STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
INFORMATION SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA, INC., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 96-3774BID
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )
)
Respondent, )
and )
)
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, )
)
Intervenor. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Notice was provided and on August 28, 1996 a formal hearing was held in this case. Authority for conducting the hearing is set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The hearing location was Tallahassee, Florida. Charles C. Adams was the Administrative Law Judge.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire
John A. Dickson, Qualified Representative Blank, Rigsby and Meenan, P.A.
204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: R. Beth Atchison, Esquire
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
For Intervenor: Mary M. Piccard, Esquire
Cummings, Lawrence and Vezina, P.A. Post Office Box 584
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0584 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Did Respondent act arbitrarily, fraudulently, illegally, or dishonestly in its decision related to RFP 96-006 when it deemed the proposal submitted by the Intervenor to be responsive to the RFP and determined that the Intervenor should be awarded a contract for software development and consultant services in association with the RFP?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On July 16, 1996, Petitioner received notice that Respondent intended to award the contract in RFP 96-006 to the Intervenor.
On July 17, 1996, Petitioner notified Respondent that it intended to file a written protest of the decision to award to the Intervenor.
On July 29, 1996, Petitioner filed a formal written protest requesting a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing.
August 13, 1996, Respondent forwarded the case to the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings for an Administrative Law Judge to be assigned to conduct the formal hearing. The hearing took place on the aforementioned date.
Respondent moved for a more definite statement of the allegations in the formal written protest. That motion was granted. As a consequence Petitioner filed an amended formal written protest on August 20, 1996.
On August 22, 1996, Intervenor petitioned to intervene. That petition was granted.
At hearing Petitioner's motion to recognize John A. Dickinson as a qualified representative was considered and granted.
At hearing the parties submitted joint exhibits 1 through 10. Petitioner presented the testimony of Cyndy Loomis, Tom Solano and Pam Pilkington.
The August 20, 1996 deposition of Donna Dixon was also admitted as part of Petitioner's case. The August 21, 1996 deposition of Donna Dixon is not relevant and has not been considered.
Respondent presented Donna Dixon as its witness.
Intervenor presented the witnesses Donna Dixon and Joe Montesinos.
Respondent's motion to prevent Petitioner from presenting evidence related to a prior contract awarded to Intervenor under RFP 94-002, was granted subject to the opportunity for Petitioner to demonstrate that RFP 94-002 formed the basis for Respondent's evaluators to consider responses to RFP 96-006. No showing was made that the evaluators considered RFP 94-002 in carrying out their evaluation in RFP 96-006. Therefore the motion is granted.
A hearing transcript was filed on September 6, 1996.
On September 16, 1996, the parties filed proposed recommended orders.
Those proposals have been considered. The previous obligation to comment on the fact proposals by the parties through an appendix to the recommended order was repealed on October 1, 1996 when Chapter 120, Florida Statutes was amended by Chapter 96-159, Laws of Florida.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Parties
Petitioner is a Florida corporation that provides software development and consulting services to various commercial entities and state agencies. It has its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida.
Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to regulate various professions and businesses licensed by the State of Florida. In carrying out its responsibilities it engages the services of outside vendors through competitive bidding.
Respondent's principal business office is at 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida.
Intervenor is a California corporation that designs, manufactures and services equipment and systems for measurement, computation and communications, together with its consolidated subsidiaries.
The RFP
In 1993, Respondent was created by legislative action merging the Department of Professional Regulation and Department of Business Regulation. Respondent perceives that the merger was intended to improve the efficiency of the regulatory process and to facilitate accurate and efficient processing of consumer complaints. To further those purposes, on April 12, 1996 Respondent issued RFP 96-006.
In the executive summary to the RFP prospective vendors who considered responding to the RFP were informed:
This RFP has been developed in support of the merger for the purpose of acquiring contractor consulting service and software development to support the conversion of existing computer application systems for the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, the Division of Pari-Mutual Wagering, and the conversion of regulatory, inspection, investigation and complaint processing for all the Business Regulation divisions, including the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Through this Outcome Based RFP, the Department intends to contract with a vendor to not only provide analysis, system design, development, conversion, and selective consulting services, but serve as an integrator and primary contractor on this project. Contractor responding to this RFP will be expected to recommend services based on deliverable specified in this RFP. Since this is an Outcome Based RFP (see definition on Page 2), the Department will not be specifying unique contractor products and/or
services or how the contractor is to design the system.
