STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS )

CORPORATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) CASE NO. 95-1639BID

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

)

Respondent. )

and )

) NORTH AMERICAN INTELECOM, INC. )

)

Intervenors. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Following formal notice to all parties, Don W. Davis, a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, held a formal hearing in the above- styled case on April 19, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire

Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A.

123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Linda P. Armstrong, Esquire

MCI Telecommunications Corporation 1133 19th Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20036

For Respondent: Steve Ferst, Esquire

Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

For Intervenor: Hume F. Coleman, Esquire

Holland & Knight

315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue is whether the Department of Corrections (DOC) acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly when it decided to award the contract under Bid Number 94-CO-6355, for Inmate Pay Telephones and Long Distance Service (the Contract), to the number two-ranked bidder, North American Intelecom, Inc. (NAI).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This matter began August 12, 1994, when the DOC mailed its ITB for Bid Number 94-CO-6355, to potential vendors for the purpose of obtaining competitive bids for a three-year contract to provide interlata, interstate, and international telephone services for inmates in certain of the DOC's facilities.

By letter dated March 2, 1995, the DOC notified MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) of the DOC's intent to award the Contract to NAI. MCI, also a bidder, timely filed a notice of protest. Following filing of MCI's formal written protest and failed efforts to resolve the protest informally through mutual agreement, the matter was transferred by the DOC to the Division of Administrative Hearings for conduct of formal proceedings.

At the final hearing, the parties offered 22 joint exhibits, including the deposition testimony of seven witnesses, all of which were received in evidence. The Petitioner presented the live testimony of three witnesses, including two expert witnesses, and the deposition testimony of three witnesses, and offered

17 exhibits, all of which were admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented further live testimony of three witnesses and offered two exhibits, both of which were admitted into evidence. NAI, Intervenor, presented the direct testimony of one witness. NAI also offered one evidentiary exhibit -- a Telequip memorandum dated October 18, 1994 -- which was admitted into evidence subject to a determination that the record contains corroborating testimony. Having reviewed the record and finding no such corroborating testimony, the exhibit has been excluded.

All evidence offered with respect to any potential benefit accruing to the Department of Corrections from overcharges for services under its existing contract with NAI is determined to be admissible.

A transcript of the final hearing was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 16, 1995. An amended transcript of the final hearing was filed on June 1, 1995. Proposed recommended orders submitted by the parties were received and are addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.

Based upon all of the evidence, including the demeanor and candor of the witnesses who testified, the following findings of fact are determined:

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background

1. On or about August 12, 1994, the DOC issued Invitation to Bid Number 94-CO-5355, Inmate Pay Telephones and Long Distance Service.

   
   

2. Michael H. Johnson, a General Services Specialist, prepared the ITB at the direction of Jim Morris, Chief of the DOC's Bureau of General Services.

   Johnson developed the evaluation criteria and point allocations in Section 8.0 of the ITB. The document was reviewed and approved by Morris, Jim Biddy, Chief of the DOC's Bureau of Finance and Accounting, and Max Denson of the DOC's Operations Office.

   
   

3. Inmate pay telephone and long distance service requires more than just the installation of pay phones in correctional facilities. The service vendor must also provide a means of blocking inmate telephone calls and, when calls are authorized, preventing inmates from making harassing calls to members of the public. Additionally, the ITB includes a provision requiring some means for monitoring and automatically recording inmate telephone calls, and for deactivating the automatic recording function when an inmate calls his or her attorney. A requirement is also included in the ITB that the system limit the length of inmate calls and generate monthly call detail reports.

   
   

4. Other mandatory, no cost features to be provided under the Contract include a Personal Identification Number ("PIN") system capability, a three-way call detection and cutoff feature, a pilot site to test the call monitoring/recording system, on-site administrators to free facility staff from all tasks associated with the inmate phone system, and a semi-annual audit to ensure that the provider is meeting all technical and service requirements.

   
   

5. The specifications in the ITB for provision of inmate pay telephone and long distance service are some of the most comprehensive in the country, requiring state-of-the-art hardware, software, and service in order to implement specified mandatory system features.

   
   

6. Security concerns are prominent among reasons for having adequate service and support for the inmate pay telephone and long distance service. PIN-Driven System

   
   

7. One of the primary features specified in the ITB is a PIN-driven system for blocking inmate calls. The PIN system requires each inmate to be assigned his or her own personal identification number for use with the telephone system. An inmate must key in his or her personal identification number before dialing an outgoing call. The system must automatically screen the telephone number dialed to ensure it is one which has received prior authorization for accessibility by the PIN.

   
   

8. A PIN-driven system is labor-intensive and requires on-site administration to facilitate assignment of inmate PIN numbers and constant input and modification of each inmate's list of numbers for authorized outgoing calls.

   
   

   Project Staffing

   
   

9. The DOC specifically requested the inmate phone system vendor to provide sufficient on-site administrators for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, support for proper administration of the PIN system.

   
   

10. Noting that on-site administrators are to relieve DOC staff of all responsibilities relating to the inmate phone system, the DOC stated in the ITB that it did not want its staff to be involved with time-consuming service and maintenance problems.

    
    

11. The DOC expressed a preference in the ITB for one on-site administrator being assigned to each major facility, except in those

    circumstances in which a single individual may cover several facilities in close geographic proximity to one another.

    
    

12. Support services are important to maintain the proper functioning of the type of inmate phone system requested by the DOC.

    
    

13. The ITB, taken as a whole, is a solicitation for an integrated telecommunications system, encompassing not only hardware, but systems software, service and project support.

