gary v. perkoVs.allan p. clark|Department of Corrections|doa... -- eLawyers

Petitioner: VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC., ON BEHALF OF MCI COMMUNICATIONS, INC., D/B/A VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES
Respondent: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Judges: HARRY L. HOOPER
Agency: Department of Corrections
Locations: Tallahassee, Florida
Filed: Jun. 01, 2007
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Monday, August 13, 2007.
Latest Update: May 11, 2009
Summary: The issue is whether the Department of Corrections' decision to award a contract to Intervenor Securus Technologies, Inc., is lawful.Petitioners alleged that Intervenor Securus was not responsive to Respondent`s Invitation to Negotiate. Contrary to Petitioners` assertion, Securus was responsive.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK	)
SERVICES, INC., on behalf of	)
MCI COMMUNICATIONS, INC., d/b/a	)
VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES,	)
	)
Petitioners,	)
	)
vs.	)
	)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,	)
Respondent,	) )	Case	No.	07-2468BID
	)
and	) )
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND	)
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES,	)
INC.,	) )
Intervenors.	)
	)
GLOBAL-TEL LINK CORPORATION,	)
	)
Petitioner,	)
	)
vs.	)
	)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,	)
	)
Respondent,	) )	Case	No.	07-2469BID
and	) )
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND	)
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES,	)
INC.,	)
	)
Intervenors.	)
	)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This cause came on for formal hearing before Harry L. Hooper, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on July 10 through 13, 2007, in

Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., on behalf of MCI Communications, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Business Services:

Gary V. Perko, Esquire Wesley S. Haber, Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A.

123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314

For Global-Tel Link Corporation:

Allan P. Clark, Esquire John A. Tucker, IV, Esquire Foley & Lardner

One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Post Office Box 240

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Robert H. Hosay, Esquire Foley & Lardner, LLP

106 East College Avenue Highpoint Center, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7732

For Department of Corrections:

Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Karen E. Armstrong, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

For Securus Technologies, Inc.:

W. Robert Vezina, III, Esquire Eduardo S. Lombard, Esquire

Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A.

413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Public Communications Services, Inc.:

Brian A. Newman, Esquire Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson,

Bell & Dunbar, P.A.

215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether the Department of Corrections' decision to award a contract to Intervenor Securus Technologies,

Inc., is lawful.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Respondent Department of Corrections (Department) posted a Notice of Agency Decision on May 1, 2007, stating its intent to award a contract for Statewide Inmate Telephone Services,

ITN # 06-DC-7695 (ITN), to Intervenor Securus Technologies, Inc. (Securus). Petitioner Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., on behalf of MCI Communications, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Business Services (Verizon), a responder to the ITN, timely filed a Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Proceedings with the Department on May 14, 2007. Another responder to the ITN, Global-Tel Link Corporation (GTL), timely

filed a Formal Bid Protest Petition with the Department also on May 14, 2007. On May 22, 2007, Securus filed a Petition to Intervene with the Department.

These Petitions were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 1, 2007. The Verizon petition was assigned Case No. 07-2468, and the GTL petition was assigned Case No. 07-2469. Pursuant to a Motion to Consolidate filed by the Department, the cases were consolidated on June 7, 2007. On June 8, 2007, the Administrative Law Judge granted the Petition to Intervene filed by Securus.

Public Communications Services, Inc. (PCS) petitioned to intervene on June 20, 2007. Intervention was granted on

June 22, 2007. (Verizon, GTL, and PCS will collectively be referred to as the Protesters.)

Motion hearings addressing discovery and other matters were held on June 7, 12, 19, 20, and 25, 2007.

At the hearing, 13 Joint Exhibits were admitted. Verizon presented the testimony of Steve Viefhaus, Philip Jones, and William Dupree, and had seven exhibits admitted into evidence. GTL presented the testimony of Stephen Yow, Jeri Bailey, Wayne Green, Michael Dearisso, Jacques DeRemer, and Adam James Mercer, and had 14 exhibits admitted into evidence.

The Department presented the testimony of Lisa Bassett and Elaine Atwood and had one exhibit admitted into evidence.

Securus presented the testimony of Art Heckel and Robert Rae and had three exhibits admitted into evidence. PCS had two exhibits admitted and called no witnesses.

A Transcript was filed on July 20, 2007. At the conclusion of the hearing, and after argument of counsel, the parties were ordered to file their proposed recommended orders on or before August 6, 2007. All parties timely filed their Proposed Recommended Orders, and they were considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

References to statutes are to Florida Statutes (2006) unless otherwise noted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Department is a large state agency whose purpose includes the protection of the public through the incarceration of criminals. It maintains 59 major institutions and 69 other facilities housing approximately 87,800 inmates. It is important for the well-being of the inmates and the security of the facilities that the inmates of these facilities have telephone services available so that they may call friends and family members. It is necessary for the Department to have a Statewide Inmate Telephone System (ITS) that provides for the needs of its inmates and for the security of Department personnel, and that also protects the public from inmate fraud. The Department provides the ITS in 77 facilities.
The telephone services addressed are for outbound calls only. Persons outside of the Department are not generally permitted to telephone an inmate. Under the current contract, in order to place a call, an inmate must initiate a collect call to a number that has been approved by the Department. A conversation may ensue only if the person outside of the facility agrees to pay for the call. An inmate is allowed to have ten terminating numbers on his or her calling list.
The contract sought is a concession contract. Pursuant to Subsection 945.215(1)(b), Florida Statutes, it is contemplated that the Department will receive proceeds from contracted telephone commissions. That Subsection also requires that contracted telephone companies accurately record and report all telephone calls made by inmates and requires that the Department ensure that persons who accept collect calls from inmates are charged the contracted rate. Currently, the Department has only one provider of inmate telephone services. That provider is Verizon. The ITN seeks to continue the practice of having only one provider.
Securus, Verizon, GTL, and PCS are companies that provide telephone services to many state correction systems and other correctional entities. Securus provides inmate telephone services to correctional facilities in 35 Florida counties.
Securus provides inmate telephone services to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and also, to many other states.
GTL currently provides contractual communication services to Verizon as Verizon carries out its ITS contract with the Department. MCI and Verizon are deemed to be one entity for purposes of this Recommended Order. In an asset purchase agreement dated November 7, 2006, MCI agreed to sell, and GTL agreed to buy, certain assets, properties, and rights relating to MCI's inmate telecommunication business. However, this transaction had not closed when the hearing in this cause concluded. For all purposes of the ITN, Verizon and GTL were considered to be separate entities.
The Invitation to Negotiate--Background
James R. McDonough, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections (Secretary McDonough), concluded that there were problems with the ITS contract in March of 2006. He discussed the telephone contract with appropriate members of the Florida Legislature personally, and sent letters to appropriate members of the Legislature addressing the subject in April and June of 2006. Secretary McDonough was concerned because families of inmates had complained to him. They asserted the system required them to pay outrageous telephone rates that were "pinching their budgets."
Florida procurement law states that fair and open competition is a basic tenet of public procurement.
Section 287.057, Florida Statutes, requires that competitive sealed bidding be used for purchases that exceed the Category Two threshold provided for in Section 287.017, Florida Statutes. As the Verizon contract approached an end, a procurement of inmate telephone services became necessary to address future needs. This procurement substantially exceeded the Category Two threshold, as adjusted by the Department of Management Services.
Lisa Bassett is the Chief of the Bureau of Procurement and Supply for the Department. Her bureau procures goods and services exceeding one billion dollars each year. She is Elaine Atwood's supervisor.
Ms. Atwood is the Assistant Bureau Chief for the Bureau of Procurement and Supply. She decided that an ITN, as provided in Subsection 287.057(3)(a), Florida Statutes, was the best vehicle to use for the inmate telephone procurement because the Department was seeking innovative solutions and flexibility.
Ms. Atwood was the manager of the ITN development process. It began in the spring of 2006 and was a collaborative effort. She was the principal draftsman of the ITN.
Ms. Bassett made corrections to the draft and approved the issuance of the ITN. It was released on November 22, 2006.
The Invitation to Negotiate--Contents
The ITN stated that its purpose is to standardize inmate telephone operations, reduce rates, and maximize revenue to the State. It sought a "turn-key, fully operational, local and long distance, secure, and reliable telephone system meeting specified restriction and monitoring requirements." A five-year contract, renewable for five years was sought by the ITN. The ITN would expand payment opportunities in that it would permit a prepayment plan in addition to merely allowing collect calls.
The ITN was comprised of two distinct parts as contemplated by Subsection 287.057(3), Florida Statutes. In Part 1, responders were required to meet mandatory requirements. For those that did, further evaluation took place of each responder's statement of qualifications, financial documentation, and technical response. This evaluation was conducted using evaluation criteria in the ITN and scored using the same criteria. These scores were combined with cost points assigned based on the responders' initial pricing proposal, in order to determine the initial ranking of qualified responders.
In Part 2, the ITN required the Department to conduct negotiations with the three responders that survived the Part 1 evaluation. Subsequent to negotiations, the ITN required the Department to request a best and final offer (RBAFO) from the three survivors. The ITN noted that at any time during the
process the Department could reject any and all responses and could modify its statement of services sought, tasks to be performed, and the project description.
Section 3 of the ITN provided a "Statement of Services Sought." Generally, the Department through its ITN sought telephone services for its inmates that provided the lowest cost to the inmates and the highest commission to the Department. Included in the services sought were programs and processes designed to maximize security and avoid inmate fraud.
The portions of Section 3 that are specifically pertinent follow:
1. 3.7 Inmate Telephone System Functionality (General)
  
  The Department is seeking an Inmate Telephone Service (ITS) with a technology system fully supported by an infrastructure which has the capability to provide specified services such as secure and real- time monitoring of telephone calls meeting the Department's system security requirements. In addition, the system shall contain a secure database for transactional call records and provide data feeds to the Department's official data repository. This shall include redundant system(s) as deemed necessary to accomplish this requirement and a continuity of operations plan and disaster recovery plan which will ensure that the system and services will be available without disruption at the required service level.
  
