Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners were inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution in Raiford, Florida. Respondent has stipulated that Petitioners have "standing" to challenge the rules and the policy and procedure directives which are the subject matter of this proceeding. The Secretary of the Department of Corrections has issued Policy and procedure Directive initially dated June 23, 1982, and revised July 12, 1982. The purpose of the directive was . . ." [t]o thoroughly explain the gain time program and to set forth guidance for uniform implementation department-wide on its face, the directive purports to be issued pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 944.275, 944.28, 945.21, and 775.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33-11, Florida Administrative Code. The directive contains ten separate sections. The first two sections, entitled Authority and Purpose of Directive merely recite the aforementioned statutory and rule basis for issuance of the directive, and indicate that the purposes of the directive is to explain and facilitate implementation of the gain time program. The third section, entitled Definitions, simply reiterates in substantially similar language, the definitions of the different types of gain time contained in Section 944.275, Florida Statutes. Section 4 of the directive contains special conditions to the award of gain time, including disciplinary or court action, unsatisfactory institutional performances, corrective consultations, administrative confinement, close management, inmates' assignment on Death Row, inmates serving three years' mandatory sentences, and the like. Each of the requirements of this section of the directive is either identical to or drawn directly from Rule 33-11.11, Florida Administrative Code, or Section 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The remaining six sections of the directive deal with eligibility for, methods for crediting and processing procedures for the award of basic gain time, additional gain time, work gain time, constructive gain time, extra gain time, and special gain time. Again, each of these sections reiterate requirements already contained in Rules 33- 11.045, 33-11.055, 33-11.065, 33-11.075, 33-11.085, and 33-11.09. These sections of the directive do not purport to create or otherwise adversely affect rights of inmates in any manner which differs from the aforementioned rules. Under the policy and procedure directive, classification officers employed by the Department of Corrections serve a limited function in the award of gain time. With respect to basic gain time, corrections officers merely check to make sure that no disciplinary report has been filed against an inmate for the period in which gain time is being awarded. They exercise no discretion in the award of basic gain time. With respect to extra gain time or constructive gain time, the classification officer merely sits as a member of a classification team which determines the amount of any such award. Meritorious gain time is customarily instituted by the classification team as a whole, with the final decision-making authority resting with the agency head of the Department of Corrections. In each instance, classification officers have limited participation in the award of gain time, and may not act alone to deny inmates appropriate gain time awards.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, William F. Reid, is currently and has been at all times pertinent to the issues herein, an inmate at UCI, having been committed to the custody of the DOC for an offense committed prior to July 1, 1978. At the time of filing of the Petition, he was in administrative confinement at UCI but, at the time of the hearing, had been released and was not in that status. Petitioner concedes that even during the period of his administrative confinement, he was awarded basic gain time as provided for since he was committed prior to July 1, 1978. However, due to the fact that he was unable to work while in administrative confinement, he did not receive any incentive gain time during that period. Work opportunities for inmates in administrative confinement status are extremely limited. This is because of the security and manpower problems involved in providing adequate supervision of this category of inmate during a work detail. Rule 33-3.081, Florida Administrative Code, allows the placing of an inmate in administrative confinement then disciplinary or criminal charges are pending against him and his presence in the general prison population would present a danger to himself, to others, or to the security and order of the institution. It is also authorized when an investigation is pending and the inmate's presence in the prison population might tend to interfere with that investigation. If, for medical reasons, an inmate's remaining in the prison population would create a health or safety risk, administrative confinement is also authorized. Another reason justifying administrative confinement is when the inmate is alleged to have committed misconduct and there is concern that because of that, his safety is at risk. The rule does not provide any maximum length of time for administrative confinement and the reason for this is that the investigations supporting it are of varying complexity and take differing lengths of time. Petitioner and the other inmates who testified on his behalf all of whom have been in administrative confinement in the past, all denied that they had received the required informal hearing called for under the rule. At best, they were told by the officer placing them in administrative confinement generally why this action was being taken. However, they contend they were never given any opportunity to submit anything to a senior official or a classification officer and they are of the opinion that at no time was there an emergency situation involved. The impression that the inmates have is that a corrections officer can have an inmate confined or released for any reason whether there is adequate justification or basis for the action. Clifford Towbridge has been an inmate at UCI since December, 1983. When he was placed in administrative confinement he was advised of this fact by a corrections officer who told him to pack his things and who put him in administrative confinement status without telling him why. He contends he got no hearing but was ultimately told he was being confined because a confidential informant advised that his life was in danger. Approximately two to three weeks later, he was released when he signed a paper indicating that his life was not in danger. At no time was he told who had made the allegation against him and he was not given a hearing either before confinement or before release. Curtis Mangram had an experience with administrative confinement at his prior incarceration at Belle Glade Correctional Institution. At that time he was given no hearing nor was he brought before a review board. When he left administrative confinement at Belle Glade he was assigned to UCI and remained clean until August 4, 1984 when he was placed in administrative confinement there. It appears that his name was mentioned in connection with the rape of a prisoner and he was placed in administrative confinement for several weeks pending investigation of that incident. One day after his release he was again placed in administrative confinement for possession of contraband wine. He was given no hearing prior to being placed into administrative confinement nor was he initially given a reason for this action. However, he wrote several letters to officials within the DOC to determine why this action was taken. The first response he got indicated he was being placed in for evaluation but regardless of the reason, he is sure he was not given a hearing. On neither occasion of his being placed in administrative confinement, in his opinion, was there any emergency reason for precipitous action. From first hand and from what he has seen and heard, it is his opinion that prisoners are placed in administrative confinement solely on the uncorroborated allegations of other prisoners and when this happens, there is no hearing prior to she placement nor within a timely period thereafter. As was stated previously, the witness was placed in administrative confinement on August 4 and was released on August 28. At that time he was told the reason for him having been placed in administrative confinement (the alleged rape) was resolved. The following day, August 29, he was placed back in administrative confinement and was told by a corrections officer that the action was being taken because Lt. Dixon, an investigator, wanted him back in. Later on, Officer Ward, Dixon's assistant, read him his rights and asked him some questions after which the witness was returned to administrative confinement. The witness admits that he had the wine which he subsequently found out was the basis for his second administrative confinement but he was never punished for the wine nor was he ever charged with the rape. He was in administrative confinement for a total of four months at UCI and had he been punished for the unlawful possession of the wine, it is his opinion he would have been placed in disciplinary confinement for fifteen or thirty days, a period much shorter than the entire period of his administrative confinement. Inmate Edwin Paul has been placed in administrative confinement for investigative reasons twelve or thirteen times during the two and a half years he has been an inmate at UCI. He relates that when he is placed there, the corrections officer comes up to him and tells him to pack his things but never gives him a reason for this action. The response to his inquiry is always that someone will tell him. It is his experience that at UCI, regardless of what the rule requires, no review is done and the inmate is not told anything until he files a grievance. That generally takes approximately ninety days to resolve and during this time, the inmate is in administrative confinement earning no incentive gain time. According to Paul, his requests for information as to the reason for his status are met with various answers such as "you're a menace," "none of your business," or "I don't know." It is his opinion that administrative confinement can be imposed on an inmate at the whim of a correctional officer. He contends that in all of his periods of administrative confinement either no charges were preferred against him, or he was found not guilty of the allegation that was laid, but during all that period, he has not received any gain time that he would have earned had he not been placed in administrative confinement. This has affected his status in that had he not been placed in administrative confinement, his sentence would have been up after forty months confinement. Because of his inability to earn gain time, he is not serving the fiftieth month of his period of confinement. Petitioner was placed in administrative confinement on March 17, 1985. He was not then nor has he since that time been given an informal hearing by a correctional officer, he states. He claims he was placed in administrative confinement by a corrections officer - and was not given an opportunity to sign anything regarding this action. On this occasion he was in for two and a half months. In a prior period of administrative confinement, he claims he was not told why he was there officially. Only through the information given him by a friendly corrections officer two weeks after the fact was he advised why he was incarcerated. Never has a senior corrections officer ever held a hearing with him, he states, nor has he ever been told how long the investigation on which his administrative confinement status is based will take. He has not seen any investigative report nor has he even been given any assistance in finding out the reason for his status. Even a personal interview with the superintendent of UCI has not changed this process, he says. Reid and the other inmates who testified on his behalf all contend that the implementation of the rule regarding administrative confinement creates great stress for them because of, (1) the loss of incentive gain time, (2) the inability to get appropriate exercise, and (3) the impact that the status has on the ability to receive visitors, and all agree that being