    
    

14. The ITB did not simply solicit manufacturers and models for various pieces of hardware; it contained a comprehensive description of functional requirements that had to be met. As a consequence, any determination that one bidder's "equipment" is identical to that offered by any other bidder must take into consideration proposed support and service, as well as proposed hardware and software applications.

    Bid Evaluation Procedure Specified in the ITB

    
    

15. As established at final hearing by the unrebutted testimony of MCI's expert in telecommunications service bid response preparation, DOC's ITB differed from those in many other states. Unlike the instant ITB, many ITBs from other jurisdictions provide for a determination that bids meet specified minimum requirements and then dictate the award of a contract to the responsive bid with the lowest price. Conversely, DOC's ITB specified a detailed procedure to be followed in evaluating the bids, including evaluation criteria, points to be assigned to each criterion, and an evaluation committee to conduct the evaluation of bids.

    
    

16. Johnson, the DOC employee responsible for the preparation of the ITB, understood that the Contract would be awarded to the bidder with the highest number of points allocated in accordance with the evaluation scheme described in Section 8.0 of the ITB.

    
    

17. The DOC includes in its ITB both general and special conditions and specifications.

    
    

18. The ITB, by its own terms, provides that special conditions and specifications shall have precedence over general conditions. The ITB contains numerous special conditions and specifications, including the bid evaluation procedures under Section 8.0. The bid evaluation criteria which are described by these special conditions and specifications identify the areas of the state's interest which must be addressed by the bids, as well as the weight to be assigned to each. Section 8.3 of the ITB emphasizes that any information gleaned from post bid demonstrations will not be used to change bid responses.

    
    

19. The bid evaluation scheme specified in the ITB provided for points to be awarded to each bid using the following weighted criteria:

    
    

    CRITERIA	POINTS
    CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS	15
    REFERENCES	10
    PROPOSED PROJECT STAFF	5
    COMMISSION RATE	70
    TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS	100

    
    

20. The points awarded for "commission rate" were to be determined by using a formula specified in the ITB which initially gave 70 points to the

    bidder proposing the highest commission rate, with all other bidders receiving a lesser number of points, depending on how close they came to the highest proposed commission rate.

    
    

21. The points awarded for all of the other criteria were to be determined by a seven-member Evaluation Committee, members of which were selected by Assistant Secretary Kronenberger for their experience with management and actual operation of inmate phone systems, both from the institutional perspective and the regional office perspective.

    
    

22. Each bid was required to be independently evaluated.

    
    

23. The DOC issued two addenda to the ITB. The first addendum was issued August 23, 1994, and advised potential bidders of a change in location for the pre-bid conference scheduled for September 7, 1994.

    
    

24. At the pre-bid conference, the DOC explained the award process to potential bidders.

    
    

25. Johnson, the DOC representative, advised potential bidders at the pre- bid conference that the contract award would not be determined solely on the strength of the commission rate quote.

    
    

26. On September 22, 1994, the DOC issued Addendum Number Two to the ITB which, among other things, changed the evaluation procedure by adding a new criterion and re-allocating the weight among the expanded criteria as follows:

    
    

    CRITERIA	POINTS
    CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS	10
    REFERENCES	10
    PROPOSED PROJECT STAFF	5
    TECHNOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENTS	10
    COMMISSION RATE	65
    TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS	100

    
    

27. The addition of "technological enhancements" was made at the request of Deputy Secretary Thurber, who wanted to be sure that the DOC had an opportunity to see what features above and beyond the minimum features specified in the original ITB were available for an inmate pay telephone system.

    
    

28. When technological enhancements were added as an evaluation criterion, the weight to be given the commission rate in the evaluation scheme was lowered from 70 to 65 points.

    
    

29. The DOC officials who reviewed and approved Addendum Number Two determined that the reduced weight for proposed commission rates was appropriate.

    
    

30. At 65 percent of the available points, the reduced weight for the proposed commission is still higher than the 45 percent to 50 percent weight typically given by the DOC to the revenue side of a bid.

    Bidder Preparation

    
    

31. MCI relied on the representation in the ITB and assurances of DOC's representative, Michael H. Johnson, at the bid conference that DOC's decision would not be made solely on the basis of cost.

32. As a consequence of DOC representations, MCI prepared its bid to address the specifications in the ITB and thereby maximize its overall points under the ITB's evaluation scheme, as opposed to submission of a bid package concerned solely with scoring the highest possible points for "commission rates."

    Bid Opening and Initial Review

    
    

33. On October 21, 1994, bids were submitted to DOC by MCI, NAI, AT&T, TEI, Robert Cefail & Associates (RC&A), 21st Century, RC&A/21st Century, and LDDS Metromedia.

    
    

34. At the Bid Opening, Johnson again explained the award process to bidders on behalf of the DOC, and advised bidders that the bid tabulation was strictly for the purpose of documenting responses and that nothing was to be inferred from the proposed commission rates.

    
    

35. Bidders were again advised that commissions would be only one aspect of the award.

    
    

36. Johnson's understanding at the time of the Bid Opening was that the Contract would be awarded based on points awarded pursuant to the bid evaluation scheme specified in the Section 8.0 of the ITB.

    
    

37. Johnson participated in an initial review of the bids, reading each of the proposals to determine whether the mandatory requirements were satisfied.

    
    

38. Of eight bids received, five, including the bids submitted by MCI and NAI were determined by the DOC to satisfy the mandatory requirements.

