The Issue The issue to be presented is whether Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent, John Lee, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 50043. Dr. Lee specializes in obstetrics and gynecology, but is not board certified at this time. He has a solo practice. Dr. Lee has had one prior final order imposing discipline against him. On November 7, 1996, the Board of Medicine entered a Final Order approving an amended Consent Agreement entered between the Agency for Health Care Administration (the Department's predecessor with respect to regulation of health care professionals) and Dr. Lee. The Final Order imposed a letter of concern, a fine of $2,000, and 20 hours of continuing medical education. On or about November 2, 2005, patient R.R. first saw Respondent with a complaint of chronic pelvic pain and an inability to function. Based upon his examination of R.R., Respondent recommended that R.R. undergo a bilateral salpingo- oophorectomy (removal of both ovaries and fallopian tubes). R.R. decided to have the recommended surgery and on December 13, 2005, Respondent performed a bilateral salpingo- oophorectomy, as well as an appendectomy, lysis of adhesions and partial omentectomy. There are three layers to the bowel: the serosa is the thin outer protective layer; under the serosa is the muscularis; a third layer below the muscularis called the mucosa. Dr. Lee's surgical notes indicate that there was some serosal denuding of the sigmoid colon, but with no luminal extravasion (no leakage from the bowel). Dr. Lee described the serosal denuding as an irritation of the serosa from removal of adhesions, and not a complication of the surgery. In any event, there are no allegations in the Administrative Complaint claiming that either Dr. Lee's decision to perform the surgery or the performance of the surgery itself deviated from the appropriate standard-of- care, and no findings to that effect are found. R.R. was discharged from the hospital on December 15, 2005. At that time, she was ambulatory, tolerating liquids, had passed flatus and had a small bowel movement. At that time she had no documented fever and a normal white count. The next day, Friday, December 16, 2005, R.R.'s husband called Dr. Lee's office at approximately 3:00 p.m. According to R.R., she spoke to Brandi Melvin, now known as Brandi Harper (Ms. Harper), the medical assistant for Dr. Lee, and told her that she was running a fever of 101.8 degrees, did not feel well and wanted Dr. Lee to call her. She testified that at that time, she did not feel well, was achy all over, had pain in her abdomen and had chills. R.R. testified that Ms. Harper told her to increase her Dilaudid in accordance with her prescription and to continue rotating Tylenol and Motrin. She denies being told to go to the emergency room if her fever did not go down, and denies being instructed to pick up a prescription for an antibiotic. Brandi Harper is a medical assistant in Dr. Lee's office, and has been since 2004. She is a certified nurse's assistant and has completed a year and a half toward her registered nursing degree. Part of Ms. Harper's duties include screening calls that come in from patients post-surgery. In doing so, she follows a set protocol that has been established in that office. In accordance with Dr. Lee's preferences, she inquires not only about the symptoms the patients report having, but also about symptoms they may not be having. Consistent with that protocol, she testified that, with respect to the call from R.R. and her husband, she asked whether R.R. was having any drainage from the incision; any abdominal pain; or was experiencing any other symptoms. Ms. Harper testified that R.R. did not report having any abdominal pain above expected soreness, and did not report difficulty breathing or shortness of breath; drainage from the incision; vomiting; bloating or distension of the abdomen. Ms. Harper's testimony is credited. After receiving the telephone call from R.R., Ms. Harper wrote a note to Dr. Lee which referenced R.R. and stated, "[t]aking the cephalexin you gave her on discharge. Is running 102 temp, just sore. She has been rotating Tylenol and nothing has brought it down. Informed her to drink plenty of fluids. Do you want to add anything?" Neither Ms. Harper's notes nor her testimony reflect that she told the patient to increase pain medication. Nor does the note reflect that R.R. wanted to speak with Dr. Lee. Because Dr. Lee was seeing patients, Ms. Harper placed the note on his desk for his review. After reviewing the note, Dr. Lee wrote "Levaquin 500mg, #10, 1 a day." Ms. Harper then called the patient to tell her that a prescription was being called in for her and confirmed the pharmacy the patient used. At that time, consistent with the protocol established by Dr. Lee, she told R.R. or her husband that if the fever did not go down after two hours, to go to the emergency room at West Florida Hospital. She did not tell her to call the office back because, at the time of the return phone call, it was approximately 3:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, and in two hours the office would be closed. Ms. Harper then called the prescription in to Burklow's Pharmacy, as identified by the patient, and noted the prescription in patient's medication log. She noted the time of the call and the name of the pharmacist with whom she spoke. Ms. Harper did not note in the medical record that she advised the patient to go to the emergency room if her fever did not go down, and did not specifically note the return call to the patient. However, she plausibly explained that she could not call in the prescription to Burklow's without speaking to the patient, because there were two different pharmacies noted in her file previously. She also credibly testified that she always calls the patient back in conjunction with the call to the pharmacy, and gives standard instructions to post-operative patients regarding further action (in this case, going to the West Florida Hospital emergency room) should their condition not change. She does not necessarily document the return call because she does it so many times daily. Dr. Lee also testified that instructions to call back if the office is open or go to the emergency room if symptoms do not improve in a few hours is part of the standard protocol. Ms. Harper's and Dr. Lee's testimony is credited. R.R. did not go to the emergency room over the weekend and there was no evidence that she ever called Dr. Lee's office back after the 3:00 Friday afternoon call. She continued to not feel well, however, and on Monday morning, December 19, 2005, at approximately 5:00 a.m., she woke up in intense pain between her shoulder blades. She went by ambulance to Santa Rosa Medical Center (SRMC). R.R. went to SRMC as opposed to West Florida Hospital because it was much closer to her home. Dr. Lee does not have privileges at SRMC. Although R.R. went to the emergency room early December 19, 2005, there was no determination that first day that she had a bowel perforation, and she was not admitted to the hospital until approximately 8:30 that evening. At the time of admission, she had a white blood count of 3.3, with a differential count of 12 neutrophil bands. The history and physical taken at the hospital and signed by Dr. Michael Barber, M.D., states in part: HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: [R.R.] is a 33- year-old, . . . who underwent abdominal surgery six days ago by Dr. John Lee at West Florida Hospital. She had bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, partial omentectomy, appendectomy, and extensive adhesiolysis. . . . She states that although this surgery was prolonged and reportedly difficulty (sic), she tolerated the surgery well and by the second postoperative day was ambulating and voiding freely, tolerating a regular diet with a bowel movement and positive flatus. She stated her pain was well managed with 4 mg of Dilaudid q4h as needed. She was sent home on Cephalexin 500 mg q6h, Phenergan 25 mg q6h and Dilaudid 4 mg q6h. She was also on Hydrochlorothiazide for chronic hypertension, Klonopin and Effexor for anxiety and depression. She states that after going home she had some anorexia that was doing well until the morning of admission. She was awakened from her sleep at approximately 6 a.m. with remarkable abdominal distention and severe diffuse abdominal pain. She developed nausea as the pain progressed but has had no vomiting. She states that other than the bowel movement immediately post surgery, she had not had any bowel activity since discharge in six days. After several hours and worsening of pain, she presented to the emergency