  * * *
2. 3.7.1. Network and Infrastructure Requirements
  
  The system shall include a monitoring component that is capable of being accessed from a vendor-provided dedicated monitoring terminal as specified for on Attachment 8 and/or through a vendor-provided secure Internet connection from desktop, laptop or remote means by authorized Department personnel who have appropriate security clearance and have been provided Contractor- supplied security codes. NOTE: Final determination of networking access will be determined through negotiation.
  
  In addition, the telephone system shall be capable of interfacing with network services provided by local exchange carriers as well as inter-exchange carriers. This includes analog and digital facilities (i.e., analog business trunk, DS-1, etc.). The Contractor shall address, in system response, the types of network services to which the system will interface and the purpose (use of a specific application) of such services for the Department.
3. 3.7.3. Database Requirements
  
  The Department desires that a data record of all transactions through the inmate telephone system be maintained in a database for monitoring and analysis of inmate telephone calls. This data is used to alert authorized Department staff of possible trends with inmate calls that could jeopardize the security of inmates, staff, or facilities.
  
  The Contractor shall be responsible for the generation and creation of a centralized system database. The system shall provide the capability for every call in and out of the system to be recorded with a transaction record that includes, at a minimum, a
  recording of the telephone call in a .wav or other format acceptable to the Department.
  
  The database shall be maintained in such a manner as to allow authorized personnel the capability to review and monitor inmate call data regardless of which Department facility is housing the inmate.
  
  * * *
  
  The system shall provide the capability for the Department to download reports from the database, through secured internet access, as outlined in Section 3.12, Reporting Requirements.
  
  In addition, the Contractor shall provide access to the database through a secure "ftp" webserver so the Department can retrieve certain data on a daily basis. The Contractor shall provide certain data elements in a pipe delimited format, to be determined by the Department's Office of Information Technology. Data extracts shall be downloadable into a SQL Server database hosted by the Department of Corrections in such a manner as to allow the Department to perform further analysis on the system data.
  
  The security and confidentiality of data in the system is of critical importance. The Contractor shall be capable of recovering all inmate telephone data for all locations, to the point of full service operation, using a data backup. The Contractor shall perform all service and database back-ups and archiving. The Contractor shall provide all archival hardware, supplies, network, and recovery procedures that will ensure that no data is lost.
  
  The database shall have duplicate data storage devices with automatic fail-over and automatic re-establishment of the duplicate databases upon replacement of the failed storage device and shall be equipped with
  automated fire detection and suppression equipment.
  
  The system shall provide that all data be recorded with a historical transaction record and stored/archived for retrieval/backup in a database when requested by Department personnel in accordance with the following:
  - All historical data shall be centrally stored and accessible for reporting purposes;
  - This information must be available for reporting in a standard transaction file format;
  - All current and historical data files shall be retained for a period of five
    (5) years by the Contractor; and
  - This information shall be available at no charge to the Department after termination of the contract.
    
    * * *
4. 3.7.4. System Calling Protocol Requirements
  
  * * *
  
  Additional system features/functionalities that the Department desires, but is not requiring as a minimum requirement for purposes of this ITN, include the following:
  1. the ability for a called party to activate a code (via the touch tone pad of their telephone) that automatically deletes their telephone number from the calling inmate's "Authorized Telephone Number List."
  2. that the above feature provide some form of alert or notification to authorized Department personnel to ensure that the inmate does not add this number to his/her requested list of telephone numbers in the future.
  3. the capability of being configured to control the amount of time between inmate completed calls.
5. 3.7.6. System Call Blocking Requirements
  
  The Contractor shall provide a system with call block capability and shall be responsible for ensuring that the system is programmed for call blocking, to include, but not be limited to the following types of calls:
  - calls made to business numbers identified during the billing number address (BNA) search.
  - calls made to any 911 number;
  - calls made to any telephone numbers which incur excess charges, such as 900, 972, 976, 550, etc.;
  - calls to current long distance carrier access numbers (i.e., 10333, 10285) or future 101-XXXX carrier access numbers;
  - calls for all local numbers which access long distance carriers (i.e., 950-XXXX);
  - call access to directory assistance access numbers (i.e., 411, 555-1212, etc.);
  - call access to toll free numbers (i.e., 800, 888, 877, etc.) except the Florida Relay Service toll-free number(s), so that hearing impaired inmates may access a "Telephone Devices for the Deaf" (TDD) service; and
  - call access to any number upon request by the Department.
    
    Call blocking requirements shall apply to all inmate telephone equipment specified on Attachment 8. In addition, the call blocking requirement shall apply to the
    coin-operated telephone equipment located at the Department's road prisons and work release centers. Call blocking shall not
    apply to coin-operated phones for visitors or the public at large.
6. 3.7.8. System Restriction, Fraud Control and Notification Requirements
  
  The security and confidentiality of inmate- placed telephone calls is of critical importance. Security features which prevent unauthorized individuals from accessing any information held by the Contractor must provide for restriction to the system, fraud control for prevention purposes, and notification capabilities for attempted security violations or breaches. Secure access to the system shall be maintained at all times. The Contractor shall provide a system which contains security capabilities that include, but are not limited to the following:
  
  * * *
  
  c) A call alert feature. This feature will alert Department personnel that a designated inmate is placing a call or is placing a telephone call to a specific number that has been assigned alert status. This status is an investigative tool which will be activated by authorized Department personnel.
  
  * * *
7. 3.7.14. System Disaster Recovery
  
  The contractor shall have a written Disaster Recovery Plan and Continuity of Operations Plan and associated internal system equipment that shall be capable of providing for support in the case of failures in power, telephone system, data networking, and Contractor's equipment at its host site through the user-level equipment provided by the Contractor, and for all natural or man- made disasters including flood or fire at the host facility. These plans and all
  updates will be reviewed and accepted by the Department and kept for reference purposes by the Department's Local Contract Coordinator - Operations, Office of Institutions, and Office of Information Technology.
  
  The system shall be capable of recovering from a power outage automatically or remotely once commercial power is restored.
8. 3.8.3. Rate and Call Charge Requirements
  
  * * *
  
  The Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for the collect calls any charges referred to as Competitive Local Exchange Carrier's (CLEC) billing cost, bill rendering fee or billing recovery fee.
9. 3.8.5. Prepaid Collect Call Service (PPCCS)
The Contractor shall allow families and friends to establish a PPCCS account(s) with the Contractor for billing purposes so that inmates can call pre-authorized numbers that may not be accessible via normal collect calling. Each prepaid account shall have an authorized billing number. Any calls billed to a family or friend's prepaid account shall meet the same security requirements as set forth for normal collect calls.

The contractor shall ensure that notice of the prepaid account availability is provided when a party receives a call and shall offer the option of being connected to a live operator for the purpose of establishing a prepaid account, if a normal collect call cannot be completed by the inmate due to billing issues.

The Contractor's PPCCS shall (emphasis in original) allow the called party (family and friends) to deposit money into a PPCCS
account by multiple means (i.e. check, money order, and/or credit card).

