewed by a technical committee of at least three persons with technical knowledge about the Solid Waste Program. Each of the reviewers will work independently using the outline shown in Attachment C.

       Each reviewer will use the total point scores to rank the responders and a mean rank for each responder will be calculated. The mean rank scores, without accompanying responders names, will be presented to the chairman of the selection committee who will determine the final rank of the proposals.

       . . . .

       
       

   12. The technical committee required by the RFP was comprised of William Kahn, Julie Gissendanner and Barry A. Swihart. The committee members have experience and technical knowledge about the Department's Solid Waste Program. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the technical committee was not properly constituted and consistent with the RFP.

       
       

   13. Section A.25 of Attachment B of the RFP provided the following evaluation criteria which were required to be used by the technical committee in evaluating proposals:

       
       

       1. Introduction

       2. Scope and Schedule

       3. Qualifications

       4. Level of innovation

       5. Scientific/Technical Quality

       6. Commercialization Potential

       7. Applicability to Florida's Specific Solid Waste Needs

       8. Technology Transfer

       9. Cost effectiveness

          of the Project

       10. Anticipated Benefits of the Project

       11. Minority Business

       Utilization

       
       

   14. The parties stipulated to the following fact concerning the evaluation criteria in their Prehearing Stipulation:

       
       

       The criteria contained in the RFP, by which the Department rated the bidders, were in accordance with Chapter 403, F.S., and were appropriate for determining which projects should be awarded Innovative Recycling Projects grants, subject to 7.d. below.

       
       

   15. Section A.24C. of Attachment B of the RFP and Attachment C of the RFP explained the evaluation criteria listed in Section A.25 of Attachment B of the RFP. The information concerning each of the evaluation criteria sought by the Department in its RFP was explained. Section A.24C. of Attachment B of the RFP also set a limitation on the number of pages explaining how a proposal would meet each criterion could be submitted.

   16. Section A.25 of Attachment B of the RFP provided the following with regard to nonresponsive proposals:

       
       

       1. Nonresponsive RFP's include, but are not limited to, those that: (a) are irregular or not in conformance with the solicitation requirements and instructions; (b) fail to utilize or complete prescribed forms; (c) are conditional, incomplete, indefinite or ambiguous; (d) are intended to accomplish only a portion or portions of the overall work; or (e) have improper or undated signatures.

          A NONRESPONSIVE RFP WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

       2. The FDER may waive minor informalities or irregularities in the RFP's received where such are merely a matter of form and not substance, and the corrections of which ARE NOT PREJUDICIAL to other responders.

       
       

3. Responses to the RFP.

   
   

   1. A total of 39 responses to the RFP, including one from Ramco, were received by the Department.

      
      

   2. Responses to the RFP were sealed when received.

      
      

   3. The responses were evaluated individually by each member of the technical committee by application of the criteria to each proposal. The proposals were not rated comparatively or even discussed by the members of the technical committee.

      
      

   4. The members of the technical committee were not familiar with any of the proposals. The members of the technical committee were not biased against Ramco nor in favor of any proposal. The evidence failed to prove that the technical committee acted improperly in evaluating the proposals.

      
      

   5. Two of the 39 responses to the RFP were rejected by the Department as nonresponsive pursuant to Section A.25 of Attachment B of the RFP.

      
      

   6. One of the nonresponsive proposals was rejected because it was a project involving incineration. On page 4 of Attachment B of the RFP it was provided that incineration technologies would not be considered. Therefore, the Department's action in rejecting this proposal before evaluation was consistent with the RFP.

      
      

   7. The other nonresponsive proposal was rejected because it contained no information. The Department's action in rejecting this proposal before evaluation was consistent with page 8 of Attachment B of the RFP.

      
      

   8. The RFP did not require that a determination be made as to whether proposals were "commercially available" and "innovative recycling projects" before the proposal was evaluated. These factors were not specific criteria. Instead, the RFP contemplated a determination of whether proposals were commercially available and innovative recycling projects by application of all of the evaluation criteria.

   9. The RFP required the Department to take into account innovativeness of proposals and their commercial availability in ranking the proposals. It would have been improper for the Department to reject a proposal solely because it determined that the proposal was not commercially available or innovative.

      
      

   10. As used in the RFP, "commercially available" did not require that a product be available. In fact, the RFP, by defining commercially available to mean a process or technique in which research and development are substantially completed contemplated projects which did not yet have a product. "Commercially available" was properly interpreted by the technical committee to allow projects that had the potential for commercialization. Projects which were somewhere between merely completing a feasibility study and a finished project in their development were acceptable under the RFP.

       
       

   11. The evidence failed to prove that the Department's determination that all of the 37 proposals that were evaluated had some commercial availability and innovativeness was improper.

       
       

   12. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the proposals submitted by the other bidders should have been rejected as nonresponsive because they lacked an available product or lacked innovativeness.