room at Santa Rosa Medical Center. On admission, a CT scan of the abdomen was accomplished and revealed a moderate volume loss infiltrate in the left lung base, apparent present to a lesser extent on the right. There was free air noted within the abdomen and also noted to be some free fluid. This was felt to be due to the patient's prior surgery, however, a more acute process could not be ruled out. There were also some distended loops of small bowel with apparent decompression of the distal small bowel which suggested at least a partial small bowel obstruction, although again, the diagnosis included ileus. A CT of the pelvis was unremarkable except as noted on the CT scan. There was some free fluid and free air within the pelvis. Since transfer to West Florida Hospital and the patient's attending physician could not be arranged, decision was made to admit to Dr. Barber on GYN service. * * * IMPRESSION: Severe abdominal pain 6 days post exploratory surgery with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, partial omentectomy, appendectomy and adhesiolysis. No signs at this time of active infection or perforation. The most likely diagnosis is a severe postoperative ileus, however, the patient warrants close observation. An ileus occurs when the bowel is "asleep" and not moving. Dr. Barber transferred R.R. to the Intensive Care Unit overnight for close observation. R.R.'s temperature at the time of admission was 96.8. The History of Present Illness taken from R.R. does not mention the rise in temperature following discharge from West Florida Hospital, or the phone call to Dr. Lee's office. On December 20, 2005, Dr. Althar saw R.R. in consultation. At that time, her white count was 8.4 with 48 bands, indicating overwhelming sepsis. Dr. Althar took her immediately to surgery. Surgery revealed a bowel perforation of the sigmoid colon, and Dr. Althar performed a sigmoid colectomy, end colostomy, and Hartmann procedure. R.R. suffered some complications after surgery, which were not unexpected, and remained in the hospital until her discharge January 16, 2006. The Department presented the expert testimony of Robert W. Holloway, M.D. Dr. Holloway graduated from Vanderbilt University Medical School; completed his residency in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham; and completed a fellowship in gynecology oncology at Georgetown University Hospital. Dr. Holloway has been licensed as a medical doctor in Florida since 1990, and is board certified in obstetrics and gynecology, and gynecologic oncology. He is currently the co-Medical Director of the Gynecologic Oncology program at the Florida Hospital Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida, and a clinical instructor for the Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Program at Orlando Regional Medical Center. Dr. Holloway is in an office on the Florida Hospital campus, where there are four attending physicians and three follows in training. Fifty to 60 percent of his patients are oncology patients, with the remainder having benign issues. Dr. Holloway opined that in this case, the bowel perforated most likely late Sunday evening or early Monday morning, probably 6-12 hours before R.R. woke up in extreme pain. He found no violation of the standard-of-care regarding the denuding of the serosa in the original surgery, viewing it as an anticipated outcome with a difficult case of endometriosis. However, he opined that Dr. Lee fell below the appropriate standard-of-care when he failed to evaluate the patient on Friday afternoon when she had a temperature of 102 degrees. Dr. Holloway indicated that the most common indications of bowel perforation in post-operative patients are abdominal pain and fever. He knew of no cases where a perforation occurred with the patient presenting with fever alone. He also agreed that it is common for physicians to rely on their staff to triage patients, and to relay information back to patients. It is common, according to Dr. Holloway, for doctors to train staff to tell the patient to call back or go to the emergency room if a problem does not resolve itself, and staff normally does the majority of charting. With respect to the directions to the patient to call back or go to the emergency room, Dr. Holloway could not say that those directions are always noted in the chart for patients in his office, although they frequently are. Most importantly, Dr. Holloway could not conclude that Ms. Harper did not give the instructions to R.R. because it was not specifically noted in the chart, and he would be apt to give the staff the benefit of the doubt. He could not conclude from the absence of the note that proper instructions were not given. Dr. Holloway also indicated that he did not believe the bowel had perforated as of Friday afternoon when the call was made to Dr. Lee's office. Respondent presented the testimony of John Douglas Davis, M.D., who serves as the Director of Gynecology and Associate Residency Director of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine. Dr. Davis graduated from medical school at Wake Forest University and received his post-doctoral training at the University of Florida. Dr. Davis is licensed as a medical doctor in the State of Florida, and has been board certified in obstetrics and gynecology since 1992. Ninety-five percent of his patients are gynecological patients. Dr. Davis did not believe that Respondent violated the appropriate standard-of-care in his treatment of R.R. He opined that it is reasonable to rely on staff to perform triage functions with respect to calls from patients, and would interpret the note from Ms. Harper as not being indicative of bowel perforation. He testified that it was more likely to assume that the fever was caused by a pulmonary source, and the prescription for Levaquin was consistent with that assumption. In addition, the CT scan upon admission to SRMC was consistent with findings of pneumonia, and in Dr. Davis' view, the eventual determination that the bowel perforated does not mean that pneumonia was not also present. Like Dr. Holloway, Dr. Davis testified that bowel perforation does not present without severe abdominal pain, which was not reported to Dr. Lee. Dr. Davis opined that R.R.'s fever of 102 degrees must be interpreted in light of the patient's situation at discharge from the hospital, which Dr. Lee already knew. Most importantly, Dr. Davis testified that not seeing R.R. on Friday afternoon did not have an impact on her subsequent clinical course. His testimony is credited. In summary, it is found that Ms. Harper did instruct the patient to go to the emergency room at West Florida Hospital should her symptoms not improve after a couple of hours with the new medication. Dr. Lee's reliance on her to give that instruction is within the standard-of-care for a reasonably prudent similar physician under similar conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 23rd day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Elana J. Jones, Esquire Ian Brown, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Nicholas W. Romanello, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32299-170 Joy A. Tootle, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact In April, 1987, DOA submitted recommendations to the Florida Legislature which included proposed changes in the state employees' group insurance program. Among the recommendations was a proposal that would require the Department to competitively bid HMO contracts in the state health program on the basis of cost, service area, plan benefits, and accessibility. The stated objective of the recommendation was to: encourage HMOs in a geographic location to structure their premiums to reflect actual cost experience and to provide the lowest possible cost for the state and state employees, while at the same time changing the current concept of the state's contributions to HMOs..." At the time of the DOA legislative recommendation, existing state law provided that persons eligible to participate in the state group health insurance program had the option to elect membership in any qualified HMO engaged in providing basic health services in the HMO service area where the employee resided in lieu of participating in the state self-insurance plan. Section 110.123(3)(d), Florida Statutes, Rule 22K-1.1003(21), F.A.C. A "qualified" HMO was defined as an entity qualified under the federal Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 300e-9, or certified under Part II of Chapter 641, Florida Statutes, which had entered into a contract with the State, and had achieved a designated level of participation by state employees. Rule 22K- 1.1003(21), F.A.C. Effective