STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
EXECUTIVE VENTURES, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 96-5852BID
)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN )
AND FAMILIES, f/k/a ) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ) REHABILITIATVE SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Notice, a formal hearing was held in this case before Larry J. Sartin, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on March 3, 1997. The hearing was conducted by video between Tallahassee, Florida, and Orlando, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Walter J. Smith, Esquire
SMITH, GRIMSLEY, BAUMAN, PINKERTON, PETERMANN, SAXER, and WELLS
25 Walter Martin Road, Northeast Post Office Box 2379
Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549
For Respondent: Eric D. Dunlap
Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Families
400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Department of Children and Families, properly rejected all bids received on an Invitation to Bid on Proposed Lease No. 590:2622.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On or about September 13, 1996, Respondent, the Department of Children and Families, f/k/a, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, rejected all bids solicited by it for a proposed lease of approximately 27,000 square feet of office space. On or about September 26, 1996, Petitioner, Executive Ventures, filed a Protest challenging Respondent’s rejection of all bids.
Petitioner’s Protest was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 13, 1996 by a Notice of Referral and Notice to Bidders. The matter was designated case number 96-5852BID and was assigned to the undersigned.
The parties waived the requirement of Section 120.57(3)(e), Florida Statutes, that the formal hearing be held within thirty days of the filing of the Protest. The formal hearing was scheduled for March 3, 1997.
The hearing was conducted by video conferencing. The undersigned and Petitioner participated in the hearing from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Northwood Centre, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent participated from the Department of Management Services, Regional Service Center, Zora Neale Hurston Building, Orlando, Florida.
Petitioner presented the testimony of Mary Goodman and William Todd Schweitzer. Petitioner offered ten exhibits. They were all accepted into evidence.
Respondent presented the testimony of Jim Birch, John Stewart and William Philip Penley. Respondent offered twelve exhibits. They were all accepted into evidence.
A transcript of the formal hearing was filed on March 17, 1997. The parties requested twenty days from the filing of the transcript to prepare and file their proposed orders. Therefore, the requirement of Section 120.57(3)(e), Florida Statutes, that this Recommended Order be entered within thirty days of the filing of the transcript was waived.
Proposed orders were required to be filed by the parties on or before April 7, 1997. Petitioner and Respondent filed separate proposed orders on April 7, 1997.
On March 24, 1997, Respondent filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Pursuant to the motion, Respondent seeks an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.595(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On April 24, 1997, Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss or Abate Respondent's Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs. Pursuant to this motion, Petitioner has requested that the motion for fees and costs filed by Respondent be dismissed or abated pending entry of this Recommended Order.
Section 120.595(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), provides that a final order in a proceeding entered pursuant to
Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, may award attorney's fees and costs to a "prevailing party" if "the nonprevailing adverse party has been determined by the administrative law judge to have participated in the proceeding for an improper purpose." The determination of whether a nonprevailing party participated in a proceeding for an "improper purpose" is required to be made by the administrative law judge. Section 120.595(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Any such determination must be included in the Recommended Order. Section 120.595(1)(d), Florida Statutes.
The terms "improper purpose", "costs", and "nonprevailing adverse party" are defined in Section 120.595(1)(e), Florida Statutes. "Improper purpose" is defined as follows:
"Improper purpose means participation in a proceeding pursuant to s. 120.57(1) primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or securing the approval of an activity.
Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss or Abate Respondent's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs is hereby denied. Petitioner may, however, file a response to Petitioner's Motion for the record on this matter within fifteen days of the entry of the Recommended Order. Based upon consideration of the record in this proceeding and the arguments of Respondent, it is concluded that Petitioner did not institute this proceeding for an "improper purpose". Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs is denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Existing Lease and the Decision to Look for New Space.
District 7 of the Respondent, the Department of Children and Families (at all times relevant to this proceeding, the Department of Children and Families was known as the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services)(hereinafter referred to as the “District”), leases approximately 26,955 spare feet of office space located in Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida. The space is used as a client service center.
Pursuant to the District’s current lease, the lease will expire on April 30, 1997. The current lease (hereinafter referred to as the “Existing Lease”) was still in effect at the time of the formal hearing of this matter.
The Existing Lease also provides for a five-year renewal. For the first two years of the renewal period, the Existing Lease provides for a rental rate of $11.50 per square foot. For the third and fourth years of the renewal the rate is
$11.75 and for the last year, $12.00.
