Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a tractor-trailer combination that it uses for hauling a large crane. As configured at the time in question, the gross vehicle weight was 127,780 pounds, which is distributed over one steering axle, a four-axle combination at the rear of the trailer, and a three- axle combination between the other axles. The four-axle combination bore 60,280 pounds. The outerbridge of the vehicle, which is the distance from the front axle to the rear axle, was over 70 feet. Respondent, which is a small company located in Tennessee, transports its crane throughout the southeastern portion of the United States. Respondent employs a company known as Comchek to secure the necessary permits for the trips. In this case, Comchek obtained for Respondent a Trip Permit dated April 12, 1989. The permit states that the trip is from the Georgia line to the Alabama line on Interstates 95, 295, and 10. The permit notes that the vehicle is 75 feet long, has eight axles, and weighs 135,000 pounds. One of the special requirements on the permit states: "If overweight, a max (3)000 axles allowed per grouping with a minimum of 10 feet to next adjacent axle, center to center." The "000" represents a graphic depiction of three axles. Respondent's vehicle did not meet the axle-grouping requirement. Less than 10 feet separated the four axles in the rear from each other. Thus, the vehicle, if overweight, violated this condition of the permit. The permit contains only two references to weight. One notes the gross weight. The other is in a special condition and requires that overweight vehicles obtain an 80,000 pound license tag. Although the Trip Permit does not clearly disclose on its face that any weight over 80,000 pounds is overweight, Respondent's representatives were on notice that their long and heavy vehicle exceeded the normal weight restrictions so as to be classified as "overweight." The permit's reference to 135,000 pounds cannot be construed to set the standard over which a vehicle would be overweight. Otherwise, the permittee could use the permit to transport a 300,000 pound load on an eight-axle vehicle as long as the vehicle had no axle groupings of more than three. The failure to obtain the proper permit was the fault of Respondent or its agent, Comchek. Either Respondent did not communicate the axle groupings to Comchek or Comchek did not communicate them to Petitioner. In either event, through no fault of Petitioner, the Trip Permit obtained by Respondent was violated the moment the vehicle crossed the Florida line. Inspecting the vehicle at the Sneads inspection station at 6:53 a.m. on April 14, 1989, Petitioner's representatives discovered the violation. The Load Report and Field Receipt of the same date, which cites a violation of Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, states that the gross weight of 127,780 pounds exceeds the legal weight of 80,000 pounds by 47,780 pounds. The resulting penalty is $2389. The receipt acknowledges payment under protest. At 9:53 a.m. on the same date, Petitioner issued to Respondent a second Trip Permit that suspended the requirement of 10 feet between axle groupings. Petitioner released the vehicle at 11:05 a.m., and the vehicle completed the remainder of its trip in Florida without incident. The expedience with which Petitioner issued the second Trip Permit was largely because Respondent had already crossed the bridges that were most vulnerable to excessive loads. However, due to the length of the outerbridge and the number and distribution of axles, Petitioner's expert determined that Petitioner would have, after computer analysis, issued a permit for the vehicle as originally configured, if the proper information had been supplied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating the above-cited statutes and imposing a fine of $2389 or such lesser amount as the Board may deem appropriate. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4523 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7 and 12: rejected as recitation of testimony, argument, and not finding of fact. 8-11: rejected as subordinate. 13-16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17: rejected as against the greater weight of the testimony of DOT's expert witness, Larry H. Davis. There is no evidence that the outerbridge was only 51 feet. There is conflicting evidence as to the length of the outerbridge, which is at least 64 feet. The diagram that Respondent gave to Petitioner in applying for the permit states that the vehicle length is 75 feet. Subtracting the distance of five feet and three inches between the centerline of the rearmost axle and the rear extreme of the vehicle, the outerbridge is almost 70 feet. However, adding up the confusing distances given on the diagram, which among other shortcomings is clearly not drawn to scale, the total outerbridge is 54 feet. The distance between the centerline of the three-axle grouping and the four-axle grouping was 30 feet. The distance between the first and fourth axle in the rear is about 13 feet. The distance between the steering axle and the rearmost of the three-axle group is about 21 feet. COPIES FURNISHED: David M. Maloney Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1602 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carl R. Nidiffer, President Precipitator Services Group, Inc. P.O. Box 339 Elizabethton, TN 37644 Ben Watt Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Elyse S. Trawick, Executive Secretary Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE REVIEW BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 89-4523 PRECIPITATOR SERVICES GROUP, INC., Respondent. /
