STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
KENNETH WALKER and R. E. OSWALT, ) d/b/a WALKER/OSWALT, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. )
)
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) CASE NO. 96-4318BID PROTECTION, )
)
Respondent, )
and )
)
EARL DRAWDY, )
)
Intervenor. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On October 9 and October 16, 1996, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in Orlando, Florida, before Daniel
Kilbride, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Mr. Edward P. Jordan, II, Esquire
Edward P. Jordan, II, P.A. 13543 East Highway 50
Clermont, Florida 34711
For Respondent: Suzanne Brantley, Esquire
Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Mail Station 35
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
For Intervenor: Kim C. Booker, Esquire
Kim C. Booker, P.A. 2752-A Enterprise Road
Orange City, Florida 32763
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether the Respondent's proposed award of a contract pursuant to an Invitation to Bid for the management of the citrus groves at Lake Louisa State Park to Intervenor is fraudulent, dishonest, arbitrary or illegal.
Whether Respondent improperly notified Petitioner of the intent to award the contract.
Whether the Respondent violated the terms of the Invitation to Bid (ITB) by doing any of the following:
Determining that the bids were within five (5) percent of each other.
Requesting additional information.
Using 80 points to be awarded for percentage of return.
Considering grove equipment in the evaluation.
Assigning ten (10) points to the category "equipment."
Not considering financial stability of the bidders.
Not assigning points to either bidder for financial stability.
Computing the points assigned to each bidder incorrectly.
Computing years of experience for both bidders incorrectly.
Failing to use a committee of three, one of whom was an accountant.
Whether the Respondent was obligated to accept the bidder who would provide the most revenue, considering all the other factors.
Whether a partnership existed between the Petitioners, and if so, how many years of experience to award to it.
Whether Petitioners, as a partnership, have standing to bring this protest.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On September 12, 1996, this case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings after Petitioner (WALKER/OSWALT) filed its formal written protest and petition for formal administrative hearing. The formal hearing was originally scheduled for September 26, 1996, but was continued on Earl Drawdy's oral motion to intervene, Intervenor had just retained counsel who was unable to appear the same day. Drawdy's motion was granted on September 26, and the hearing was continued to October 9, 1996. Motion hearings were held by teleconference on October 8, 1996. On that date, Petitioner's motion to amend the petition was granted as to paragraphs 1 and 5 of its Amended Notice of Bid Protest; paragraphs 2 through 4 were denied. The Administrative Law Judge reserved ruling on Intervenor's motion to dismiss. The issue of whether Petitioner was a partnership at the time of the bid was a factual issue, and the burden was on the Petitioner to prove standing at the hearing. The Respondent's motion to dismiss was denied. The Intervenor's motion to quash a subpoena was granted. It was determined that this proceeding would be controlled by the provisions of Section 120.53(5) Florida Statutes (1995) and applicable case law.
The formal hearing was held on October 9 and October 16 in Orlando. At the outset, Petitioner moved to admit Exhibits 1 through 27. Exhibits 2, and 4 through 16, were admitted into evidence by agreement of the parties. Petitioner’s Exhibits 25
and 28, were admitted during the course of the hearing. Petitioner’s Exhibits 1, 3, 17 through 24, 26, and 27 were not admitted. Respondent presented Exhibit 1, which was admitted. Petitioner called six witnesses: Rosi Mulholland, Cheryl Sweeney, Norman Edwards, John Jackson, Jr., R. E. “Buddy” Oswalt, and Ken Walker. Respondent called four witnesses: Rosi Mulholland, Cheryl Sweeney, Norman Edwards and Carla Ridge.
Intervenor presented no exhibits or witnesses.
The transcript was filed on November 5, 1996. Petitioner filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on November 21, 1996. Respondent and Intervenor filed its proposals on November 15, 1996. All proposed findings have been given careful consideration and adopted where supported by the preponderance of evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which operates and manages state parks under its jurisdiction, pursuant to chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks (“Division”).
Kenneth Walker and R. E. Oswalt (Petitioner, Walker/Oswalt) are general partners for various ad hoc business ventures.