In the RFP "Outcome Based RFP" was described as:
A Request For Proposal in which the contractor's client will specify concepts, technology directions, size/number of things, and required results (primarily standards
and system deliverables). The contractor will respond by recommending the design and proposed solutions -- how to get desired results, by what means (hardware, software, process, and contractor services), and for what cost.
The purpose of the RFP was further described as:
The purpose of this Outcome Based Request for Proposal (RFP) is to contract with a contractor (serving as integrator as well as contractor) to recommend (RFP bid response) and provide consultant services
in conjunction with selected Department staff to:
conduct an information management analysis study to identify the business functions performed as well as the data and information flows required to support these functions for the Divisions of Hotels and Restaurants, Land Sales and Condominiums, Pari-Mutual Wagering and regulatory, inspection, investigation and complaint management for all the Business Regulation Divisions, including Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco,
develop an integrated, data-driven information systems design that addresses the needs of the Business Regulation divisions and their information requirements,
convert the business functions and
data into the appropriate agency application system,
develop detailed design and program specifications,
modify existing applications and develop new applications necessary to support the system design,
develop an implementation plan which provides a phased approach for migrating from the current environment to the planned environment, including system testing and training of agency personnel,
provide post-implementation support for the resolution of problems.
The contractor will be expected to contribute
(under contract) a predetermined number of calendar months, not to exceed 26, towards systems analysis and design, specification and application development, conversion, testing, training, implementation and post- implementation support. The contractor will be responsible for designing, in detail, the methodology by which data files are to be converted from the multiple applications and various platforms and loaded into predefined relational data bases. The contractor will be responsible, under contract, for all services meeting the requirements of this RFP. All components proposed by the contractor must be at a turn-key level with
100 percent compatibility as far as integrating with installed hardware and software currently utilized by BPR.
The scope of the work contemplated by the RFP through services performed by the contractor was to this effect:
The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (BPR) is requesting contractors to propose consulting services for system analysis, design, specification development, application, development,
conversion, training, implementation and post- implementation support. The contractor will propose recommendations for products and services required and serve as an integrator/contractor. At minimum, this Business Regulation/Complaint Regulatory Management Conversion solution shall be capable of providing those services outlined within this RFP. The section addresses ten subject areas that must be addressed in contractor's proposal. Section III-A (Contractor Proposal Format) presents the required "Tab" format and refers backs to details in this section for the contractor
to use.
In the RFP an "Integrator" is defined as:
The contractor who has total accountability, under contract, for all products and services being provided to a customer even those supplied by or acquired from other vendors and/or sub-contractors.
In the RFP the term "Turn-Key" is defined as:
Contractor is solely responsible for delivering a completed system with sign- ificant client involvement. Vendor awarded contract, will be responsible, under bond,
for specified deliverables to the department, as well as being the integrator and contractor for the complete system as proposed which will include the roles of the contractor and appropriate involvement of BPR personnel.
The RFP provided the vendors with instructions concerning the format for proposals, especially as it related to Tabs 1 through 24 and the need to complete those tabs consistent with the instructions.
The vendors were reminded:
[A]s required by Tab, the proposal will present specific consulting services that are recommended, and how these services
will technically meet requirements as stated, and/or requirements developed and/or uncovered by the vendor that have been determined to be necessary for the project
to be successful.
Respondent provided a questionnaire to the vendors concerning the prospective vendors' commitment to the project. Those questions were to be answered "yes" or "no" with the opportunity for clarifying sentences to accompany the answers.
The RFP instructed the vendors concerning the submission of cost information. It reminded the vendors that they should "submit firm costs to provide the state with the required deliverables, found in Section II of the RFP."
The RFP described the manner in which the proposals would be evaluated through two separate committees, a "technical subcommittee" and a "vendor evaluation committee." The vendors were also reminded that the proposals would first be reviewed by the purchasing arm of the Respondent to assure that the vendors provided all mandatory documentation required by the RFP. In the instance where required documentation was missing the response would be determined "non-responsive."
The evaluation process contemplated the "technical subcommittee" evaluating technology sections in responses to the RFP and providing those results to the "vendor evaluation committee." The latter committee would then evaluate other subject areas in the proposals and consolidate/finalize results from both evaluation processes into an overall rating.
The RFP explained the subject areas that were to be considered by the two committees with particularity.
The RFP described in detail the assignment of points and set forth the format for carrying out the evaluation process.
The successful vendor would be selected upon the basis of the highest points awarded.