The Issue Whether the Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the offenses alleged in the three administrative complaints and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a general contractor by the Petitioner. Respondent was issued license number CG C010162 in 1975 and has held that licensure ever since. The first complaint against Respondent’s licensure, like the three complaints at issue in this proceeding, arose from a post-Hurricane Andrew contract. That complaint was resolved by stipulation of the parties. Respondent did not admit to wrongdoing in his stipulation. Respondent was financially unable to comply with the terms of the settlement. Consequently, his license was suspended at the time of the formal hearing. There was no explanation as to why this complaint, which occurred at approximately the same time as the three contracts at issue in this proceeding, was prosecuted separately. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the qualifier for Allstate Construction Management, Inc. (Allstate), a Florida corporation. THE RODRIGUEZ CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4580) On March 17, 1993, Allstate entered into a contract with Anthony Rodriguez to build a garage at 15525 SW 209th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The contract price was $16,250.00, which included “plans, permit and cleanup.” Allstate was paid the sum of $4,062.50 on March 17, 1993. Allstate obtained the Dade County building permit for the project on March 26, 1993. Allstate was paid the sum of $5,593.75 on April 5, 1993, after the concrete blocks were installed. On April 8, 1993, Allstate requested a tie beam/reinforcing inspection from the Dade County building department. In response to that request, Antonio Varona inspected the project on April 12, 1993. The inspector noted that the project was not ready for inspection because no truss plans were available. Respondent testified, credibly, that he had to construct the roof conventionally because of the difficulty in obtaining pre-fabricated trusses; however, that testimony does not explain why there were no truss plans available for inspection. Appropriately engineered truss plans are required for a roof to pass inspection. Despite the failure of the project to pass inspection, Mr. Rodriguez accepted the roof and paid Allstate $4,968.75 on May 21, 1993. As of May 21, 1993, there remained a final payment of $1,625 on the contract. After May 21, 1993, Respondent and Allstate left the Rodriguez job. There was a dispute in the evidence as to whether Mr. Rodriguez fired Allstate or whether Allstate abandoned the project. This dispute is resolved by finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Allstate abandoned the Rodriguez project. When Allstate left the Rodriguez job, there were sufficient funds remaining unpaid to complete the project. Because he had obtained the initial building permit, it was incumbent upon Respondent to either obtain a final inspection of the project or notify the building department that his company had been terminated by the owner. Respondent did neither. THE ELLIS CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4581) At the times pertinent to this proceeding, William R. Ellis owned the Arleen House, which is an apartment building located at 2191 N.E. 168th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. This building suffered damages from Hurricane Andrew. On September 11, 1992, Respondent and Mr. Ellis inspected the building and Respondent prepared an estimate as to the items that had been damaged by the hurricane and other non-hurricane related repairs that should be made. The mansard roof for this building had been damaged by Hurricane Andrew to the extent that it contained gaping holes. Shortly after that inspection, Mr. Ellis met with his insurance adjuster who gave him a check in the amount of $13,000 to repair the roof. It was necessary to dry in the roof and repair the mansard as soon as possible to avoid additional damage to the building from rains. While there was a dispute as to the extent of the services Allstate was to provide Mr. Ellis, the record is clear that Respondent, on behalf of Allstate, agreed to undertake the roof repair for the sum of $13,000. Respondent told Mr. Ellis that his company had a roofing crew ready to begin work on the roof repairs as soon as Mr. Ellis paid the sum of $13,000. Between September 11 and September 15, 1992, Mr. Ellis gave Allstate a check in the amount of $13,000 with the understanding that the check he had received from the insurance company had to clear before his bank would honor the check he was giving to Allstate. Immediately thereafter1 Allstate sent a roofing crew to the project for the purpose of temporarily covering exposed areas. Despite having been told by Mr. Ellis that the check he was giving Allstate would not be good until after the check for the insurance proceeds had cleared, Allstate did not wait to deposit Mr. Ellis’ check. Respondent was promptly notified that the check Mr. Ellis had given him would not be honored by Mr. Ellis’ bank. Respondent immediately thereafter withdrew the roofing crew from the project. The roofing crew had made only minor repairs at the time they were withdrawn from the project. Respondent knew, or should have known, that the building was vulnerable to further damage from rain. On September 15, 1992, Mr. Ellis gave Respondent a second check in the amount of $13,000. This check cleared the banking process on