    The Evaluation Committee

    
    

39. As required in the ITB, the DOC formed an Evaluation Committee to evaluate the bids. Selected by Assistant Secretary Kronenberger, members of the Evaluation Committee were: Jim Biddy, Chief of the Bureau of Finance and Accounting; Jerry Pilcher, Chief of Regional Administrative Services for Region II; Kermit Kerley, Superintendent of the Hardee Correctional Institution; Stan Czerniak, Superintendent of the North Florida Reception Center; Charles Mask, Superintendent of the Corrections Mental Health Institution; Charles Dennard, Business Manager for the Polk Correctional Institution; and Robert Sandal, General Services Manager for Region I.

    
    

40. Members of the Evaluation Committee were selected from the DOC's business managers and superintendents on the basis that their participation would provide an overall perspective with respect to management and actual operation of the inmate phone system.

    
    

    Evaluation Committee's Recommendation

    
    

41. All five of the bids determined by the DOC to be responsive were thoroughly reviewed by Evaluation Committee in accordance with the bid evaluation procedures specified in the ITB, including Addendum Number Two, in an almost day-long session in the DOC's Central Office on January 5, 1995.

    
    

42. The total points awarded by each Committee member for all of the four evaluation criteria were averaged to establish each bidder's total Evaluation Points.

43. Every member of the Evaluation Committee scored MCI's bid as their number one or number two choice. NAI was ranked no higher than third by anyone on the Committee and was ranked fourth by five of the Committee's members.

    
    

44. No member of the Committee gave NAI a higher score than MCI on any of the evaluation criteria.

    
    

45. Comments on a majority of the evaluation forms of the seven members of the Evaluation Committee reflect a general concern for the adequacy of NAI's proposed project support. Specifically, Mr. Biddy noted that "[p]roposed project staff consisted of only 17 people [and that it was] questionable whether this would be sufficient for site administration as well as contract management." Similarly, Mr. Kerley noted on the NAI bid evaluation form that "17 staff may not be enough to support [the] system." Mr. Pilcher's comments indicated that "[p]roject support was not as I expected or not explained very well." Mr. Dennard indicated that NAI's bid provided "no breakdown of [the] 17 staff to support [the] contract [and] no mention of site administrators."

    
    

46. The NAI bid indicates that a total of 17 personnel will be made available to support the Contract with more to be "added if the schedule so indicates."

    
    

47. NAI's bid does not specifically identify the number of persons to be involved in on-site administration. However, NAI has committed only 17 people in support the Contract as a whole, ten of whom are expressly identified as performing tasks other than on-site administration.

    
    

48. While NAI's bid indicates provision of additional personnel if required by the schedule, ambiguity about whether NAI would expand the number of on-site administrators for the entire term of the contract is evident. The "installation requirements" described in the ITB refer to time-limited activities necessary to initiate operation of the inmate telephone system, as opposed to the ongoing nature of the commitment necessary for on-site administration.

    
    

49. In its bid response, NAI also agreed to cooperate with the DOC "to insure the proper distribution of on-site administrators." This offer does not suggest, however, that the number of on-site administrators committed in support of the Contract will be augmented by NAI. Such assurance relates to location and not number of on-site administrators.

    
    

50. Testimony of NAI presented at final hearing that additional on-site administrators will be provided is not credited, inasmuch as such testimony constitutes an impermissible attempt by NAI to modify its bid after the bid opening.

    
    

51. Based upon the substantial disparity in the proposed levels of customer service, the MCI and NAI bids cannot be considered to be identical.

    
    

52. NAI's assertion at hearing that its bid included other system features which do not appear on the face of its written proposal constitutes a prohibited post-bid-opening modification. Such modifications included PCs, keyboards, printers and color monitors at each facility. These items are included on the face of the MCI bid.

    
    

53. MCI offered 28 personnel in support of the Contract, including an express commitment for 20 on-site administrators.

54. MCI's proposal to provide 20 on-site administrators is one of the highest number of on-site administrators offered by any bidder and a very costly aspect of MCI's bid since all employee salary and benefits must be covered for each on-site administrator dedicated to the project.

    
    

55. The assignment of points for each bidder's proposed commission rate (Commission Points) was based on a scale which assigned 65 points to the bid with the highest commission rate quote. A lesser number of points was assigned to all other bids pursuant to a formula specified in Section 8.2 of the ITB, as amended by Addendum Number Two.

    
    

56. The highest commission rate quoted by any bidder was proposed by NAI at 56 percent. NAI was accordingly assigned 65 Commission Points. NAI was also awarded 22.143 Evaluation Points, which, when combined with NAI's 65 Commission Points, produced a total of 87.143 points.

    
    

57. MCI proposed a 53 percent commission rate and, in accordance with the formula set forth in the ITB, earned 61.51 Commission Points. MCI was also awarded 30 Evaluation Points which, when combined with MCI's 61.51 Commission Points, produced a total of 91.51 points.

    
    

58. When the Evaluation Committee's other scores were combined with the scores for commission rates obtained by applying the formula in the ITB, MCI's point total was higher than that received by any of the other bidders.

    
    

59. The DOC officials later involved in the decision to award the Contract to NAI indicated that they had no reason to question the work of the Evaluation Committee.

    
    

60. After reviewing the bid evaluation forms produced by the Evaluation Committee, and based on his continuing understanding that the Contract would be awarded to the bidder receiving the highest number of points under the evaluation scheme specified in the ITB, Michael H. Johnson prepared a memorandum for signature of his supervisor, Mr. Morris, to Assistant Secretary Kronenberger. Dated January 31, 1995, the memorandum recommended award of the Contract to MCI.

    
    

61. Morris signed the January 31, 1995 memorandum and forwarded the same to Assistant Secretary Kronenberger.

    
    

62. At prehearing deposition in this case on April 13, 1995, Kronenberger denied having received any recommendation from anyone regarding which company should be awarded the contract.