Earl Drawdy (Intervenor) is an individual.
The Invitation to Bid (ITB)
Lake Louisa State Park contains approximately 300 acres of citrus groves, of which, 167 acres are active trees (“Lake Louisa Groves” f/k/a “Dixie Lake Groves”). The groves had been abandoned for about a year prior to the state’s purchase of the land. In 1994, Earl Drawdy bid and was awarded a one-year contract to care for and harvest the groves. The contract was extended for one year and Drawdy maintained the groves until this bid protest.
In preparing the Invitation to Bid (“ITB”), the goal of the Department was to obtain a 10-year contract with a third party who would care for and rehabilitate Lake Louisa Groves.
The bid specification language was assembled mainly from the prior contract. A new scope of work was added and the draft agreement for the ITB was prepared.
On January 3, 1996, Draft Specifications for a 10-year extension option for the Dixie Lake Groves in Lake Louisa State Park (Draft Specifications) were sent to interested bidders including, but not limited to, Kenneth Walker.
The Respondent’s legal department subsequently prepared and approved the final specifications. The final specifications are entitled “Specifications for the Management of the Lake Louisa Orange Groves at Lake Louisa State Park” (“the ITB”).
The ITB was posted at the Division’s District 3 office, located in Apopka at the Wekiva Springs State Park from April 24
through May 1, 1996, and sent to prospective bidders, including Petitioner and Intervenor.
The original deadline stated in the ITB to file sealed bids was May 5, 1996. On May 3, 1996, the Department notified all interested bidders, including Petitioner and Intervenor, by letters sent by Federal Express, that the deadline to bid had been extended to May 10, 1996.
By May 10, two bids had been received, one from petitioner and one from Intervenor. Both bids were timely. The bids were opened on May 13 and evaluated on May 15, 1996.
On May 15, 1996, the Respondent notified Petitioner and Intervenor by facsimile that it required additional information from them, giving them a deadline to respond of May 31, 1996. The Respondent requested a resume and an equipment list from Intervenor, and it requested an equipment list and a letter of intent that a partnership would be formed from Petitioner. Both Intervenor and Petitioner responded timely to the request.
The ITB provided in pertinent part: EVALUATION OF BIDS
Bids shall be evaluated by a committee composed of at least three representatives of the Department. At least one of the three members will be an accountant who will evaluate the financial statements for compliance with this bid request. Evaluation will be based on the percent of return, past performance, experience, and financial stability. Up to ninety (90) percent of the points will be awarded based on the
percentage of return for the Department, and the other ten (10) percent will be based on experience and financial stability.
In cases where proposers submit bids that are determined equal or very nearly equal (within
5 percent of each other), the evaluation committee at its option may request proposers to submit additional clarification of information contained in the bid or give oral presentations in a final evaluation process. The committee and the Florida Park Service have no obligation except to select the bid which they consider best suited for operation of the grove.
* * *
The Department also reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in bids, providing such action is in the best interest of the State. Minor irregularities are defined as those that have no adverse effect on the State’s interest and will not affect the outcome of the selection process by giving a Proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other Proposers. The Florida Park Service also reserves the right to reject all bids.
The bid specifications allow a committee of more than three persons so long as one of them is an accountant.
Pursuant to the provisions of the ITB, a committee was formed to evaluate the bids, consisting of Rosi Mulholland, district biologist; Cheryl Sweeney, district accountant; Norman Edwards, operations consultant manager; and Carla Ridge, administrative assistant.
The committee consisted of four persons, one of whom was an accountant. Cheryl Sweeney was qualified to serve as the committee accountant by virtue of her position and experience.
Bids were opened on May 13, 1996, by Ms. Ridge and Ms. Mulholland.
Intervenor’s bid called for sharing 36 percent of gross proceeds of fruit sales with Respondent. Petitioner’s bid called for sharing 38 percent of the gross with Respondent.
Between May 13 and May 15, Ms. Mulholland, Ms. Ridge and Mr. Edwards met and discussed the bids. Those members of the committee agreed that, based on the fact that the bids were nearly equal, the committee should request additional information from the bidders. Ms. Sweeney concurred with that decision after the fact.