September 18, 1992. Mr. Ellis made repeated efforts to have Allstate send a crew to repair the roof. After it withdrew the crew that had been sent to the property when Allstate received the first check, Allstate did not take action to protect the property by repairing the exposed areas of the roof. Towards the end of September 1992, a heavy rainstorm caused additional damages to Mr. Ellis’ building. Allstate did not send a crew to the project again until October 6, 1992. Mr. Ellis hired this crew away from Allstate. He testified he did so because the crew complained about Allstate not paying for the materials they were using to repair the roof and because the workmen were threatening to file liens against the property. Mr. Ellis paid this crew the sum of $3,400 to temporarily repair the roof. He then entered into a contract with another contractor to complete the roofing repairs for the sum of $17,500. Mr. Ellis demanded the return of the $13,000 he paid to Allstate, but, as of the time of the formal hearing, he had not been repaid. THE KUCHENBACKER CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4582) On November 6, 1992, Allstate entered into a contract with Carl F. Kuchenbacker to repair his residence at 18500 SW 88th Road, Miami, Florida. Mr. Kuchenbacker’s residence had been damaged by Hurricane Andrew. The initial contract price was $33,375.00. Respondent secured the building permit and Allstate began work on the project. During the course of the work, additional work was added to the contract, which raised the total contract price to $38,015.00. In late February or early March, 1993, Allstate abandoned the project without just cause and without notice to the owner. At the time it abandoned the project, Allstate had been paid the sum of $26,620.00. Allstate failed to pay all of the subcontractors and materialmen who had performed work or provided material for the Kuchenbacker job. As a result of that failure, valid liens were recorded against Mr. Kuchenbacker’s property. The following liens were recorded: Rite-Way Plumbing and Plastery, Inc. in the amount of $3,520.00; Commercial Lighting and Maintenance, Inc., in the amount of $1,835.00; and Scott Bornstein Plumbing, Inc., in the amount of $798.00. Allstate had received sufficient funds from the owner to pay these liens, but neither Respondent nor Allstate paid these liens. Mr. Kuchenbacker and Petitioner’s expert witness testified that the value of the work performed by Allstate before it abandoned the job was $21,000.00. Mr. Kuchenbacker also testified as to the items that remained undone and as to the percentage of the work that had been completed. From that testimony and from the testimony as to the estimated costs of completing the job, it is found that the sum of $11,395.00, which was the difference between the total contract price and the total amount that was paid to Allstate, was sufficient to complete the project and pay off the liens on the property. Respondent did not call for a final inspection of the property and he did not advise the Dade County Building Department that he was abandoning the project. Allstate abandoned the Kuchenbacker project because it went out of business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Petitioner impose fines totaling $5,000 against Respondent’s licensure as follows: For the violation established by Count I of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count II of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count IV of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $250. For the violation established by DOAH Case 96-4581, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count I of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $750. For the violation established by Count II of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000. For the violation established by Count III of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT in addition to the fines recommended for the violations found in DOAH Case 96-4581, Respondent’s licensure be suspended for two years. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT in addition to the fines recommended for the violations found DOAH Case 96-4582, Respondent’s licensure be suspended for two years, to run concurrently with the suspension recommended for DOAH Case 96- 4581. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 23rd day of May, 1997
The Issue The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent’s (Department of Management Services’), intended award of the Statewide Law Enforcement Radio Communications System to Intervenor, Motorola Solutions, Inc., was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is charged with overseeing and managing Florida’s Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (“SLERS”). In its role, the Department is authorized to “acquire and administer a statewide radio communications system to serve law enforcement units of state agencies, and to serve local law enforcement agencies through mutual aid channels.” See § 282.709, Fla. Stat. Section 282.709(3) directs that, “[u]pon appropriation, moneys in the [State Agency Law Enforcement Radio System Trust Fund] may be used by the department to acquire by competitive procurement the equipment, software, and engineering, administrative, and maintenance services it needs to construct, operate, and maintain the statewide radio system.” In September 2000, the Department contracted with Harris (through its predecessor) to construct, maintain, and operate the existing SLERS system. Harris identifies itself as a leader in technologies for first