    
    

63. Later at the final hearing following Johnson's testimony that he, Johnson, had been instructed to destroy the signed document by Morris (his supervisor), Kronenberger finally admitted that he had told Morris "we ought to pull that memo." These instructions were followed by Morris, who directed Mr. Johnson to destroy the January 31, 1995 memorandum recommending award of the Contract to MCI. Significantly, neither Morris, Kronenberger, nor Thurber--all DOC officials involved in the contract award decision--mentioned the existence of this document prior to Mr. Johnson's revelation on the witness stand that it had been destroyed.

    After-The-Fact Evaluation

    
    

64. In a February 22, 1995 memorandum to Deputy Secretary Thurber, Kronenberger, after acknowledging that MCI received the highest number of points, formally recommended that the Contract be awarded to NAI. This memorandum was drafted by Morris at the direction of Kronenberger.

    
    

65. Before making the recommendation to award the contract to NAI, Kronenberger had not read the ITB, the addenda to the ITB, or any portion of the bids. Morris was the only member of his staff with whom Kronenberger consulted.

    
    

66. Kronenberger's decision was approved by Deputy Secretary William Thurber.

    
    

67. Neither Kronenberger, Morris, nor Thurber read the bids at any time prior to the DOC's issuance of the notice of intended award to NAI.

    
    

68. Kronenberger based his decision to recommend award of the Contract to NAI on his belief that NAI and MCI proposed to install "identical equipment," and that at least $1.1 million in additional revenue would be generated by the 3 percent higher commission rate offered by NAI over the three-year base term of the Contract.

    
    

69. Although the February 22, 1995 Kronenberger memorandum states that the DOC could find no correlation between the proposed commission rates and equipment capabilities, the DOC officials who made the decision to award the Contract to NAI (Morris, Kronenberger and Thurber) performed no analysis of the proposals, did not complete a score sheet, did not talk with any of the members of the Evaluation Committee, and were unaware of the specific content of the bids and the proposed differences in staffing offered by the two bidders.

    
    

70. In contrast to the assertion of the Kronenberger memorandum, the proof establishes a direct inverse correlation between the total average scores awarded by the Evaluation Committee to the top three bids and the commission rates offered in those bids. This inverse correlation proves that the bidders had to balance the cost of the hardware, software and support personnel aspects of their bids against the commission rate they could offer and that the cost of each hardware, software and support personnel aspect of a bid has a direct impact on the commission rate which could be offered. This balancing is precisely what is required by the ITB since all of these aspects of the bid were assigned specific weights in the specified evaluation scheme.

    
    

71. Kronenberger's assumption, as set forth in his memorandum recommending award of the contract to NAI, that both NAI and MCI proposed to install identical "equipment" ignores the fundamental premise of the solicitation--that hardware, software and support were needed to provide a fully functioning, secure inmate phone system, as well as the fact that the vendors offered different approaches in responding to this requirement.

    
    

72. System hardware proposed by MCI and NAI includes the Telequip System Automatic Call Processor ("ACP") 4000, a Dictaphone recording and monitoring system, and Philips & Brooks/Gladwin phone instruments.

    
    

73. However, with regard to all aspects of the hardware offered, MCI's bid was more detailed and specific as compared with the NAI bid which generally

    identified system capabilities by referencing attached brochures. At best, NAI's bid is ambiguous as to whether it offered the same hardware component features.

    
    

74. NAI's general references to the brochures in its bid failed to specify which features of a piece of equipment was being affirmatively offered. NAI's after-the-fact assertion at the final hearing regarding features to be provided cannot be credited since such constitutes an impermissible attempt to modify its bid after the bid opening.

    
    

75. Software jointly developed by MCI and Telequip would permit operation of the attorney exception capability utilizing the Telequip ACP-4000 with the proposed Dictaphone recorder systems. Until MCI requested development of the necessary software, the attorney exception capability, which deactivates the automatic recording function when an inmate calls his or her attorney, was not available with the Telequip ACP-4000 when used in conjunction with the Dictaphone recorder.

    
    

76. Software jointly developed by MCI and Telequip was also necessary to provide an international call capability because the standard Telequip ACP-4000 ordinarily utilizes a debit system to process international calls, and "the debit system is inherently incompatible with the PIN system and the allowed calling list feature that are requirements in the . . . ITB."

    
    

77. The MCI bid offers more technological enhancements at no cost to the DOC, than does the NAI bid. Further, the items identified on MCI's list of technological enhancements do not appear anywhere on the face of the NAI bid. NAI's omission of the enhancements listed in the MCI bid adds further credence to the finding that the DOC had no reasonable basis to conclude that it would be getting those enhancements under the NAI bid at the time it was submitted. Moreover, the DOC's own synopsis of technological enhancements shows that it was aware of differences in the bids.

    
    

78. Differences in the hardware, software and services offered in the MCI and NAI bids preclude a determination that the two bids offered "identical equipment."

    
    

    Monetary Considerations

    
    

79. Revenue figures used by the DOC to project a $1.1 million difference in commissions were drawn from a period of time in late 1994 and early 1995 when the DOC's own summary reports indicate that NAI's billing exceptions range from

    41 percent to 49 percent of all calls. Billing exceptions are the number of calls which exceed AT&T rates or could not otherwise be reviewed in monthly call detail reports.

    
    

80. NAI's customer overcollections for telephone calls from inmates in the correctional facilities presently served by NAI provide an additional basis for uncertainty regarding the reliability of the projected $1.1 million difference in commissions. While the overcollections have not yet been quantified, NAI has admitted to the Florida Public Service Commission overcollections from customers receiving telephone calls from inmates under its current contract with the DOC in the amount of $394,318.