October 1, 1987, Chapter 87-156, Laws of Florida (now codified as Section 110.123(3)(d), Fla. Stat.) was amended to add the following: (3) STATE GROUP INSURANCE PROGRAM. -- * * * (d) * * * 2. Effective January 1, 1988, the Department of Administration shall, by rule, contract with health maintenance organizations to participate in the state group health insurance plan through the competitive bid process based on cost, service area, plan benefits, and accessibility. Effective January 1, 1988, all employees participating in the state group health insurance plan, irrespective of whether or not the member participates in a health maintenance organization, shall be subject to the same total premium, regardless of the state or employee's share. THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Dennis Nye, then the DOA Director of the Office of State Employees Insurance and administrator of the state health insurance program, was directly responsible for implementing the new legislation regarding the HMO contracts. He initially determined that procurement of HMO contractual services was governed by Section 287.057, Florida Statutes. The Request For Proposals For Health Maintenance Organization Coverage was issued on July 31, 1987, as "Bid No. 88-05." It scheduled a presubmission conference on August 12, 1987, and established the deadline for receipt of proposals of August 28, 1987, with a contemplated date of award of contract on September 14, 1987, and an effective contract date of January 1, 1988. The Department clearly set forth the general purpose of the RFP in Section II as requiring each proposal to meet the benefit objectives and to provide high quality benefits and services to state employees. More specific objectives were as follows: A proactive approach to cost containment, including an emphasis on aggressive claims management, utilization review and superior statistical reporting Quality medical care which encourages health promotion, disease prevention, early diagnosis and treatment. Stability in the financial structure of offered health plans. Professional, high quality service in all administrative areas including claims processing, enrollment, membership services, grievances, and communications. Competitive premium rates which take into account the demographics and, if appropriate, the claims experience of State employees. DOA stated other objectives to be as follows: Have each county or contiguous group of counties be considered one service area. Award no more than two contracts per service area; however, the awards will be based on the HMO's ability to respond to the needs of employees and on accessibility by employees. Have reciprocal agreements between locations, if an HMO has multiple service areas. For example, an employee covered in Miami with a covered dependent living in Gainesville, should be provided similar services. Enter into a two year, non-experience rated contract. A provision will be included tying renewal action at each of the two renewals to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Medical Care Services. This will become part of the contract. Section III of the RFP stated that to be considered as a "qualified" HMO, the proposer must be licensed by the Department of Insurance pursuant to Part II of Chapter 641, Florida Statutes. Each proposer was required to submit the following: Form PUR 7033, properly completed and signed. The completed Questionnaires Requirements Section (Please answer questions in the same order as they appear in that Section; do not reformat). The completed Cost Proposal forms (Please use the enclosed form on page 43 and 44; do not reformat). The completed Statement of Compliance on page 47. Documentation in support of the above. Section III further provided in part as follows: Proposals are to be submitted only on the forms and formats provided in this RFP. All exhibits requested must be submitted with your proposal along with answers to all questions contained in this RFP. Section IV of the RFP provided that each contract would be for a 24 month term, beginning January 1, 1988. The Department reserved the right to renew the contracts on the same terms and conditions of the initial contract for two additional one-year periods. Section VI of the RFP, concerning "Required Benefits and Services," listed the minimum benefits that must be provided, and also required that a complete list of all other intended services for each service area be provided. Section IX specified the following criteria for evacuation of the proposals: Premium Cost Extensiveness of Service Areas by County and/or contiguous Counties. Note: The State's objective is to award no more than two contracts per services (sic) area; however, the awards will be based on the HMO's ability to respond to the needs of employees and on accessibility by employees. Plan Benefits as follows: Covered services Limitations and exclusions Co-payments, deductibles and co-insurance features Range of providers including specialists and number of hospitals Out of service area coverage Grievance procedures Acessibility as follows: Reciprocal agreements Provider locations Number of primary care physicians and specialists, in relation to membership Completeness of proposals The RFP did not provide information on DOA's evaluation of the legislatively required criteria concerning the importance of price and other evaluation criteria. The Department weighed cost equal to benefits plus accessibility and determined accessibility was a part of the plan benefits. Section X was a questionnaire with forty-nine questions for the proposers to answer including questions regarding the proposer's license status, corporate structure, reserving practices, reinsurance contracts, service area, employee membership and staff, hospitals and other care facilities, participating physicians, utilization review, and other information regarding the proposer's case management, control mechanisms, statistical reporting, and the like. Each proposer was directed to submit audited financial statements for the last two fiscal years, together with financial statements for the first quarter of 1987. Section XI dealt with cost proposals and provided a form for completion as to proposed premium rates. In an undated addendum to the RFP, the Department added Question 50 to the RFP to provide information for use in a brochure which would allow state employees to compare the benefits offered by the various HMOs. In the pre-submission conference held on August 12, 1987, and attended by representatives of the HMOs, the participants were informed by Mr. Nye that the two criteria of cost and benefits would be weighted on an equal basis. He also advised that the State would enter into a two year, non-experience rated contract, subject to renewal which would tie rate increases to the Consumer Price Index for Medical Care Services. Proposers were told to quote a specific rate for the first year of the contract, and a percentage increase or decrease for each of the following three years. However, he noted that the State would evaluate cost solely on the basis of the premium for the first year. He indicated that two HMOs per service area would be awarded contracts based on the highest number of points received in the bid evaluation process, and not based upon the type of HMO, such as an individual practice association (IPA) or staff model. Then asked whether some factors would be weighted higher than others, Mr. Nye responded that benefits and cost would be weighted higher. THE PROPOSERS 15. Twelve HMOs submitted proposals to the Department for the South Florida area (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties) in response to the RFP by the deadline, and several of those submitted more than one proposal. There was, however, no prohibition on submitting multiple proposals, and prospective bidders were told that they had that option. In this proceeding, proposals were received from Health Options, Heritage, and Humana to serve Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, and a proposal from Gulfstream to serve Palm Beach County. Health Options is a for profit subsidiary of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, and is an individual practice association (IPA) model HMO. Health Options offers HMO services in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. It has a total membership of 23,074 members, of which 517 are state employees and dependents. Heritage is a subsidiary of Heritage Health System, Inc., for profit Delaware Corporation, and is an IPA model HMO. Heritage offers HMO services in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, and has a total membership of 