On June 3, Ms. Mulholland and Ms. Ridge met and prepared a proposed point score for the two bidders. Later that afternoon, the full committee met for at least an hour to evaluate the bid information and proposed point score. The committee reviewed, discussed, and concurred on the point evaluation which had been prepared by Ms. Mulholland and Ms. Ridge.
The committee evaluated the following criteria: percentage of return, past performance, experience, financial stability, and equipment.
Requesting Additional Information
The ITB states:
In cases where proposers submit bids that are determined equal or very nearly equal (within
5 percent of each other), the valuation committee at its option may request proposers to submit additional clarification of information contained in the bid.
Ms. Ridge subtracted 36 percent from 38 percent and got
2 percent, which she interpreted to be “within 5 percent of each other.” The rest of the committee concurred, and determined that the bids were equal or very nearly equal, and that additional information should be requested.
This determination was proper under the bid specifications.
Dividing 2 by 38, with a result of 5.26 percent, as Petitioner calculated, rounds to 5 percent. A 5.26 percent difference on a scale of 100 percent is very nearly equal and within 5 percent of each other.
More information was needed about the intended formation of a limited partnership. Petitioner would have had to submit more information on that issue in any case.
Equipment
The bid specifications provide:
Up to 90 percent of the points will be awarded based on the percentage of return for the Department, and the other ten percent will be based on experience and financial stability.
The committee concluded, after having all the information before it, that the percentage of return should
receive 80 points, so that points could be given for equipment. The committee determined that since the language said “up to 90 percent” the committee could reduce the points allotted for that category.
The language “up to 90 percent” necessarily implies that some figure less than 90 percent could be used. The committee had not firmly fixed the 90 percent figure, and the bid specifications language put the bidders on notice that a figure less than 90 percent may be used.
The committee’s use of 80 percent of the points for this category was proper and reasonable under this clause.
The committee considered equipment in its evaluation of the bids. This category was added to the bid specifications by letter of May 15, 1996 to all bidders. Although the letter was not specifically labeled an addendum, the Respondent’s intent was to add “equipment” to the categories to be evaluated. Addenda are allowed under the bid specifications. Petitioner received notice that equipment would be considered, and submitted a list of equipment owned by or available to them.
The committee members determined that certain types of equipment were necessary to perform the contract. For such a contract, it was appropriate for the committee to consider the equipment each bidder has to perform the necessary tasks. Without the proper equipment, a bidder could not perform the contract, no matter what the bid amount.
The committee determined that 10 percent of the points should be assigned to the category “equipment” because equipment was necessary to perform the contract. Additionally, the grove was old stock and not irrigated and would require specialized care. The committee very strongly felt that equipment was an important and meaningful category.
Assignment of ten percent of the points for equipment was not unreasonable or excessive.
The committee considered and evaluated, through different members, the financial stability of the bidders.
After receiving all the information, the committee determined that the ten percent of the points to be allotted to “experience and financial stability” should be allotted to experience alone. The committee determined that financial stability included the partnership issue, which was never resolved by them.
The committee determined that the unresolved partnership issues would have a negative impact on the financial stability, points awarded on the basis of financial stability would have favored Intervenor.
The committee considered past performance of Intervenor as a part of his experience. The committee did not give extra points to Intervenor for his past experience. The consideration of past performance was proper.
Intervenor Drawdy was awarded 33 years of experience.
This was based on Intervenor’s letter in his bid package in which he stated that he began in the citrus industry in 1963. 1963 was subtracted from 1996, which resulted in 33 years. Based on this, Intervenor was awarded a full 10 points.
Notwithstanding the questions the committee had about the partnership’s experience, the committee decided to give Petitioners points for experience in the citrus business of each individual partner.
Walker was awarded 0 points. Oswalt was awarded 29 years of experience. This determination was based on Oswalt’s biographical profile submitted with the bid, in which he stated that he began citrus management in 1967. 1967 was subtracted from 1996, with a result of 29 years. A ratio of 29 to 33 was applied, with a result of 9 points given to Petitioners.
The committee’s calculation of the experience of Petitioners and Intervenor was flawed, but was not fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest.