    
    

81. Notwithstanding the ongoing PSC inquiry and reports of extensive billing exceptions under its existing contract with NAI, the DOC has no apparent incentive to closely scrutinize overcollections inasmuch as the more revenues

    billed by NAI, the greater the amount of commissions received by the DOC. Thus, while there is a 3 percent difference in the proposed commission rates between the two bidders, it cannot be determined from this record with any degree of certainty how that difference will translate into actual dollars to the DOC.

    
    

82. In any event, the revenues generated by the contract for inmate pay telephones are placed in the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund, which does not support essential correctional facilities or services.

    
    

    Notice of Award and Protest

    
    

83. On March 2, 1995, the DOC issued an intent to award the Contract to

    NAI.

    
    

84. On March 8, 1995, within 72 hours of receipt of DOC's notice of

    intent, MCI timely filed a Notice of Protest.

    
    

85. On March 20, 1995, within ten days of filing its Notice of Protest, MCI timely filed a Formal Written Protest pursuant to Section 120.53(5) and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and Rule 33-20.005, Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

86. With its Formal Written Protest, MCI delivered to the DOC a cashier's check in the amount of $5,000.

    
    

87. On April 10, 1995, the DOC served its Motion to Dismiss MCI's protest, alleging that MCI has no right to a formal administrative hearing on the award of the Contract.

    
    

88. On April 12, 1995, the undersigned Hearing Officer, after consideration of the parties' pleadings and oral argument, ruled that MCI is entitled to a formal administrative hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to determine whether the DOC's decision to award the contract to NAI was arbitrary, illegal, fraudulent, or dishonest.

    
    

89. MCI has requested reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)5, Florida Statutes, for costs incurred in responding to the DOC's Motion to Dismiss. The Hearing Officer has ruled on the motion by order issued concurrently with this recommended order.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

90. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter under Sections 120.53(5) and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1993 and Supp. 1994).

    
    

    The Bid Award

    
    

91. MCI, as the number one-ranked bidder under the evaluation scheme specified in the ITB, is adversely affected by the Respondent's intended award of the Contract to NAI and has standing to protest rejection of its bid. See Couch Constr. Co. v. DOT, 361 So. 2d 184, 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

    
    

92. MCI, as Petitioner, bears the burden of establishing its entitlement to the relief sought in this proceeding. See Florida Dept of Transp. v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The issues raised by Petitioner in its Formal Written Protest must be supported by a preponderance of

    the evidence. See Agrico Chem. Co. v. State Dept of Envtl. Reg., 365 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 74.

    
    

93. Further, this matter may not be reviewed "de novo." See Department of Transp. v. Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1988). See also Proccaci v. HRS, 603 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Moore v. HRS, 596 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Instead, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly when it selected NAI as the intended recipient of the contract award. See Groves-Watkins, 530 So. 2d at 914 (Fla. 1988).

    
    

94. A public body has "wide discretion" in the bidding process and its decision, when based on an honest exercise of this discretion, should not be overturned "even if it may appear erroneous and even if reasonable persons may disagree." Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., 421 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 1982).

    
    

95. However, an agency's exercise of this discretion is not unbridled. In addition to the requirement that the decision be based upon facts reasonably tending to support the agency's conclusions, an agency's decision may not undermine or otherwise subvert the integrity of the competitive bidding process. See Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 at 914.

    
    

96. The facts established at the final hearing in this matter demonstrate that the DOC failed to comply with its own bid evaluation criteria, and that the resulting decision to award the Contract for inmate pay telephones and long distance service to NAI was made fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly. See Moore v. HRS, 596 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (an agency acts arbitrarily when it fails to follow its own bid evaluation procedures), rev'g on other grounds sub nom. Tallahassee Assocs. Ltd. v. HRS, 13 FALR 3359 (DOAH Case No. 91-0246BID) (Final Order Mar. 21, 1991). See also Proccaci v. HRS, 603 So.2d 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (failure to follow procedures in invitation to bid rendered resulting evaluation meaningless), rev'g on other grounds sub nom. Lima Dev. Corp. v. HRS, 13 FALR 3339 (DOAH Case No. 90- 4505BID) (Final Order May 1, 1991); Courtenay v. HRS, 581 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (failure to properly utilize weighted bid criteria is not an honest exercise of agency discretion), rev'g on other grounds 12 FALR 2226 (DOAH Case No. 89-4317BID) (Final Order Mar. 7, 1990).

    
    

97. Any purported rational basis for DOC's discretionary action in this instance is nonexistent or ephemeral at best in view of the detailed evaluation procedure set forth in the ITB. That procedure, including use of weighted evaluation criteria, was not only approved by the agency before the bid was advertised, but was subsequently refined by addenda and emphasized at the pre- bid conference. In short, bidders were induced by the DOC to tailor their proposals to provide a package of hardware, software, system management and support services in addition to providing competitive commission rate quotes.

    
    

98. Despite the ITB's evaluation scheme, the DOC now argues that it has ample discretion to award the Contract based on price alone. When juxtaposed with the clearly articulated evaluation scheme specified in the ITB, the DOC's current position suggests that the evaluation procedure specified in the ITB was an abject misrepresentation and an illusory offer.

    
    

99. No state agency may induce bidders to structure their proposals in a particular fashion, telling them that the contract award will not be determined

    solely on the strength of the commission rate quote, then award the contract, in disregard of other bid evaluation criteria, based on the agency's interest in additional revenue alone. See Disc Village, Inc. v. Department of Corrections, DOAH Case No. 92-7321BID (Final Order Apr. 6, 1993).