12,500 members, including 10 state employees and dependents. Humana is a for profit subsidiary of Humana, Inc., and is a combination staff/IPA model HMO. Humana offers HMO services in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, and has a total membership of 91,217 members, including 3,273 state employees and dependents. Gulfstream, at the time its proposal was filed, was a limited partnership whose general partner was Equicor Holding Company and whose limited partner was H.C.A. Care of Florida, Inc. The limited and general partners were wholly owned subsidiaries of Equicor, Equitable H.C.A. Corporation, which is owned by Hospital Corporation of America and the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. On January 1, 1988, Gulfstream converted to corporate form, and is now known as Equicor Health Plan of Florida. Gulfstream offers services in Palm Beach County and has a total membership of 12,335 members, including 933 state employees and dependents. THE EVALUATION PROCESS The evaluation of the proposals submitted by HMOs throughout the state for the seven service areas was initially accomplished by employee evaluation teams made up of employees in Dennis Nye's office. He was assisted in his selection by Marie Walker, a benefits analyst in his office. Dennis Nye and Ms. Walker decided which employees could best evaluate the proposals based on the criteria established in the law, including familiarity with benefits and the request for proposal process. The employees selected for these duties had varying degrees of knowledge concerning health plan benefits, HMOs, and bid evaluations. After the initial evaluation was completed, the Department determined that inconsistent methods had been used to score the proposals and further directed Dennis Nye to continue the evaluation process based upon an objective scoring system which limited subjectivity to the maximum extent possible. As Secretary, I was concerned with the financial soundness of each bidder and instructed Dennis Nye to keep that aspect in mind when making his final recommendation. The second or "final evaluation" of the proposals was solely based on the five criteria contained in the RFP, i.e., premium cost, extensiveness of service area, plan benefits, accessibility, and completeness of proposals. In his memorandum of October 6, 1987, Mr. Nye initially recommended that contracts be awarded in the Jacksonville, Pensacola, and Gainesville Service Areas to the two HMOs in each area that had received the top rankings. 1/ However, in the South Florida Service Area, he recommended awarding four contracts based on the need to provide one staff model and one IPA model HMO in each county in the service area. It was Mr. Nye's belief that federal law required that one HMO of each type be offered in each service area, if available. I was concerned about this issue and asked DOA's General Counsel, Augustus Aikens, to review it. He informed me that the federal requirement was not applicable because a state was not included within the definition of "employer" under the applicable federal law. On the bass of this legal advice, directed Mr. Nye to review his previous recommendations as they related to the need to retain one IPA model and one staff model HMO in each service area. In his memorandum of October 26, 1987, Mr. Nye recommended that contracts be awarded to Health Options and to Heritage on the bases that they were "the lowest, best bids for (the) service area." In his memorandum of October 30, 1987, he again recommended that contracts be awarded to Health Options and Heritage. Throughout the entire bidding process, it was my desire to avoid awarding a contract to an HMO which was not in compliance with state law or the rules of the Department of Insurance. I had written to the Department of Insurance seeking its assistance to determine the ability of each bidder to comply with the state law and to meet the needs of the state employees. By letter of October 23, 1987, the Department of Insurance informed DOA that it had approved the rates of Health Options and Heritage. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS Premium Costs The Department specifically designed the RFP to require each proposer to list separate costs in categories of "employee only" and "family" for active employees and retired employees under sixty-five. Required rates for Medicare recipients were to be shown separately listing rates for retirees, retiree and spouse (both on Medicare), and retiree and spouse (one with Medicare, with or without other eligible dependents). A fixed premium cost was required for calendar year 1988 and a percentage of that rate was to be shown for the successive three years. Rates for those last three years were to be "established as a percentage of the first year's premiums" with the maximum increase "limited to the increase, if any, in the overall medical portion of the Consumer Price index." (RFP, Section XI) The rates bid by each HMO were as follows: 2/ A. Heritage (low bid): Employee Only Family Dade, Broward, 66.46 166.15 and Palm Beach B. Health Options (low bid) Dade and Broward: 78.00 195.00 Palm Beach: 75.00 185.00 C. Humana, Dade: 85.02 206.01 Broward: 83.01 199.22 Palm Beach: 77.44 185.86 D. Gulfstream, Palm Beach: 78.92 197.28 (The instructions provided that the total cost of the "family plan" shall not be greater than 2.5 times the total cost of the "employee only" plan.) DOA evaluators computed a "mean" premium cost by adding the premiums for all bidders, dividing by three, and comparing each premium to the "mean," which was then given five points. A premium above the mean gave a bidder less than five points while a premium below the mean gave the bidder more than five points. The same method was used for the "employee only" plan, the "family" plan and the three Medicare retiree groups. Based on the Department's estimate that active employees constituted 90 percent and retirees 10 percent of an HMO membership, the final point calculations were: A. Heritage (low bid): Combined (Dade, Broward and Palm Beach) 9.35 B. Health Options (low bid) Dade and Broward: 7.75 Palm Beach: 9.1 Combined (Dade, Broward and Palm Beach) 8.17 C. Humana Dade: 5.72 Broward: 6.26 Palm Beach: 8.65 Combined: 6.57 D. Gulfstream Palm Beach: 6.61 The Hearing Officer evaluated the above process and found that the Department's action was reasonable even though "the cost proposals were evaluated solely on the basis of premium for 1988." He based his conclusion on: First, Nye announced at the pre-bid conference that proposals would be evaluated solely on that basis. Second, premium costs in succeeding years were limited to the lower of the cost proposed or the future and presently unknown Consumer Price index for Medical Care Services. Accordingly, no meaningful evaluation could have resulted from a consideration of premium costs for succeeding years. (R.O., page 17) Extensiveness of Service Area At the pre-submission conference, proposers were told that they should designate their service areas and that bids would be awarded on the basis of the entire service area. DOA's evaluators awarded two points for each full county and one-half point for each partial county and proposers received 2, 4, or 6 base points depending on whether their proposal was being evaluated on one, two, or three county service area. Heritage submitted one proposal, and designated its service area as Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Its proposal was evaluated on a composite or combined basis. Health Options submitted one proposal and designated its service area as Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Its proposal contained two separate premium costs: one for Dade and Broward Counties, and one for Palm Beach County. The Department evaluated Health Options' proposal as it related to the individual counties of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County, and on a combined basis (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties). Humana submitted three separate proposals, which designated three separate service areas: Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. The Department evaluated Humana's proposal for each county and on a combined basis. Gulfstream submitted one proposal, and designated its service area as Palm Beach County. The Department evaluated Gulfstream's proposal for Palm Beach County. The Hearing Officer found that the above evaluation procedure "was reasonable and a valid exercise of the agency's discretion." (R.O., page 35) ACCESSIBILITY The Department evaluated accessibility criterion on the basis of ten points each for reciprocal agreements provided statewide and national