afforded a hearing or being told why the administrative confinement action was being taken would tend to reduce that stress. Petitioner admitted that he does not have much of a problem with the rule except for the fact that it does not put any time limit on the length of the investigation. His complaint is primarily with the way the rule is followed by UCI. Mr. Tabah, the classification specialist at UCI, related that there is no formal board hearing when inmates are placed in administrative confinement. The inmates' case is reviewed by the chief correctional officer and this review is termed a hearing. This action, however, is itself reviewed by the classification team within 72 hours of the hearing. At the inmates' hearing, a form DC4-318 is prepared by the chief correctional officer on which the reason for the administrative confinement action is listed. The bottom half of this form is subsequently filled out by the classification team during its review as to its concurrence or non-concurrence and the team's recommendation for action. The inmate is given a copy of this review and has an opportunity to make comment thereon. Both the recommendation of the team and the comments of the inmate, if any, are referred to the superintendent. Every inmate in administrative confinement is reviewed weekly. Each inmate is usually advised of the reason for his being placed in administrative confinement either at the time or immediately thereafter. Only in emergency cases can the inmate be placed in administrative confinement without review/hearing by the chief correctional officer. In that case, the hearing is held within forty-eight hours. Review of the files on both Mangram and Towbridge reveal that, as to Towbridge, the inmate was advised by the corrections officer placing him in administrative confinement on February 13, 1985 as to the reason therefor. The chief corrections officer approved the actions of the corrections officer thereafter and the following day, the classification team reviewed the action and furnished the inmate with a copy of their recommendation. As to Mangram, the records reflect that he was placed in administrative confinement on August 18, 1984. An informal hearing was held that same day and the action was reviewed by senior corrections officer Bryant at 4:00 P.M. the same day. Mr. Mangram was retained in administrative confinement because of the belief that the safety of the institution required it. It was felt that Mangram was a potentially violent inmate who posed a clear danger to others. As to Mr. Paul, the file reflects that the two times he was in administrative confinement he was advised of the reasons and given a hearing. As to Petitioner, the record reflects that on January 24, 1985 he was placed in administrative confinement and given the reasons therefor by corrections officer Brown. The reviewing corrections officer supervisor Bryant concurred.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner: was employed by Respondent as a counselor at the Palm Beach Juvenile Detention Center. In an effort to break up a fight among teenagers while employed on April 14, 1986, Petitioner was pushed against a wall at the Detention Center and sustained an impact injury to the upper portion of his right shoulder and its superior aspect. When Petitioner commenced his employment with Respondent on July 18, 4983, he signed a statement acknowledging receipt of the Department's employee handbook and acknowledging his personal responsibility to review the contents thereof. (Respondent Exhibit 1). That handbook provided, in part, as follows: If you expect to be absent from work for any reasons, you must request leave from your supervisor as much in advance as possible, so that suitable disposition of your work may be made to avoid undue hardship on fellow employees and clients. As soon as you know you will be late or absent from work, you must notify your supervisor. Absence without approved leave is cause for disci- plinary action. If A you are absent for 3 consecutive work days without authorization, you may be considered to have abandoned your position and thus resigned. Following the injury, Petitioner was referred for physical therapy consisting of, among other things, ultra sound and hot packs to the neck and back. Petitioner convalesced from the time of injury during April, 1986 through November 13, 1986 at which time he was released and authorized to return to work by his treating physician. Also, on November 13, 1986, Workers Compensation advised Petitioner that based on his release by his physician, he would not therefore receive further compensation benefits and was therefore to return to work. Petitioner was advised to report for work on November 14, 1986. Petitioner did not heed that directive and report for work. By certified letter dated November 25, 1906, Petitioner was again advised by Karen Christian, Assistant Detention Center Superintendent, that "if we do not hear from you within five (5) days after date of this letter, it will appear that you have abandoned your position". (Respondents Exhibit 3). Petitioner acknowledged receiving the referenced letter from Karen Christian. Petitioner did not return to work as directed and was terminated from employment on December 10, 1986 based on his failure to report to work and his failure to obtain authorized leave from his supervisor to be absent from work. Karen Christian would have offered Petitioner either reduced hours or sedentary duties to accommodate him if, as he contends, he was unable to stand for extended periods or to use his right upper extremity. Petitioner contends that he was unable to report to work inasmuch as the injury he sustained during April, 1986 left him without use of his right arm. Based on Petitioner's claimed loss of use of his right arm, he was referred to three physicians who conducted an extensive examination of Petitioner to determine evidence of any anatomical or physical impairment of Petitioner's upper extremity. All of the examining physicians found no anatomical defect consistent with Petitioner's clinical presentation. Petitioner offered no believable explanation for his failure to report to work on December 8, 9 and 10, 1986 or to otherwise obtain authorized leave for the above-referred three consecutive work days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner abandoned his position of employment with Respondent and resigned from the career service. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 8th day of July, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Eddie Harris Post Office Box 9224 Riviera Beach, Florida 33419 K. C. Collette, Esquire Department of HRS 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Adis Villa, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Is Respondent, Department of Corrections' (Department), Notice of Intent to Award DC RFP-13-031 for Statewide Inmate Telecommunication Services to Intervenor, Global Tel*Link Corporation (Global), contrary to the governing statutes, rules, or policies or to the Department's Request for Proposal solicitation specifications?
Findings Of Fact Background The Legislature charged the Department with protecting the public through the incarceration and supervision of offenders and rehabilitating offenders through work, programs, and services. The Department is required to provide telephone access to inmates in its custody. Inmate telecommunication services provide inmates the ability to stay in contact with friends and family. The services promote and support efforts to help inmates re-enter society by fostering communications with the community outside jail and prison. The Department does not pay for these services. The inmates and their designated family members and friends pay for the services. The contract to provide the telecommunications service generates revenue for the Department. The provider pays the Department for access to the consumers. The provider charges the inmates and their designees for the service. The provider pays the Department a commission calculated as a percentage of revenues received. The commission is calculated as part of the charge for the services and is included in it. The price competition portion of the RFP is based on the prices charged to the inmates and designees and the commissions paid to the Department. According to the RFP, the State of Florida presently has a total inmate population of approximately 102,000 people. In fiscal year 2010-2011, the inmate calling services generated total revenue of $14,180,345 from 9,587,040 calls. In fiscal year 2011-2012, the inmate calling services generated total revenue of $13,513,495 from 8,226,577 calls. And in 2012-2013, the inmate calling services generated total revenue of $14,749,021 from 8,853,316 calls. In 2012–2013, interstate calls generated 11.6 percent of calls and 12.9 percent of revenues from the contract. Securus holds the contract with the Department to provide inmate telephone services and has for over six years. Before February 11, 2014, Securus paid a 35 percent commission to the Department on all of its call revenue from the contract. That changed as of February 11, 2014, when the Department interpreted a stayed order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), discussed in more detail later, to prohibit collecting the commissions on interstate calls. The record does not reveal if Securus stopped collecting the commission portion of the rates charged to inmates and their designees. The Department does not collect commissions because it interprets the FCC order to say that it cannot receive commission revenue because it is a state agency. The Department also declines to accept commissions because it fears finding itself in a position where it may have to refund money which has already been transferred to the general fund, possibly an earlier year's general fund. During the RFP process, Securus was aware of the Department's interpretation of the FCC order, because it had negotiated the change to its existing contract to end commission payments. The changes did not affect Securus charging inmates the commission. The Department did not include its interpretation of the order in the RFP, as modified by the Addenda. Commissions on interstate calls are significant revenue for the Department. This case involves the Department's second attempt to award a new contract for inmate telecommunication services. Earlier, the Department issued an Invitation to Negotiate for these services. CenturyLink, Global, and Securus all responded. The Department negotiated with all three. The Department initially decided to award the contract to CenturyLink. Eventually, the Department rejected all bids after it determined that the scoring language and selection criteria were poorly worded. They were subject to different reasonable interpretations that made how the Department would select the winning vendor unclear and made the playing field for vendors unequal. The vendors protested the decision to reject all bids. In upholding the decision to reject all bids, Administrative Law Judge Scott Boyd found at paragraph 70: The Department concluded that the wording and structure of the ITN and RBAFO did not create a level playing field to evaluate replies because they were confusing and ambiguous and were not understood by everyone in the same way. Vendors naturally had structured their replies to maximize their chances of being awarded the contract based upon their understanding of how the replies would be evaluated. The Department concluded that vendor pricing might have been different but for the misleading language and structure of the ITN and RBAFO. Global Tel Link Corp. v. Dep't of Corr., Case No. 13-3041BID (Fla. DOAH Nov. 1, 2013), adopted in whole, except for correcting two scrivener's errors, FDOC Case No. 13-81 (Fla. DOC Nov. 25, 2013). The Request for Proposals The Department released the RFP seeking to establish a five-year contract with a vendor to provide inmate telecommunications services on March 7, 2014. The Department subsequently issued Addenda 1, 2, and 3 to the RFP. The Addenda included vendor questions and the Department's answers. No vendor protested any term, condition, or specification of the RFP or the Addenda. The RFP sought vendor proposals to provide an inmate telephone system, video visitation system, and other services for inmates housed in the Department's facilities. The requested services included the actual service, system design, equipment, installation, training, operation, repair, and maintenance at no cost to the Department. The RFP included security, reporting, auditing, and monitoring requirements. It also established the procurement process, including scoring criteria. Of the RFP's 66 pages, only the commissions' role in pricing, scoring procedure, the score given Securus for its response to RFP section 3.15, and treatment of refunds are the focus of the disputes in this proceeding at this point. Review and Scoring The RFP established proposal scoring based upon four categories. The chart below reflects the categories, the tab of the RFP in which the scored categories are described, and the maximum points allowed for category. Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements 0 points Executive Summary and Other Proposal Submissions 0 points Category 1--Business/Corporate Qualifications (Tab 3) 50 points Category 2--Project Staff (Tab 4) 200 points Category 3--Technical Response (Tab 6) 400 points Category 4--Price Proposal 350 points TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 1,000 points The RFP breaks each of the categories into components, each referencing and correlating to specific RFP sections. These are found at RFP "Attachment 4--Evaluation Criteria." For each component, the Evaluation Criteria posed a question. For example, in Category 3, a question asks "How adequately does the Respondent describe their overall capability and process for providing a video visitation system?" The RFP provides a maximum score for each scoring component, which range from 15 to 50 points depending on the relative importance of the particular component. Each proposal was graded on the following qualitative scale: Omitted, Poor, Adequate, Good, and Exceptional. The RFP associates a point value with each qualitative description for each particular scoring component. For instance, if a component had a maximum score of 25 points, the scoring framework was as follows: Omitted--0; Poor--6.25; Adequate--12.5; Good--18.75; and Exceptional--25. A score of zero meant that a vendor completely omitted any information for the item from which a qualitative assessment could be made. The RFP directed the vendors how to generally format and package their proposals. Specifically, RFP Section 5 (Proposal Submission Requirements) stated: All Project Proposals must contain the sections outlined below. Those sections are called "Tabs." A "Tab," as used here, is a section separator, offset and labeled, (Example: "Tab 1, Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements"), such that the Evaluation Committee can easily turn [t]o "Tabbed" sections during the evaluation process.Failure to have all copies properly "tabbed" makes it much more difficult for the Department to evaluate the proposal. Vendors were to include seven "tabs" within their proposals: Tab 1 Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements Tab 2 Transmittal Letter with Executive Summary Tab 3 Business/Corporate Qualifications Tab 4 Project Staff Tab 5 Respondent's Financial Documentation Tab 6 Technical Response Tab 7 Minority/Service Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Certification The RFP gave further instructions about the contents within each tab. RFP Section 5.6 provided the requirements for Tab 6, Technical Responses. It required vendors to provide a narrative technical response identifying how vendors will meet the scope of services required by the RFP and, more specifically, the scope of services described in RFP Sections 2 (Statement of Need/Services Sought) and 3 (Scope of Services). The RFP did not mandate any other formatting requirements for the contents of Tab 6. This becomes significant in the analysis of Securus's response to section 3.15 of the RFP. The RFP advised that the Department would assign an evaluation committee to evaluate proposals. It did not state how many evaluators would be selected to score proposals or whether evaluators would be responsible for scoring proposals in their entirety or just specific portions. The Department appointed a team of six evaluators: Jon Creamer, Shane Phillips, Randy Agerton, Steve Wilson, Charles Lockwood, and Richard Law. Mr. Law, a certified public accountant, reviewed each vendor's financial submissions on a pass/fail basis. The other five evaluators scored the technical responses, categories one through three. Julyn Hussey, the procurement officer, trained the evaluators, except for Mr. Law. She provided the evaluators with a training manual, the RFP, the vendors' proposals, and scoring sheets. During training, Ms. Hussey instructed the evaluators to review proposals in their entirety to properly evaluate and score their various components. The Department gave the evaluators approximately eight days to evaluate and score the proposals. The evaluators did not consult with each other during their evaluation. Each evaluator turned his completed score sheet in to Ms. Hussey. She then compiled the technical response scores. Ms. Hussey also calculated the price scores by taking the prices from the vendors' price sheet submissions and applying the RFP price scoring formula. The Department combined the technical and price scores to calculate each vendor's total score. Global received the highest total score with 2,960.42 points. Securus was second with 2,911.04 points. CenturyLink was third with 2,727.94 points. Global outscored Securus by 49 points on a 3,600-point scale. Global outscored CenturyLink by 232.48 points. Securus outscored CenturyLink by 183.10 points. Commissions, Pricing, and an FCC Order The vendors' price proposal was a critical category of the RFP review and evaluation. It was worth 350 of the 1,000 points available. Only the technical response could score more points, 400. Of the 350 points, 300 points were directed toward the inmate telephone service price proposal and 50 points were for the video visitation service price proposal. The RFP subdivides the inmate telephone service points into 150 possible points for the provider offering the highest commission payments to the Department; 125 points for the lowest intralata, interlata, intrastate, and interstate per-minute rates; and 25 points for the lowest local and local extended area per-minute rates. The vendor with the most favorable numbers in each subcategory received the maximum points. The rest received a percentage of the maximum points based on a ratio between their bid and the most favorable bid RFP Section 3.8.3, "Rate and Call Charge Requirements"3/ provided: For the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate on the price sheet (attachment 5) for the inmate telephone service and the video visitation service. Local and local extended area service calls shall be billed as local calls and shall not exceed $0.50 for a 15 minute phone call. For the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on the North American Dialing Plan, including intralata, interlata, intrastate, and interstate calls which shall not exceed the maximum rate per minute allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and appropriate regulatory authority during the time the call is placed. In addition to the FCC, vendors can contact the state consumer protection agency, Better Business Bureau, or State Attorney General's Office to obtain maximum rate per minute information. Note: In accordance with Federal Communications Commission 47 CFR Part 64[WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 13-113]--Rates for Interstate Calling Services--effective February 11, 2014, no commission shall be paid on revenues earned through the completion of interstate calls of any type received from the Contract Call charges for international calls shall not exceed the maximum rate allowed by the appropriate regulatory authority during the time the call is placed. Local call charges for coin-operated telephone calls at the Work Release Centers shall not exceed thirty-five cents (.35) per local call plus the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) charges, which vary between LEC's. Long distance call charges for coin-operated phones at the Work Release Centers shall be at the same rates for inmate telephone calls. The Contractor shall agree that charges for calls shall include only the time from the point at which the called party accepts the call and shall end when either party returns to an on-hook condition or until either party attempts a hook flash. There shall be no charges to the called party for any setup time. The Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for collect or prepaid calls any charges referred to as Local Exchange Carrier's (LEC's) or Competitive Local Exchange Carrier's (CLEC's) billing costs, or any bill rendering fee or billing recovery fee. The Contractor shall also ensure that LEC's and CLEC's do not charge or pass on to the customer any additional fee or surcharges for billing. The Contractor shall be responsible for any such LEC or CLEC surcharges incurred if billing through the LEC or CLEC. In addition, the Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for the collect, prepaid calls or video visitation visits any of the following charges and/or fees: Bill Statement Fee, Funding Fee, Mail-In Payment Fee, Western Union Payment Fee, Refund Fee, Regulatory Recovery Fee, Wireless Admin Fee, Single Bill Fee, Paper Statement Fee, Account Setup Fee, Account Maintenance Fee, Inactive Account Fee, Account Close-Out Fee, Non-Subscriber Line Charge, Inmate Station Service Charge, Third-Party Payment Processing Fee, State Regulatory Recovery Fee, Check/Money Order Processing Fee, Biometric Service Charges, JPay Payment Fee, Federal Regulatory Cost Recovery Fee, Regulatory and Carrier Cost Recovery Fee, Validation Surcharge or Wireless Termination Surcharge. The Contractor shall ensure, inmates' family and friends utilizing the Florida Relay Service to receive calls from inmates are charged the same rates as those family and friends receiving calls from inmates not utilizing this service. [emphasis added]. The Department intended for the boldface note to advise responding vendors that the vendor would not pay commissions on interstate call revenues. The language raised questions which the Department replied to in the Addenda issued after the RFP issued. None of the Addenda modified the plain statement in section 3.8.3 that "the Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate on the price sheet (attachment 5) for the inmate telephone service." Section 7.3.1 of the RFP established the requirements for commission and monthly payments. It states: The Contractor shall pay to the Department a monthly commission based on the percentage of gross revenues as determined through this RFP process. The Department will begin to receive payment for a facility on the date the Contractor assumes responsibility for the operation of that facility's inmate telecommunication service in accordance with the Final Transition and Implementation Plan. Sections 7.3.2 through 7.3.4 contain additional requirements for commission payments, supporting documentation for the commission calculation, and penalty, if the vendor does not timely make the final commission payment at the end of the contract. They make the importance of commission payments to the Department clear. Attachment 5 is a mandatory form for vendors to provide their proposed call and commission rates. It contains the same boldface note about the FCC order as section 3.8.3. The form solicited a blended rate and a single commission rate for telephone services. FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 64 (WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 13-113) (FCC order), referred to in RFP Section 3.8.3 and Attachment 5, is a commission decision and regulation, effective May 31, 2013, addressing a need for reform in what the FCC determined were "egregious interstate long distance rates and services" in the inmate telecommunications business. The FCC identified paying commissions to correctional institutions and including them in the rates charged inmates and their families and other designees as a significant factor contributing to unreasonably high rates for inmate telecommunications services. The decision also addressed surcharges and fees. The FCC determined that inmate telecommunications