In June of 1995, the District submitted a Letter of Agency Staffing (hereinafter referred to as a “LAS”) and a Request for Prior Approval of Space Need (hereinafter referred to as a “RSN”), to the Department of Management Services.
Pursuant to the LAS and RSN, the District sought approval from the Department of Management Services to seek a new lease of 26,872 square feet of office space in Palm Bay.
The reasons given for seeking approval of a new lease set out in the RSN were as follows:
New Service Center in Brevard County(Palm Bay Area). The existing lease is up! 4/30/97.
The current space does not adequately provide for : (1) Secured storage, visitation areas, and case file storage.
The June of 1995, RSN was approved. The District, however, did not immediately seek the approved space. The evidence failed to prove why.
In July of 1996 the District submitted another Request for Space Need (hereinafter referred to as the “Second RSN”). The same amount of space was sought and the same justification for seeking new space was described in the Second RSN.
The Second RSN was approved by the Department of Management Services on or about July 8, 1996.
The RSN and the Second RSN were prepared by Jim Birch. Mr. Birch is the District’s Facilities Services Manager. The reason for seeking a new lease set out in the RSN and the Second RSN was provided to Mr. Birch by Bill Rawlings and Philip Penley. Mr. Penley is the District’s Sub-District Administrator for Brevard County. Mr. Rawlings is the Program Administrator for Brevard County.
The Existing Lease was first entered into in 1977. The amount of space leased has increased over the years and is located in more than one building. Mr. Penley decided to request approval to seek new space in the hopes that the client service
center in Palm Bay could be moved under one roof and in the hopes that more ideal space could be obtained.
The representation in the RSN and the Second RSN that the existing space “does not adequately provide for: (1) Secured storage, visitation areas, and case file storage” is misleading and incorrect. The programs located in the existing space in Palm Bay can, in fact, be carried out without relocating.
The Invitation to Bid.
The District released an Invitation to Bid (hereinafter referred to as the “ITB”), between July 16 and July 19, 1996.
The ITB provided that the “Project Contact Person” was Mr. Birch.
The ITB sought bids on proposed lease number 590:2622, for approximately 26,872 square feet of office space in an existing building.
The ITB sought office space in Palm Bay. The building was to be used as the District’s client service center.
The term of the lease was to be ten years with five one-year optional renewal periods.
The ITB scheduled a pre-bid meeting for August 8, 1996. Attendance at the meeting was not mandatory. The ITB specified, however, that “information and explanations provided at this meeting must be complied with by the bidder ”
A representative of Petitioner, Executive Ventures (hereinafter referred to as “Executive”), attended the pre-bid meeting on August 8, 1996. During that meeting, the lessor under
the Existing Lease asked questions about the renewal terms of the Existing Lease. Executive’s representative informed Executive of the discussions soon after the meeting. Executive was, therefore, aware of the existence of the Existing Lease and the fact that it could be renewed prior to submitting a bid in response to the ITB.
The ITB provided that bids could be submitted at any time up to 10:00 a.m., September 12, 1996. Bids were to be opened at the close of the bidding period.
The ITB provided that all bids received were to be evaluated first for technical responsiveness. Nonresponsive bids were to be withdrawn from further consideration.
Responsive bids were to be presented to a bid evaluation committee “for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award.”
The ITB informed potential bidders that the District reserved the right to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. The first page of the ITB provides that “[t]he Florida Department of [Children and Families] reserves the right to reject any and all bids and award to the bid judged to be in the best interest of the state.”
At page A1-5-8 of the ITB the following is provided concerning the rejection of bids:
ITB.
REJECTION OF BIDS
1. The department reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida. Such rejection shall not be arbitrary, but be based on strong justification which shall be communicated to each rejected bidder by certified mail. [Emphasis in original].
. . . .
Bids Submitted in Response to the ITB.
A total of four bids were submitted in response to the
The bids were opened on September 12, 1996. A bid
tabulation sheet was prepared by Mr. Birch. The annual rental rates per square foot for the ten years of the lease were included on the tabulation as required by the ITB. Pursuant to the ITB, no other information was provided at the time the bids were opened and tabulated
Executive submitted one of the four bids. Executive’s bid consisted of 90 to 100 pages. Executive expended a good deal of effort and incurred expenses in the amount of approximately
$17,000.00 in preparing its bid. The suggestion that Executive incurred unnecessary expenses is not supported by the weight of the evidence.