    
    

100. The facts in Disc Village are almost entirely the same as in the instant case. The only substantive difference through the entire solicitation, evaluation, and recommendation process was a requirement in the Disc Village invitation to bid which expressly provided that "the vendor with the highest score will be awarded the contract." See id. at 3. The DOC conceded in Disc Village that it had acted improperly by proposing to award the contract to the second highest bidder in clear contravention of this provision. See id. at 5 and

1. The hearing officer determined that the agency had acted arbitrarily by ignoring the terms of its own invitation to bid and so had subverted the competitive bidding process. See id. at 10. Secretary Singletary upheld the hearing officer's determination in the agency's final order issued April 6, 1993.

   
   

   1. DOC's argument, in the present case, that the ITB nowhere says that the Contract will be awarded based on the detailed evaluation scheme specified in the bid documents is unpersuasive. DOC's assertion is a distinction without a difference. The DOC has simply failed to put the final brush stroke upon the canvas. No one, after having read the agency's detailed evaluation procedure, can honestly say that the picture of the agency's intent to award the Contract based on the evaluation scheme therein is not absolutely clear.

      
      

   2. Having prevailed upon bidders to offer proposals encompassing five weighted evaluation criteria, and having then advised them that all submissions would be assigned a point value in accordance with the evaluation scheme specified in the ITB, award of the Contract by the DOC to a bidder other than the bidder with the highest point total is arbitrary. Particularly, since DOC does not dispute that the bids were properly evaluated by members of the Evaluation Committee in accordance with the evaluation scheme specified in the ITB.

      
      

   3. The DOC's concern for additional revenue must be balanced against the DOC's prior determination with respect to the weight which would be given commission rates in the evaluation scheme specified in the ITB. Florida courts have long recognized that potential bidders must be advised in advance of reasonably definite plans or specifications providing the basis upon which bids will be received. See Wester v. Belote, 103 Fla. 976, 138 So. 721, 724 (1931). It follows that an agency's action on a bid should be expressed within the bid specifications and bid evaluation criteria which it creates. See Feimster- Peterson, Inc. v. Florida A & M Univ., DOAH Case Number 91-1426BID at 21 (Sept. 18, 1991) (citing Eccelston Properties, Ltd. v. HRS, 11 FALR 1184 (DOAH Case No. 88-4901BID) (Final Order Feb. 7, 1989), aff'd in pertinent part by 613 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The agency issuing the invitation to bid must evaluate the bids received solely on the criteria stated in the invitation to bid, and prospective bidders are entitled to rely on the completeness of the terms stated therein. See Aurora Pump v. Goulds Pumps, Inc., 424 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Should an agency reject a bid for reasons not given weight in the evaluation criteria, or otherwise fail to observe pre-established specifications in the invitation to bid, that action will render meaningless the basis upon which bids were initially sought, and so must be deemed arbitrary, illegal, fraudulent, or dishonest.

   4. In the instant case, by reducing the weight allocated commission rates from 70 percent to 65 percent, the DOC put bidders on notice that it was placing an even lesser emphasis on the revenue aspect of the bid than in the ITB as originally issued. The subsequent award of the Contract based on the commission rate alone is, therefore, manifestly unjust and without logical--or legal--support.

      
      

   5. The amount of commissions to be received by DOC over the base term of the Contract is immaterial. The DOC has already considered the impact of commission rates and has assigned NAI and MCI points under the evaluation scheme specified in the ITB. As such, commission rates have already been given all of the consideration they are due. Any re-evaluation of the bids based solely on an estimated disparity in anticipated revenues arbitrarily over-emphasizes the weight assigned the revenue aspect of the bid.

      
      

   6. In issuing an intent to award the Contract to NAI, the DOC failed to follow the procedures and observe the pre-established evaluation criteria set forth in its ITB. The agency's after-the-fact re-evaluation of the bids was not an independent evaluation as required by the ITB. Moreover, the DOC's re- evaluation was premised on a reallocation of weight among the various factors.

      
      

   7. Consistent with Moore and the other decisions in the post-Groves- Watkins line of appellate cases dealing with the failure of agencies to follow their own evaluation procedures, it is determined that the DOC's decision to award the Contract to NAI, the number two-ranked bidder in this instance, was fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest, and impermissibly undermines the integrity of the competitive bidding process.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which declines the award to NAI and takes into account the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law when deciding the future course of awarding the contract for hardware, software and support needed to provide a fully functioning, secure inmate telephone system.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

DON W. DAVIS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings

this 15th day of June, 1995.

APPENDIX

In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made with regard to purposed findings of fact submitted by the parties.

Petitioner's Proposed Findings:

1.-30. Adopted.

31.-32. Adopted in substance. 33.-49. Adopted.

50.-54. Adopted in substance. 55.-58. Adopted.

59-63. Adopted in substance. 64-70. Adopted.

71. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. 72.-82. Adopted.

83. Rejected, unnecessary. 84.-85. Adopted.

1. Adopted in substance.

2. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 88-92. Adopted.

93. Incorporated.

94.-96. Subordinate to HO findings. Respondent's Proposed Findings:

1. Adopted.

2. Rejected, unnecessary.

3.-5. Adopted.

1. Adopted, not verbatim.

2. Adopted.

3. Rejected, redundant.

4. Adopted.

10.-12. Rejected, subordinate.

13.-17. Adopted.

18.-22. Rejected, argumentative and subordinate.

23. Rejected, unnecessary.

24.-25. Rejected, weight of the evidence.

26. Rejected, subordinate.

27.-35. Rejected, weight of the evidence.

36.-43. Rejected, argumentative, weight of the evidence. 44.-52. Rejected, redundant, argumentative, subordinate.