       
       

4. The Evaluation of Ramco's Proposal.

   
   

   1. Ramco proposed to develop its roofing debris recycling process throughout Florida. Ramco represented that it recycles roofing debris for use as road and base material.

      
      

   2. Ramco requested $335,000.00 to implement its proposal; $5,000.00 per County.

      
      

   3. Ramco's proposal was ranked 34th out of the 37 proposals evaluated by the technical committee. Evaluator A, Barry A. Swihart, gave Ramco's proposal a rank of 27th. Evaluator B, Julie Gissendanner, gave Ramco's proposal a rank of

      34.5. Evaluator D, William Kahn, gave Ramco's proposal a rank of 37.

      
      

   4. Based upon the rankings of Ramco's proposal and the testimony of the members of the technical committee, Ramco's rank was reasonable and appropriate. Mr. Swihart's lower ranking of the proposal was the result of his stricter application of the evaluation criteria. Mr. Swihart's lower ranking was offset by Mr. Kahn's more generous approach. Several times during Mr. Kahn's testimony he indicated that he had given the Ramco proposal "the benefit of the doubt." Ms. Gissendanner's application of the evaluation criteria was the most reasonable. During her testimony, Ms. Gissendanner consistently and accurately referred to the evaluation criteria. It was apparent that Ms. Gissendanner reasonably and accurately evaluated the Ramco proposal consistent with the specific requirements of the RFP. The overall ranking of Ramco by the entire technical committee was consistent with Ms. Gissendanner's reasonable ranking of Ramco.

      
      

   5. Mr. Ramsey testified during the formal administrative hearing that the Ramco proposal should have received the maximum score for all of the evaluation criteria except minority business utilization. Mr. Ramsey's testimony, however, consisted primarily of self-serving conclusions unsupported by any backup data which could be appropriately considered. While it is true that Ramco presented an exhibit (exhibit 1) containing photographs, contracts and other documentation concerning the operation of Ramco, most of the evidence included in the exhibit

      was not part of the proposal submitted by Ramco to the Department. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to consider those portions of the exhibit in this proceeding. To do so would have the effect of allowing an inappropriate amendment to the Ramco proposal.

      
      

   6. The Ramco proposal, like Mr. Ramsey's testimony, contained in large part self-serving and unsupported conclusions. Details concerning how Ramco has actually recycled roofing debris (how much material has actually been used for roads or as base and who in particular has used the recycled material), and the nature of the machine used by Ramco to recycle roofing material (how is it fueled and how efficiently), were not provided in Ramco's proposal. The scores awarded Ramco's proposal properly reflect the lack of detailed explanation of the proposal.

      
      

   7. The following findings of fact concern the application of the evaluation criteria to Ramco's proposal. Although the explanations of the evaluation criteria contained in Section A.24C. of Attachment B of the RFP and Attachment C of the RFP have not been quoted, these explanations are hereby adopted as facts and have been considered in making the following findings of fact.

      
      

   8. Scope and Schedule Criterion. Ramco received scores of 2, 1 and 3 points of a possible of 7. The scores were based upon the lack of detailed work plans, milestone charts or quarterly due dates. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP.

      
      

   9. Qualifications. Ramco received scores of 6, 7 and 2 points of a possible 7. Mr. Ramsey was given credit by Mr. Kahn and Ms. Gissendanner for his experience since 1985 in the roofing recycling business of Ramco. The low score awarded by Mr. Swihart was based upon Mr. Ramsey's lack of formal education. Mr. Swihart's score was not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. The evidence failed to prove, however, that a modification of Mr. Swihart's score would have affected the Department's decision not to award Ramco a contract. The evidence also failed to prove that the other scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP.

      
      

   10. Level of Innovation. Ramco received scores of 7, 4 and 7 points of a possible 14. The Ramco proposal lacked a sufficiently detailed description of the project's innovation. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP.

       
       

   11. Scientific ("Significant" in Attachment C)/Technical Quality. Ramco received scores of 2, 0 and 4 points of a possible 10. Again, Ramco provided very little information requested as part of this criterion. Although proposals could include as many as 6 pages to describe the information required for this criteria, Ramco barely used a half page. The response to this criteria is representative of the problem with Ramco's proposal:

       
       

       We will cost evaluate and design roofing recycling facilities for all

       67 Counties in Florida. To remove roofing debris from Florida's wolid [sic] waste stream and recycle it into an excellent road and base material to be purchased and used by counties road works department [sic].

       
       

       We have collected, recycled, sold, transported, and applied thousands of tons of these recycled materials. There are no negatives, only positives to recycling

       roofing debris.

       We can have a LARGE impact on Florida's landfill needs by removing and recycling roofing debris. Approx 900,000 tons per year.

       This response does not address the criterion as required by the RFP. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP.