The rental rates per square foot bid by Executive for the term of the proposed leased are as follows:
Year Rate
1 | $14.56 |
2 | 15.00 |
3 | 15.53 |
4 | 16.08 |
5 | 16.73 |
6 | 17.40 |
7 | 18.10 |
8 | 19.01 |
9 | 19.96 |
10 | 20.96 |
The District’s Decision to Reject All Bids.
Mr. Birch had expected to receive rental rate bids in the range of $12.00 to $13.00. Mr. Birch’s expectation was based upon what he had been told to expect by John Stewart and Mr. Penley. Mr. Stewart is the District’s General Service Manager. Upon tabulating the bids, Mr. Birch discovered that the bids were higher than expected. He realized that the bids were $3.00 per square foot higher than the Existing Lease. Mr. Birch contacted Mr. Stewart and informed him of the difference in rates.
Mr. Stewart informed Mr. Penley of the rates that had been bid. Mr. Penley informed Mr. Stewart that the bid rates were too high. Mr. Stewart then informed Sid McAlister, the Deputy District Administrator, and Paul Sneed. Mr. McAlister and Mr. Sneed told Mr. Stewart that the rates bid were excessive.
Mr. Stewart subsequently directed Mr. Birch to notify the bidders that all bids were being rejected.
Had the bids received in response to the ITB been accepted, the District would have been required to pay an additional approximately $80,000.00 in rent during the first year
of the lease. The amount of rent required in the second year would be in excess of $80,000.00.
The decision to reject all bids was based upon a realization of the impact the rates contained in the bids would have on the District’s budget if the lowest bid were accepted in relation to the impact on the District’s budget of the rates of the Existing Lease. The District realized that the increase in rent would have a substantial negative impact on its budget.
It was also suggested that the impact on the District’s budget as a result of the newly enacted Federal “Welfare Reform Act” was also considered. In particular, the impact of the Welfare Reform Act’s “Work and Gaining Economic Self Sufficiency” or “WAGES” program was considered.
The Welfare Reform Act and, consequently WAGES, was signed into law in August of 1996. WAGES was effective October 1, 1996. Among other things, WAGES establishes time limits for the District’s clients' receipt of cash benefits. It also results in the integration of programs of the District and the Department of Labor. This integration of programs will have impacts on the District’s space needs, staffing levels and the ability to pay rental rates in the future.
Mr. Penley was aware of WAGES. It was suggested that at the time the ITB was issued little was known about the impact on the District that WAGES would have and that it was not until the bids were received that Mr. Penley had sufficient information
concerning WAGES to be concerned about the impact of WAGES on the District’s budget.
The weight of the evidence in this case failed to prove that when the decision of the District to reject all bids was made that the decision was based upon WAGES. While the impact of WAGES was of greater concern at the time of the formal hearing, the evidence failed to prove that the District’s concern about WAGES as explained at the formal hearing was taken into account at the time the bids were rejected.
Notice of the District’s Decision to Reject All Bids.
On September 13, 1996, the day after the bids were opened, the District sent a letter to Executive and the other bidders informing them of the decision to reject all bids:
This is to give notice that in the best interest of the State of Florida and the Department of [Children and Families], that any and all bids are hereby rejected.
The letter was signed by Mr. Birch.
The letter informing Executive of the decision was sent by certified mail.
“Strong justification” for the rejection was not “communicated to each rejected bidder by certified mail.”
After receiving the September 13, 1996 rejection letter, Executive was informed during a telephone call with Mr. Birch that all bids had been rejected due to excessive rental rates and budgetary constraints.
The District failed to comply with the requirement of the ITB that it inform bidders by certified mail of the reason why it rejected all bids. The appropriate remedy for this error, however, would not be to require that the District now evaluate the bids. The appropriate remedy for the error would be to require that the District send out a corrected notice by certified mail containing the explanation of the reasons for rejecting the bids required by the ITB. This remedy would only be appropriate, however, if Executive had sought such a remedy AND the evidence had proved that Executive had been prejudiced by the failure to provide the explanation of the District’s justification for rejecting all bids contemplated by the ITB. Evidence to support such a finding was not presented. In fact, the evidence proved that Executive was not prejudiced by the District’s error. Executive was given additional information concerning the bid rejection during a telephone conversation and it had an opportunity to explore the reasons for the rejection through discovery prior to the formal hearing of this case. Executive, therefore, had the opportunity to determine the specific justification for the rejection in preparation for the hearing on this matter.