services, ten points for each county of the service area in which a hospital was located, two points for each specialty provider in each county, and one point for each provider physician and specialist. These raw scores were then evaluated further to obtain a "mean" score for each proposer as follows A. Heritage (low bid), Combined: 5.8 B. Health Options (low bid), Dade and Broward: 8.71 Palm Beach: 1.1 Combined: 9.51 C. Humana, Dade: 4.16 Broward: 3.32 Palm Beach: 1.31 Combined: 8.79 D. Gulfstream Palm Beach: 1.18 The Hearing Officer found that the above evaluation procedure "was reasonable and a valid exercise of the agency's discretion." (R.O., page 36) COMPLETENESS OF PROPOSALS The original statutory criteria contained in Chapter 87-156, Laws of Florida, included the areas of "cost, service area, plan benefits, and accessibility." To these criteria, DOA added the fifth criterion of completeness of proposals." The Hearing Officer ruled that "(t)he Department's inclusion of this criterion was reasonable." (R.O., page 22) TOTAL POINTS Total points were calculated by adding the base points to a weighted score. In deriving the weighted score, the criteria were weighted as follows: premium costs at 3.5 times, plan benefits at 2.5 times, accessibility at 1 time, extensiveness of service area at 1 time, and completeness of proposal at 1 time. In evaluating the proposals, the Department first evaluated bids solely against other bids for the same service area. For example, Gulfstream's bid was first evaluated against only those other bids that proposed to provide services in that county. In this manner, Gulfstream ranked fourth out of the five bidders in Palm Beach County, and thirteenth overall. The points and ranking assigned by the Department to the top six proposers and to Gulfstream were as follows: HMO Base Points Weights Total Points Rank Heritage (low bid): 35.34 34.15 70.5 1 Health Options Combined (low bid) 38.59 30.79 59.48 2 Av Med 38.95 24.875 63.825 3 Health Options Dade & Broward (low bid) 34.03 27.73 51.76 4 Heritage (high bid) 34.17 25.925 60.095 5 Humana Combined: 35.05 23.46 58.51 6 Gulfstream Palm Beach: 22.46 22.03 44.49 13 A review of this table shows that the weights altered the relative positions of each of the top six proposers. Mr. Nye testified that the weighting utilized did not affect the ranking of the bids of the proposers and only affected the ranking of one bidder, AV-Med. As the Hearing Officer concluded, the proof was contrary to Mr. Nye's testimony. His finding on this point is supported by competent substantial evidence and is hereby adopted. Based on the results of its evaluation the Department proposed to award the contracts to Heritage (low) and to Health Options (combined-low). HUMANA'S COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS Humana introduced expert testimony to demonstrate that, benefits and cost were weighted equally, its cost-to-benefits ratio would be comparable to or better than the successful proposers. Two analyses were presented. One actuarial expert adjusted the different benefit patterns of Heritage and Health Options up to the Human a benefit level and adjusted their price according to actuarial information filed with the Department of Insurance. The testimony sought to place the proposers on the same co-payment/benefit level to compare premium costs. The result was that Humana's premium cost was the second lowest for the South Florida Service Area. The second analysis adjusted Humana's benefit pattern down to the benefit/co-payment levels of Heritage and Health Options, and adjusted Humana's premium cost down accordingly based on Humana's filed actuarials. This testimony sought to place the proposers on the same co- payment/benefit level to compare premium costs, and Humana' premium cost was comparable to or lower than the second lowest bidder. The Hearing Officer found that the analyses by the expert witness were not persuasive in demonstrating that Humana was the second lowest proposer in this case, or that its cost/benefits were the second lowest. (R.O., page 26) For example, the fitness did not evaluate the bids based on the five criteria contained in the RFP, nor did he include in the cost/benefit analysis all of the criteria utilized by the Department to evaluate benefits. The findings of the Hearing Officer on this point are supported by competent substantial evidence and are therefore adopted. Plan Benefits The criteria for the evaluation of all proposals was set out in Section IX of the RFP as follows: Covered services; Limitations and exclusions; Co-payments, deductibles and co-insurance features; Range of providers including specialists and number of hospitals Out of service area coverage Grievance procedures Three sections in the RFP requested information which was relevant to the plan benefits. Section VI listed the required minimum benefits and requested a complete list of all other services. Each provider was directed to specify co-insurance, deductible, co-payment and other features for all benefits and services for each service area, and to list all limitations and exclusions for all benefits and services for each service area. Section X was a questionnaire which required each propose to list information concerning hospital, ambulatory care facilities services, available physician specialties, programs for health status evaluation, screening and health promotion, limitations or restrictions relative to organ transplants, range of providers and number of hospitals, availability of skilled nursing benefits, a list of the proposer's physician panel, and out-of-service area coverage. Under the Department's Scoring system, each propose received the following scores: A. Heritage 398 B. Health Options Dade & Broward 308 Palm Beach 165 C. Humana Dade 210.5 Broward 161.5 Palm Beach 184.5 D. Gulfstream Palm Beach 203 Using a similar method to calculate a "mean" score as was needed in the premium cost criteria, the base points were as follows: A. Heritage (low bid), Combined: 7.19 B. Health Options (low), Dade and Broward: 5.57 Palm Beach: 2.28 Combined: 5.91 C. Humana, Dade: 3.38 Broward: 2.92 Palm Beach: 3.34 Combined: 4.59 D. Gulfstream, Palm Beach: 3.57 Limitation to Two Successful Bidders Humana and Gulfstream argued that they should not be excluded from being awarded a contract because there was no foundation which required the limitation of the contracts to two or to any number of HMOs. The Department had considered awarding contracts to more than two proposers but rejected doing so because such action best effectuated the general objectives of the RFP, including that of promoting competitive rates. The Hearing Officer agreed with the Department and correctly found that "there was no showing that the selected HMOs could not adequately satisfy the needs of the state employees." (R.O., page 35). He concluded: "While the statute did not specify a number, it did specify that the Department contract through the competitive bid process. If the contracts are not limited in number, there is no competitive bidding process. Accordingly, it is concluded the Department acted reasonably in limiting the award to two HMOs." (R.O., page 35) Employee Evaluation Teams Yet another contention of the Petitioners was that the DOA employee evaluation teams lacked the experience and knowledge in the health care services field and should have been disqualified as not meeting the requirements of Section 287.057(16), Fla. Stat., which states as follows "A selection team of at least three employees who have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which contractual serviced are sought shall be appointed by the agency head to aid in the selection of contractors for contracts of more than the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY FOUR." After full consideration of the above provision, the Hearing Officer agreed with the Department and found that the employees met the minimum statutory criteria (R.O., page 35) and had sufficient experience and knowledge in the area to properly evaluate the proposals (R.O., pages 13, 14). Departure From RFP At the pre-submission conference, Mr. Nye announced that cost and benefits would be weighted equally. In its final evaluation, the Department weighted cost at 3.5 and benefits at 2.5. The remaining criteria, accessibility, extensiveness of service area, and completeness of proposal , were weighted at I each. The Hearing Officer found that the Department's final evaluation failed to conform to the weighting factors announced at the pre- submission conference. 