The Contractor shall provide instructional brochures explaining the process for establishing prepaid collect services for family and friends' prepaid accounts.
The ITN stated that questions should be directed in writing to Jeri Bailey, Procurement Manager, Bureau of Procurement and Supply.
The ITN set forth mandatory responsiveness requirements and fatal criteria in Section 5.1. Mandatory requirements included timely filing, the submission of a "Certification Attestation Page," and a certified "Conflict of Interest Statement."
The ITN also set forth a review and evaluation process. It provided a ten phase process. After Phase 7, the posting of qualified respondents, the remainder of the phases included Phase 8, Negotiations; Phase 9, Best and Final Offers from Respondents; and Phase 10, Notice of Intended Decision.
The ITN noted that Phase 2 (Evaluations of Statement of Qualifications) and Phase 8, would be completed by the Response Evaluation/Negotiation Committee. It further stated, "A Response Evaluation/Negotiation Committee will be established to assist the Department in the evaluation and selection of the three highest ranking responses." (The "Response Evaluation/Negotiation Committee" will hereinafter be referred
to as the Negotiating Team.) It goes on to state, "This same team of individuals will conduct negotiations with the top three highest ranking Respondents. The Department reserves the right to make changes to the foregoing committee in the best interest of the Department."
The ITN provided an elaborate scoring mechanism for Part 1 of the process. No scoring mechanism was provided in the ITN for Part 2. A process was established for addressing the possibility of identical scores in Part 1, but not Part 2.
The ITN provided that only the top three respondents could participate in Phase 8, Negotiations. It noted that after negotiations, the Department would request BAFOs from each of the three winning participants.
The ITN provided at Section 6.3, "After receipt of BAFOs, the Negotiating Team will prepare a summary report of negotiation and recommend an award." This sentence appears immediately before the ITN's discussion of Phase 9, Best and Final Offers.
The Response Evaluation and Review Manual for the ITN provided, under Phase 9, Best and Final Offers, "After receipt of BAFOs, the Negotiation Team will review, and recommend the response which provides the best overall value to the Department. A summary report of negotiations and recommendation
for award will be presented to the Secretary for final approval prior to posting of the agency's decision."
Ms. Atwood testified under oath that it was intended that the "summary report of negotiation and recommendation for award" was to be presented to Secretary McDonough by the Bureau of Procurement and Supply staff, not the Negotiating Team, as suggested in paragraphs 22 and 23, above. Moreover, as noted in paragraph 19, above, the ITN provides that the Evaluation Team was established to ". . . assist the Department in the evaluation and selection of the three highest ranking responses." The Response Evaluation and Review Manual further states that the Negotiating Team was to participate only in Phases 2 and 8 of the process.
It is found as a fact that to the extent that the ITN appeared to require the Negotiating Team to prepare a summary report of negotiation and to recommend an award, it is in error. It is the Department's procurement section that was to supervise the ITN process, and to forward any necessary material to Secretary McDonough.
Section 7 of the ITN addressed only matters involving the contract that will ensue once the ultimate contractor is determined.
On December 6, 2006, a Responders' Conference was held. Fifteen vendors attended and posed 95 questions in
writing. These questions and the answers were included in what became Addendum #1 to the ITN.
Addendum #1
On December 21, 2006, the Department issued Addendum #1 to the ITN. Addendum #1 removed 18 pages from the ITN and replaced them with 24 pages. It stated that revisions were highlighted in yellow. However, the Addendum #1 that became Joint Exhibit 3 had no highlights.
As noted above, Addendum #1 contained a section entitled Responses to Written Inquiries. This section included inquiries from responders IC Solutions, Securus, GTL, Unisys Corporation, PCS, Verizon, and Embarq.
Question 67 in Addendum #1 was posed by Verizon and read as follows: "General - Will the State allow for call control equipment to either be placed in a centralized network based environment or at each correctional facility."
The Department answered by stating: "In order to prevent a state-wide or region-wide system failure, there shall be control equipment at each major institution, with the exception of Gainesville, CI, where there is additional control equipment located at the Work Camp."
Addendum #1, including the page changes, responses to written inquiries, and revised attachments and exhibits became a
part of the ITN just as if it was included in the original document.
A change to Section 3 of the ITN, Statement of Services Sought in Addendum #1, was made causing the "call notification" feature to be mandatory rather than desired. The portion that is pertinent to this proceeding is set forth below:
3.7.4. System Calling Protocol Requirements

* * *

Additional system features/functionalities that the Department desires, but is not requiring as a minimum requirement for purposes of this ITN, include the following:
1. the ability for a called party to activate a code (via the touch tone pad of their telephone) that automatically deletes their telephone number from the calling inmate's "Authorized Telephone Number List." The Contractor's system shall capture and track this event for transmittal (notification) to the Department.
2. that the above feature provide some form of alert or notification to authorized Department personnel to ensure that the inmate does not add this number to his/her requested list of telephone numbers in the future. The Department's preferred method for receiving notification is via some method of automated system update to the inmate's account information file. Final determination of method of notification to be determined during final negotiations.
3. the capability of being configured to control the amount of time between inmate completed calls.
GTL, Embarq, PCS, Securus, Verizon, and Unisys responded to the ITN, as amended by Addendum #1.
The evaluators for Part 1 of the ITN, the aforementioned Negotiating Team, were selected in order to provide representation to all of the Department's stakeholders. Selected as members were William Dupree of Facility Services, the Department's expert on the inmate telephone system; Jacques DeRemer of the Department's Inspector General's Office; Wayne Green, Assistant Bureau Chief of Security; Michael Deariso of the Bureau of Finance and Accounting; and Scott Stewart of the Division of Technology.
A Response Evaluation and Review Manual, dated January 5, 2007, was provided to the members of the Negotiating Team to aid them in selecting those who would be invited to negotiate. This document provided forms to aid the evaluators as they weighed the responses in Part 1.
All responses to Part 1 were opened at 2:00 p.m. on January 4, 2007.
The Effect of the Part 1 Decision
On January 18, 2007, the Department filed its Notice of Intent to Negotiate. It noticed its intent to negotiate with GTL, Securus, and Verizon. This meant that these three responders were technically qualified to accomplish the services
required by the Department. Of the three, Securus was awarded the most points. PCS finished fourth.
The Notice of Intent to Negotiate provided that any protest must be filed within 72 hours and specifically noted that the 72 hour period would expire on January 23, 2007, at 4:30 p.m. Prior to the expiration of that time, Embarq, a disappointed responder, filed a notice of intent to protest. That protest was withdrawn by Embarq on February 12, 2007. Because the Notice of Intent to Negotiate provided a clear point of entry and no protest was maintained, the time to complain about the selection of GTL, Securus, and Verizon as winners of Part 1 has passed. Therefore, Public Communications Services, Inc., should be dismissed as a party to these proceedings.
Additionally, the failure by any party to protest the selection of Securus means that Securus complied with all aspects of the ITN, and allegations of noncompliance with the ITN cannot now be raised, except to the extent that the ITN was specifically changed or amended by the RBAFO.
After the Notice of Intent to Negotiate was issued, negotiations with Securus were held on January 24 and 25, 2007. The Negotiating Team at this time consisted of William Dupree, Jacques DeRemer, Wayne Green, and Michael Dearisso. Ms. Bailey was present during the negotiations, and Ms. Atwood was present
during a portion of the negotiations. GTL and Verizon also made presentations to the Negotiating Team.
When the negotiations were completed, the Negotiating Team met to discuss what material should be included in the RBAFO. Subsequent to this discussion, the RBAFO was principally drafted by Ms. Atwood.
The RBAFO
The RBAFO was released on March 27, 2007. It advised that, "It contains a revised Section III [sic], Statement of Services Sought, with revised minimum specifications, where indicated, replacing the original Section 3 - Statement of Services Sought." The RBAFO stated clearly that the original ITN and Addendum #1 were incorporated in the RBAFO unless requirements were specifically changed by the RBAFO.
The RBAFO contained four categories requiring each responder to explicitly address in their BAFOs. These requirements were staffing plan, final implementation plan and transition date schedule, value-added services, and pricing.
With regard to pricing, the RBAFO recited that, "It is the Department's intention to generate the highest percentage of revenue for the State commensurate with the lowest surcharge and rates per minute for telephone calls for inmates and families similar to those available to the public-at-large."
RBAFO changes to Section 3 pertinent to this proceeding are addressed below:
1. 3.7.1. Network and Infrastructure Requirements
  
  The Contractor shall provide a system that includes a monitoring component that is capable of being accessed through dedicated monitoring terminals (as specified on Attachment 8) and through a vendor provided secure Internet connection from desktop, laptop or remote means by authorized Department personnel who have appropriate security clearance and have been provided Contractor-supplied security codes. The Department is requiring the ability to monitor calls from both dedicated monitoring terminals AND via secure, password protected, internet access.
  
  In addition, the telephone system shall be capable of interfacing with network services provided by local exchange carriers as well as inter-exchange carriers. This includes analog and digital facilities (i.e., analog business trunk, DS-1, etc.). The Contractor shall address, in system response, the types of network services to which the system will interface and the purpose(use of a specific application) of such services for the Department.
2. 3.7.3. Database Requirements is changed to
  * * *
3. 3.7.4. is changed to 3.7.3. System Calling Protocol Requirements.
  3.7.3. System Calling Protocol Requirements
  
  * * *
  
  The following system
  features/functionalities are being established as a minimum requirement for service delivery:
  1. The Contractor's system shall have the capability for a called party to activate a code (via the touch tone pad of their telephone) that automatically deletes their telephone number from the calling inmate's "Authorized Telephone Number List."
  2. The system shall also provide an alert or notification to authorized Department personnel to ensure that the inmate does not add any number deleted via the above indicated feature to his/her requested list of telephone numbers in the future. The Department's required method for receiving notification is via automated system update to the inmate's account information file (sic)
4. 3.7.6 System Call Blocking Requirements is changed to 3.7.5., but the text remains the same as in the ITN.
5. 3.7.8. System Restriction, Fraud Control, and Notification Requirements is changed to 3.7.7. The RBAFO adds subsection "i)." That addition does not affect this proceeding.
6. 3.7.14 is changed to 3.7.13 but the language therein is unchanged.
7. 3.8.3. Rate and Call Charge Requirements retains the same number, but is renamed Call Charge Requirements - "To
Connect" Surcharges and Rates Per Minute. A new penultimate paragraph is added and the ultimate paragraph is changed, and they now read as follows:
* * *

There shall be no additional fees, surcharges, or other types of costs associated with collect or prepaid calls or for establishing prepaid accounts billed to either the Department or families and friends of inmates establishing prepaid accounts.

In addition, the Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for collect or prepaid calls any charges referred to as Competitive Local Exchange Carrier's (CLEC) billing cost, or any bill rendering fee or billing recovery fee. The Contractor shall also ensure the CLEC does not charge or pass on to the customer any fees or surcharges through the CLEC, with the exception of the LEC's monthly billing fee authorized by law.
The RBAFO at Section 4.1, provided instructions for submissions, including the requirement that BAFOs be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 2, 2007.
Section 4.1.3 of the RBAFO was entitled "Value-added Services." It had no corresponding section in the ITN or Addendum #1. It reads as follows:
4.1.3 VALUE-ADDED SERVICES:

Value-added services include any of ITS service, system or equipment functionality that the Contractor offers to provide as part of the Contract resulting from the ITN that is either not required to be provided
in the ITN or RBAFO or clearly exceeds the minimum requirements of required service delivery.