Zone Rates.
The Department of Management Services establishes maximum rental rates which agencies can agree to pay without obtaining approval of the Department of Management Services. The
rates are established for geographic zones on what is referred to as a “Zone Rate Schedule”.
Zone Rate Schedules may be obtained from the Department of Management Services or other agencies by potential bidders. At all times relevant to this proceeding Executive was aware of the Zone Rate Schedule applicable to Palm Bay.
Rental rates which do not exceed the zone rate by more than 10% may be accepted by an agency without further approval from the Department of Management Services. Any rate in excess of 10% over the zone rate must be approved by the Department of Management Services before an agency may accept it.
The rental rates submitted by Executive in response to the ITB exceeded the zone rate but not by more than 10%.
Individuals involved with the District’s decision in this matter either were not aware of the Zone Rate Schedule or gave it no consideration in deciding to reject all bids.
The evidence also failed to prove that agreeing to pay a rate included on a Zone Rate Schedule for which approval from the Department of Management Services need not be obtained is necessarily in the “best interest of the state”.
Additionally, the evidence failed to prove that the District did not have a reasonable basis for rejecting all bids despite the fact that the rates bid by Executive were within the Zone Rate Schedule plus 10%.
Executive’s Challenge.
Executive filed a Protest dated September 25, 1996, challenging as arbitrary the Department’s decision to reject all bids.
In its Protest Executive alleged the following “facts” in support of its argument that the District’s rejection of all bids was arbitrary:
The District failed to “communicate to each rejected bidder any justification whatsoever for rejecting any and all bids.”
The District had decided to “reject any and all bids if the bid rental per square foot exceeded the rental they were paying under their present Lease, since such Lease had an option to renew for an additional five years. The present Lease renewal failed to comply with the requirements and specifications set forth in the Invitation to Bid.”
The District, “at all times, knew that if such bids exceeded the square foot rental of the present Lease, that they intended to reject all bids and renew the existing Lease, although the existing Lease failed to meet the bid specifications.”
The District “violated the competitive bidding procedure by failing to include in their Invitation to Bid a provision that any bid exceeding a specific dollar amount per square foot would be rejected in favor of the existing Lease. ”
Although the evidence proved the first fact cited in finding of fact 51, that fact does not support a conclusion that the District’s decision was arbitrary.
As to the other facts alleged by Executive in its Protest cited in finding of fact 53, the evidence simply failed to prove those alleged facts.
At hearing, Executive presented the testimony of Mary Goodman, a consultant and former Chief of the Bureau of Property Management, Department of Management Services. Ms. Goodman was accepted as an expert witness. Ms. Goodman opined that the District’s actions in this matter were arbitrary.
Ms. Goodman’s opinion was based in part on her conclusion that the submittal of the RSN and the Second RSN constituted a “determination by the Department to not renew the existing lease.” The evidence failed to support this contention. Executive has failed to cite any provision of Florida law which supports this contention.
Ms. Goodman also based her opinion on the assumption that the District had established a rental rate cap which it failed to inform prospective bidders of. The evidence failed to support this assumption.
Ms. Goodman also based her opinion on the fact that the bid submitted by Executive was within the Zone Rate Schedule for the area. The evidence in this case failed to prove that the fact that the bids were within 10% of the Zone Rate Schedule rates means that the decision to reject bids that would have cost the
District approximately $80,000.00 the first year in additional rent was arbitrary because the rental bids did not require approval of the Department of Management Services. Executive has cited no provision of Florida law that requires agencies to accept bids simple because they do not require approval from the Department of Management Services.
Ms. Goodman also based her opinion on her conclusion that the District should have known of its budgetary constraints before issuance of the ITB. Ms. Goodman, however, acknowledged that she knew nothing specifically about the District’s budget.
Finally, Ms. Goodman based her opinion on the District’s failure to provide the notice of the District’s reason for rejecting the bids required by the ITB. As discussed, supra, the evidence failed to support this conclusion.
The evidence failed to prove that Executive filed the action for an improper purpose.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Jurisdiction and Burden of Proof.
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.).
The burden of proof in this proceeding was on Executive to prove that the District’s decision to reject all bids was “illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.” Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.)
Authority to Rejection of All Bids.
The ITB informed all bidders that the District had the specific authority to reject all bids if rejecting all bids was determined to be “in the best interest of the state.” Similar authority for the rejection of bids is provided in Rule 10- 13.012, Florida Administrative Code.