45. He further stated that: 43. The Department's failure to accord equal weight to cost and benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Such failure was a material departure from the RFP, as supplemented by the pre-bid conference, and adversely impacted the bid procurement process. ... Plan benefits and accessibility under Section 110.123(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and the RFP were distinct criteria upon which proposers formulated their responses. They were also distinct criteria when the Department told proposers that cost and benefits would be weighted equally, were distinct criteria when evaluated by the Departmen, and had a distinct impact upon the ranking of proposers. Under the circumstances, the Department's failure to accord them equal weight was arbitrary and capricious. Rather than acknowledge the disparity that existed between cost and benefits, the Department contended at hearing that accessibility was a part of benefits, and therefore cost and benefits were weighted equally. The Department's contention, and proof, was not persuasive and is rejected as not credible. (R.O., pages 24, 25) The Department finds that the above findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence and adopts them in this final order. INTERVENORS' EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Exceptions of Heritage Heritage filed six exceptions to the Recommended Order and each exception will be considered separately. Exception Number 1: Heritage argued that the Hearing Officer erred when he found that the Department's failure to accord equal weight to cost and benefits was arbitrary and capricious. While the Department agrees with the cases cited by Heritage which hold that administrative agencies have broad discretion in evaluating contracts for personal services such as health services, the Department is aware of its statutory responsibility to adhere to the bidding requirements of Section 287.057, Fla. Stat., and does not believe that it has the discretion to enter into contracts absent the competitive process. As to the testimony of Mr. Burbank, the Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, was in the best position to assess his credibility and determine the weight to be accorded to his testimony. Koltay vs. Department of General Services, 374 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979). The Department is unable to reject the Hearing Officer's findings in an area clearly within his responsibility. Exception Number 1 is rejected. Exception Number 2: Heritage next argues that the Hearing Officer erred in applying the arbitrary and capricious standard to the Department's actions relating to the weights given to various factors. The evidence shows that at the presubmission conference, Mr. Nye informed all proposers that the weights to be assigned to premium costs and to plan benefits would be equal. That information was clearly erroneous because, in the actual evaluations, the evaluators used a different weighting system, one that gave premium costs 40 percent greater weight than plan benefits. It is not the weights given to each category that makes the Department's actions arbitrary and capricious but its failure to adhere to and apply its announced weighting factors. On this basis, Exception Number 2 is rejected. Exception Number 3: Heritage urges that the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the Department's failure to comply with the provisions of Section 287.012(11), Fla. Stat., was fundamental error. The above statute by its terms provides that "(r)equests for proposals shall state the relative importance of price and any other evaluation criteria." (emphasis added). According to the common usage of the term "shall", this language is mandatory (Fla. Tallow Corporation vs. Bryan, 237 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); S.R. vs. State, 345 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1977) and requires that the weight of the criteria must be included in the RFP. Therefore, Exception Number 3 is rejected. Exception Number 4: Heritage argues that the Hearing Officer erred in granting standing to Gulfstream. In Preston Carroll vs. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Authority, 400 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981), an unsuccessful bidder who was third low bidder, attempted to overturn the award of the contract to the low bidder. The district court held that while a second low bidder to the award of a contract had the necessary "substantial interest" to contest the award. However, a third low bidder was unable to demonstrate that it was "substantially affected" and therefore lacked standing to protest the award of the contract to another bidder. Under the holding in this case, the Department concludes that Gulfstream did not have standing in this case since it ranked 13th in the ranking of low bidders. According, Exception Number 4 is accepted and included in the Conclusions of Law of this Order. Exception Number 5: Heritage argues that the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that Humana had standing to protest the Department's failure to state the relative importance of price and any other evaluation criteria in the RFP because Humana did not raise this point as an issue in its formal protest. If Humana did not have standing, then it was improperly permitted to protest the award of one of the contracts to Heritage. A review of Humana's protest shows that in Item 9, it argued that: "That the rejection of Humana's response to RFP #88-05, HMO coverage for State employees in Clay, Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties was not in accordance with all applicable rules, regulations, procedures, precedents and bid criteria." The rules of the Division of Administrative Hearings (Rule 22I-6.004(3), F.A.C.) provide for the minimum filing requirements in initial pleadings and state as follows: "(3) All petitions should contain: The name and address of each agency affected and each agency's file or identification number, if known; The name and address of the petitioner or petitioners, and an explanation of how his/her substantial interests will be affected by the agency determinations; A statement of when and how petitioner received notice of the agency decision or intent to render a decision; A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, as well as the rules and statutes which entitle the petitioner to relief; A demand for relief to which the petitioner deems himself entitled; and Other information which the petitioner contends is material." (emphasis added) The requirements of this rule are directory only and not mandatory and are not designed to deny petitioners a hearing in which their "substantial interests" are affected. Section 120.57, Fla. Stat., see Seminole County Board of County Commissioners vs. Long, 422 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The initial protest of Humana complied with the minimum filing requirements of Rule 22I-6.004(3), F.A.C., above, and was sufficient to place Heritage on notice of deficiencies alleged to be in the RFP. Exception Number 5 is rejected. Exception Number 6: Heritage argues that "(t)he Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the Department should invoke its right to reject all proposals." Contrary to Heritage's argument, the Department did not communicate how the criteria would be weighed in accordance with Section 287.012(11), Fla. Stat. It is not possible to cure the deficiency in the RFP by recalculating the proposals. The deficiency can be corrected by re-bidding for proposals for HMO medical services. On this basis, Exception Number 6 is rejected. HEALTH OPTIONS' EXCEPTION TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Health Options as one of the successful bidders filed an exception to the Hearing Officer's finding which stated that DOA had failed to state the relative importance of price and other criteria in the RFP. It argued that this issue was not presented by Humana or Gulfstream in the formal protests and thus could not be considered in the Recommended Order. Therefore, Health Options urged that the Department's award of the two HMO contracts was proper and should be upheld. As previously stated, Humana's protest argued that the rejection of its bid "was not in accordance with all applicable rules, regulations, procedures, precedents, and bid criteria." (Item 9 of Protest). Humana's protest complied with the minimum filing requirements of the Department of Administrative Hearings (Rule 22I-6.004(3), F.A.C.) which provide that petitions should contain: A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, as well as the rules and statutes which entitle the petitioner to relief; A demand for relief to which the petitioner deems himself entitled; While Gulfstream's formal protest did not state that its protest was founded on the Department's failure to state the relative importance of price and other evaluation criteria in the RFP, all that was necessary for the Hearing Officer to rule on this issue was for one of the petitioner's to raise the issue in its initial protest. Since the issue was raised by Humana, the Exception of Health Options is rejected. DEPARTMENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Department also filed timely exceptions to the Recommended Order. After reviewing those exceptions, I find that to the extent they are not adopted and accepted herein, they are inappropriate findings of fact and have not been considered further in this Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order rejecting all proposals submitted for the South Florida service area. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of March, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1988.