The Respondent shall provide a detailed description of each value-added service, system and/or equipment functionality, in narrative form. If included in the Contractor's BAFO and accepted by the Department, "Valued-Added Services" [sic] shall be provided as part of the contracted service at no additional cost to the Department.

Note: Provision of E-messaging is not considered a Value-Added Service, as it is a minimum requirement of the Contractor providing Inmate Telephone Service.
However, pricing for E-messaging will be separate from the costs of the Inmate Telephone service.
The RBAFO at Page 24, recited the following statement: BEST AND FINAL OFFER PRICING SHALL INCLUDE
ALL SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT AND PROVISION OF
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE ITN, ADDENDA AND AS REVISED IN THE RBAFO.

The Responses to the RBAFO and the selection process
The three finalists responded to the RBAFO with BAFOs on April 2, 2007. Securus responded by reciting verbatim the items in the RBAFO and then noting after each item that they had read the RBAFO and would comply with each particular section or subsection. Securus, following that language, set forth additional information addressing how they would comply.
The Negotiating Team met on April 9, 2007. They were provided with the RBAFO, the BAFOs, and a document entitled Best
and Final Offer Negotiation Ranking Sheet (Ranking Sheet). The Ranking Sheet advised, "Please utilize this sheet to independently rank each vendor with comments supporting your ranking. Comments should include a reason for your decision and determination of why highest ranking respondent provides best value to the Department. Rank: 1 to 3 with 3 = Highest & 1 Lowest." Members of the Negotiating Team were advised to accomplish their rankings without discussing the material with each other.
Michael Dearisso and Wayne Green signed their rankings on April 11, 2007, and William Dupree and Jacques DeRemer signed their rankings on April 12, 2007. Thereafter Ms. Bailey totaled the scores in a matrix identified as "Scoring Summarization Sheet." This resulted in GTL averaging 5.25 points, Securus
9.75 points, and Verizon 10 points.
Ms. Bassett, in accordance with Secretary McDonough's standard procedure, prepared a document entitled "Inmate Telephone Services Proposed Courses of Action (COA) (Draft 4-19- 07)." This was the document that was prepared for the purpose of briefing Secretary McDonough. The first course of action was "Secretary considers rankings and selects vendor based on best value decision." The second course of action was "Secretary selects Verizon based on rankings." The COA also contained
"pros and cons" under each column. The information contained in the COA was objective.
In a memorandum dated April 13, 2007, Ms. Bassett provided Millie J. Seay, Director of Administration, an ITN Summary Report, the Best and Final Offer Ranking Sheets, and the Scoring Summarization Sheet. Ms. Seay was the final editor of the COA document that went to Secretary McDonough.
This document, despite the "Draft 4-19-07" notation, was in fact the actual COA ultimately presented to Secretary McDonough.
Ms. Seay presented these materials to Secretary McDonough and discussed the results with him. He decided that Securus would provide the best value to the Department and made a notation to that effect on the COA that was presented to him. That document was misplaced. Accordingly, he instructed
Ms. Seay to post a Notice of Agency Decision stating the Department's intent to award the ITS contract to Securus.
In a memorandum of May 25, 2007, Secretary McDonough stated that the offer by Securus ". . . is the best value to the State, since it provides the lowest rate for customers combined with the highest commission rate to the State and meets the service delivery requirements in the Invitation to Negotiate."
Although Secretary McDonough spent only about ten minutes with Ms. Seay, as noted heretofore, he had been involved
with the process of improving telephone services for inmates and their friends and family for the prior 18 months. He closely supervised the reforming of what he believed to be a very unfair ITS contract. He gave repeated instructions to his staff with regard to seeking a new ITS contract and emphasized that the central focus was obtaining a cost that was fair to the inmates and their friends and family.
The staffing plan, the final implementation plan and transition date schedule, the commission rate, and value-added services were all important factors in Secretary McDonough's decision. He understood clearly that price and commission could not be the only factors, and he considered all of the factors in determining the best value to the State. He determined that the difference in the scores between Securus and Verizon was so insignificant that, excluding price, they were essentially tied. That determination resulted in price becoming the factor that tipped the scales.
Subsequent to Secretary McDonough's decision to award the contract to Securus, the Notice of Agency Decision was promulgated on May 1, 2007.
Issues raised by the protest

Verizon's assertion that Securus was unresponsive to an asserted requirement for a premise-based system.
Verizon asserted that Securus failed to agree in its BAFO, for the price quoted, to have "premise-based" call control equipment on-site at the Department's facilities, as Verizon asserted was contemplated by Addendum #1 of the ITN. This can be restated as complaining that only by having certain equipment principally located at facilities served could redundancy be achieved.
1. This issue was addressed during testimony by
  
  Mr. Dupree, an employee of the Department. He was selected as a member of the Negotiating Team because he understands the technology of the ITS. His official title with the Department is Engineer IV.
2. Mr. Dupree said that the current system utilizes a rack of servers at each institution. He said that it was important to him to have "the brains" at each institution. He was concerned that without having the servers located at each served institution, the failure of one system would result in a regional or system-wide failure.
3. When questioned about the requirement for a "premise- based" system, he stated that he preferred such a system, but related that so long as a system was in place that ensured that
  the failure at one institution would not cause the failure at others, he would be satisfied. When he reviewed the ITN he found that the response of Securus met the test. During the negotiations, he voiced no complaint with regard to the system proposed by Securus. The few questions Mr. Dupree asked during the negotiation session with Securus addressed only the treatment of three-way calling and billing matters.
4. Mr. Dupree provided the answer to the question posed as Question 67, as to whether ". . . the State would allow call control equipment to either be placed in a centralized network based environment or at each correctional facility?" The written answer, Answer 68, stated, in part, "In order to prevent a state-wide or region-wide system failure, there must be control equipment at each major institution." "Control equipment" does not equate to "premise-based."
5. When Answer 68 to Question 67 is read in the context of the ITN, Addendum #1, and the RBAFO, it is clear that there is no requirement for a "premise-based" system. The word "premise-based" does not appear in the ITN, Addendum #1, or the RBAFO, even though it was repeated constantly during the course of the hearing by the Protesters.
6. If "premise-based" means a rack of servers at each institution, it is clear that no such array was requested. In fact, the ITN was seeking redundancy (see subparagraph 15a,
  above); a centralized system database (see subparagraph 15c, above); duplicate data storage devices with automatic fail-over (see subparagraph 15c, above), and a disaster recovery capability (see subparagraph 15g, above). Neither Addendum #1 nor the RBAFO changed the fact that the ITN sought a centralized database without specifying whether the equipment supplying it was located at each institution, or at some other site.
7. Mr. Dupree was not empowered to change the terms used in the ITN, Addendum #1, or the RBAFO. Answer 68, even when read in a light most favorable to the Protesters, does not require a "premise-based" system. Mr. Dupree was content with the method currently provided by Verizon, but he stated he would also be content with "some magic box that does everything."
8. Securus addressed redundancy in the ITN under the general heading of "Premises Architecture" and in BAFO Subsection "3.7.13. System Disaster Recovery." Under the former it clearly states that in the case of a centralized failure, the system will function locally. Under the latter subsection, it responded by relating that it has a central data center connected to the "remote platforms" and notes that call records are generated at the remote sites. It further relates that, "The Securus SCP utilizes an integrated Access Device (IAD) that provides local call control and centralized storage with a built-in redundancy."
9. In Securus' BAFO, with regard to redundancy, it again responded to "3.7.13 System Disaster Recovery," which repeated the exact wording found in Part 1, by stating, "Response: Securus has read, understands, and will comply with initial responses as previously indicated." It then repeats the answer given in the ITN.
10. It is found that Securus was responsive to the requirements of the ITN with regard to redundancy. Moreover, and importantly, the Negotiating Team, when evaluating Part 1 of the ITN, found Securus responsive. The time for challenging that finding passed when no participant successfully challenged the Notice of Intent to Negotiate.
11. Securus' response was not contrary to the Department's governing statutes, the Department's rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
  Verizon's assertion that Securus did not agree in its BAFO to condition 3.8.3 in the Request for BAFOs prohibiting additional charges for collect and prepaid calls.
Verizon contends that Securus was not responsive to a portion of Subparagraph 3.8.3 in the RBAFO entitled Call Charge Requirements - "To Connect" Surcharges and Rates Per Minute. This section is recited at paragraph 46g, above.
1. Addendum #1 to the ITN repeated the requirement that the contractor could not pass on to ITS users any charges referred to as Competitive Local Exchange Carrier's (CLEC)
  billing cost, bill rendering fee, or billing recovery fee. The RBAFO, however, added a sentence which recited, "The Contractor shall also ensure the CLEC does not charge or pass on to the customer any fees or surcharges through the CLEC, with the exception of the LEC's monthly billing fee authorized by law."
2. Securus responded in its BAFO by repeating the paragraph and thereafter stating, "Response: Securus has read and will comply." Securus followed this with a sentence that read, "Securus will not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for the collect calls any charges referred to as Competitive Local Exchange Carrier's (CLEC) billing cost, bill rendering fee, or billing recovery fee."
3. Mr. Dupree was aware that in some other states providers had passed on these charges, which he referred to as "surcharges." He stated that it was clear to him that the Department would not allow these charges. He stated that when the members of the Negotiating Team discussed these additional charges, they agreed that the vendors were going to have to "take it out of their hide." As noted by Negotiating Team member Green, there could be no "hidden charges."
4. A LEC is the incumbent telephone company in an area.
  