The tabulation of points computed by the committee was posted at the District 3 office on June 3, 1996, in the same location the original bid was posted. This was in accordance with the bid specifications. Petitioners were notified by telephone, and a copy of the tabulation was sent to them via facsimile. Petitioner had actual notice on the date the bids were posted that the Respondent intended to award the contract to Intervenor.
No written notice was required by the bid specifications. Notice was properly given to Petitioner by the Respondent.
The point system was qualified by the Respondent, which stated:
The committee and the Florida Park Service have no obligation except to select the bid which they consider best suited for the operation of the grove.
The committee also determined that Intervenor was best suited to care for the grove, based on all the information available to it on June 3. The committee believed that it could make such a determination in the ultimate decision.
Petitioner filed a timely notice of intent to protest the award on June 5, 1996, by facsimile.
Petitioner filed a timely written petition for formal hearing on June 13, 1996 by certified mail.
The Respondent notified Intervenor by letter on or about June 13, 1996, that a bid protest had been filed. Intervenor has not been awarded the contract.
Attempts to resolve the bid protest informally were made at a meeting on July 19, 1996, and by letters and phone calls made between July 1 and August 20. There was no resolution.
Standing/Formation of Partnership
Petitioners intended to form a limited partnership to care for the Lake Louisa Groves, if they were awarded the bid.
An unwritten general partnership was formed for this purpose at the time the bid was submitted.
The Petitioners had previously formed partnerships in the past and have shared profits and losses. For each different venture, a new oral partnership was made.
Most of the committee members did not know whether the bid was responsive or not on the issue of the limited partnership, and so made the request for additional information.
Petitioner Walker signed the bid proposal on behalf of the partners.
The bid was not a responsive bid since the entity which submitted the bid did not intend to perform the contract if it was the successful bidder.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings as jurisdiction over this matter under Sections 120.53(5), and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1995).
The Division of State Parks is a division of the Respondent agency. The Division manages Florida State Parks under Part J, Chapter 258, Florida Statutes (1995).
The burden was on the Petitioner to establish that it was an adversely affected person who had standing to file this Protest. Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1995).
It is clear from all the evidence that the intent of Walker and Oswalt was to form a limited partnership to perform
the contract, if successful. Their bid, including the additional information submitted, as well as their testimony shows its intent. There was no limited partnership formed at the time the bid was made.
The bid specifications require: “. . . similarly, partnerships seeking to do business in the State shall, at the time of submitting such a bid, have complied with the applicable provisions of Chapter 620, Florida Statutes.” Limited partnerships must file a certificate of limited partnership with the Florida Secretary of State’s Office pursuant to Section 620.108, Florida Statutes (1995). Petitioners had not filed a certificate of limited partnership at the time the bid was submitted.
A limited partnership is not formed until the filing of the certificate of limited partnership with the Department of State and if there has been substantial compliance with the requirements set forth in Sections 620.108(1) and 620.108(2) Florida Statutes. The certificate of limited partnership must include such information as the name of the limited partnership, address of its agent for service of process, name and business address of every general partner, mailing address and date of dissolution. Section 620.108(1), Florida Statutes.
A “general partner” is defined in Section 620.102(5), Florida Statutes (1995), as “. . . a person who has been admitted to a limited partnership as a general partner in accordance with
the partnership agreement and is named in the certificate of limited partnership as a general partner.”
Any partnership existing between Walker and Oswalt did not have standing to bring this protest because it was not formed for the purpose of performing this contract. It was only formed to submit a bid. Therefore, it was not an affected party. The testimony by Walker an Oswalt was clear that the partnership would not be performing the contract, but that the limited partnership would. The bid submitted stated the following:
In an Individual or Partnership, answer this:
Date of organization [answer] upon acceptance of this bid
General or limited partnership [answer] limited
Had a partnership done the bidding, the above would have stated “general” or “partnership” and given a date of organization.
Since the partnership did not intend to perform on this bid contract, Walker/Oswalt as a partnership has no standing to protest the award of this contract.