responders with more than 80 years of experience in public safety communications. Harris’ contract runs through June 2021. The current SLERS system provides radio coverage to law enforcement personnel throughout Florida. SLERS allows radio communication between more than 4,000 state law enforcement personnel from 22 state agencies utilizing approximately 20,000 radios in aircraft, boats, motorcycles, and patrol cars, as well as portable handheld radios. SLERS communications are provided through a network of tower sites arrayed across the state which enables radio users in one part of Florida to talk to users in other parts of the state. State agencies currently using SLERS include the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Department of Corrections, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. In addition, more than 40 local government jurisdictions have elected to participate as SLERS partners. The current SLERS is built on Harris’ proprietary technology known as Enhanced Digital Access Communication System with Extended Addressing (“EDACS-EA”). Since 2000, however, radio communication technology has evolved. The new industry standard for land mobile radio systems (such as SLERS) is known as Project 25 (“P25”).4/ Unlike Harris’ EDACS-EA system, P25 is based on non-proprietary technology. This “agnostic” or “open” standard enables law enforcement personnel from different organizations to communicate with other “subscribers” or users, regardless of the manufacturer or type of radio being used.5/ State agencies may use whatever brand of radios they want. A P25 system allows interoperable, multi-agency communications between federal, state, and local governments’ systems and radios during emergency situations. The Department initiated this procurement for the express purpose of implementing a radio system based on the new P25 technology. Although Harris’ contract runs through 2021, the Department desires for the next-generation, P25 SLERS to be constructed and operational before Harris’ contract expires to ensure a seamless transition. Background The Department’s decision to issue an Invitation to Negotiate for the new SLERS system was the culmination of a process that spanned more than two years. In 2014, the Department contracted with a private consulting firm to develop a “Business Case”6/ to review whether a private sector vendor could more effectively and efficiently provide the SLERS service based on P25 technology.7/ In January 2015, the consulting firm issued the SLERS Business Case. The Business Case recommended the state contract for services to establish a P25 SLERS. The Business Case further expressed that the new SLERS must be highly available and highly reliable. The expectation was for SLERS to provide 98 percent statewide coverage for mobile radios (i.e., in-vehicle or dashboard radios) and 95 percent statewide coverage for portable radios (i.e., handheld radios). The Business Case estimated that the overall cost to the state by outsourcing the P25 SLERS service would be $941.4 million over a 19-year contract term. The Business Case also noted that additional funding would be necessary as funds required to fulfill a SLERS contract would exceed the current annual appropriation from the Law Enforcement Radio System Trust Fund. Thereafter, the Florida legislature, in its 2016 budget, included proviso language in Specific Appropriation 2838 designating certain appropriated funds to the Department to conduct the competitive procurement for a new SLERS contract. The proviso language stated: From the funds in Specific Appropriation 2838, $933,800 of nonrecurring funds from the Law Enforcement Radio System Trust Fund is provided for the Department of Management Services to acquire and maintain the necessary staff augmentation support and subject matter experts to assist the department in the competitive solicitation and providing other services as determined necessary by the department for procuring a land mobile radio support system based upon a Project 25 Phase II delivery methodology. The system will provide communication services for state and local public safety agencies. The procurement shall accomplish, but not be limited to: improved coverage, audio clarity, interoperability, and enhanced system features including GPS location service, text messaging, and central device management. The scope of the services provided by the staff augmentation support and subject matter experts should include, but not be limited to, assisting the department in completing the following tasks identified in the study referenced in Specific Appropriation 2904A of Chapter 2014- 51, Laws of Florida: (1) project planning and management; (2)consultation and providing technical expertise to the department; (3) assist department as requested in the evaluation of responses; and (4) negotiation with procurement respondents as requested by the department. * * * When scoring proposals, the department shall consider, among other factors, any respondent's ability to leverage existing resources to the public's best interest. The department must release a competitive procurement and, thereafter, award a procurement for the replacement of the Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System. Ch. 2016-66, Laws of Florida. The Invitation to Negotiate The Invitation to Negotiate at issue in this matter is DMS-15/16-018 (the “ITN”). The Department issued the ITN for the P25 SLERS service on October 31, 2016. The ITN seeks “to establish a contract for a new generation of Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS), a