charges must be cost- based and that commission payments, among other things, could not be included in the costs. The FCC adopted subpart FF to 47 C.F.R. part 64 of its regulations to regulate inmate calling services. The FCC included in subpart FF, section 64.010, titled, cost-based rates for inmate calling services. It states: "All rates charged for Inmate Calling Services and all Ancillary Charges must be based only on costs that are reasonably and directly related to the provision of ICS [inmate calling services]." This is the rule implementing the FCC's decision that commission payments are not included in the reasonably and directly related costs. The FCC made clear that it was not prohibiting payment of or collection of commissions, only prohibiting including them in the costs determining the fee paid by inmates and their designees. The FCC addressed this in paragraph 56 of the order, which states: We also disagree with ICS providers' assertion that the Commission must defer to states on any decisions about site commission payments, their amount, and how such revenues are spent. We do not conclude that ICS providers and correctional facilities cannot have arrangements that include site commissions. We conclude only that, under the Act, such commission payments are not costs that can be recovered through interstate ICS rates. Our statutory obligations relate to the rates charged to end users—the inmates and the parties whom they call. We say nothing in this Order about how correctional facilities spend their funds or from where they derive. We state only that site commission payments as a category are not a compensable component of interstate ICS rates. We note that we would similarly treat "in-kind" payment requirements that replace site commission payments in ICS contracts. Providers of inmate calling services, including all three vendors in this proceeding, sought review of the decision and regulation by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court stayed section 64.010, along with sections 64.6020, and 64.6060. Following release of the RFP, the Department received and answered inquiries from vendors. The inquiries, the Department's responses, and changes to the RFP are contained in Addenda 1, 2, and 3 to the RFP. Rates and commissions received a fair amount of attention in the process. In response to inquiries about section 3.8.3 and Attachment 5, the Department changed both with Addendum 2. The questions and Department responses follow. Question No. 4 states: Page 30: 3.8.3 - Rate and Call Charge Requirements and Attachment 5 – Blended Call Rates. Regarding the blended rate (inclusive of all surcharges) to be bid – the current wording could be opportunistically misinterpreted in a few different ways: First in the treatment of per-call versus per-minute fees, based on our understanding, one bidder could possibly offer a flat $1.80 per call fee for non-local inmate telephone calls and claim to have the same blended rate ($1.80/15 minutes = $0.12) as someone bidding $0.12 per minute with no per-call fee. This could occur even though calls average less than 15 minutes (and many calls are less than 10 minutes), meaning these two offers are not comparable in terms of overall cost to family members. Second, the RFP wording could also possibly be interpreted as allowing a Contractor to set different rates for different call types (collect/prepaid, intraLATA/interstate) and then averaging them using assumptions they define. Question 1: To minimize cost to family members and make offers comparable, would the Department please explicitly disallow per-call fees for the inmate telephone system (for example, per-call setup charges, per-call surcharges), allowing only a true per-minute rate? Question 2: If no to Question 1, would the Department require separate disclosure of per-call fees and per-minute rates? Question 3: Would the Department please verify that ALL non-local domestic calls-- intraLATA, interLATA, and interstate, for both collect and prepaid-–must be charged at an identical rate? Answer No. 4 states: Question 1: Per this Addendum #2, the following revisions will be made to Section 3.8.3: In 3rd paragraph after first sentence add: The Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. These per minute rates delete: which Delete 4th paragraph beginning with Note. In 6th paragraph first sentence revised to read: Local call charges for coin-operated telephone calls at the Work Release Centers shall not exceed forty-five cents (.45) per local call plus the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) charges, which vary between LEC's. In 9th paragraph following In addition, the Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for the collect, prepaid calls or video visitation visits any of the following charges and/or fees: Add Pre-call setup charges, Pre-call surcharges, Delete last paragraph; Question 2: Not applicable, Question 3: Confirmed, per Section 3.8.3 all non-local and local extended area calls must be charged at an identical rate. Question No. 5 states: Attachment 5 - Price Sheet. Page 30--Section 3.8.3 states that on the price sheet, the Respondent will provide a "single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges . . . ." Attachment 5 states "Blended Telephone Rate for All Calls . . ." To eliminate ambiguity, would the Department consider changing the language in Attachment 5 to read "Blended Telephone Rate Per Minute for All Calls . . . ?" [sic] Answer No. 5 states: Attachment 5 will be revised to include "Blended Telephone Rate Per Minute for All Calls". Question No. 6 states: Page 30: 3.8.3 - Rate and Call Charge Requirements. The fourth paragraph states that "In accordance with Federal Communications Commission 47 CFR Part 64 [WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 13-113]--Rates for Interstate Calling Services--effective February 11, 2014, no commission shall be paid on revenues earned through the completion of interstate calls of any type received from the Contract." Respectfully, this interpretation of the FCC's Order is incorrect. The Order, without question, does not prohibit the payment of commissions on interstate calls. Also, rules regarding future cost-based regulation (including consideration of commissions in rate-setting) have been stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and FL DOC interstate rates are well below the FCC rate caps that have been left in place by the Court. This is why most providers have continued to pay commissions on interstate calling, in compliance with their contracts. Q. Will the State consider removing this paragraph from the RFP in order to ensure revenue for the State and a level playing field across providers? Answer No. 6: Section 3.8.3 and Attachment 5--Price Sheet is amended, per this Addendum to remove the paragraph. In addition, Section 7.3.1 has also been amended, per this Addendum, to state that commissions will be paid in accordance with all Federal, State and Local regulations and guidelines. Further questions and clarifications followed. They are found in Addendum 3 to the RFP. Question No. 2 states: In Addendum No. 2; Answer #4 Revises Section3.8.3 by revising the 3rd paragraph Instructions are to add the following language: The Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. These per minute rates (delete: which) For the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on the North American Dialing Plan, including intralata, interlata, intrastate, and interstate calls which shall not exceed the maximum rate per minute allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and appropriate regulatory authority during the time the call is placed. The Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. These per minute rates (deIete [sic]: which). In addition to the FCC, vendors can contact the state consumer protection agency, Better Business Bureau, or State Attorney General's Office to obtain maximum rate per minute information. The instructions to add "These per minute rates (delete: which)" does not fit with the instructions. The word "which" is not included in this area of paragraph 3. Question #2: Can the Department please clarify? Answer No. 2 states: To further clarify 3.8.3, paragraph 3 is revised to read as follows: For the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on the North American Dialing Plan, including intralata, interlata, intrastate, and interstate calls. The Respondent shall also establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. Both of these per minute rates shall not exceed the maximum rate per minute allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and appropriate regulatory authority during the time the call is placed. In addition to the FCC, vendors can contact the state consumer protection agency, Better Business Bureau, or State Attorney General's Office to obtain maximum rate per minute information. Question No. 3 states: Question: Is the Department requiring the successful Respondent to pay commissions on revenues generated through the completion of interstate calls? Answer No. 3 states: The Department's position is that the collection of commission rates will be determined by the FCC ruling 47 CFR Part 64 [WC docket no. 12-375; FCC13-113]. For purposes of this solicitation the Department requests respondents submit a commission rate for interstate calls. The Department will comply with any future FCC ruling. Question No. 10 states: Section 7.3.1 was revised to include: "Commissions will be paid in accordance with all Federal, State and Local regulations and guidelines." There are no Federal, State, or Local regulations and guidelines which require phone vendors to pay commissions on interstate calling. Thus, in not paying commissions on interstate calling, there would be no violation of any Federal, State, or Local regulation or guideline. The requirement as to whether or not commissions will be paid on interstate calling must come from FL DOC and must be clearly indicated in the RFP. If not clearly indicated one way or another, we fear some vendors may have an unfair advantage as commissions are not currently being paid and there does not seem to be a compliance issue with the current contract which requires such commissions. Please, clearly specify whether or not commissions are required to be paid on interstate calls. Answer No. 10 states: Please see answer to question 3. The Department never definitively stated whether it would ultimately collect commissions on interstate revenues. Nor did it provide a means for vendors to propose rates or commissions based upon whatever the Department concluded were the most likely scenarios resulting from the FCC order and appeal. But the Department's RFP persisted in the RFP requirement that the bidders must include the commission in the calculation of their blended rate for the price proposal. This stands in contrast to the RFP's lengthy list of items, such as bill statement fees, paper statement fees, and account setup fees, which could not be included in the rate. These are items, like the commissions, that the FCC order said could not be part of the fee base. A vendor, who did not calculate the commission in the blended rate, would have a significant price advantage over a vendor who included the commission in its blended rate. It could propose lower rates and/or higher commissions while maintaining its profit margin. That is because although the price sheet identifies a commission, the commission is not accounted for in the blended rate. CenturyLink included payment of a commission rate of 65.3 percent on interstate calls in the blended rate it provided on Attachment 5. This action is a reasonable application of the statements of the RFP and the Addenda about blended rates, commissions, and the cryptic statement about plans to follow the FCC order. CenturyLink proposed a blended rate that did "establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate." If CenturyLink had not included the commission payment on interstate calls in its blended rates, it could have bid higher commissions, lower rates, or a combination of both. Securus identified a commission percentage for all calls of 73 percent on its Attachment 5 price sheet. Securus did not include the cost of paying a commission on interstate calls in calculating the blended rate that it submitted. This allowed Securus to submit a lower blended