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 1987, DOA mailed a Request for Proposal, (RFP), to various Health Maintenance Organizations, (HMOs), soliciting proposals for the providing of HMO services in the Orlando service area. Petitioner, Cigna, and the various Intervenors herein, submitted proposals which were opened by DOA on August 28, 1987, with a contemplated date of award of September 14, 1987 and an effective date of contract on January 1, 1988. Section 2 of the RFP defined the general purposes of the procurement as being to meet benefit objectives of DOA and to provide high quality benefits and services to state employees. Specifically, the objectives of the RFP were: A proactive approach to cost containment, including an emphasis on aggressive claims management, utilization review, and superior statistical reporting. Quality medical care which encourages health promotion, disease prevention, early diagnosis and treatment. Stability in the financial structure of offered health plans. Professional, high quality service in all administrative areas including claims processing, enrollment, membership services, grievances, and communications. Competitive premium rates which take into account the demographics and, if appropriate, the claims experience of state employees. Other stated objectives included: Have each county or contiguous group of counties be considered one service area. Award no more than two contracts per service area; however, the awards will be based on the HMO's ability to respond to the needs of employees and on accessibility by employees. Have reciprocal agreements between locations, if an HMO has multiple service areas. Enter into a two year, non-experience rates contract. A provision will be included tying renewal action at each of the two renewals to the consumer price index, (CPI), for medical care services. In order to be considered as a "qualified" proposer, an organization had to be licensed by the Department of Insurance pursuant to Part II, Chapter 641, Florida Statutes. Section IX of the RFP listed five major criteria for evaluation of the proposals. They were: Premium Cost Extensiveness of service area - by county and/or contiguous counties. Plan Benefits as follows: Covered services Limitations and exclusions Co-payments, deductibles, and coinsurance features Range of providers including specialists and numbers of hospitals D. Out of service area coverage F. Grievance procedures Accessibility as follows: Reciprocal agreements Provider locations Number of primary care physicians and specialists, in relation to membership Completeness of proposals The first four of the above objectives were called for by the Legislative action providing for these procurements to be effective January 1, 1988. The fifth, completeness of proposals, was not identified by the Legislature but was added by DOA. The Department reviewed and evaluated all the proposals submitted by Petitioner and the various Intervenors. Each proposer was evaluated by three individual evaluators. Two separate sets of evaluations were performed; the second coming upon the direction of the Secretary who, after the first evaluation and recommendation of award, concluded the standards for evaluation had been too subjective and directed a second evaluation utilizing more objective standards. During this second evaluation process, after the actual evaluations had been done but before the recommendation was forwarded to the Secretary, several computer treatments of the raw scores were accomplished by Mr. Nye because of additional unidentified factors brought to his attention. The final computer run identified that Central Florida Physicians, not a party to this action, received the highest point total followed by Health Options, Pru-Care, and Petitioner, Cigna. Mr. Nye, who had designed and supervised the evaluation process, recommended to the Secretary that Central Florida Physicians, Health Options, and Pru-Care receive the award even though the guidelines called for only two recommendees. Central Florida Physicians was recognized to be in financial difficulties though it received the highest rating, and in order to provide two viable candidates in the event that provider should be disqualified, Health Options and Pru-Care were added. Central Florida Physicians was, in fact, subsequently disqualified due to financial insolvency. This left Health Options and Pru-Care as the two providers with the highest evaluations and the Secretary made the award to them. At the final count, Health Options received a point total of 64.635; Pru-Care, 57.415; and Cigna, 56.83, or a difference of .585 between Pru-Care and Cigna. According to Mr. Black, an administrator with the Department of Insurance and responsible for the licensing of HMOs and other health care facilities, as of January 12, 1988, Pru- Care was not licensed in Volusia or Lake Counties and department records show that Pru-Care has never been or requested to be licensed in those counties. Mr. Beckerink, the Director of Planning for Cigna of Florida, who oversaw Cigna's proposal for the Orlando area and who reviewed DOA's evaluation of the various proposals submitted, carefully examined the evaluation forms for both Cigna and Pru- Care and concentrated on scores relating to costs, benefits, accessibility, service area, and completeness. He noted that Pru-Care received 10 points for proposing service in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, and Volusia Counties though it is not licensed in the latter two, whereas Cigna received only 4 points for Orange and Seminole Counties. Cigna is licensed in all five counties and has hospitals and physicians in Seminole, Osceola, and Orange Counties. He contends Pru-Care received credit by the evaluators for five counties when it is licensed only in three, an unearned award of 4 points, and Cigna was awarded credit for only two counties when it is licensed in five, an improper denial of 6 points. According to Mr. Nye, the award to Pru-Care was based on its representation it would provide service in five counties. The Department of Insurance could not tell him, at the time, in which counties Pru-Care was licensed. As a result, he took the proposal, which indicated the five counties, at face value. Credit was given only for full counties to be served and Cigna's proposal indicated it would deliver service to two full counties and to only portions of three counties. The evidence indicates that Pru-Care's facilities are primarily in Orange and Seminole Counties with some service offered in the extreme northern portion of Osceola County, too far away for those individuals living in the southern portion of that county reasonably to take advantage of it. Mr. Nye indicates that driving time, which would be the problem here, is not a consideration in assessing accessibility, but merely a factor in quality of service. The department is not concerned with whether it is convenient for the employee to get to the service but merely whether the service will be offered to anyone residing in the county. For this reason, Pru-Care was awarded credit for Osceola county since it proposed to enroll any eligible employee living in the county whether service was convenient to that party or not, whereas Cigna, which limited it's enrollment in certain counties to those personnel living in only a part of the county, was not given any credit for those partially served counties. Mr. Nye admits that had he known Pru-Care was not fully licensed, he would have deferred to legal counsel, but would most likely not award points if a provider is not licensed in a county for which it proposes service. Mr. Breckerink identified additional areas in the evaluation