Land Mobile Radio (LMR) telecommunications service to provide voice and data communications to public safety agencies.” See ITN, Section 1.10. The ITN’s overall coverage objective is a communication system that provides 98 percent coverage, 98 percent of the time for mobile radios, and 95 percent coverage, 95 percent of the time for portable outdoor radios. See ITN, Section 3.3.1. On February 7, 2017, the Department received timely Replies to the ITN from three vendors, including Harris and Motorola.8/ After receiving the Replies, the Department appointed four evaluators to evaluate the Replies to determine which vendors the Department could negotiate with. The evaluators independently reviewed and scored the technical aspects of each vendor’s Reply. See ITN, Sections 2.1, 4.1, and 4.2, and Attachment J – Evaluator Scoring Workbook. Each vendor’s proposed price was scored separately based on the vendor’s response to Attachment E – Pricing Workbook. These scores established a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible to an award of the SLERS contract. On March 21, 2017, the evaluators revealed their technical scores at a public meeting. During this meeting, the evaluators announced that Harris’ Reply received a technical score of 62.47 points. Motorola’s Reply received a technical score of 58.25 points. Regarding price, Harris’s Reply received a score of 13.05. (Harris’s Reply received a combined score of 75.52.) Motorola’s Reply received a pricing score of 25 points. (Motorola’s Reply was awarded a total score of 83.25.)9/ Following the evaluators’ review and scoring, the Department proceeded to determine the responsiveness of each Reply. The Department found that both Harris’s and Motorola’s Replies met the Responsiveness Requirements set forth in ITN, Section 3.5. Thereafter, the Department invited both Harris and Motorola to negotiate for the new SLERS contract. See ITN, Sections 2.1, 4.2.3, and 4.3. The Negotiation and Scoring of Replies The Department appointed a Negotiation Team of five individuals to conduct negotiations with Harris and Motorola. The Negotiation Team included from the Department, Ailneal “Neal” Morris (Bureau Chief of Private Prison Monitoring), Matthew Matney (Bureau Chief of Public Safety), and Jonathan Rakestraw (Operations and Management Consultant II – Division of Telecommunications). Joining them was Becky Bezemek (Planning and Policy Administrator – Information Technology, Florida Department of Law Enforcement) and Phil Royce (Communications Branch Director, Department of Emergency Management). The Department also retained two outside contractors, John Hogan and Phillip Shoemaker, as Subject Matter Experts throughout the procurement process. At least one of these experts was present at every Negotiation Team meeting. In addition, two of the evaluators, Keith Gaston and Bill Skukowski, also participated in at least one Negotiation Team meeting as a Subject Matter Expert. The Department’s negotiations with Harris and Motorola began on April 4, 2017. The Negotiation Team conducted separate negotiation sessions with each vendor. The Negotiation Team also met for their own “debriefing” and strategy sessions without either vendor present. During the negotiation sessions, the negotiators reviewed the terms and conditions of each vendor’s Reply and confirmed their understanding of the vendors’ offers. The strategy sessions included discussions of the vendors’ proposed service designs, technical solutions, and costs savings. In August 2017, the Department requested that Harris and Motorola submit more detailed design information, as well as an updated Pricing Workbook addressing cost elements related to their design submission. The Negotiation Team last met with Harris on October 17, 2017. The Negotiation Team last met with Motorola on October 18, 2017. On November 30, 2017, the Department issued a Request for Revised Reply to both Harris and Motorola. See ITN, Section 4.3. The Request for Revised Reply included changes to the initial Statement of Work, which were derived from the Negotiation Team’s discussions with the vendors. In addition, the Pricing Workbook in the Request for Revised Reply amended the initial contract term by increasing it to 15 years, with up to ten renewal years. On December 21, 2017, both Harris and Motorola submitted Revised Replies. The system design both Harris and Motorola presented differed from what they had included with their initial Replies in February 2017. However, the Negotiation Team did not meet with either Harris or Motorola to review their modified designs at any point after October 2017. The Negotiation Team conducted internal strategy sessions through January 24, 2018, to review the Revised Replies. One issue that arose during these meetings was a letter Harris sent to the Department’s Procurement Officer, Jesse Covell, on January 9, 2018. In its letter, Harris asked the Department to reconsider the “termination for convenience” language in the proposed SLERS contract. Harris indicated that this provision might affect its ability to respond to a Request for Best and Final Offer. Upon reviewing Harris’ concern, on January 24, 2018, the Department replied, “As to the termination for convenience section of the Terms and Conditions, the risk of such possibility remains with the vendor.” On January 29, 2018, the Department issued to Harris and Motorola a Request for Best and Final Offer. The Request for Best and Final Offer included: a revised Attachment A – Final Statement of Work and a revised Attachment B - Final Contract (in both clean and redlined