rate than it would otherwise have had to submit to achieve the same revenue from the contract. The blended rate that Securus proposed did not "establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate." Global identified a commission percentage of 46 percent for all calls in its Attachment 5 price sheet. In determining the proposed rates for interstate calls, Global did not include or assume payment of the commission percentage rate. This allowed it to submit lower blended rates and/or a higher commission rate. Global did not intend to or think it would be required to pay commission rates on interstate calls. This was based on its evaluation of the FCC order, the appeal, and the Department's decision not to accept commission payments on interstate calls under its current contract with Securus. This is why it did not include the commission as a cost when calculating the blended rate. Global chose to take the business risk that its evaluation of the FCC order would be correct. If it was incorrect and a commission payment was required, Global was prepared to make the payment, even though it would not have been collected from inmates and their designees through the blended rate. The blended rate proposed by Global did not "establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate." Ms. Hussey applied the formula in the RFP to determine points awarded each vendor for its price proposal. This calculation was a ministerial function that did not call for any exercise of judgment or discretion. The overall cost ranking scores were: Global 280.42, Securus 276.04, and CenturyLink 232.94. The scores for the commissions were: Global 94.52, Securus 150, and CenturyLink 134.18. The scores for the blended rates for inmate telephone services that included interstate services were: Global 125, Securus 56.25, and CenturyLink 50.90. This difference reflects the vendors' differing treatment of commissions when proposing their blended rates. The Department did not know during the evaluation process that Global and Securus had not included or assumed payment of the commission in its proposed rates for interstate calls. The Department learned this during discovery in this proceeding. Not including commission payments on interstate calls in the proposed blended rate was contrary to the instructions of the RFP. Securus Response to RFP Section 3.15 The Department awarded Securus zero points for the question of "[h]ow adequate is the Respondent's plan to meet the performance measures outlined in section 3.15 of the RFP?" This criterion related to the performance measures of RFP Section 3.15, for which proposals could earn 125 total points. The difference between zero and the possible maximum points would have made a difference in winning and losing the contract award for Securus. The score of zero is a factual finding by the Department that Securus's 600-plus-page proposal had no information from which evaluators could qualitatively assess the proposal by that criterion. A score of zero is not a qualitative assessment, like a score of "poor" or "exceptional." A score of zero reflects a finding that information is completely absent. The evaluation criteria score sheet, RFP Attachment 4, provided factors to be considered in evaluating and scoring proposals. It presented the factors to evaluators in the form of questions to evaluators. For section 3.15, the question and accompanying scores allowed were: How adequate is the Respondent's plan to meet the performance measures outlined in section 3.15 of this RFP? (Omitted-0; Poor-6.25; Adequate-12.5; Good-18.75; and Exceptional-25.) Because the Department allowed each evaluator to score this factor, a total of 125 points was ultimately available to the vendors. RFP Section 3.15 provides: Performance Measures Upon execution of this contract, Contractor agrees to be held accountable for the achievement of certain performance measures in successfully delivering services under this Contract. The following Performance Measure categories shall be used to measure Contractor's performance and delivery of services. Note: the Contractor shall comply with all contract terms and conditions upon execution of contract and the Department may monitor each site upon implementation of services at that site to ensure that contract requirements are being met. The Department reserves the right to add/delete performance measures as needed to ensure the adequate delivery of services. Performance Outcomes and Standards; and Other Contract Requirements. A description of each of the Performance Measure categories is provided below: RFP Section 3.15 was divided into two components. Section 3.15.1 listed key "Performance Outcomes and Standards" deemed most critical to the success of the contract and required that "the contractor shall ensure that the stated performance outcomes and standards are met." The key elements were: (1) Completion of Routine Service, (2) Completion of Major Emergency Repair Service, and (3) Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report (Invoice Documentation). The first is RFP Section 3.15.1. It provides: Performance Outcomes and Standards Listed below are the key Performance Outcomes and Standards deemed most crucial to the success of the overall desired inmate telecommunication service. The contractor shall ensure that the stated performance outcomes and standards (level of achievement) are met. Performance shall be measured as indicated, beginning the second month after which service has been fully implemented. Completion of Routine Services Outcome: All requests for routine service (as defined in Section 1.22) shall be completed within twenty-four (24) hours of request for service from the Department, unless otherwise instructed by the Department. Measure: Compare the date/time that service is completed to the date/time that the request for service was received from the Department by the Contractor. (Measure Monthly). Standard: Ninety percent (90%) of routine service requests shall be completed within twenty-four (24) hours of notice from the Department. Completion of Major Emergency Repair Service Outcome: All major emergency repair service (as outlined in Section 3.10.8) shall be completed within twelve (12) hours of request for repair from the Department, unless otherwise instructed by the Department. Measure: Compare the date/time that major emergency repair service is completed to the date/time that the request for major emergency repair service was received from the Department by the Contractor. (Measure Monthly). Standard: Ninety percent (90%) of routine service requests shall be completed within twelve (12) hours of notice from the Department. Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report (Invoice Documentation): Outcome: The Contractor shall provide the Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report to the Contract Manager or designee as specified in Section 7.3.3 within thirty (30) days of the last day of the Contractor's regular billing cycle. Measure: Compare the date the Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report was received with the last day of the Contractor's regular billing cycle. (Measure Monthly). Standard: One hundred percent (100%) of Commission and Call Detail Reports shall be received within thirty (30) days of the last day of the Contractor's regular billing cycle. Upon execution of this Contract, the Contractor hereby acknowledges and agrees that its performance under the Contract shall meet the standards set forth above. Any failure by the Contractor to achieve any outcome and standard identified above may result in assessment of Liquidated Damages as provided in Section 3.17. Any such assessment and/or subsequent payment thereof shall not affect the Contractor's obligation to provide services as required by this Contract. Section 3.15.2 advised that the Department will monitor the contractor's performance to determine compliance with the contract. It states: Other Contract Requirements Standard: The Department will monitor the Contractor's performance to determine compliance with other contract requirements, including, but not limited to, the following: Video Visitation System (as outlined in Section 3.7) Inmate Telecommunication System Functionality (as outlined in Section 3.7) Transition/Implementation/Installation of System Bi-Annual Audit Timely Submittal of Corrective Action Plans (when applicable) Measure: Failure to meet the agreed-upon Final Transition/Implementation/Installation schedule or failure to meet (compliance with other terms and conditions of the contract or contract requirements listed above) may result in the imposition of liquidated damages Each of the three items in section 3.15.1 and the five items in section 3.15.2 relate directly to a particular provision within RFP Section 3 titled, "Scope of Services." Section 3.15.1 related to RFP Sections 1.22 and 3.10.7 (Routine Maintenance), 3.10.8 (Major Emergency Repair Service), and 7.3.3 (Detail Report). Section 3.15.1 specifically identifies the last two. Similarly, section 3.15.2 cross referenced section 3.7 (Telecommunications Services System Functionality) for the first two performance measure items. Two others items relate directly to sections 3.5 (Facility Implementation Plan and Transition of Service), 3.6 (Installation Requirements), and 3.11 (Bi-Annual Audit). This is significant because Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.11 were independently scored. In other words, the RFP required that the proposals contain a narrative explaining how vendors planned to provide the services required by each of those sections. The RFP did not require the proposals to contain a separately delineated section titled, "3.15." It only required that each proposal include, under "Tab 6," a narrative description of the vendor's solution and plan to meet the performance measures. Evaluation of Responses to Section 3.15 Global included a specifically labeled section 3.15 in its response. It essentially copied and pasted the RFP language for Sections 3.15, 3.15.1, and 3.15.2, and after each subsection, inserted the words "GTL [Global] Response: GTL understands and complies." Global did not provide a substantive narrative under the heading, section 3.15. CenturyLink's labeled response to section 3.15 was very similar. The evaluators reviewed the section of Global's proposal labeled as responsive to section 3.15. The maximum score the evaluators could award per evaluator was 25 points. Global earned scores of 25, 18.75, 12.5, 12.5, and 12.5 from Messrs. Lockwood, Agerton, Phillips, Creamer, and Wilson, respectively. The evaluators reviewed CenturyLink's proposal labeled as responsive to section 3.15. It also earned scores of 25, 18.75, 12.5, 12.5, and 12.5 from Messrs. Lockwood, Agerton, Phillips, Creamer, and Wilson, respectively. All five evaluators reviewed copies of the vendors' proposals. Some evaluators performed a section-by-section and some performed side-by-side evaluations of the proposals. Since Securus did not have a labeled section 3.15 and the other proposers did, the evaluators scored Securus's proposal as "Omitted-0" for section 3.15. After their initial review of Securus's proposal, three evaluators raised concerns with the Department's procurement officer, Ms. Hussey, over their inability to find a section in the Securus proposal specifically identified as a response to Section 3.15. Ms. Hussey reiterated the instruction given during evaluator training to review proposals in their entirety when scoring any component of the RFP. None of those evaluators changed their scores of "omitted" for section 3.15 of Securus's proposal after receiving Ms. Hussey's additional instruction and presumably performing a second review of Securus's proposal. RFP Section 3.15 included cross references to sections 3.7 and 3.10.8. Following these referenced sections to the matching section numbers in the Securus proposal reveals narratives addressing the section 3.15 requirements. In addition, these cross-referenced sections were separately scored by each evaluator during his review of each vendor's Telecommunications Service System Functionality and Telecommunication Service Equipment Requirements. Securus's proposal complied with the RFP specifications by affirming Securus's commitment to comply with section 3.15 throughout the proposal. Although Securus's proposal did not include a