The maximum points that could be received were 1950.
The maximum points that could be received for the vendors' proposed costs were 250.
The RFP sets terms and conditions and identifies mandatory requirements as:
The state has established certain require- ments with respect to proposals to be submitted by proposers. The use of "are", "shall", "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in the RFP indicates a requirement or condition. A deviation is material if the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this [sic] RFP requirements.
Moreover, the RFP reminded the vendors that:
Any proposal which fails to meet the mandatory requirements stated in this Request For Proposal shall be rejected.
The RFP gives further instructions involving the rejections of proposals where it is stated:
The department reserves the right to either make awards or to reject proposals by individual category, groups of categories, all or none, or a combination thereof. Any proposal which fails to meet the mandatory requirements stated in this Request For Proposal shall be rejected. Any proposal that contains material deviations or is conditional or incomplete shall be rejected.
The department may waive an immaterial defect, but such waiver shall in no way modify the
RFP requirements or excuse the proposer from full compliance with the RFP specifications and other contract requirements if the proposer is awarded the contract.
The RFP refers to subcontracts where it states:
The contractor is fully responsible for all work performed under the contract resulting from this RFP. The contractor may, with the consent of the department, enter into written subcontract(s) for performance of certain of its functions under the contract. The sub- contractors and the amount of the subcontract shall be identified in the contractor's response to this RFP. Subcontracts shall be approved in writing by the department's Executive sponsor, or designee, prior to the effective date of any subcontract. The Sub- contractor shall provide the Executive sponsor documentation in writing, on company
letterhead, indicating known responsibilities and deliverables, with timeframes. No sub- contract which the contractor enters into with respect to performance under the contract resulting from this RFP shall in any way relieve the contractor of any respons- ibility for performance of its duties. All payments to sub-contractors shall be made by the contractor.
Tabs 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 require specific information about sub- contractors the vendor might employ in meeting the requirements in the RFP addressed under those tabs.
In addition to the specific requirements in the RFP, paragraph 4 to the general conditions reminds the vendor to submit "firm prices."
Paragraph 6 to the general conditions states that contract awards are made:
As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all proposals or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in proposals received.
Proposers are cautioned to make no assumptions unless their proposal has been evaluated as being responsive All awards made as a result of this proposal shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes.
The RFP explained the manner in which addenda to the RFP would be provided, in which case the addenda would be in writing with the content and number of pages described and sent to each vendor that received the original RFP.
The RFP also contemplated the possibility that Respondent might require the vendors to supplement their responses to the RFP with oral presentations to either of the evaluation committees.
The RFP explained that there would be a bidders' conference to discuss the contents of the RFP, in view of any written inquiries from the vendors and recommended changes.
On April 30, 1996 the bidders' conference was conducted. In this conference information was presented to the vendors and questions from the vendors were presented to Respondent, both oral and written.
On May 10, 1996, addendum number 1 resulting from the bid conference was provided to the vendors.
Through addendum number 1, Respondent more specifically informed the vendors concerning its expectations in the vendors' responses to the RFP.
Additionally the addendum rescheduled certain events in the bid process. It changed the proposal due date and public opening of the technology portion of the proposal to June 7, 1996. The date for opening of proposals in
the cost portion was changed to July 12, 1996. The date for posting of the intended award was changed to July 17, 1996.
Two vendors responded to the RFP. Those vendors were Petitioner and Intervenor.
In addition to the information provided through responses to the RFP, Respondent propounded written questions to the vendors as attachments A and B. Attachment A constituted common inquiry to the vendors. Attachment B was designed to solicit additional information unique to the respective vendors. Both vendors responded to the questionnaires on July 9, 1996.
Both vendors' proposals were found responsive.
The two committees performed their respective evaluations. Through this process Petitioner was awarded 1206.46 points. Intervenor was awarded 1321.39 points. As a consequence, on July 16, 1996 Respondent posted notice that it intended to award a contract to Intervenor. Respondent also sent a letter on that date notifying the Petitioner that it intended to contract with Intervenor.
As described in the preliminary statement, and incorporated here, Petitioner gave notice and formally challenged the decision to award.
In its opposition to the decision to award to the Intervenor, Petitioner does not allege that Respondent failed to implement the procedures for evaluation in scoring the competitor's. Rather, Petitioner challenges the results obtained in that implementation. Where Respondent found Intervenor responsive to certain alleged material requirements in the RFP, Petitioner asserts that Intervenor was not responsive to those material requirements.