formats). The Request for Best and Final Offer also included Attachment E, Final Pricing Workbook, and a revised Attachment F - Final Special Conditions (in both clean and redlined versions). The Request for Best and Final Offer required each vendor’s Best and Final Offer to include: (a) a response to Attachment A - Final Statement of Work showing redline changes to the vendor’s original Reply (additions via underline and deletions via strikethrough); and (b) a response to Attachment E, Final Pricing Workbook. As part of their Best and Final Offers, the Final Statement of Work directed the vendors to submit “representative documentation” of the “proposed” Service design. The vendors were further instructed to provide a diagram of the “proposed connectivity” as part their description of their System Overview Topology. See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A - Final Statement of Work, Section 16.1. In addition, the Final Statement of Work changed the word “should” to “shall” in many places. The Final Special Conditions provided that: Any Contract that results from ITN No. DMS- 15/16-018 will be subject to the following Special Conditions. * * * 22 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE[10/] The Department, by no less than 180 calendar days’ prior written notice to the Contractor, may terminate the Contract in whole or in part when the Department determines in its sole discretion that it is in the State’s interest to do so. The Contractor shall not furnish any product or service after it receives the notice of termination, except as necessary to complete the continued portion of the Contract, if any. The Contractor shall not be entitled to recover any cancellation charges or lost profits. See Attachment F, Section 45, Annual Appropriations. Pursuant to subsection 287.058(6), F.S., the Contract does not prohibit the Contractor from lobbying the executive or legislative branch concerning the scope of services, performance, term, or compensation. On February 8, 2018, the Department issued a revised Attachment B – Final Contract to be included with its Request for Best and Final Offer. This Final Contract addressed a topic of discussion between the Negotiation Team and the vendors concerning any capital investment costs the vendors might incur to buildout and deploy their P25 SLERS system prior to the start of the SLERS contract. The negotiators recognized that both vendors would expend significant up-front costs. However, they decided not to change the payment terms in the Final Contract. Instead (and in response to a Harris e-mail inquiring about the payment structure), the revised Final Contract, in Section 2.1, included language that: The initial term of the Contract will begin with [the vendor] having up to four years of non-paid transition followed by fifteen paid years. The fifteen year payment period will not begin earlier than July 1, 2021. (emphasis added). The Final Contract also extended the number of renewable contract years from seven to ten years (which was consistent with the Request for Revised Reply issued on November 30, 2017).11/ Under the Final Contract, the Department would not begin paying the vendor until after the transition period and upon the start of the “paid years.” The vendor would then be paid the “Maximum Annual Service Price” the vendor listed in the Final Pricing Workbook, apportioned on a monthly basis. On or about February 14, 2018, both Harris and Motorola timely submitted Best and Final Offers to the Department. As with the Revised Replies submitted in December 2017, the design information Harris and Motorola included in their Best and Final Offers differed from that previously submitted to the Department. However, the Negotiation Team did not meet with either Harris or Motorola following submission of their Best and Final Offers. The Best and Final Offers were distributed to the negotiators for scoring. Under Attachment L – Negotiator Scoring Workbook, each vendor’s response to Attachment A - Final Statement of Work was evaluated based on ten selection criteria, including: (1) Experience & Ability; (2) Approach; (3) Capabilities & Technology; (4) Coverage & Capacity; (5) Security; (6) Testing; (7) Support, Maintenance & Training; (8) Service Level Agreement; (9) Technology Evolution; and (10) Transition Plan. The Coverage & Capacity component included the proposed system design, as well as coverage prediction maps, frequency plan, and capacity plan. The Negotiation Team members scored each vendor’s response to Attachment A - Final Statement of Work. Each Negotiation Team member used a Scoring Sheet and scored each Best and Final Offer using the ten categories identified in Attachment L – Negotiator Scoring Workbook. Each member could award a score of zero to four points in each category. Attachment L also gave greater or lesser weight to some categories so that a total of 50 points was available to be awarded for the Best and Final Offer.12/ The Negotiation Team members did not score the vendor’s price recorded in response to the SLERS Design Pricing Workbook Pricing Summary.13/ Instead, points were awarded for pricing based on the formula: Points Awarded = Maximum Available Points x (Lowest Offered Price/Offeror’s Price). The total price Harris submitted to perform the SLERS contract was $979,983,031.14/ Motorola’s total price equaled $687,797,127.15/ Attachment M – Master Negotiation Scoring Workbook provided the best value scoring methodology. Pursuant to the Master Negotiation Scoring Workbook, the Negotiation Team members’ scores for each Best and Final Offer were averaged (up to 50 maximum points). Concurrently, the price of each Best and Final Offer was scored up to 50 maximum points. (One hundred total points was available for each vendors’ Best and Final Offer.) Post-Negotiation and Selection of the Winning Vendor At that point, as described in ITN, Section 2.1: Once negotiations have concluded and best and final offers (BAFO) have been received and reviewed, the Department will hold a Negotiation Team public meeting to recommend award to the Vendor(s) who offer(s) the best value to the state based on the selection criteria.