separate tabbed section addressing Securus's plan to meet the section 3.15 performance measures, Securus provided a narrative explaining how Securus would meet each performance measure required in section 3.15. Securus also provided narratives explaining how it would meet and provide the scope of service of each one of the performance measures of Section 3.15. The first performance measure in RFP Section 3.15.1 required that 90 percent of all routine service be completed within 24 hours of the Department giving notice to the vendor. The routine service requirement was located at section 3.10.7. In its proposal, behind Tab 6 and labeled "3.10.7 Routine Service," on page 388, Securus's response stated: All routine service shall be completed within twenty-four (24) hours of the initial system failure notice, service request for service or equipment failure or liquidated damages may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17. Securus has read, understands, and complies. Securus Field Repair staff is strategically located throughout the state to be able to respond to all repair service needs in order to meet all repair service needs. Securus will continue to complete all routine service, as we do under the existing contract, within twenty-four (24) hours if the initial system failure notice, service request for service or equipment failure or liquidated damages may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17. This response complied with the RFP requirement. It could not rationally be deemed omitted. The second performance measure in RFP Section 3.15.1 required that 90 percent of all major emergency repair services (as outlined in section 3.10.8) be completed within 12 hours of the Department giving notice to the vendor. This performance measure cross-referenced section 3.10.8. Securus's proposal behind Tab 6 and labeled "3.10.8 Major Emergency Repair Service," addressed the emergency repairs stating: All major emergency service shall be completed within twelve (12) hours of the initial system failure notice request or liquidated damages may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17. Securus has read, understands, and complies. Securus Field Repair staff is strategically located throughout the state to be able to respond to all repair service needs in order to meet all repair service needs. Securus will continue to complete all major emergency service, as we do under the existing contract, within twelve (12) hours if the initial system failure notice, service request for service or equipment failure or liquidated damages may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17. Securus's response complied with the RFP requirement. It could not rationally be deemed omitted. The third performance measure in RFP Section 3.15.1 required that the Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report (Invoice Documentation) be provided to the contract manager or designee, as specified in section 7.3.3 at the end of every month with the contractor's regular billing cycle. Securus addressed this requirement behind Tab 6 in a section labeled "2.4 Revenue to be Paid the Department," on page 107. Securus's response stated: This RFP will result in a Revenue Generating Contract. The Contractor shall pay the Department a commission based on a percentage of gross revenue. The Contractor shall be responsible for collections and fraud, and shall not make any deductions from gross revenue for uncollectible accounts, billing fees or other administrative costs prior to applying the commission percentage. Notwithstanding the above, gross revenue shall not include taxes charged by an appropriate governmental entity. The monthly commission amount is obtained by multiplying the commission percentage times each month's total charges. The successful contractor shall submit a Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Documentation for Monthly Payment report as indicated in Section 7.3.3 with the monthly commission payment. Securus has read, understands and complies. Securus will provide the monthly payment report as required and will provide all appropriate auditing detail required upon request from the Department. This response complies with the RFP requirement and cannot rationally be deemed omitted. Some evaluators acknowledged that they did not factor Section 3.15.2 into their scoring of Securus's proposal. The terms of the RFP require considering section 3.15.2 during the scoring of section 3.15. It is part of that section. Failing to consider Securus's narrative related to section 3.15.2 is not rational. As with section 3.15.1, Securus's proposal complied with the RFP Section 3.15.2. Securus committed to complying with the requirements of section 3.15.2 throughout its proposal. The record does not prove whether each evaluator re-reviewed the cross-referenced sections identified in Section 3.15. But Mr. Phillips did. Despite seeing the exact language in those sections as required in the "Outcome" portion of Section 3.15, Mr. Phillips awarded Securus a score of zero because, in his mind, "key parts of 3.15" were not addressed. The conclusion that Securus entirely omitted a plan to address Section 3.15's requirements is irrational and clearly erroneous. Something was there. A score of omitted is not supported. Mr. Phillips also did not score section 3.15 consistently with the way he scored another section of Securus's proposal. He originally gave Securus a score of zero for section 3.14 entitled, Training, because he did not find a specifically delineated section titled section 3.14 in Securus's response. But Mr. Phillips changed his score before submitting it to Ms. Hussey because upon further review of Securus's proposal, he found some aspects that addressed the training requirements of section 3.14. He scored that section accordingly. This highlights the error in evaluators not doing the same with section 3.15. The evaluators irrationally concluded that Securus failed to include in its technical proposal any information explaining how it would meet the performance standards and outcomes of section 3.15. Some evaluators relied on the theory that Securus did not "acknowledge" the outcomes and standards. As established above, Securus acknowledged that "the Performance Outcomes and Standards are crucial to the success of the overall inmate telephone service," and throughout its technical response, Securus addressed all the required outcomes and standards. Securus mentioned and acknowledged the performance outcomes and standards a total of six times in its proposal: twice on page 42 and once on each of pages 100, 138, 160, and 392. Three of those pages were narrative responses to sections 3.7 and 3.11, which are specifically included as part of section 3.15. Some evaluators also claimed that Securus never expressly agreed to be bound by the performance measures of section 3.15. That may theoretically affect the qualitative evaluation of the response, but it does not support a finding that the information was omitted. Also, the RFP did not require a vendor to specifically delineate each of the 18 subsections of section 3 in its response. To comply with the Technical Response section of the RFP, a vendor needed to address, in narrative form, its plan to provide the scope of services outlined in section 3. This was not disputed. Several Department employees testified and agreed that a response to the RFP did not require specifically delineated sections of the response that mirrored the delineation of the RFP. Inclusion of Prohibited Fees In Addendum 2, the Department asked the vendors to provide a sample refund policy. The policies were not described as or intended to be final refund policies that would be used in administration of the contract. The terms of a refund policy, if any, would be negotiated with the winning vendor, subject to the requirements of the RFP, including the prohibition against including fees in the blended rate. The sample policies of Securus and Global included some costs or forfeitures for obtaining a refund depending on how and when the inmate sought the refund. These are not prohibited fees or even items agreed to in the RFP. They are only samples. The evidence does not prove that the sample refund policies violate the requirement of section 3.8.3. Scoring The review and evaluation process described in section 6 of the RFP identified the maximum number of points that could be awarded for each part of the inmate calling services project. The total number of possible points was 1,000. The sections and points allotted to them were as follows: Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements--0, Executive Summary and Other Proposal Submissions--0, Business/Corporate Qualification--50, Project Staff--200, Technical Response--400, and Price Proposal--350. This allowed 350 points for the pricing section and 650 for the remaining technical sections. Because each evaluator scored the technical sections, the cumulative totals of their scores exceed 1,000. Securus maintains that this scoring is inconsistent with the process described in the RFP. But each evaluator scored the technical portion of the proposals within the maximum 650 total points available to each vendor. And the procurement staff scored the price proposals within the maximum 350 points available for price to each vendor. Applying the RFP's mathematical scoring methodology to the price proposals, the procurement staff scored the pricing as follows: Global 280.42, Securus 276.04, and CenturyLink 232.94. The scoring for each was within the RFP's 350-point maximum. The scores given by each evaluator for the technical portion of the vendors' proposals are as follows: EVALUATORS: Shane Phillips Steve Wilson Jon Creamer Charles Lockwood Randy Agerton CenturyLink 722.94 857.94 707.94 776.69 734.19 Securus 749.79 808.54 702.29 834.79 779.79 Global 782.92 880.42 751.67 859.17 802.92 Each evaluator's technical score when combined with the pricing score was within the RFP's 1,000-point maximum. Ms. Hussey totaled all the evaluator's technical scores for each vendor with the pricing score for that vendor. The resulting number exceeded 1,000. The award memorandum presented the totals, as follows: Ranking = Cost + Total Evaluator Scores (As Posted) Commission + Rates Evaluation Scores Total Ranking Global 280.42 2,680.00 2,960.42 1 CenturyLink 232.94 2,495.00 2,727.94 3 Securus 276.04 2,635.00 2,911.04 2 This method of compilation did not affect the relative ranking of the vendors. If the technical scores awarded by the five evaluators are averaged and added to the pricing scores, the points total for each vendor is under 1,000. And the ranking of the vendors does not change. Ranking = Cost + Evaluator Scores (Evaluator Scores Averaged) Commission + Rates Evaluation Scores Total Ranking Global 280.42 535.00 815.42 1 CenturyLink 232.94 499.00 731.94 3 Securus 276.04 527.00 803.04 2 Averaging in this fashion is consistent with the RFP. The evidence does not prove the Department erred in scoring the proposals.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order rejecting all proposals for Request for Proposal DC RFP-13-031. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 4th day of September, 2014.