wherein he believes errors were made, the correction of which would result in an adjustment of the award of points. For example, in evaluating plan benefits, the evaluator gave Pru- Care 20 points when only 10 points are available for award without a demonstration of additional services. For emergency room availability, Cigna was awarded 5 points when it should have received 10. In the area of co- payments, Cigna was awarded points and should have received 23. Concerning range of providers, Cigna's proposal lists seven hospitals yet the evaluation form only reflects six, resulting in a shortage of 10 points. As to turnaround time, Cigna indicated it would accomplish payment in 60 days whereas Pru-Care indicated it would in "an average" of two weeks. As a result, Mr. Breckerink, who points out Cigna's actual time is 30 days and it therefore should have been given 30 points, contends there is no opportunity for a valid comparison here since Pru-Care's answer is not responsive to the RFP's call for" an "expected" time. His point is well taken. With regard to accessibility, Mr. Breckerink states that Cigna got only 20 points for its two allowed counties but should have received 30 points since it has hospitals in three counties in the service area. DOA's rationale on this point is identical to that on the issue of full counties served. He also alleges that Cigna was shortchanged by at least 2 points on the number of counties in which specialty providers are represented and by at least 1 point on the number of providers. Mr. Nye admits Pru-Care should have received 5 points instead of 10 for benefits. This would reduce its' raw score in this area from 258 to 253 points. Nye contends, however, that the points awarded Pru-Care for its' turnaround time were correct. He does not consider the question to be a bad one since it was asked equally of all providers and each responded as it saw fit realizing that its response might become a part of a contractual obligation. This reasoning is specious at best and does not address the real question of the fairness and appropriateness of the question asked. Further, Mr. Nye also admitted that under certain circumstances, if Pru-Care were to lose credit for those two counties in which it was not shown to be licensed, the change could result in a difference sufficient to reverse the relative standings of Pru-Care and Cigna. Mr. Breckerink alleges, and Mr. Nye admits that multiple computer runs were made utilizing the raw scores developed by the evaluators before the recommendation as to award was forwarded to the Secretary. On the first run for the second evaluation, Cigna was in second place with a point total of 71.1 and Pru-Care was third with 65.86 points. On the second run, which Nye contends was done to make the computer run consistent with what had been said at the pre-bid conference and in the RFP, Cigna dropped from second place to third with 58. 2 points and Pru-Care went from third to fourth with 57.195 points. In the third run, which ultimately formed the basis for the award, the positions of Cigna and Pru-Care reversed with Cigna dropping to 56.83 points and Pru-Care rising to 57.415. Central Florida Physicians remained in first and Health Options in second. When Central Florida Physicians dropped out due to insolvency, Health Options became number one and the other two each went up one place in the standings without changing relative positions. According to Mr. Breckerink when the mistakes were identified and changes made in the raw scores, Cigna got a total of 23 more points but Pru-Care still got 16 more points than it should have. He contends that if the mistakes were accurately corrected, if Cigna were to get all the points it should and Pru- Care lose all it should not legitimately have, Cigna would come out higher in the overall ranking than Pru-Care. However, he admits there are factors involved about which he does not know which may affect the standings. What is clear is that while Mr. Breckerink could not clearly follow the evaluation procedure, neither can others charged with evaluating it. What is more, notwithstanding the direction given in the objectives of the procurement that only two providers be awarded contracts, the department continuously has been unable to abide by this guideline. In its September 11, 1987 recommendation after the first evaluation sequence, Mr. Nye recommended, for the Orlando service area, awards to Central Florida Physicians, Cigna, and Pru-Care for a part of the service area and an additional award to Health Options and Florida Health Care for other counties in the service area. When the Secretary directed the objective second evaluation, no change was made to the number of providers to be recommended (two), but again, on October 6, 1987, Mr. Nye recommended three providers, Central Florida Physicians, Health Options, and Cigna. No evidence was presented as to why this recommendation was not implemented, but it is seen that on October 26, 1987, Mr. Nye submitted his third set of recommendations to the Secretary, this time recommending only Central Florida Physicians, and Health Options. Being still unable to finalize the process, on October 30, 1987, Mr. Nye submitted his fourth set of recommendations to the Secretary recommending, for the most part, three providers, but specifically recommending Pru-Care for award in Lake and Volusia Counties, where it was arguably not even licensed. No justification or explanation for this vacillation was forthcoming from the Department and the exercise appears to have been clearly capricious.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration issue a Final Order rejecting all proposals submitted for the Orlando service area and readvertise for new proposals if deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1988 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5525BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner Cigna: 1 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence not a Finding of Fact. Second sentence accepted except for conclusion as to legal license status of Pru-Care. Rejected as a restatement of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. First three sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Balance accepted with the assumption that "those counties" indicates Lake and Volusia counties. First and second sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Third sentence accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. First and second sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Third sentence accepted as a possibility and, not a fact. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence rejected. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted except for use of word "awarded" in last sentence. Award is a function of the Secretary. A better word would be "recommended". Accepted. Reject Accepted. Rejected. Accepted except for word "significantly". First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as not being a proper Finding of Fact. For Respondent, DHRS: 1 - 14. Accepted and incorporated as appropriate. 15 - 16. Accepted. 17 - 19. Accepted. First, second, and fourth sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted except for the last three sub-paragraphs which are not supported by the evidence. Absent. 25 - 26. Accepted except for last sub-paragraph which is rejected as a conclusion. 27. Absent. 28 - 29. Accepted. 30. Accepted. 31 - 37. Absent. 38. Accepted. For Intervenor, Pru-Care: 1 & 2. 3. Rejected as a restatement of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 4 - 5. Accepted. 6 - 7. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact. 8 - 10. Accepted. 11. Accepted. 12. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact. 13 - 14. Accepted. 15. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact except for 16 - 17. last sentence which is accepted. Accepted. 18. Accepted. For Intervenor, Health Options: 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Accepted except for the seventh sentence which is rejected. 12 - 13. Accepted. 14. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 15 - 16. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: David Yon, Esquire 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 800 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 John Buchanan, Esquire 118 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jann Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Stanley Chapman, Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom, & Kitchen Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry Carnes, Esquire 515 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