The right to reject bids described in the ITB is consistent with the rules of the Department of Management Services. Rule 60H-1.029, Florida Administrative Code, provides for the rejection of all bids when such rejection is in the best interest of the state or due to an agency’s budgetary constraints.
The ITB provided, however, that any decision to reject all bids would “not be arbitrary, but [would] be based on strong justification ”
At issue in the proceeding is whether the District’s decision to reject all bids was based upon a rational conclusion that such action would be “in the best interest of the state”.
Lack of Adequate Notice.
Executive has alleged that the decision to reject all bids was arbitrary because it “did not communicate in writing any justification for the rejection.” Page 11 of Executive’s proposed recommended order.
The evidence did prove that the District failed to give the type of explanation of its reason for rejecting all bids required by the ITB. This fact, however, does not support a
finding that the “rejection of all bids” was without justification or that the decision was “arbitrary”. It simply means that the bidders were not aware of why the District rejected all bids at the time they received notice of the District’s decision.
The District, however, did provide an explanation of its justification for the rejection to Executive shortly after sending out the notice of its decision to reject all bids. Although that explanation was not as thorough as that provided during the formal hearing of this case, it was consistent with the District’s explanation at hearing.
Executive has failed to prove that the District’s error in failing to provide the notice of its reason for rejecting all bids is cause to require the District to now accept the bids.
The District’s Alleged Preconceived Decision to Reject All Bids if Proposed Rental Rates Exceeded the Rates Under the District’s Existing Lease.
Executive has alleged that the District decided prior to the issuance of the ITB that it would reject all bids if it did not receive a bid with a rental rate comparable to that it could obtain by renewing the Existing Lease.
In support of this argument, Executive has suggested that the reasons for seeking a new lease described in the RSN and the Second RSN were known to be false and were included in the RSN and the Second RSN so that the District could “shop for a better or ideal building with the intent of exercising the option to renew the existing lease, if the rental rate did not meet
their expectation.” Page 11 of Executive’s proposed recommended order. Executive has suggested that the District always planned on rejecting all bids if they were too much higher than the Existing Lease. Executive has argued that the District, therefore, violated the competitive bidding process by failing to inform prospective bidders through the ITB that it would reject all bids in favor of the Existing Lease if the bids exceeded a certain amount.
The evidence in this case did prove that the justification provided for seeking a new lease in the RSN and the Second RSN was incorrect. In fact, the facilities occupied under the Existing Lease are adequate, not “inadequate” as stated in the RSN and the Second RSN. The evidence also proved that the District was hoping that it would, by issuing an invitation to bid, obtain a bid for a single, better facility.
The evidence failed to prove, however, that the District conspired or made a conscientious decision to shop around and then reject all bids received if those bids were at a certain level above the existing lease. The evidence also failed to prove that the District knew at all times that it would reject all bids if they contained rates that exceeded the Existing Lease by a certain amount. In fact, the evidence proved that the District had expected rental rates bid under the ITB to be within a range that was considerably lower than the lowest rates bid. No evidence was offered in an effort to prove that the District did
not have such an expectation or that such an expectation was unreasonable.
The factual basis for finding that the District should have announced in the ITB that it would reject all bids if they exceeded the Existing Lease by a certain amount was not proved.
Executive was aware of the Existing Lease and the fact that it could be renewed. Executive should have known that, if its bid exceeded what the District was paying by too much, it was possible that the District would reject its bid. No law has been cited by Executive that would require an agency to state the obvious in an invitation to bid.
At best, the evidence in this case raised a question as to whether the District should have ever issued the ITB. Even if the District should not have issued the ITB, however, such a conclusion would not require a finding that the District’s reason for rejecting all bids was “arbitrary”.
Zone Rate Schedule.
Executive alleged that the fact that its bid was within the Zone Rate Schedule for the area supports its contention that the District’s decision was arbitrary. This argument is rejected.
The fact that the rental rates bid were within the Zone Rate Schedule plus 10% only proved that the District was not required to obtain permission to enter into a lease without further approval from the Department of Management Services. This fact fails to refute the evidence presented by the District about its rationale for rejecting all bids. The unrefuted evidence in
this case proved that the lowest bid received by the District was
$3.00 per square foot more than the rental rate it is currently paying. The evidence also proved that it would cost the state approximately $80,000.00 more in rental expense the first year if the District did not reject all bids.