The Issue Whether the memorandum petitioners challenge amounts to a rule improperly promulgated? Whether the rules petitioners challenge are arbitrary and capricious or are otherwise beyond the authority delegated to respondent? STANDING STIPULATED At the beginning of the hearing, Mr. O'Donnell stated a motion ore tenus to strike paragraph five of the petition, in which the memorandum was challenged, on grounds that a challenge to the memorandum was premature, quoting the memorandum: "[T]he limits contained in this memorandum will not be enforced until April 1, 1984." After argument, the hearing officer was persuaded that the challenge was not premature on its fact, inasmuch as inmates with "items no listed . . . or an excessive amount of property" must decide whether to dispose of property before April 1, 1984, or suffer its confiscation; since nothing further was required for the memorandum to be efficacious; and since failure to enforce a rule does not alter its character as a rule. After the motion to strike was denied, Mr. O'Donnell stipulated, on the record, that standing was not in issue. He nevertheless argues in respondent's "proposed findings of fact-- conclusions of law--final order," as follows: Knowing the issue of standing as to the memo to have been put at issue by Respondent, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to place into the record some indication of impact. Having failed to do so, Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the memo. State v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). 9. The issue of the adverse impact of the memo is crucial to a proper determination of whether the memo is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. * * * The memo, rather than adversely affect inmates, may not have any substantial impact on Petitioners. Section 120.56, Fla. Stat. Again, Petitioner entirely failed to introduce evidence on this point. This argument is precluded by Mr. O'Donnell's stipulation on the record at the hearing. Having stipulated that no proof was necessary to show the impact of the memorandum, respondent cannot now be heard to complain of the absence of proof on that point. Mr. O'Donnell also stipulated that the memorandum was not promulgated in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact It is clear from its title that the memorandum is meant to apply only to Union Correctional Institution. The body of the memorandum, dated February 1, 1984, provides, in full: The attached 1/ is a list of the type and quantity of inmate property authorized at UCI. Inmates may also possess items sold by the Canteen, items received through an approved Package Permit, items authorized to be in cells as part of the Hobbycraft Program and items issued by the state. Property Quantity limits are necessary to prevent fires and control insect infestation. In addition, they provide a standard for both inmates and staff to follow in determining if an inmate's amount of property is excessive. Since many inmates have accumulated property for a long time, the limits contained in this memorandum will not be enforced until April 1, 1984. Inmates who have items not listed in this me[m]orandum or an excessive amount of property should begin making arrangements to send items out of the institution. Inmates who need to dispose of property should send a request to Sgt. Singletary, Property Officer. Items may be mailed somewhere or placed on the Main Gate for pick-up by a visitor. Your cooperation in reducing the amount of excess property yourselves, prior to April 1, 1984, will be greatly appreciated. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2. It is signed by D. E. Jackson, Colonel, Correctional Officer Chief II, and P. V. Gunning, Assistant Superintendent of Operations. Dennis Dean Cooper is an inmate at Union Correctional Institution. In the month or two preceding the hearing, prison personnel confiscated wax, a wooden mallet, a hammer, a knife and rubber glue, all belonging to Cooper, who had acquired them, after gaining approval to do so, in connection with the Hobbycraft program. Guards searched from cell to cell and filled a 50 gallon barrel with items they took from Dean's cell alone. Kenneth Hayes' right eye was injured in a boxing accident. A governmental agency set up to assist the blind issued Hayes, an inmate at Union Correctional Institution, a green tape cassette recorder which prison personnel seized on January 19, 1984; they also took the stool he had made with approved Hobbycraft materials. That was the same day, or perhaps the day before, William Joseph Goens, an inmate house in the Main Housing Unit at Union Correctional Institution, lost his inlaid wooden chessboard in a "shakedown." Another inmate, Clayton, had given him the chessboard. Goens later saw the chessboard in a trash barrel in the back of a dump truck. Incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution and housed at 3T8, John Richard Clayton also lost property in the January 1984 shakedown, including Hobbycraft items, personal letters and letters from his attorney bearing on the proceedings eventuating in his incarceration. He is skilled at leather working and sometimes has temporary possession of other inmates' leather goods for purposes of effecting their repair. An electric fan which an inmate transferred to another institution had given Clayton before leaving was also confiscated. When prison personnel proposed to confiscate John McConnell's legal papers, if he did not dispose of them himself, he called several lawyers. Eventually he was issued a metal locker to which he transferred his legal papers from the cardboard box that had held them. No papers were ever confiscated. Petitioner Carl Cribbs, also confined at Union Correctional Institution lost two, bound folders containing legal documents, including 13 affidavits, as well as an electric fan, when these items were confiscated by prison guards on January 19, or 20, 1984. Radios and electric fans are registered as a means of identifying them. They are treated as contraband except when they are in the possession of the inmate to whom they are registered. If an inmate lends property to another inmate, it may become contraband subject to confiscation, regardless of the type of property involved. These practices protect inmates from theft, which is rampant at Union Correctional Institution. Guards and inmates alike are subject to "shakedowns" without notice as a means of controlling the flow of contraband. Under the right circumstances, virtually any property in an inmate's possession might be seized. At one time inmates were permitted to have matches and buy honey from the canteen in glass jars. After they began hurling empty honey jars at one another, the canteen switched to plastic containers for honey, and glass jars of all kinds were treated as contraband and confiscated. Inmates are still allowed cigarette lighters, but matches have been contraband ever since the authorities learned that new equipment in the shop made it possible for the inmates to manufacture zip guns. On the other hand, inmates are allowed Hobbycraft items, under ordinary circumstances, including X-acto knives. These knives have blades less than an inch long, but could be lethal if used as a weapon. If an inmate if found guilty of a rule infraction and subjected to administrative confinement, his property is confiscated. If an inmate attempted suicide, even his clothes might be removed. Petitioner Joe Lewis Holland, confined at Union Correctional Institution at the time of the hearing, had legal papers confiscated while he was at Baker Correctional Institution, but eventually recovered them pursuant to court order. Douglas L. Adams and Joe Lewis Holland v. Department of Corrections ex rel. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, et al., No. AV-483 (Fla. 1st DCA; December 13, 1983). At Baker Correctional Institution everything that did not fit into a bed locker was treated as contraband. David Watson, Assistant Superintendent at Florida State Prison, has been ordered by the fire marshall to cause large cardboard boxes of papers to be removed from the prison. Some items seized as contraband are burnt. Others are given to the Boys' Ranch or the inmates' welfare fund. All Florida prisons have storage rooms and inmates are ordinarily issued lockers, but there are physical limits on how much personal property can be stored at Union Correctional Institution or any other prison. Too many things in prisoners' cells make for problems with sanitation and insect infestation.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lester Bishop, was employed as a Correctional Officer at Union Correctional Institution from March 20, 1981, to April 1, 1986. Union Correctional Institution (UCI) is a facility which houses inmates ranging in custody levels from minimum to close. In December of 1981, the Respondent was given a copy of the rules of the Department of Corrections. At this time he acknowledged that he was responsible for compliance with these rules. In late March and early April, 1986, the Respondent was scheduled to work the first shift at UCI beginning at 12:00 midnight and ending at 8:00 a.m.. The supervisor for this shift was either Lieutenant R. L. Weiland or Lieutenant S. E. Stafford, depending upon the day of the week. On March 23, 1986, the Respondent called Lieutenant Weiland at Union Correctional Institution at 12:30 a.m., requesting and receiving sick leave for the remainder of this shift. On March 24, 1986, the Respondent did not report to work, and he did not contact the shift supervisor to request leave. As a result, he was placed on unauthorized leave without pay status for this day. On March 25, 1986, the Respondent called his supervisor, requesting and receiving eight hours sick leave for this day. On March 26 and 27, 1986, the Respondent neither called his supervisor nor reported for work. He was given unauthorized leave without pay status for these days. March 28 and 29, 1986, were the Respondent's regularly scheduled days off. From March 30 until April 2, 1986, the Respondent neither called his supervisor nor reported for work. He was given unauthorized leave without pay status for these days. On April 2, 1986, the Superintendent of Union Correctional Institution, T. L. Barton, sent the Respondent a letter informing him that he had abandoned his position at Union Correctional Institution, and that he was dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order terminating the employment of the Respondent, Lester Bishop, from his position as Correctional Officer at Union Correctional Institution, for abandonment, pursuant to Rule 22A 7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code, effective March 25, 1986. THIS Recommended Order entered on this 9th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Gilda H. Lambert Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1986. Ernest A. Reddick, Esquire 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Lester Bishop, in pro per Box 1341 Starke, Florida 32091
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Willie Towns and John H. Smith, are both incarcerated in the State of Florida at the Lawtey Correctional Institution. On October 12, 1984, Respondent, DOC, caused to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol 10, No 41, a copy of Emergency Rule 33ER84-6, dealing with the freezing of incentive gain time. This emergency rule was shown to have become effective when filed with the Florida Department of State on October 4, 1984. The implementation of this rule as an emergency rule was based on a finding by Respondent that there was an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requiring it. The DOC's rationale for this finding was that a need existed for Respondent to have a definite release date set to arrange for notification to law enforcement officials from other jurisdictions who had filed detainers against inmates of their impending release sufficiently in advance of that release date so that those agencies could make arrangements for assuming custody without permitting the inmates to be released into society creating a danger to the public. The rule, in summary, provides that an inmate's release date will be frozen on the 12th day of the month preceding the month of his release and that the inmate will not benefit during the frozen period from any further incentive gain time adjustments to his release date. Emergency Rule 33ER84-6 is identical in language and effect to Emergency Rule 33ER84-5 which was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol 10, No 28, on July 13, 1984, which became effective on July 2, 1984, and which expired on September 29, 1984, after 90 days. On or about December 6, 1984, Petitioners filed the Petition for Permanent Injunction to Stop the Freezing of Earned Gain Time. The Petition has five major thrusts. The first is that since the Respondent showed no need for an emergency rule, the rule implemented in that form is invalid. The second is that both this rule and its identical predecessor violate both State and Federal ex post facto principles. The third is that both the instant rule and its predecessor are being unlawfully enforced at LCI. The fourth is that in the promulgation of a rule such as this, the agency is required to publish an economic impact statement which was not done here. This particular issue was resolved adversely to the Petitioners at the telephone conference motion hearing held on December 18, 1984. The fifth is that the instant rule is an unlawful extension of its identical predecessor and its promulgation is an unlawful attempt to circumvent the provisions of Section 120.54 (9)(e), Florida Statutes (1983). Rule 33ER84-6, which had an effective date of October 4, 1984, expired on January 2, 1985. Petitioner Towns' tentative release date is March 26, 1986. Petitioner Smith's tentative release date is March 6, 1986. Neither Petitioner would be affected by the emergency rule since their incentive gain time would not be subject to being frozen until sometime in February, 1986.