In performing their duties the committee members who evaluated the proposals had a week to prepare themselves to render their input. During that time they were allowed to review the responses to the RFP. Following that opportunity the evaluators were allowed to seek clarification on any items where there might be uncertainty, to include legal advice from the Respondent agency.
In carrying out their assignment the evaluators compared the requirements in the RFP to the responses by the vendors. Through this process no evaluator indicated that either proposal was unresponsive.
In their review function the evaluators also considered the answers to the questions that had been provided by the vendors on July 9, 1996.
The evaluators had been instructed to review the requirements contemplated by Tabs in the RFP, to read the RFP and the addendum to the RFP.
Petitioner specifically challenges Respondent's determination that Intervenor was responsive in meeting the following alleged requirements in the RFP:
Did the Intervenor Fail to Submit an Outcome Based Proposal in Response to the RFP?
The RFP contemplates the necessity that a vendor will submit a proposal that is Outcome Based as defined in the RFP and explained in other provisions within the RFP. The requirement to submit an Outcome Based Proposal
is a material requirement. If a vendor does not meet that requirement, the failure to comply is a material deviation from the requirements in the RFP. If a vendor does not meet the requirement for providing an Outcome Based Proposal and the evaluators ignored that irregularity, their actions would be arbitrary.
Tab 3 discusses:
Business Regulation/Complaint Management Conversion Project Life Cycle Presentation:
This section will present the overall scope of the project and the methodology. This section will need to specifically deal with how the vendor addressed the technical design requirements as spelled out in Project Scope.
As described, this Tab was designed to have the vendor identify the overall scope of the proposal and the methodology to be employed in reaching the outcome required by the RFP.
As Section 3-1 to its response Intervenor replied: Hewlett-Packard's (HP) approach is to provide
BPR with both fixed price and 'time-boxing'.
Time-boxing is defined as an allocation of consulting hours (3360) which will be delivered by HP technical consultants or sub- contractors. HP is proposing to fix price the Information Management Analysis Study, Integrated System Design, and Project Management. The remaining sections (Detail Design and Program Specification, Data
Conversion Phase, Development, System Testing, Implementation, Training, Post-Implementation Support) will be time-boxed with a total of 3360 hours. HP has made suggestions as to
the number of hours to be used for these sections. However the final allocation will be mutually agreed upon by HP's project manager and BPR's project manager.
HP Professional Services Methodology
Moving from a legacy computing model, to a distributed, open client/server computing environment, requires the organization to rethink the process, people, and technology requirements of the enterprise. Organiza- tional integration and effective evaluation of IT solutions tend to get lost in the rush to develop specific applications. If not lost, there is rarely a structured logical process that is followed in defining, designing, developing, implementing, and operating the solution.
The remaining provisions within Section 3 to the Intervenor's response to the RFP detail the overall scope of the project and the methodology to be employed.
In other respects the Intervenor's response to the RFP explains the manner in which it would reach the outcome contemplated by the RFP in all phases related to its proposed consulting services in this project. Facts were not presented that proved that the evaluators acted arbitrarily in determining that the Intervenor's proposal was based upon the required outcome in the project.
Did the Intervenor Submit a Firm Price Proposal?
The RFP creates a material requirement that a vendor complete Attachment "E" to the RFP. Attachment "E" provides cost information from the vendor. In every respect Intervenor has complied with that requirement. The evaluators were not arbitrary in determining that the requirement was met. Notwithstanding the use of "time-boxing" for certain phases in the project, the cost information submitted in Attachment "E" assigns a money amount for those phases. By that assignment the consulting hours that are "time-boxed" have an equivalent dollar figure which constitutes firm costs for those deliverables/phases in the project.
The evaluators did not act arbitrarily in assigning 234 points to the Intervenor for its cost proposal.
Did the Intervenor fail to Submit a List of Sub-contractors Whose Services will be used by the Intervenor?
Tab 16, Corporate (vendor) qualifications and commitment; makes it incumbent upon the vendor to indicate the sources committed to the project in terms of personnel and other resources, to include sub-contractors involved with the project.
Tab 17, Corporate (vendor) financials; requires the vendor to produce financial information about it and any sub-contractors involved with the project.
Tab 19, Individuals proposed to work on contract; requires resumes of individuals who work for the vendor or a sub-contractor and information about key personnel of the vendor and sub-contractors.
Tab 20, Contract and support services including post-implementation plan, requires; the vendor to indicate where its services will be provided by the vendor or sub-contractors.