  It is generally thought of as the local telephone company. A CLEC is typically a new entrant in a market.
5. Subparagraphs 3.8.5 in Part 1 and 3.8.3 in the RBAFO introduced a method for friends and families of inmates to pay for calls that is not available in the current contract. This method permits friends and families of inmates to deposit funds in a prepaid account as an alternative to accepting collect calls.
6. On March 29, 2007, two days after the RBAFO was published, the Department, in an email to Securus, GTL, and Verizon, reworded 3.8.3 of the RBAFO to read:
  In addition, the Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for collect or prepaid calls any charges referred to as Local Exchange Carrier's (LEC's) or Competitive Local Exchange Carrier's (CLEC's) billing costs, or any bill rendering fee or billing recovery fee. The Contractor shall also ensure that LEC's and CLEC's do not charge or pass on to the customer any additional fees or surcharges for billing. The Contractor shall be responsible for any such LEC or CLEC surcharge incurred if billing through the LEC or CLEC.
7. It is clear from the changes that occurred during the ITN process that it was extremely important that fees assessed by LECs and CLECs, as well as other fees, were not to be passed on to the friends and families of inmates.
8. The record does not indicate that either Securus, GTL, or Verizon responded to the email.
9. Verizon's BAFO stated, "Verizon . . . hereby acknowledges and accepts the minimum specifications and will comply with the terms and conditions contained in the . . . Invitation to Negotiate . . ., the . . . Request for Best and Final Offer; and this Verizon Business response to the Best and Final Offer." Verizon did not specifically address the matters in the Section 3 Revised Statement of Services Sought.
10. GTL's BAFO stated, "Per requirement of 4.1.5 of the Request for Best and Final Offers, GTL accepts the minimum specifications and will comply with all terms and conditions indicated in the ITN, GTL's Initial Response, the Request for Best and Final Offer and GTL's Best and Final Offer." GTL did not specifically address the matters in the Section 3 Revised Statement of Services Sought.
11. It would be incorrect to conclude that Securus intended to limit its obligation to not pass through certain charges in its response, and thus was not responsive. The Negotiating Team did not come to that conclusion and neither does the fact finder in this case. Securus did not have to respond at all with specificity, and the acknowledgement that they had read and would comply with the section is found to be responsive, not limiting.
12. Accordingly, Securus' response was not contrary to the Department's governing statutes, the Department's rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
  Verizon's assertion that Verizon, not Securus, received the higher score when its BAFO was ranked utilizing the objective criteria chosen by the Department for purposes of ascertaining best value to the State of Florida.
The ITN did not provide that the responder with the highest score on the ranking sheets would be awarded the ITS contract.
1. The Negotiating Team independently arrived at rankings on the Best and Final Offer Ranking Sheets. Both Mr. DeRemer and Mr. Green had some questions about properly completing the ranking sheets, and they were answered by
  Ms. Bassett. Ms. Bassett did not influence the outcome of the rankings of the Negotiating Team. It should be further noted that there were ten phases to the ITN, and the Negotiating Team was only involved in two of them.
2. As noted above, Ms. Bailey totaled the scores in a matrix identified as "Scoring Summarization Sheet." This document addressed only the four items that were the main points of the RBAFO with a section for price, another for value-added services, another for final implementation and transition schedule, and one for staffing plan. This resulted in GTL
  averaging 5.25 points, Securus 9.75 points, and Verizon 10 points.
3. Securus and Verizon received total scores that did not differ meaningfully. Therefore, in light of Secretary McDonough's observation that the friends and families of inmates were complaining to him about the high cost of conversing with inmates, cost became the distinguishing factor.
4. Securus proposed a price of four cents per minute, and Verizon proposed a price of six cents a minute. Therefore, Securus had the best price when considering the rates charged to friends and families of inmates. Securus proposed a 35 percent commission to the Department, and Verizon proposed a 20.5 percent commission. Securus clearly prevailed in both categories and that is the reason Securus was selected even though Verizon had the highest numerical ranking.
5. The Protesters complained that the Department did not provide them a method to arrive at a pricing offer because the two categories, rate per minute and percent commission, were not stated so that an "apples to apples" and "oranges to oranges" comparison could be made. This complaint is without merit.
6. The Department clearly stated that, "It is the Department's intention to generate the highest percentage of revenue for the State commensurate with the lowest surcharge and rates per minute for telephone calls for inmates and
  families . . . ." An ITN was the vehicle chosen to generate those numbers precisely because the Department could not state with specificity the relative importance of the two considerations and wished for the responders to suggest the answer to the Department.
7. The Department's action in selecting Securus despite Verizon's higher ranking was not contrary to the Department's governing statutes, the Department's rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
  GTL's assertion that Securus proposal was non-responsive because it did not include the required system for notification to the Department for inmates attempting to add numbers deleted from their authorized telephone number list.
GTL asserts that Securus' BAFO was materially

non-responsive because Securus did not comply with Section 3.7.3 of the RBAFO that mandated all bidders' call systems "provide an alert or notification to authorized Department personnel" any time an inmate tried to add a number to the inmate's authorized telephone number list which had previously been deleted from the list at the request of the called party. GTL further asserts that explicit compliance is mandatory and will result in rejection, citing ITN Section 1.19.
1. ITN Section 1.19, reads as follows:
  
  1.19 Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements/Fatal Criteria: Terms, conditions or requirements that shall be met by the Respondent to be responsive to the
  ITN. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a response. Any response rejected for failure to meet mandatory responsiveness requirements will not be further evaluated.
2. Section 1.19 refers to Section 5.1 of the ITN. See paragraph 17, above. This Section does not apply to responses to the RBAFO's Section 3, Revised Statement of Services Sought. If responses to Section 3 fail to meet requirements then that failure may be addressed in the scoring mechanism. It does not mean that a single failure to respond in the BAFO requires rejection of the responder. Section 6.1.2 of the ITN provides that mandatory responsiveness requirements only apply to Phase 1 proceedings.
3. ITN Section 3.7.4. System Calling Protocol Requirements originally had language indicating that the call blocking (Subsection a) and call alert (Subsection b) features were desired, as opposed to required. Section 3.7.4. is recited in its entirety at paragraph 15d, above.
4. RBAFO Section 3.7.3 is recited in its entirety at paragraph 46c, above. This changed Subsections a and b so that call blocking and call alert became required.
5. It is Securus' response to RBAFO Section 3.7.3b that is specifically at issue here. That response noted: "Response: Securus has read and will comply." Following that line,
  Securus' BAFO states, "Securus currently allows a called party to block his or her number from being dialed in the future.
  Once the called party blocks the number, the number cannot be added back to the inmate's allowed number list unless the verifiable customer of record calls in to our customer service center and requests their number be reactivated. The system will update the inmate's account information file with the blocked number status."
6. The words used after the "read and comply" language address Subsection 3.7.3a. The absence of words addressing Subsection 3.7.3b and the provision of the call alert feature does not mean that Securus was attempting to limit its response. To the contrary, it only means that Securus did not elaborate on the assurance that it read and would comply with the requirements of all of Section 3.7.3, and there was no requirement that it do so.
7. The acknowledgement of Securus that it had read and would comply with the section, and the language following the "read and comply" language, is found to be responsive, not limiting.
8. Securus' response was not contrary to the Department's governing statutes, the Department's rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
  GTL's assertion that Securus' proposal deviated from the BAFO and ITN by imposing prohibited credit card payment fees, which failure wrongfully allowed it a competitive advantage and to avoid commission payments to the FDOC: (a) The Securus BAFO was non-responsive because it failed to provide for payment by credit cards without charge; (b) Securus' non-responsive bid allowed it a material competitive advantage when bidding its telephone rates and commission rate; (c) Securus' bid also deprives the FDOC of significant commission revenues.
Section 3.8.5. of the ITN, which is unchanged by the RBAFO, recited at paragraph 15i, above, states that payment into a prepaid account shall be made ". . . by multiple means (i.e. check, money order, and/or credit card)." The prepaid account is referred to as PPCCS. As previously noted, the current contract allows only collect calls. This new feature establishes another method for friends and family to call inmates.
1. Section 3.8.3 of the RBAFO, recited at subparagraph 46g, above, states, in part, "There shall be no
  additional fees, surcharges, or other types of costs associated with collect or prepaid calls or for establishing prepaid accounts billed to either the Department or families and friends of inmates establishing prepaid accounts."
2. In Securus' ITN response it provides that payment to a prepaid account may be made using "Western Union Quick Collect, Visa, MasterCard by phone, check by phone, CBS website, Money Order, Cashier's check by U. S. Mail, and Friends and Family Connection Center Kiosk." CBS refers to a firm named
  Correctional Billing Services. Securus' BAFO response is identical to its ITN response.
3. Securus' response does not refer to any fee for establishing a prepaid account. It says it will establish the account at no charge through CBS.
4. The enumerated methods of paying may result in a fee to the friends and families of the inmate, depending on the method of payment chosen by the friends and families of the inmate. The Department's ITN does not ask responders to reimburse the cost of money transmittal incurred by friends and families of the inmate. If one were to read the ITN and BAFO as the Protesters would have it read, then Securus would have to provide postage stamps to persons mailing payments to the PPCCS.
5. One paying into a PPCCS is likely to have costs.
  