The Issue Whether prison inmates' television viewing privileges are a legal interest of which the Administrative Procedure Act takes cognizance?
Findings Of Fact Until the memorandum and institutional operating pro- cedure here challenged were implemented, petitioners and other inmates at Union Correctional Institution were permitted (when not required to be doing something else) to watch television in common areas between three o'clock and eleven o'clock weekday evenings, and on holidays, between eight o'clock in the morning and two or three o'clock the following morning. After somebody donated equipment for cable television at Union Correctional Institution, and after inmates, including Lionel E. Chase, had installed the cable, James D. Stephens, recreation director at Union Correctional Institution, met with six other members of a committee which included Colonel D. E. Jackson, Jim Reddish, Assistant Superintendent for Prisoners, Lieutenant Rothman (phonetic) and an inmate representative who had no say in developing policy. As a result of the meeting, a memorandum dated January 23, 1984, was addressed to the inmate population, stating: T.V. programs including sporting events beginning at 10:00 p.m. or before, shall be viewed to completion. Any program starting after 10:00 p.m. shall be terminated at 11:30 p.m., unless authorized in advance by the T.V. Policy Committee. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 3. Earlier, on January 3, 1984, Superintendent Massey signed Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 83-30, "Institutional T.V. Policy" (IOP 83- 30) Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2. This document specified "selection and viewing procedures....[for] each respective housing area." With respect to every housing area in Union Correctional Institution, IOP 83-30 provides: On Monday through Friday, sets will be turned on at 3:00 P.M.; on weekends and holidays, sets will be turned on at 8:00 A.M. All t.v.'s shall be turned off exactly at 11:30 P.M. Sports programming and special events that air past the time limit shall be viewed to completion. IOP 83-30.5(D)(4). Although signed by Superintendent Massey on January 3, 1984, IOP 83-30 is dated December 30, 1983. The memorandum and IOP 83-30.5(D)(4) have been enforced against petitioners. In enforcing the new policy, correctional staff have not only turned the television sets off earlier on weekends, they have also closed the dayrooms earlier. The guards now padlock the dayroom doors when they turn off the television sets. In the past, the dayrooms remained open even after television viewing stopped, and inmates were allowed to read, paint, write letters and so forth. The inmates filed a grievance petition protesting this change in practice. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1. Rule Rationale Before installation of the cable, inmates had a choice of two or three programs, but they now have a much wider choice, at least when the cable is in good repair. A person or persons unknown have slashed the cable some half dozen times. There are inmates who believe the guards, some of whom reportedly do not feel inmates should watch television at all, have sabotaged the cable. According to some prison officials, it is the inmates who have slashed the cables, which, they say, is an indication of how high feeling runs between the inmate faction that prefers sports programs and the faction that does not. In any event, according to respondent's witnesses, it was for fear of inmates' quarrelling in choosing among the larger number of options cable television has brought that viewing hours on weekends and holidays were shortened. This does not, of course, explain why they were lengthened on weekdays. Nor was there any evidence that the greater range of television programs has caused any dissension among the inmates. The hearing officer has had the benefit of the parties' posthearing submissions, including petitioners' proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and final order. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, subordinate or cumulative.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, William Joel Keel, is an inmate at the correctional institution in Raiford, Florida. The Union Correctional Institution is a confinement facility operated by the Respondent, Department of Corrections. Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, permits the Respondent to adopt rules and regulations which modify the limits of an inmate's confinement under specified conditions. In January 1986, the figures of the statistics of the Department of Corrections reflect that there were approximately 1300 new commitment intakes per month. As the year 1986 progressed up through the months of April and May, this rate went up to approximately 1400 to 1600 per month, and in June, the figure stood at 1680 new commitment intakes; a new record. This record, however, has been broken since that time with a monthly intake of 1700. This large number of intakes created a terrible strain on the system which at the time had reached the federal standards and the state cap on inmate strength of 98 percent. These caps are placed on inmate strength as an effort to reduce the extreme safety and security problems created by inmate overcrowding. Because there was no new staff assigned to the Department of Corrections during the period of this increase, the staff/inmate ratio decreased as the hot summer months approached with the pressure that the climate imposes. Both interior and perimeter security of the various institutions within the Department of Corrections became more and more strained. The stress on staff caused an increase of absenteeism and illness. In addition, during this period of increased temperature and the concomitant stress related thereto, assaults and escapes become a greater and greater problem. In June 1986, the inmate population in the Florida prison system went up to 99 percent, a figure approved by the Florida Legislature due to a change brought about by an automated accounting system for prisoners. The achievement of the 99 percent plus prison population constituted an "emergency" due to overcrowding. As a result, it became obvious that there was a need to increase the number of inmates eligible for pre-expiration of sentence release. Consistent therewith was the need to establish a fair and objective way of placing inmates into this pre-release program that would protect the public. It was determined necessary to screen out from participation in the program certain prohibited types of inmates such as sex offenders unless they have been cleared and determined to be harmless. Up to the point of this determination, there appeared to be no substantial or valid guidelines. Another intent of the framers of this emergency rule was the desire to set up a procedure to remove inmates placed into the pre-release program from the program for cause in accordance with due process and constitutionality. It was deemed necessary to make clear within the parameters of the program and within the instructions for the program what had to be done and how it was to be accomplished. Nonetheless, the overriding consideration which constituted the "emergency" situation was the overpopulation in the prison system. As a result, the Department of Corrections in July 1986 promulgated and published its Emergency Rule 33ER 86-3 dealing with supervised community release which rule was to take effect upon being filed with the Department of State. This rule provided that all inmates who are within 90 days of their release date will be eligible for placement on supervised community release if they meet certain specified requirements. The emergency rule listed as the basis therefor, "this emergency rule is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of the State of Florida by providing criteria that the inmates to be placed in supervised community release must meet to help assure the safety of the public." It goes on also to indicate that the rule is necessary to prescribe appropriate sanctions for inmates within the program in the event they violate the terms and conditions of the release agreement. The program provides that the initial process is for the staff within the Department of Corrections to screen all inmates within 90 days of the end of their sentence. It was envisioned as an extension of the work release program already existing. It is for that reason that only those on or eligible for work release can participate in this new program. This is consistent with the statutory mandate to include in pre-release programs only trustworthy inmates. Inmates are also screened to ensure that they have demonstrated this trustworthiness by performing well in the more restrictive work release program. Other methods of demonstrating trustworthiness and eligibility is for the inmate to invest time in self-improvement projects such as the GED Program and to have through his past practice, shown that he will return to the prison setting at night. This screening is done monthly of all inmates with a temporary release date of 120 days in the future. By so doing, this gives the staff 30 days to develop a plan for the individual inmate to ensure a stable environment for the inmate to go to. Prior to the implementation of Chapter 86-46, Laws of Florida, the statutory authority for the current program, there was no provision for the program in issue. As soon as this law was passed the legal staff within the Department of Corrections prepared the instant emergency rule as soon as possible. Had they not been able to do an emergency rule and had the regular rulemaking process been necessary, it is most likely that they would not have had established criteria and guidelines to apply to those who had to be released due to the fact that the prison population had reached the statutory cap. In fact, it was shown that state attorneys would not cooperate with the Department of Corrections and process violations of the program unless there were specific guidelines contained therein, and, since it was necessary to reduce the inmate population, it was therefore necessary to utilize the emergency role process. With that in mind, the safety of the public into which these inmates would be released was the primary concern and generated the need to ensure that only qualified and safe inmates were released. Under the new statute and the emergency rule, 1125 inmates have been released as of the date of the hearing. Approximately 750 inmates are in the program at any given time. As a result of the implementation of this program, the prison population has dropped and remained within the new 99 percent of capacity state cap. Experience with the programs so far has shown that the inmates in the program have been guilty of only minor violations such as assault on witnesses, DWI, simple assault, and larceny. And all of these offenses came up after implementation of the emergency rule. In the case of misconduct by a released inmate which does not result in immediate charges and incarceration, such as leaving the county where placed or the state, the disciplinary team from the Department of Corrections will evaluate the inmate and impose the penalty. These penalties could include removal of gain time while still remaining within the program up to removal from the program and loss of gain time. Conditions of enrollment in the program include, as to the inmate, that he (a) stay in the area where assigned; (b) refrain from the use of drugs; (c) comply with instructions given; (d) pay court costs imposed; and (e) pay a $30 a month fee to the Department of Corrections to cover administrative costs. Though the emergency rule appears to be working satisfactorily, the Department of Corrections is in the process of regular rulemaking to adopt a permanent rule identical to the emergency rule in issue here.