53.-54 Rejected, argumentative, subordinate to HO findings. 55.-58. Rejected,Relevancy, weight of the evidence.

59.-63. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence.

1. Accepted.

2. Rejected,Relevance.

3. Rejected, weight of the evidence.

4. Rejected, stands for proposition that an agency

   is not bound by terms of ITB at all, argumentative.

5. Rejected,Relevance.

6. Rejected, argument.

70.-71. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 72.-76. Rejected, argument.

77.-78. Rejected, argument, weight of the evidence.

1. Adopted.

2. Rejected, subordinate, authority is to award within perimeters of legality and the ITB.

3. Rejected, comment on testimony.

82.-83. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings.

84. Rejected, legal conclusion.

85.-89. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 90.-91. Rejected,Recitation of documents.

92.-95. Rejected, argumentative.

1. Rejected, subordinate.

2. Rejected, recitation of documents.

3. Rejected, relevance.

99.-107. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Intervenor's Proposed Findings:

1.-10. Accepted, though not verbatim.

11. Rejected, no record citation.

12.-14. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings.

15. Adopted, not verbatim.

16.-21. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings.

22. Rejected, no record citation. 23.-24. Rejected, subordinate.

25. Rejected, no record citation.

26.-29. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings.

1. Adopted by reference.

2. Rejected, subordinate.

32.-40. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings.

41. Accepted except for last sentence which is rejected on basis of relevance.

42.-43. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A.

123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301

Linda P. Armstrong, Esquire

MCI Telecommunications Corporation 1133 19th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Steve Ferst, Esquire

Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Hume F. Coleman, Esquire Holland & Knight

315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32302

Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Sec. Dept. of Corrections

2601 Blairstone Rd.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Louis A. Vargas, Esq. Dept. of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Rd.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

vs. DC CASE NO: 95-13

CASE NO: 95-1639BID

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent,

and

NORTH AMERICAN INTELECOM, INC.,

Intervenor.

/

FINAL ORDER

This matter comes before the Department of Corrections (the "Department") for consideration and final agency action after an administrative hearing was conducted before Don W. Davis, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration. A Recommended Order was rendered by the Hearing Officer on June 15, 1995 and Exceptions to Recommended Order

("Exceptions") were filed by Intervenor on June 26, 1995. Petitioner filed a Response to Intervenor's Exceptions on July 6, 1995. Petitioner also filed on July 6, 1995 a Request for Official Recognition and Enforcement of Ex Parte Communications Prohibition.

Based upon the complete record submitted to the Department by the Division of Administrative Hearings, together with the Recommended Order, the Department makes the following findings:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Department rejects Findings of Fact numbers 14, 18, 32, 46-50, 52, 68, 70, 74-82 included in the Recommended Order.

   
   

2. Finding of Fact No. 14 is not based on substantial competent evidence. Moreover, it is a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact The Invitation to Bid No. 94-CO-6355 (the "ITB") r defined equipment to include support and service. In its general usage, "equipment" means hardware and software, not people.

   
   

3. Paragraph 18 is a conclusion of law, to the extent it argues that the evaluation procedures are special conditions and, therefore, controlling in terms of to whom the bid must be awarded.

   
   

4. Paragraph 32 is not based on substantial competent evidence. See the Department's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph's 30-41. The technological enhancements proposed by MCI were standard features of the Telequip ACP 4000. MCI's proposal and own witness admit to this fact.

   
   

5. Paragraphs 46-50 are not based on substantial competent evidence. See paragraphs 94-97 of the Department's Proposed findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Intervenor's Exceptions. The Department is concerned as to how the Hearing Officer can accept Petitioner's statement at the hearing that they will provide sufficient Random Access Memory and hard drive to provide the functions they proposed, even though their proposal is silent on this point. However, the Hearing Officer will not accept Intervenor's statement that is in its proposal that it will provide the necessary amount of on-site administrators. See paragraph 97 of the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

   
   

6. Paragraph 52 is not based on substantial competent evidence. See paragraphs 42-45 of the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

   
   

7. Paragraph 68 is not based on substantial competent evidence. Mr. Kronenberger based his award decision on additional factors. See the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, paragraphs 24, 53-54, 62-63, 67-68.

   
   

8. Paragraph 70 is not based on substantial competent evidence. The only proposals placed into evidence are those of Petitioner and Intervenor. Moreover, it is a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact.

   
   

9. Although paragraph 73 is generally correct, it should be noted that the proposal of MCI also left out significant items. Therefore, Intervenor's bid was no more ambiguous than Petitioner's. It is impossible for vendors to cover every aspect of a project in their proposal. The Department attempted to give

   Intervenor and Petitioner the same benefit of the doubt, and treat all errors as minor irregularities, when possible. However, the Hearing Officer ignored the error's in Petitioner's bid and the Department believes this was not proper.

   See Department's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, paragraphs 69, 72-78.

   
   

10. Paragraph 74 is not based on substantial competent evidence.

    Moreover, it is a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact. Intervenor's bid specifically discussed the equipment offered. Brochures are acceptable means of explaining equipment, and generally more detailed than bid summaries. Moreover, the Department does not understand how Intervenor can be deemed to amend its bid after bid opening but Petitioner was not. As noted above, Petitioner's bid also left out many important items. The Department believes its approach to reviewing the bids is more appropriate. However, this is a policy matter and involves conclusions of law. Therefore, it should not be listed as a finding of fact.

    
    

11. Paragraphs 75-76 should not have been established by the Hearing Officer. To allow Petitioner to amend its bid by explaining items not included in its bid, but not allow Intervenor to do so, is patently unfair.