       
       

   12. Commercialization Potential. Ramco received scores of 8, 5 and 4 points of a possible 10. Again, supporting information was not provided by Ramco. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP.

       
       

   13. Applicability to Florida's Specific Solid Waste Needs. Ramco received scores of 10, 10 and 2 points of a possible 10. The lower score was awarded because the Ramco proposal will impact only a part of the construction and demolition debris waste in Florida. This conclusion is consistent with the RFP. If anything, Ramco could have received fewer points for this criterion. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP.

       
       

   14. Technology Transfer. Ramco received scores of 6, 2 and 3 points of a possible 7. Again, lack of specific information concerning this matter was provided. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP.

       
       

   15. Cost Effectiveness of the Project. Ramco received scores of 7, 5 and

       2 points of a possible 10. The specific information requested concerning this criterion was not provided. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP.

       
       

   16. Anticipated Benefits of the Project. This criterion was worth a total of 15 points, Five points were available for each of three subparts: (a) technical/market barriers to the project; (b) proposed results impact on reducing waste needed to be disposed of; and (c) potential for significant commercialization and technology transfer. Ramco's proposal was awarded 1, 0 and 0 points for the first subpart (it was not addressed), 4, 5 and 3 points for the second subpart and 3, 3 and 0 for the last subpart. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP.

       
       

   17. Minority Business Utilization. Ramco received no points. Ten points were available. Ramco did not question the scoring of this criterion.

       
       

   18. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the scores awarded to Ramco, with one minor exception, were unreasonable or inconsistent with the RFP. Although Ramco should have received a higher score from one evaluator for Mr. Ramsey's qualifications, the evidence failed to prove that the additional points would significantly affect the proposed award winners.

       
       

5. The Department's Proposed Action and Ramco's Challenge.

   
   

   1. On January 17, 1990, the Department posted a list of the ten proposed contract winners and the five alternates. The winners consisted of the ten proposals which received the highest scores from the technical committee.

   2. Ramco was not selected as one of the ten contract winners or one of the five alternates.

      
      

   3. On January 18, 1990, Ramco filed a letter indicating its intent to protest the Department's proposed action.

      
      

   4. On January 29, 1990, Ramco filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department.

      
      

   5. On February 7, 1990, the Department filed Ramco's Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

      
      

6. Conclusion.

   
   

   1. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department's ranking of Ramco's proposal or any other proposal was unreasonable or inconsistent with the requirements of the RFP.

      
      

   2. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department's proposed ten contract award winners or the five alternates were unreasonably determined by the Department or were inconsistent with the RFP

      
      

7. Department Costs.

1. The costs incurred by the Department in this proceeding have been set out in four Affidavits of Cost filed by the Department with its proposed recommended order.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

2. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1987).

   
   

3. The Department has argued that the standard of review announced in Department of Transportation v. Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1988), should be applied in this case.

   
   

   Thus, although the APA provides the procedural mechanism for challenging an agency's decision to award or reject all bids, the scope of the inquiry is limited to whether the purpose of competitive bidding has been subverted. In short, the hearing officer's sole responsibility is to ascertain whether the agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly.

   
   

   530 So. 2d at 914.

   
   

4. The facts in this case are distinguishable from the facts in Groves- Watkins, which involved an agency's decision to reject all bids received. The standard announced by the Court in Groves-Watkins has not been applied to an administrative protest of an agency's evaluation of competitive responses to a request for proposal which are not rejected by the agency. System Development Corporation v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 423 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company v. Robert J. Au & Son, Inc., 354 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The Groves-Watkins standard will not, therefore, be applied in this case. The role of the undersigned in this case is

   to sit on behalf of, and in the place of, the agency head and examine the process followed by the technical committee at arriving at the recommended contract winners, independently evaluating the factual bases for their recommendations, resolving factual disputes and recommending to the agency head a disposition of this case which will best serve the public interest. See Capelletti Brothers, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 432 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Couch Construction Company v. Department of Transportation, 361 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

   
   

5. The burden of proof in this case rests on Ramco. It was Ramco's burden to prove through a preponderance of competent, substantial evidence that it is entitled to one of the contracts pursuant to the terms of the RFP and based upon the proposal it submitted to the Department in response to the RFP. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

   
   

6. The competitive bidding laws of this State are intended to protect the public against collusive contracts, to prevent public officials from showing favoritism to contractors and to secure fair competition upon equal terms to all prospective bidders. Wester v. Belote, 138 So. 721 (Fla. 1931); Liberty County

   v. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., 421 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1982). The evidence in this case failed to prove that the Department's proposed decision is inconsistent with Florida's bidding law.

   
   

7. Ramco has argued that the Department's proposed action is contrary to the requirements of Section 83(12) of Chapter 88-130, Laws of Florida, and the RFP. This argument is based upon Ramco's conclusion that the RFP requires that all proposals have an existing product to be commercially available and innovative. Ramco suggests that any proposal that did not offer a product should have been rejected as nonresponsive. These arguments are rejected.