Neither partner provided the Department with any information as to which partner would perform which functions. This was a crucial element to the agency’s evaluation, since, as Oswalt testified, proper timing in the care of the trees is extremely critical to the fruit yield.
To establish entitlement to a section 120.57 hearing, one must show that its substantial interests will be affected by
proposed agency action. Only responsive bidders have standing to protest an award. Sections 120.52(12), 120.57, Florida Statutes (1995).
If a bidder would not be in a position to be awarded the contract, if it prevailed on a protest, it does not have a substantial interest to support the protest. Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 606 So.2d 381 (Fla. 3 DCA 1992).
A bidder on a public project may not change his bid after the bids have been opened, except to cure minor irregularities. Harry Pepper and Associates, Inc. v. The City of Cape coral, Florida, 352 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 2 DCA 1977). A bid containing a material variance from the bid specifications is unacceptable and unresponsive.
The Petitioners failed to form a limited partnership prior to submitting the bid. Therefore, they failed to satisfy the “Additional Legal Requirements” of the Bid Proposal. This the bid was non-responsive and they lack standing to file this Protest.
Petitioners are unable to demonstrate that they were substantially affected and therefore lack standing to protest the award of the contract to another bidder. Preston Carroll Company, Inc. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 400 So2d 524 (Fla. 3 DCA 1981) citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 404 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct 1361, 31 L.Ed. 2d 636 (1972); Peterson v. Florida Department
of Community Affairs, 386 So.2d 879 (Fla.1 DCA 1980).
Assuming that Petitioner’s bid was a responsive bid and Petitioners have standing to file this protest, the scope of inquiry is limited to whether the purpose of competitive bidding has been subverted.” Department of Transportation v. Groves- Watkins Constructors, 530 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1988). The Hearing Officer’s (now Administrative Law Judge) sole responsibility is to ascertain whether the agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly. Id at 914. Citing Liberty County v. Baxter’s Asphalt and contract, Inc., 421 So.2d 505 (Fla. 1982), the Court said:
(3) A public body has wide discretion in soliciting and accepting bids for improvements and its decision, when based on an honest exercise of this discretion, will not be overturned by a Court even if reasonable persons disagree. (emphasis in original, Groves-Watkins at 913).
Although the Judge may have weighed or scored the responses differently, there is no evidence of fraud or collusion in the weighing or scoring of the responses. Since the evaluation of the bid was not fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest, the decision of the committee and the Respondent in this matter should not be disturbed.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the protest of the Petitioners be dismissed and the contract for the Lake Louisa Groves be awarded to the Intervenor, Earl Drawdy.
DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
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 16th day of December, 1996.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Susan B. Brantley, Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Edward P. Jordan, II, P.A. 13543 East highway 50
Clermont, Florida 34711
Kim Booker, Esquire 2752-A Enterprise Road
Orange City, Florida 32763
Perry Odom, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
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 |
|---|---|
| Mar. 17, 1997 | Final Order filed. |
| Feb. 06, 1997 | (Respondent) Order filed. |
| Jan. 07, 1997 | Order sent out. (Petitioner`s Motion for Rehearing is Denied) |
| Dec. 27, 1996 | Petitioner`s Motion for Rehearing (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 16, 1996 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 10/09-10/96. |
| Nov. 21, 1996 | Petitioners` Closing Argument Memorandum; Petitioners` Proposed Findings of Facts filed. |
| Nov. 15, 1996 | Intervenor`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Nov. 15, 1996 | Agency`s Proposed Recommended Order; Intervenor`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Nov. 05, 1996 | (4 Volumes) Transcript of Proceedings filed. |
| Oct. 25, 1996 | (Petitioners) Response to Intervenor`s Request for Admissions; Response to Intervenor`s Request to Produce; Petitioners` Response to Department`s Request for Admissions; Petitioners` Request for Admissions filed. |