    
    

12. Paragraph 77 is not based on substantial competent evidence. Petitioner's own expert and its own proposal stated that these items were "standard equipment" of the Telequip ACP 4000. Moreover, Intervenor's Exhibit 1, excluded as evidence by the Hearing Officer, would have further established this point. It is clear from Intervenor's bid that the Telequip ACP 4000 was bid by them. Moreover, the Hearing Officer's statement that the Department "had no reasonable basis to conclude..." is also a conclusion of law not a finding of fact.

    
    

13. Paragraph 78 is not based on substantial competent evidence. The bids of Petitioner and Intervenor do contain the same equipment as that term is defined by the Department and Mr. Kronenberger. If the Hearing Officer chooses to define equipment differently, his interpretation is not a finding of fact but conclusion of law.

    
    

14. Paragraph 79 is not based on substantial competent evidence. The $1.1 million was verified by the actual monthly billings for all of 1994. Although Mr. Morris did a projection based on a few months, his calculations were confirmed by the actual billings for all of 1994. See Department's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, paragraphs 55-61. In fact, the evidence demonstrated that the $1.1 million estimate understated the revenue difference between the two bids.

    
    

    Moreover, the Department is concerned about the Hearing Officer's use of the potential error rates in paragraph 79. Department personnel stated that this data was not verified. See Department's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, paragraphs 100-102. Therefore, the evidence was highly prejudicial and with little credibility, and should have been excluded. The Department attempted to supplement the record to demonstrate the actual error rates, but this motion was denied by the Hearing officer.

    
    

15. Paragraph 80 is a conclusion of law, except for the statement that Intervenor admitted at the hearing to overcharges of $394,318 to the Public Service Commission.

    
    

16. Paragraph 81 is a conclusion of law.

17. Paragraph 82 is a conclusion of law and not based on substantial competent evidence or law. Inmate Welfare Trust Funds do support essential correctional facilities and services. The corrections education programs arc critical to the Department's mission of reducing recidivism.

    
    

18. The Department adopts the remaining findings of fact in the Recommended Order, and incorporates them in this Final Order. To the extent other findings of fact in the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not in conflict with the findings of fact herein, they are also adopted and incorporated in this Final Order.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND AGENCY ACTION

    
    

19. The Department adopts the Conclusions of Law contained in its Proposed Order, except for paragraph 189. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are also adopted, to the extent they do not conflict with the Department's. The following additional Conclusions of Law are now adopted into this Final Order.

    
    

20. Service and personnel support were clearly part of the ITB, and were scored accordingly. Although Mr. Kronenberger considered service and support by recognizing the work already performed by Intervenor under its existing contract, sufficient consideration was not given for the $394,318 overcharge which Intervenor admitted to at the hearing.

    
    

21. Since this overcharge was admitted to the Public Service Commission and not the Department, oversight is understandable. However, at this time the overcharge cannot be ignored.

    
    

22. Certainly the significant amount of this overcharge has an impact on service provided. Although the Department still believes the equipment bid by Petitioner and Intervenor are "identical," service can no longer be considered the same due to the overcharge.

    
    

23. Therefore, the award of the contract pursuant to the ITB should be made to Petitioner, MCI Telecommunications Corporation.

    
    

    RULING ON INTERVENOR'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

    
    

24. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraphs 46-50 of the Recommended Order are accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order.

    
    

25. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraph 51 are denied. Although the equipment are "identical," the Department does not, and did not at the hearing, maintain that the bids of Petitioner and Intervenor are identical in terms of support and service.

    
    

26. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 70 of the Recommended Order is accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order.

    
    

27. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 71 of the Recommended Order is denied. The Hearing Officer is merely reciting the terms of the ITB, that service and support are also an important part of the bid. Mr. Kronenberger never denied the importance of service and support.

    
    

28. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraphs 73-77 of the Recommended Order are accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order.

29. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraphs 79 and 81 of the Recommended Order are accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order.

    
    

30. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 80 of the Recommended Order is denied to the extent it rejects the finding of fact that Intervenor admitted to an overcharge of $394,318. Intervenor did admit this fact.

    
    

31. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 82 of the Recommended Order is accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order.

    
    

    RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S FILINGS

    
    

32. No response is provided to the Petitioner's Response to Intervenor's Exceptions. There is no provision for filing such response under Chapter 120, and the Department is not required to respond to such pleadings.

    
    

33. The Department has reviewed Petitioner's Request for Official Recognition and Enforcement of Ex Parte Communications Prohibitions. No Department employee who has testified or been deposed in this matter has discussed the merits of this action with the agency head. However, the Department does not agree with Petitioner's contention in its Request for Recognition that section 120.66, Florida Statutes, prohibits the agency head from conversing with the Department employees listed therein.

This order may be appealed within thirty days by filing a notice of appeal with the agency and the district court of appeal. Except in cases of indigence, the court will require a filing fee and the agency will require payment for preparing the record on appeal. For further explanation of the right to appeal, refer to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17 Day of July, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida.

HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR, SECRETARY

Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

(904) 488-2326

COPIES FURNISHED:

Carloyn Raepple (via certified mail) Hopping Green Sams & Smith

123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314

Hume Coleman (via certified mail) Holland & Knight

315 South Calhoun Street Suite 600

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Steven S. Ferst Department of Corrections Assistant General Counsel 2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

Mike Johnson

Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

Don W. Davis, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

Filed in the official records of the Department of Corrections on this 17th day of July, 1995.

LORETTA L. LATSON, Agency Clerk

Docket for Case No: 95-001639BID

Orders for Case No: 95-001639BID