   
   

8. Ramco's interpretation of the terms "commercial availability" and "innovative recycling projects" is inconsistent with the definition of those terms in the RFP and ignores the overall language and requirements of the RFP. In defining "innovative recycling projects" the RFP uses the term "not been fully proven" and "their contemplated use" in describing the recycling processes and techniques being sought. These terms indicate that projects that have not yet reached the point of having a product can constitute "innovative recycling projects." In defining "commercially available" the RFP states that research and development is to be "substantially completed." Again, the research and development of a project could be substantially completed and not yet capable of producing a product.

   
   

9. The RFP did not require the Department to reject, as nonresponsive, proposals which did not offer a product. Ramco has failed to prove that any proposal to the Department's RFP (other than the two proposals which were determined to be nonresponsive) should have been rejected as nonresponsive.

   
   

10. Ramco has argued that the actions of the technical committee in evaluating proposals were arbitrary and capricious because Mr. Swihart and Mr. Kahn relied upon factors not specifically set out in the RFP. The evidence presented in this case failed to support this argument. Although the evidence did prove that Mr. Swihart should have given a higher score for Mr. Ramsey's qualifications, Ramco did not prove that it would have been recommended as a winner of one of the contracts to be awarded, or even an alternative, had it received the maximum points available for Mr. Ramsey's qualifications.

11. Finally, Ramco has argued that the Department was arbitrary and capricious in not awarding it a score which would have placed it in the top ten proposals. This argument is based upon Mr. Ramsey's testimony that Ramco should have received a perfect score on all of the criteria except the minority business utilization criterion. After due consideration of Mr. Ramsey's testimony and the testimony of the technical committee, it has been concluded that Ramco's score was not arbitrarily or capriciously awarded. The technical committee ranking of Ramco was reasonable and consistent with the RFP.

    
    

12. In order for Ramco to protest the Department's proposed award of contracts pursuant to the RFP, Ramco was required by Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes, to post a bond in an amount equal to one percent of the value of the contract sought. Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes, provides the following:

    
    

    If, after completion of the administrative hearing process and any appellate court proceedings, the agency prevails, it shall recover all costs and charges which shall be included in the final order or judgment, excluding attorney's fees. Upon payment of such costs and charges by the person protesting the award, the bond shall be returned to him.

    
    

13. The costs incurred by the Department in this proceeding have been set out in four Affidavits of Cost filed by the Department with its proposed recommended order.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued dismissing Ramco's Petition for

Formal Administrative Hearing.

DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.

LARRY J. SARTIN

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 12th day of April, 1990.

APPENDIX

The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted.

Ramco's Proposed Findings of Fact

Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection

1. Although general true, this is not the crucial issue in this case.

2. 32. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence.

3. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence.

4-5 Hereby accepted.

6-7 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

1. Generally true.

2. The proposed facts concerning scope and schedule are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact concerning qualifications are generally accepted in finding of fact 40.

3. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 41.

4. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 42.

5. Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

6. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 43.

7. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 44.

8. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 45.

9. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 46.

10. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 47.

11. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed findings are not relevant to this proceeding.

12. Not supported by the weight of the evidence or based upon evidence not included with Ramco's proposal.

20-28 See 15. Most of these proposed findings of fact are summaries of testimony taken out of context, are not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant to this proceeding.

1. See 8-10 and 16. "Innovative recycling projects" and "commercially available" were not precisely speaking "criteria."

2. Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

31-58 Although the nature of the proposals discussed in these proposed findings of fact are correct the conclusions concerning alleged deficiencies with the proposals were not supported by the weight of the evidence or were not relevant to this proceeding.

The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact

Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection

1 3.

2 1.

3 4-5.

4 6-7, 12-13 and 50.

5 16-17.

1. 21 and hereby accepted.

2. 15 and hereby accepted.

8 22-23.

9 7-10.

10 9 and 11.

11-12 Hereby accepted.

13-14 27-30.

15 Hereby accepted.

16 27-30.

17 19.

18 24-26.

19 27-28.

20 27-30.

21 See 32.

22-23 See 31.

24 32 and 34.

25-26 36.

27 37.

28 39.

29 40. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence.

30 41.

31 42.

32 43.

33 44.

34 45.

35 46.

36 47.

37 48.

1. 49 and hereby accepted.

2. Hereby accepted.

40 57-58.

Copies Furnished To:

Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017-C Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Chris D. McGuire Assistant General Counsel

Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32299-2400

Leonard J. Shore, Esquire

515 Route 111

Hauppauge, New York 11788

Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental

Regulation

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Docket for Case No: 90-000799BID

Orders for Case No: 90-000799BID