Tab 21, Contractor questionnaire; solicits information from the vendor about sub-contractors.
As seen, in many provisions the RFP requires a vendor to identify information about sub-contractor whose services would be used by the vendor. These are material requirements. If the evaluators ignored the requirements, their actions would be arbitrary.
In addressing intervenor's proposal, the evaluators acted arbitrarily. The problem is that Intervenor in many places in its response has left open the possibility that it would use sub-contractors without naming those sub- contractors and their contribution to the project. Ultimately, the lack of
disclosure could provide the Intervenor with an advantage that Petitioner does not enjoy and potentially adversely impact the interests of the Respondent.
The following are examples in response to the RFP where Intervenor has maintained its option to use sub-contractors without disclosing information about the sub-contractors:
Section 1-3: "The Regulatory Management Conversion solution being proposed is comprised
of world-class services from HP and our partners." The reference to partners is seen to include the possibility that sub-contractors might be used.
Section 3-1, that has been commented on, referring to time-boxing, describes allocation of the 3360 consulting hours through delivery by the intervenor's technical consultants or sub-contractors.
Section 10-2, refers to the implementation of the management plan which follows-up "sub- contractor's work."
Section 12-2, refers to Intervenor and its training partners offering "standard and custom instructor led training, computer based training and net work based training." Training partners is taken to mean some persons who reasonably could be considered sub-contractors.
Section 13-1, makes reference to third party services involved with the Intervenor's custom solution to the project needs. The reference to third party is equivalent to a sub-contractor.
Section 16-9, referring to the flexibility in managing the engagement (project) describes partnering and involvement in sub-contracting.
Section 21-2, in responses to the question- naire to Tab 21, Intervenor refers to its time- boxing approach for providing services, in which, according to Section 3-1, Intervenor leaves open the possibility that it would use sub-contractors to deliver the services.
It is realized that on occasions in which Intervenor was required to provide contemporaneous and detailed information concerning its intentions to use sub-contractors, answers that it gave in association with Tabs 16, 17, 19 and 20 did not refer to sub-contractors. Consequently, one might assume that Intervenor did not intend to employ sub-contractors in this project notwithstanding references to unnamed sub-contractors found in other places in the response to the RFP. This raises the issue whether the lack of reference and response to the more specific questions about the use of sub-contractors overcomes the implications of the possibility that sub-contractors will be used that is made in response to other requirements in the RFP. That internal inconsistency should not favor an interpretation that creates advantage for
Intervenor and potential difficulty for Respondent, which it does. For the evaluators to allow the conflict to remain is an arbitrary act. To seek to resolve the conflict would also constitute an arbitrary act as it would require an amendment to the Intervenor's response. The fact that Respondent must approve subcontracts before their effective dates does not satisfactorily mitigate the need to disclose subcontractor information with the response.
Did Intervenor's Proposal Fail to Meet the Requirements in the RFP in the Technical Categories for Tabs 4 through 7, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 21?
Petitioner made allegations concerning those issues associated with Intervenor's technical responses in those tabs. However, in the proposed recommended order Petitioner limited its discussion to Tabs 5, 6, 7 and 11. It is assumed that Petitioner abandoned its contentions concerning the remaining tabs described in the interrogatory.
Tab 5, Integrated system design, states:
In this section the vendor will present the methodology to be used in support of the RFP requirements.
The evaluators found that Intervenor had met this requirement. It has not been shown that the evaluators acted arbitrarily in determining that the Intervenor had complied with requirements at Tab 5.
Tab 6, Detail design and program specifications, states:
In this section the vendor will present
the methodology in support of the RFP requirements.
Petitioner has failed to prove that the evaluators acted arbitrarily in concluding that the Intervenor met the requirements for Tab 6.
Tab 7, Data conversion states:
In this section vendor [sic] will provide a description of their approach to the data conversion phase.
Petitioner has failed to prove that the evaluators acted arbitrarily in determining that the Intervenor met the requirements for Tab 7.
Tab 11, Post-implementation support, states:
In this section the vendor [sic] will provide a description of their approach to post-implementation support.
Petitioner has failed to show that the evaluators acted arbitrarily in concluding that the Intervenor had met the requirements for Tab 11.
Nor has it been shown in any respect that the evaluators acted illegally, fraudulently, or dishonestly.
Was the Intervenor a responsible proposer?