[16/] ITN, Section 4.4, further provided that: If a contract(s) is awarded, the Contract(s) will be awarded to the responsible and responsive Vendor(s) whose [Best and Final Offer] is assessed as providing the best value to the State in accordance with Attachment L – Negotiator Scoring Workbook and Attachment M – Master Negotiation Scoring Workbook. The Department will consider the total cost of each year of the Contract, as submitted by the offeror. On March 1, 2018, the Negotiation Team held a public meeting during which each negotiator presented their Negotiator Scoring Workbook. The vendors were awarded the following scores: Harris received 43.86 points for technical, experience, and ability (the Final Statement of Work); and 35.09 points for price (the Final Pricing Workbook). Harris’ total score equaled 78.95. Motorola received 45.36 points for technical, experience, and ability (the Final Statement of Work); and 50 points for price (the Final Pricing Workbook). Motorola’s total score equaled 95.36. According to the Negotiation Team’s overall scores, Motorola “offers the best value to the state, based on the selection criteria.” On March 9, 2018, the Department’s Director of Telecommunications, Heath Beach, prepared a Recommendation of Award Memorandum recommending the new SLERS contract be awarded to Motorola “as the responsible and responsive vendor, which will provide the best value to the state, based on the selection criteria of this ITN.” The Department’s Chief of Staff, David Zeckman, signed the Recommendation of Award Memorandum accepting the recommendation. On March 13, 2018, the Department posted its Notice of Intent to Award to the Vendor Bid System stating that the Department intends to award the contract arising out of the ITN to Motorola. HARRIS’ PROTEST Harris protests the Department’s selection of Motorola for the SLERS contract instead of its own reply. Harris contends that Motorola's Best and Final Offer consists of a service design that Motorola cannot deliver. Harris, on the other hand, believes that it is the only company that can achieve the ITN’s goal of a complete, comprehensive, and reliable statewide communications network. Harris’ protest presents three primary arguments. The Negotiation Team was Not Qualified to Score the Best and Final Offers: Harris charges that the Department’s Negotiation Team was not qualified to negotiate and score the ITN. To conduct a procurement via an invitation to negotiate, section 287.057(16)(a)(2) directed the Department to assign: At least three persons . . . who collectively have experience and knowledge in negotiating contracts, contract procurement, and the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought. Harris asserts that the Department failed to select negotiators with the requisite experience and knowledge in the subject matter of the ITN. Harris contends that the technical details involved in negotiating for a P25 SLERS service, which include subject areas such as coverage, capacity, reliability, and frequency planning, are highly technical in nature and require some proficiency in radio system engineering. Harris (via Danielle Marcella) alleges that the Negotiation Team members did not display the breath or depth of knowledge Harris would have expected for a procurement of this significance and size. Harris points out that not a single member of the Negotiation Team is an engineer. Furthermore, at the final hearing, Harris produced evidence that neither Becky Bezemek nor Jonathan Rakestraw had any technical knowledge or background in law enforcement radio systems before serving on the Negotiation Team. Similarly, Neal Morris’ only prior experience was his use of portable radios while serving in the military, and he had no technical knowledge of radio communication systems. Matthew Matney’s knowledge and experience was limited to purchasing and using radios as a law enforcement officer. Furthermore, Mr. Matney had never served as a negotiator for an ITN. Neither did he know how to read a radio coverage map. Phil Royce does have a background in emergency management and public administration where he was responsible for the maintenance and programming of radios. However, he has no experience in designing communication systems. Harris acknowledges that the Negotiation Team was supported by several Subject Matter Experts. Harris recognizes that one or more of these experts attended every strategy session of the Negotiation Team. Harris contends, however, that the Subject Matter Experts did not conduct any technical evaluation of Motorola’s network design to determine whether Motorola could actually deliver the system it proposed in its Best and Final Offer. Instead, they only responded to the Negotiation Teams’ questions. The Subject Matter Experts did not comment or opine on the viability of the vendors’ competing systems. Consequently, the Department could not have conducted a comprehensive or sound technical evaluation of the service design Motorola (or Harris) proposed in