  However, the costs may be a consequence of dealing with a third party money transmitter, like, for example, companies in the business of selling money orders.
6. Securus' response recites that it will accept payment by Visa, and mentioned some other facilitators whose method of operation were not described with particularity by the evidence of record. For instance, it may be (and it is probable) that the payee in a Visa transaction must bear the transaction costs. If that is the case, Securus has agreed to pay those costs and not charge them to the payor.
7. In Securus' BAFO, in response to Section 4.1.3: Value-Added Services, Securus, under the heading Friends and Family Assistance, offers friends and families the opportunity to speed the prepayment process through the payment of a convenience fee. This is more like a value-subtracted service since Securus has already agreed that they would accept payment at no cost using, for example, credit cards. The convenience fee alternatives would include credit cards, debit cards, Western Union, and ACE Cash Express.
8. Importantly, convenience fees pursuant to Securus' response, could only be charged with the consent of the Department, and considering that the Department had an aversion to additional fees, as set forth in subparagraph 60f, above, and subparagraphs preceding subparagraph 60f, Department approval seems unlikely.
9. Securus' response with regard to value-added services makes it clear that "There is never a fee imposed for establishing an account or for funding an account through a money order or check." Based on Securus' response to the ITN there is never going to be a fee charged by Securus for funding an account using "Western Union Quick Collect, Visa, MasterCard by phone, check by phone, CBS website, Money Order, Cashier's check by U. S. Mail, and Friends and Family Connection Center Kiosk" either.
10. Because any convenience charge benefiting Securus is contingent on the Department's approval, the Securus BAFO with regard to fees is responsive and does not affect the competitive nature of the process.
11. Securus' response was not contrary to the Department's governing statutes, the Department's rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
  GTL's assertion that Securus did not clearly propose a premise-based technical solution as required by the FDOC.
See paragraph 60, above.

GTL's assertion that Verizon's BAFO was materially non-responsive to the RBAFO and the ITN.
This complaint is, for the most part, insufficiently specific to permit a logical analysis of the assertion. However, GTL did point specifically to a single alleged defect affecting Section 4.1.1 of the Verizon BAFO that addresses the staffing plan.
1. The RBAFO at Subsection 4.1.1 provides the staffing positions required in Revised Subsection 3.13, Contractor Staff Requirements of the RBAFO. Revised Subsection 3.13 required the contractor to have direct oversight, be responsible for, and monitor the performance of all contractor staff, to provide adequate trained, qualified, and, where necessary, licensed staff. Revised Subsection 3.13 also set forth certain required positions in support of the contract.
2. Verizon, in its BAFO, responded to the requirement by stating at the beginning of the BAFO that Verizon ". . . acknowledges and accepts the minimum specifications and will comply with the terms and conditions contained in the Department's Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) # 06-DC-7695 for Statewide Inmate Telephone Services dated November 22, 2006 (including any issued addenda), Verizon Business response to the ITN, the Department's request for Best and Final Offer to
  ITN # 06-DC-7695 dated March 27, 2007; and this Verizon Business response to the Best and Final Offer."
3. Verizon, contrary to the assertion that Verizon failed to provide specific job descriptions for each type of position, did in fact provide detailed job descriptions for each type of position both in their BAFO and response to Part 1. Verizon, contrary to the assertion that Verizon failed to provide a percentage of time devoted to the system for each position, stated that the employees and positions listed would be full- time.
4. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Law Judge to evaluate the submissions of the three participants in order to determine whether or not Verizon should have received the highest ranking. The information with regard to staffing submitted by Verizon was responsive to the ITN and

RBAFO, and there is nothing in the record to support the assertion that the rankings were arbitrary or capricious.

GTL's assertion that the entire ITN process was fundamentally flawed, which resulted in an arbitrary and capricious award. 1. "Pricing" Evaluations/Rankings.

Other arbitrary and capricious ranking/evaluation.
1. GTL asserts that in addition to being materially non-responsive, the entire ITN and RBAFO process was arbitrary
  and capricious because the ITN and RBAFO were arbitrary in that they did not provide criteria for scoring, which allowed the Department to score the BAFOs and award the contract to any bidder without regard to any criteria. GTL further asserts there was no objective basis or criteria or scoring methodology for selecting the contractor.
  1. GTL specifically alleges that the Evaluating Team made no recommendation of award to Secretary McDonough following its scoring process as it claims was required by Section 6.3 of the ITN. As noted in paragraphs 19, 22, 23, 24, and 25, the language in Section 6.3 of the ITN and the Response Evaluation and Review Manual for the ITN at the section entitled, Phase 9, Best and Final Offers, was placed in those documents in error.
  2. It is clear from the four corners of the ITN that it was the procurement staff that would tabulate the Negotiating Team's ranking subsequent to the evaluation of the BAFOs, and it is clear that it was the procurement staff's job to put the
    matter in a form that would permit Secretary McDonough to review the results and choose a contractor.
  3. Contrary to the assertions of GTL, the contract was awarded after careful thought by Secretary McDonough, and he memorialized his reasons in a memorandum dated May 25, 2007. That memorandum stated that the Department should post an intent to award the ITS to Securus after reviewing the documentation presented to him and having determined that ". . . Securus' offer is the best value to the State, since it provides the lowest rate for customers combined with the highest commission rate to the State and meets the service delivery requirements in the Invitation to Negotiate."
  4. GTL complained, like Verizon, that there was a lack of specific criteria identifying how the Department would score the pricing component. GTL suggests that this information was crucial to all bidders so that they could understand how their bid was to be measured against competitors. GTL misses the point of the ITN. It was not how a bid measured against that of a competitor that was important. The Department was seeking suggestions from the three entities presenting BAFOs as to how they could ". . . generate the highest percentage of revenue for the State commensurate with the lowest surcharge and rates per minute for telephone calls for inmates and families similar to those available to the public-at-large."
  5. Florida procurement law provides a continuum in competitive bid processes running from invitations to bid, through requests for proposals, to invitations to negotiate. Invitations to bid are used where specifications can be stated with certainty; invitations to negotiate, on the other end of the spectrum, invite responders to tell the agency the best course of action. See subparagraphs 62e and f, above.
  6. GTL's assertion that Secretary McDonough only used the cost to the friends and families of inmates in making his decision is not supported by the record. Secretary McDonough considered the BAFO rankings of Securus and Verizon to be a statistical dead heat. Thereafter, he chose Securus because it had the most advantageous pricing.
  7. GTL asserts that Negotiating Team member Mr. DeRemer ignored GTL's conformance to the RBAFO by stating under the staffing plan block, that "GTL met most requirements, no mention of CSR's." The reference to CSRs was to contractor staff requirements. GTL's BAFO includes an extensive response to the RBAFO's requirement for a staffing plan (or contractor staff requirements). Mr. DeRemer acknowledged that he was mistaken when he made that notation and did not realize his mistake until it was too late to change it.
  8. The ITN process was not fundamentally flawed. The actions of the Department in this procurement process were not
    contrary to the Department's statutes, or the Department's rules or policies, or to the proposal specifications.
    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
2. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1) and (3), Fla. Stat.
3. The burden of proof in this proceeding lies with Petitioners. See § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat.
4. The underlying findings of fact in this case are to be determined using the preponderance of the evidence standard.
  See § 120.57(1)(l), Fla. Stat.
5. The de novo proceeding in this case was conducted to examine the Department's proposed action in order to determine whether that action is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the RFP document. See § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat.; and State Contracting and Engineering Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 709 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
6. The de novo proceeding conducted pursuant to Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, is a form of intra- agency review. The object of the proceeding is to evaluate the action taken by the agency at the time it took the action. State Contracting and Engineering, supra, at 609. The ITN
  specifications provide broad discretion as to the evaluation and scoring process.
7. A de novo proceeding in procurement cases means a proceeding in which evidence is received, factual disputes are settled, legal conclusions are made, and prior agency action is reviewed for correctness. The Administrative Law Judge does not sit as a substitute for the Department in determining whether the right party prevailed in the proceeding. "Instead, the hearing officer sits in a review capacity and must determine whether the bid review criteria set . . . have been satisfied." Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. State Department of Health and Rehab. Serv., 606 So. 2d 380, 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
8. The standard of proof used to make such a determination is ". . . whether the proposed agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious." § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat.
9. The definition of standard of proof for purposes of procurement actions is considered to be akin to a standard of review. R. N. Expertise, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County School Board, Case No. 01-2663BID (DOAH February 4, 2002), para. 76, adopted in toto in Miami-Dade County School Board Final Order filed March 14, 2002.
10. Petitioners, in order to prevail, must identify and prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, a specific
  instance or instances where the agency's conduct in taking its proposed action was either:
  1. contrary to the Department's statutes;
  2. contrary to the Department's rules or policies; or
  3. contrary to the ITN specifications.
  It is not sufficient for Petitioners to prove merely that the agency violated the general standard of conduct. By virtue of the applicable standards of review, Petitioners must also establish that the Department's misstep was:
  1. clearly erroneous;
  2. contrary to competition; or
  3. arbitrary or capricious.
  R. N. Expertise, para. 78.
11. A clearly erroneous standard is that generally applied in reviewing a lower tribunal's findings of fact. It means that though there may be some evidence to support the finding, the reviewer is nevertheless left with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. R. N. Expertise, at para. 80.
12. Actions contrary to competition are those which create the appearance of and opportunity for favoritism; erode public confidence that contracts are awarded equitably and economically; cause the procurement process to be genuinely unfair or unreasonably exclusive; or, are unethical, dishonest,
  illegal, or fraudulent. R. N. Expertise, at paras. 101 and 102, and § 287.001, Fla. Stat.
13. Actions that are arbitrary and capricious are limited to actions which are within the Department's discretion.
  It is now frequently observed that an arbitrary decision is one that is not supported by facts or logic, or is despotic. Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So. 2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Thus, under the arbitrary or capricious standard, "an agency is to be subjected only to the most rudimentary command of rationality. The reviewing court is not authorized to examine whether the agency's empirical conclusions have support in substantial evidence." Adam Smith
  Enterprises, Inc. v. State Department of Environmental Regulation, 553 So. 2d 1260, 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
14. Applying the standard of proof used in procurement law, it is found that the actions of the Department were not contrary to the Department's statutes, or the Department's rules or policies, or to the proposal specifications.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

it is

RECOMMENDED that the Petitions of Verizon Business Network

Services, Inc., on behalf of MCI Communications, Inc., d/b/a

Verizon Business Services; Global-Tel Link; and Public Communications Services, Inc., be dismissed.

DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

HARRY L. HOOPER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2007.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Karen E. Armstrong, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

Gary V. Perko, Esquire Wesley S. Haber, Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A.

123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314

Allan P. Clark, Esquire John A. Tucker, IV, Esquire Foley & Lardner

One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Post Office Box 240

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Robert H. Hosay, Esquire Foley & Lardner, LLP

106 East College Avenue Highpoint Center, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7732

W. Robert Vezina, III, Esquire Eduardo S. Lombard, Esquire

Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A.

413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Brian A. Newman, Esquire Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson,

Bell & Dunbar, P.A.

215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095

James R. McDonough, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

Kathleen Von Hoene, General Counsel Department of Corrections

2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

10 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case

Docket for Case No: 07-002468BID

Issue Date	Proceedings
May 11, 2009	GTL`s and Verizon`s Notice of Withdrawing Motion to Tax Appellate Costs filed.
Sep. 26, 2008	Department of Corrections` Answer to Joint Motion to Tax Appellate Costs filed.
Sep. 24, 2008	Final Order filed.
Sep. 19, 2008	Joint Motion to Tax Appellate Costs filed.
Sep. 12, 2007	Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding records to the agency.
Sep. 06, 2007	Public Communications Services` Written Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
Sep. 06, 2007	Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
Sep. 06, 2007	Respondent`s Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
Sep. 06, 2007	Final Order filed.
Sep. 04, 2007	Petitioner, Global Tel Link Corporation`s Response to Respondent`s Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
Aug. 23, 2007	Petitioner, Global Tel Link Corporation`s Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
Aug. 13, 2007	Recommended Order (hearing held July 10-13, 2007). CASE CLOSED.
Aug. 13, 2007	Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
Aug. 06, 2007	Notice of Filing Global Tel Link Corporation`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Aug. 06, 2007	Global Tel Link Corporation`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Aug. 06, 2007	Securus` Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Aug. 06, 2007	Proposed Recommended Order of Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., on behalf of MCI Communication, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Business Services filed.
Aug. 06, 2007	Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Aug. 06, 2007	Public Communications Services, Inc.`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Aug. 06, 2007	Petitioner, Global Tel Link`s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Jul. 26, 2007	Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Increase Page Limitation for Post-hearing Submittals.
Jul. 25, 2007	Unopposed Motion to Increase Page Limitation for Post-Hearing Submittals filed.
Jul. 20, 2007	Transcript filed.
Jul. 20, 2007	Securus` Notice of Filing Complete Version of Exhibit GTL 6 filed.
Jul. 20, 2007	Transcript (Volumes 1 through 7) filed.
Jul. 13, 2007	CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Jul. 12, 2007	Errata Sheets filed.
Jul. 10, 2007	Deposition (of A. Heckel) filed.
Jul. 10, 2007	Petitioners`, Global Tel Link Corporation`s and Verizon Business Services Notice of Filing Deposition of Arthur Heckell filed.
Jul. 10, 2007	Deposition (of R.Rae, Jr.) filed.
Jul. 10, 2007	Petitioners`, Global Tel Link Corporation`s and Verizon Business Services Notice of Filing Deposition of Robert Rae filed.
Jul. 10, 2007	Deposition Transcripts filed.
Jul. 09, 2007	Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
Jul. 09, 2007	Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition (J. Pekarovic) filed.
Jul. 09, 2007	Joint Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions to Securus` Corporate Representative filed.
Jul. 09, 2007	Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition filed.
Jul. 09, 2007	Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.`s and Global-Tel Link Corporation`s Joint Response in Opposition to the Florida Department of Corrections` Motion in Limine filed.
Jul. 09, 2007	Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information (signed) filed.
Jul. 09, 2007	Petitioners` Global Tel Link Corporation and Verizon Business Services Motion to File Under Seal Certain Pages of the Deposition Transcripts of Robert Rae and Arthur Heckell filed.
Jul. 06, 2007	Petitioners` GTL and Verizon`s Notice of Filing Deposition of Lisa Bassett filed.
Jul. 06, 2007	Petitioners`, Global Tel Link Corporation`s and Verizon Business Services Notice of Filing Deposition of Jeri Bailey filed.
Jul. 06, 2007	Petitioners` GTL and Verizon`s Notice of Filing Deposition of Millie Seay filed.
Jul. 06, 2007	Petitioners`, Global Tel Link Corporation`s and Verizon Business Services Notice of Filing Deposition of Elaine Atwood filed.
Jul. 06, 2007	Petitioners`, Global Tel Link Corporation`s and Verizon Business Services Notice of Filing Deposition of Minerva Walker filed.
Jul. 06, 2007	Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information filed.
Jul. 06, 2007	Transcript filed.
Jul. 06, 2007	Public Communications Services, Inc.`s Response to Securus` Motion to Compel Discovery filed.
Jul. 05, 2007	Securus` Motion to Compel Discovery from PCS filed.
Jul. 05, 2007	Respondent, Department of Corrections` Motion in Limine filed.
Jun. 28, 2007	Order Denying Global-Tel Link Corporation and Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.`s Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Securus.
Jun. 28, 2007	Securus` Amended Responses to GTL`s Interrogatories filed.
Jun. 28, 2007	Notice of Service of Amended Responses to GTL`s Interrogatories filed.
Jun. 28, 2007	Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition (of A. Mercer) filed.
Jun. 28, 2007	Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition (of S. Yow) filed.
Jun. 28, 2007	Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition (of B. Johnson) filed.
Jun. 28, 2007	Amended Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Jun. 28, 2007	Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Jun. 28, 2007	Notice of Service and Amended Responses to Verizon`s Interrogatories filed.
Jun. 28, 2007	Securus` Notice of Complaince filed.
Jun. 27, 2007	Transcript filed.
Jun. 27, 2007	Notice of Filing Transcript of Motion Hearing filed.
Jun. 27, 2007	Securus` Memorandum Opposing Petitioners` Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel filed.
Jun. 27, 2007	Securus` Supplemental Privilege Log filed.
Jun. 26, 2007	Securus` Response to Verizon`s Second Request for Production filed.
Jun. 26, 2007	Joint Additional and Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Global Tel Link Corporation and Verizon Business Network Services, Inc`s Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Securus filed.
Jun. 25, 2007	CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
Jun. 25, 2007	Amended Order Extending Time for Discovery and Pretrial Stipulation.
Jun. 25, 2007	Securus` Motion to Compel Discovery From GTL filed.
Jun. 25, 2007	Securus` Memorandum Opposing PCS`s Petition to Intervene filed.
Jun. 22, 2007	Petitioners` Global Tel Link Corporation and Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.`s Joint Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Securus Production of Documents filed.
Jun. 22, 2007	Global Tel Link Corporation`s Notice of Serving Supplemental Responses to Intervenor, Securus Technologies, Inc.`s First Interrogatories filed.
Jun. 22, 2007	Cross Notice of Deposition of Florida Department of Corrections Secretary, James R. McDonough filed.
Jun. 22, 2007	Order Granting Petition to Intervene (Public Communications Services, Inc.`s).
Jun. 22, 2007	Notice of Motion Hearing (motion hearing set for June 25, 2007; 9:00 a.m.).
Jun. 22, 2007	Public Communications Services, Inc.`s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Petition to Intervene filed.
Jun. 22, 2007	Petitioner, Global-Tek Link Corporation`s Privilege Log filed.
Jun. 22, 2007	Global-Tek Link Corporation`s Notice of Compliance With Securus Technologies, Inc.`s, Request for Production filed.
Jun. 22, 2007	Amended Cross Notice of Depositions filed.
Jun. 22, 2007	Amended Cross Notice of Deposition of Intervenor, Securus Technologies, Inc.`s Corporate Representative filed.
Jun. 22, 2007	Global Tel Link Corporation and Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.`s Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Securus filed.
Jun. 20, 2007	Public Communications Services, Inc.`s Petition to Intervene filed.
Jun. 20, 2007	Securus` Privilege Log filed.
Jun. 20, 2007	Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 10 and 11, 2007; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL; amended as to Date).
Jun. 20, 2007	Order Extending Time for Discovery and Pretrial Stipulation.
Jun. 20, 2007	Order Granting Global-Tel Link Corporation and Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.`s Renewed Motion to Compel Deposition of Department of Corrections` Secretary.
Jun. 20, 2007	CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
Jun. 19, 2007	Petitioner Global-Tel Link Corporation`s Motion for Protectice Order and Notice of Joinder in Petitioner Verizon Bsiness` Motion for Protective Order filed.
Jun. 19, 2007	Petitioners` Notice of Filing Depositions in Support of Petitioners` Renewed Motion to Compel Deposition of Department of Corrections` Secretary filed.
Jun. 19, 2007	Globel Tel Link`s and Verizon`s Renewed Motion to Compel Deposition of Department of Corrections` Secretary filed.
Jun. 19, 2007	CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
Jun. 19, 2007	Securus` Amended Responses to GTL`s Request for Production filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.`s Notice of Joinder in Global Tel*Link Corporation`s Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenor, Securus Technologies, Inc. filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Petitioner Verizon Business` Motion for Protective Order filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Petitioner, Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., on Behalf of MCI Communications, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Business Services`, Notice of Serving Objections and Answers to Securus` First Set of Interrogatories filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Petitioner, Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., on Behalf of MCI Communications, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Business Services`, Notice of Serving Objections and Responses to Securus` First Request for Production of Documents filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Global Tel Link Corporation`s Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenor, Securus Technologies, Inc. filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Securus` Responses to Verizon`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Notice of Service of Unverified Response to Verizon`s Interrogatories filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Securus` Responses to GTL`s Interrogatories filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Notice of Service of Unverified Response to GTL`s Interrogatories filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Notice of Taking Deposition (of Corporate Representative of Verizon) filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Notice of Taking Deposition (of Corporate Representative of GTL) filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Securus` Responses to Verizon`s Request for Production filed.
Jun. 18, 2007	Securus` Responses to GTL`s Request for Production filed.
Jun. 15, 2007	Department of Corrections` Notice of Comlpiance with Verizon`s Request for Production filed.
Jun. 15, 2007	Department of Corrections` Notice of Compliance With Verizon`s Request for Production filed.
Jun. 15, 2007	Department of Corrections` Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories of Verizon filed.
Jun. 14, 2007	Petitioner`s Second Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor, Securus Technologies, Inc. filed.
Jun. 14, 2007	Department of Corrections` Notice of Service of Answers to Inveterrogatories of Global-tel Link filed.
Jun. 14, 2007	Department of Corrections` Notice of Compliance with Global-tel Link`s Request for Production filed.
Jun. 14, 2007	Subpoena for Deposition filed.
Jun. 13, 2007	Securus` Interrogatories to Verizon filed.
Jun. 13, 2007	Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Verizon filed.
Jun. 13, 2007	Securus` Interrogatories to GTL filed.
Jun. 13, 2007	Notice of Service of Interrogatories to GTL filed.
Jun. 13, 2007	Securus` Request for Production to Verizon filed.
Jun. 13, 2007	Securus` Request for Production to GTL filed.
Jun. 13, 2007	Order Denying Petitioner, Global Tel*Link Corporation`s Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections.
Jun. 13, 2007	Order Denying Petitioner, Global Tel-Link Corporation`s Motion in Limine.
Jun. 13, 2007	Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for June 25 and July 10, and 11, 2007; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL; amended as to hearing dates).
Jun. 12, 2007	Cross Notice of Deposition of Intervenor, Securus Technologies, Inc.`s Corporate Representative filed.
Jun. 12, 2007	Cross Notice of Depositions filed.
Jun. 12, 2007	CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
Jun. 12, 2007	Respondent, State of Florida Department of Corrections` Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioners` Motion to Compel the Deposition Testimony of the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections filed.
Jun. 12, 2007	Securus` Memorandum Opposing Global`s Motion in Limine filed.
Jun. 11, 2007	Petitioner, Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., On Behalf of MCI Communications, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Business Services`, Notice of Joinder in Petitioner, Global Tel*Link filed.
Jun. 11, 2007	Petitioner, Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., On Behalf of MCI Communications, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Business Services`, Notice of Joinder in Petitioner, Global Tel*Link Corporation`s Motion in Limine filed.
Jun. 11, 2007	Notice of Motion Hearing (motion hearing set for June 12, 2007; 3:00 p.m.).
Jun. 08, 2007	Petitioner`s First Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor, Securus Technologies, Inc. filed.
Jun. 08, 2007	Petitioner`s Certificate of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor, Securus Technologies, Inc. filed.
Jun. 08, 2007	Cross Notice of Depositions of Designated Representative filed.
Jun. 08, 2007	Cross Notice of Depositions filed.
Jun. 08, 2007	Petitioner`s First Request for Production of Documents to Respondent State of Florida, Department of Corrections filed.
Jun. 08, 2007	Petitioner`s Certificate of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Corrections filed.
Jun. 08, 2007	Petitioner, Global-Tel Link Corporation`s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections filed.
Jun. 08, 2007	Petitioner, Global Tel*Link Corporation`s Motion in Limie filed.
Jun. 08, 2007	Notice of Hearing (hearing set for June 25 and July 9 through 11, 2007; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
Jun. 08, 2007	Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
Jun. 08, 2007	Order Granting Petition to Intervene (Securus Technologies, Inc.).
Jun. 07, 2007	CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
Jun. 07, 2007	Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 07-2468BID and 07-2469BID).
Jun. 01, 2007	Petition to Intervene (filed by Securus Technologies, Inc.)
Jun. 01, 2007	Motion to Consolidate filed. (DOAH Case No. 07-2468BID and 07-2469BID)
Jun. 01, 2007	Notice of Agency Decision filed.
Jun. 01, 2007	Verizon Business Services, Inc.`s Notice of Intent to Protest filed.
Jun. 01, 2007	Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings filed.
Jun. 01, 2007	Agency referral filed.