Petitioner alleged in its petition that the Intervenor was not a responsible proposer. Petitioner did not offer proof to sustain that allegation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding in accordance with Sections 120.53(5) and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1995).
Petitioner has the burden to prove its allegations challenging the decision to award a contract to its competitor. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
To succeed, Petitioner must prove that Respondent acted arbitrarily, fraudulently or dishonestly in reaching its decision. Department of Transportation v. Groves-Watkins Construction, 530 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1988).
Respondent may waive minor irregularities in a response to its RFP. It may not waive material departures from the requirements in the RFP which affect the price of the response to the RFP, give the vendor an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by its competitor or adversely affect the interests of the Respondent. Tropabest Foods, Inc., v. State of Florida, Department of General Services, 493 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); and Robinson Electrical Co., Inc.,
v. Dade County, 417 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
To act arbitrarily is to act in a fashion that is not supported by fact or logic and is despotic. To act capriciously is to act in a manner which is lacking in thought or reason or rationality. Agrico Chemical Co v. D.E.R., 365 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
In most respects the Respondent's actions in evaluating responses to the RFP were consistent with law. Nonetheless, Respondent acted arbitrarily in allowing the Intervenor to disregard the requirement that precise information be provided about sub-contractors the Intervenor might use in this project. Such oversight was a material deviation from the requirements in the RFP. To leave open the option for the Intervenor to decide between providing the services itself or selecting a sub-contractor at some future date could reasonably be seen to give the Intervenor an advantage not enjoyed by the Petitioner and would have the potential to adversely impact the interests of Respondent. See also Harry Pepper and Son Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). For this reason the decision to award the contract to the Intervenor should be overturned. The Intervenor was unresponsive to the bid requirements in a material manner.
Upon consideration of the facts found in the conclusions of law reached it
is,
RECOMMENDED:
That a final order be entered which declares Intervenor to be unresponsive
to the RFP and takes such other action as Respondent deems appropriate in pursuing this project.
DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 1996.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire Blank, Rigsby and Meenan, P.A.
204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and
Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Mary C. Piccard, Esquire
Cummings, Lawrence and Vezina, P.A. Post Office Box 589
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589
Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and
Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Richard T. Farrell, Secretary Department of Business and
Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Forida 32399-0792
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 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.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Nov. 13, 1996 | Final Order filed. |
| Oct. 10, 1996 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 08/28/96. |
| Sep. 16, 1996 | Information Systems of Florida, Inc.'s Notice of Filing Proposed Recommended Order; (Petitioner) Proposed Recommended Order (for HO signature); (Intervenor) Notice of Filing; (Intervenor) Recommended Order (for HO signature) filed. |
| Sep. 16, 1996 | Department of Business and Professional Regulation`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law filed. |
| Sep. 06, 1996 | Notice of Filing; DOAH Court Reporter Final Hearing Transcripts (Volumes 1, 2, tagged) filed. |
| Aug. 28, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Aug. 27, 1996 | Petitioner`s Motion to Recognize Qualified Representative (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 26, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion for Protective Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 23, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Aug. 22, 1996 | (Hewlett Packard Company ("HP")) Petition to Intervene filed. |
| Aug. 20, 1996 | Information Systems of Florida, Inc`s Amended Formal Protest and Request for Section 120.57(1) Hearing filed. |
| Aug. 16, 1996 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 8/28/96; 9:00am; Tallahassee) |
| Aug. 16, 1996 | Information Systems of Florida, Inc.'s Second Request for Production of Documents to Department of Business and Professional Regulation; Information Systems of Florida, Inc.'s First Request for Production of Documents to Department of Business and Profess |
| Aug. 15, 1996 | Letter to DWD from Timothy Scheonwalder (RE: available dates for hearing) (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 14, 1996 | (DBPR) Motion for a More Definite Statement filed. |
| Aug. 13, 1996 | Agency referral letter; Information System of Florida, Inc`s Petition for Formal Protest and Request for Section 120.57 (1) Hearing, (Exhibits); Power of Attorney and Certificate of Authority of Attorney(s)-In-Fact; Agency Action letter filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 12, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
| Oct. 10, 1996 | Recommended Order | The agency failed to require vendor to submit names of subcontractors. This caused the response to be materially deficient. |
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION vs DAMON JONES, 96-003774BID (1996)
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION vs MARK N. DODDS, 96-003774BID (1996)
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION vs RICHARD LEE EDWARDS, 96-003774BID (1996)
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION vs DORRAN RUSSELL, 96-003774BID (1996)