Executive has cited no provision of Florida law that requires an agency to accept a rental rate bid under an ITB simply because it is under the level of rent for which an agency is not required to seek Department of Management Services’ approval.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Children and Families dismissing the Protest filed by Executive Ventures.
DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida.
LARRY J. SARTIN
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1997.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Walter Smith, Esquire SMITH, GRIMSLEY, BAUMAN,
PINKERTON, PETERMANN, SAXER, WELLS
Post Office Box 2379
Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549
Eric D. Dunlap
Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Families
400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106
Orlando, Florida 32801
Richard A. Doran General Counsel
Department of Children & Families Building 2 Room 204
1317 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children & Families Building 2, Room 204
1317 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 10 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 28, 1997 | Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 26, 1997 | Order Concerning Motion to Retain Jurisdiction sent out. (Motion & objection are moot) |
| Aug. 21, 1997 | (Respondent) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed. |
| May 23, 1997 | Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Objection to the Motion to Retain Jurisdiction for the Purpose of Determining and Awarding Costs and Charges and Conditioning Return of the Protest Bond (Filed by Fax) filed. |
| May 20, 1997 | Petitioner`s Objection to Motion to Retain Jurisdiction for the Purpose of Determining and Awarding Costs and Charges and Conditioning Return of the Protest Bond filed. |
| May 16, 1997 | (Respondent) Motion to Retain Jurisdiction for the Purpose of Determining and Awarding Costs and Charges and Conditioning Return of the Protest Bond filed. |
| Apr. 30, 1997 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 3/3/97. |
| Apr. 07, 1997 | (Respondent) Proposed Recommended Order; Recommended Order filed. |
| Apr. 04, 1997 | (Petitioner) Motion to Dismiss Or Abate Respondent`s Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs filed. |
| Mar. 26, 1997 | (Cont) Supplementary Answer to Interrogatory 3 filed. |
| Mar. 26, 1997 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing; Answer/Response to Petitioner`s Formal Bid Protest; Answers to Interrogatories; Second Request for Admissions; Supplementary Answer to Interrogatory 5 filed. |
| Mar. 24, 1997 | (Respondent) Answer Request for Admissions (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 24, 1997 | (Respondent) Motion for Attorney`s Fees and Costs filed. |
| Mar. 20, 1997 | Discovery Response faxed from District 7 Legal (Answers re: Admissions and Interrogs., hand written and unsigned) filed. |
| Mar. 17, 1997 | Transcript of Proceedings Video Conference 2 volumes (Hearing date 3/3/97) filed. |
| Mar. 05, 1997 | Letter to LJS from Eric Dunlap (RE: replacement copy of Respondent`s exhibit 7) (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 03, 1997 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Feb. 24, 1997 | Respondent`s Exhibits ; Cover Letter; Respondent`s Notice of Serving Responses to Interrogatories; (Respondent) Answers to Interrogatories filed. |
| Feb. 24, 1997 | Petitioners List of Exhibits filed. |
| Feb. 17, 1997 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 14, 1997 | Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Supplementary Answer to Interrogatory 3 filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1997 | Notice of Video Hearing sent out. (Video Final Hearing set for 3/3/97; 10:00am; Orlando & Tallahassee) |
| Feb. 12, 1997 | Order Granting, In Part, Motion to Compel Answer to Interrogatories #3, #5 sent out. |
| Feb. 07, 1997 | Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Supplementary Answer to Interrogatory 5 filed. |
| Feb. 07, 1997 | (Petitioner) Response to Second Request for Admissions filed. |
| Jan. 28, 1997 | (Respondent) Second Request for Admissions (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 27, 1997 | (Respondent) Motion to Compel Answer to Interrogatories #3, #5 (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 23, 1997 | (Petitioner) Response to Request for Admissions; Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Responses to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Jan. 17, 1997 | Order Granting Motion to Shorten Time sent out. |
| Jan. 08, 1997 | Respondent`s Response to Telephonic Request for Hearing Dates and Location (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 07, 1997 | (Respondent) Motion to Shorten Time for Filing Responses to Respondent`s Request for Admissions and Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories; Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories; Request for Admissions filed. |
| Dec. 13, 1996 | Notice of Referral and Notice to Bidders; Letter to DHRS from W. Smith (re: notice of filing protest); Protest; Objection to Petitioner`s Formal Bid Protest filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 27, 1997 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 30, 1997 | Recommended Order | Petitioner failed to prove that rejection of all BIDs was improper. |