Orders for Case No: 07-002468BID

Issue Date	Document	Summary
Sep. 18, 2008	Agency Final Order
Sep. 18, 2008	Agency Final Order
Aug. 13, 2007	Recommended Order	Petitioners alleged that Intervenor Securus was not responsive to Respondent`s Invitation to Negotiate. Contrary to Petitioners` assertion, Securus was responsive.

Source: Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC., ON BEHALF OF MCI COMMUNICATIONS, INC., D/B/A VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 07-002468BID (2007)

3.7 Inmate Telephone System Functionality (General)

3.7.1. Network and Infrastructure Requirements

3.7.3. Database Requirements

3.7.4. System Calling Protocol Requirements

3.7.6. System Call Blocking Requirements

3.7.8. System Restriction, Fraud Control and Notification Requirements

3.7.14. System Disaster Recovery

3.8.3. Rate and Call Charge Requirements

3.8.5. Prepaid Collect Call Service (PPCCS)

3.7.4. System Calling Protocol Requirements

3.7.1. Network and Infrastructure Requirements

3.7.3. Database Requirements is changed to

Database Requirements

(60) months from the date of the call. Off-line records shall be in a format readily accessible to the Department upon request. (sic)

3.7.3. System Calling Protocol Requirements

3.7.6 System Call Blocking Requirements is changed to 3.7.5., but the text remains the same as in the ITN.

3.7.8. System Restriction, Fraud Control, and Notification Requirements is changed to 3.7.7. The RBAFO adds subsection "i)." That addition does not affect this proceeding.

3.8.3. Rate and Call Charge Requirements retains the same number, but is renamed Call Charge Requirements - "To

4.1.3 VALUE-ADDED SERVICES:

Docket for Case No: 07-002468BID

Orders for Case No: 07-002468BID

Gary Vergil Perko

Wesley Stuart Haber

Allan Paul Clark

Jeff Goodman

Karen Elise Armstrong

Eduardo S Lombard

Cynthia Skelton Tunnicliff

John Andrew Tucker IV

John Andrew Tucker IV

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Search for lawyers by practice areas.

VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC., ON BEHALF OF MCI COMMUNICATIONS, INC., D/B/A VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 07-002468BID (2007)

3.7 Inmate Telephone System Functionality (General)

3.7.1. Network and Infrastructure Requirements

3.7.3. Database Requirements

3.7.4. System Calling Protocol Requirements

3.7.6. System Call Blocking Requirements

3.7.8. System Restriction, Fraud Control and Notification Requirements

3.7.14. System Disaster Recovery

3.8.3. Rate and Call Charge Requirements

3.8.5. Prepaid Collect Call Service (PPCCS)

3.7.4. System Calling Protocol Requirements

3.7.1. Network and Infrastructure Requirements

3.7.3. Database Requirements is changed to

Database Requirements

(60) months from the date of the call. Off-line records shall be in a format readily accessible to the Department upon request. (sic)

3.7.3. System Calling Protocol Requirements

3.7.6 System Call Blocking Requirements is changed to 3.7.5., but the text remains the same as in the ITN.

3.7.8. System Restriction, Fraud Control, and Notification Requirements is changed to 3.7.7. The RBAFO adds subsection "i)." That addition does not affect this proceeding.

3.8.3. Rate and Call Charge Requirements retains the same number, but is renamed Call Charge Requirements - "To

4.1.3 VALUE-ADDED SERVICES:

Docket for Case No: 07-002468BID

Orders for Case No: 07-002468BID

Lawyers who claimed

Counsels

Cites

Florida Laws (6)

Authorities (4)

Cited By (4)

Similar Cases

Note

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Search for lawyers by practice areas.