| Oct. 23, 1996 | (Petitioners) Response to Intervenor`s Request to Produce; Response to Intervenor`s Request for Admissions; Petitioner`s Response to Department Request for Admissions; Petitioners Request for Admissions (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 17, 1996 | DEPT`s Response to Request for Admissions; Exhibit filed. |
| Oct. 16, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Oct. 14, 1996 | Notice of Final Hearing (Video) sent out. (Video Final Hearing set for 10/16/96; 9:00am; Orlando & Tallahassee) |
| Oct. 10, 1996 | Intervenor Motion to Dismiss Petitioner`s Petition Protesting the Award of Lake Louisa Grove Contract Bid; Response to Petitioner`s Second Request to Produce; Motion to Compel Discovery filed. |
| Oct. 10, 1996 | (Intervenor) Motion to Quash Subpoena Ad Testificandum filed. |
| Oct. 09, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 10/16/96; 9:00am; Orlando |
| Oct. 08, 1996 | Petitioners` Amended Notice of Bid Protest; Motion to Amend Notice of Bid Protest (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 08, 1996 | Department`s Motion to Dismiss and Joinder With Intervenor`s Motion to Dismiss; Department`s Motion to Compel (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 08, 1996 | Petitioners` Request for Admissions; Petitioners` Response to Department`s Request for Admissions (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 08, 1996 | (Petitioners) Response to Intervenor`s Request for Admissions; Response to Intervenor`s Request to Produce (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 08, 1996 | (E. Drawdy) Motion to Compel Discovery; Motion to Quash Subpoena Ad Testificandum; Response to Petitioner`s Second Request to Produce (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 08, 1996 | Intervenor Motion to Dismiss Petitioner`s Petition Protesting the Award of Lake Louisa Grove Contract Bid (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 07, 1996 | (Petitioner) Motion to Amend Notice of Bid Protest filed. |
| Oct. 04, 1996 | (Intervenor) Response to Petitioner`s Request to Produce; Intervenor`s Request for Admissions to Petitioner; Intervenor`s First Request for Production From Petitioner filed. |
| Oct. 03, 1996 | (Edward Jordan) Notice of Telephonic Hearing; (Petitioners) Second Request for Production; Petitioner`s Amended Notice of Bid Protest (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 02, 1996 | Notice of Final Hearing (Video) sent out. (Video Final Hearing set for 10/9/96; 9:30am; Tallahassee & Orlando) |
| Oct. 02, 1996 | Order Continuing Hearing sent out. (hearing reset for video hearing for 10/9/96; E. Drawdy's motion to intervene is granted) |
| Oct. 02, 1996 | (Kim Booker) Notice of Appearance; (Intervenor) Response to Petitioner`s Request to Produce filed. |
| Oct. 01, 1996 | Department`s First Request for Production From Petitioner (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 01, 1996 | Department`s Request for Admissions to Petitioner (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 30, 1996 | Department`s Response to Request for Production (filed via facsimile)filed. |
| Sep. 30, 1996 | (Petitioners) (2) Request for Production filed. |
| Sep. 30, 1996 | (Petitioner) Request for Production (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 30, 1996 | (Petitioner) Request for Production (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 27, 1996 | (Petitioner) Request for Production (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 26, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 10/9/96; 9:30am; Orlando. |
| Sep. 26, 1996 | Letter to DMK from Edward Jordan (RE: request for Subpoenas) (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 25, 1996 | (Respondent) Response to Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile)filed. |
| Sep. 25, 1996 | (Joint) Prehearing Stipulation (Suzanne Brantley only); (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 24, 1996 | (DEP) Subpoena Ad Testificandum (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 23, 1996 | Letter to hearing officer from S. Brantley Re: Informing hearing officer that S. Brantley has complied with paragraphs 1 and 2 of prehearing Order; Letter to E. Drawdy from S. Brantley Re: DOAH hearing on bid protest; your right to intervene filed. |
| Sep. 17, 1996 | Prehearing Order sent out. |
| Sep. 16, 1996 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 9/26/96; 9:30am; Orlando) |
| Sep. 13, 1996 | Agency referral letter; Formal Written Protest of Award of Lake Louisa Grove Contract Bid, letter form filed. (filed by fax) |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 12, 1997 | Agency Final Order | |
| Dec. 16, 1996 | Recommended Order | Unformed limited partnership not responsive bid; committee evaluation of bids not arbitrary or dishonest. |