its Best and Final Offer. Therefore, the Negotiation Team did not select a vendor (Motorola) who will legitimately provide “the best value to the state, based on the selection criteria.” See ITN, Section 2.1 and § 287.057(1)(c)4., Fla. Stat. In other words, to state it simply, the Department could not have fairly or competently decided that Motorola was the “best value to the state” because the Department did not know what service it would actually buy from Motorola. As a result, the Department’s decision to award the SLERS contract to Motorola must be overturned. Inadequate Coverage, Capacity, Reliability of Motorola’s Service Design: Harris alleges that Motorola cannot deliver the service design that it presented in its Best and Final Offer. Harris further charges that Motorola’s reply fails to comply with mandatory and material requirements of the Department’s ITN regarding coverage, capacity, and reliability. Consequently, because Motorola’s design is rife with unknown factors, or simply not capable of providing the required P25 SLERS service, the Department’s selection of Motorola for the SLERS contract was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Motorola’s Use of Conveyed Towers: Initially, Harris asserts that Motorola cannot deliver the P25 SLERS communications system because Motorola cannot use a number of the Radio Frequency (“RF”) tower sites listed in its Best and Final Offer. The Department’s Request for Best and Final Offer required each vendor to submit site specific, service design information. The vendors were to identify the individual tower sites they would use to establish their statewide networks in a site list. The vendors were also to include the latitude and longitude of each tower site, coverage prediction maps, a capacity plan, and a frequency plan. See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A – Final Statement of Work, Section 16. Motorola’s service design listed 144 separate RF tower sites located across the state. Harris contends that Motorola cannot use some of these 144 towers because they are “Conveyed Towers.” At this time, Harris owns the Conveyed Towers.17/ The State of Florida conveyed the Conveyed Towers to Harris as part of the original SLERS contract. Harris uses these Conveyed Towers in its current (and active) EDACS-EA system. At least 21 of the 144 towers Motorola included in its network are Conveyed Towers. As of the final hearing, Harris had no intention of allowing Motorola to use any of the Conveyed Towers. Harris further asserts that the State of Florida does not have the authority to allow Motorola to use the Conveyed Towers.18/ Harris argues that Motorola’s reply will not meet the ITN’s coverage and capacity objectives if the 21 (unauthorized) Conveyed Towers are removed from its tower network. To support its position, Harris presented expert testimony (Dominic Tusa of Tusa Consulting Services) that, when the 21 Conveyed Towers are removed from Motorola’s 144 tower sites, Motorola’s network design will contain large holes of non-coverage. In addition, the audio quality of the radio communications will drop. Therefore, because Motorola is proposing a network of tower sites it cannot use, Motorola cannot provide the radio communication service the state requires. Mr. Tusa further explained that identifying and obtaining replacement RF towers or tower sites is a lengthy and difficult process. Based on a number of factors, such as cost, permitting, and space issues, this process could take up to 18 months. Harris also asserts that even if Motorola could legally use Harris’ Conveyed Towers, Motorola still cannot effectively incorporate the Conveyed Towers into its tower network because of tower-loading, signal interference, and construction issues. Regarding tower-loading, Harris argues that, due to the existing telecommunications equipment and antennae already mounted on the Conveyed Towers, Motorola simply will not have enough space to install its own antennas for a P25 service. Further still, Motorola may not be able to affix its antennae on the tower at a height that will adequately support its coverage plan. Regarding construction issues, the ITN requires the winning vendor to instantaneously switch SLERS radio communications from Harris’ EDACS-EA system to the new P25 system. While the ITN would provide Motorola a four-year transition period to fashion a functioning “constellation” of towers, Motorola will not be permitted to interfere with Harris’ current SLERS service. Consequently, Harris proclaims that Motorola will not have sufficient time to physically install, test, then activate, the necessary antennae, microwave dishes, or other telecommunications equipment on the Conveyed Towers before its system must “go live.” Moreover, Motorola did not identify any alternate tower sites in its Best and Final Offer that it would use if the Conveyed Towers were not available. Although Motorola represented that it would deploy temporary sites to ensure the SLERS remains operational, Harris asserts that these temporary sites will not provide the required level of coverage. Mr. Tusa stressed that the loss of any tower site creates a hole in coverage. Therefore, a replacement location must be found. Harris asserts that Motorola’s own coverage prediction maps show that Motorola would not meet the ITN’s coverage requirements unless the Conveyed Towers are substituted with alternatives. Coverage of Motorola’s Service Design: As a direct result of Motorola’s (alleged) tower site deficiency, Harris argues that Motorola’s network design will not meet the ITN’s mandatory coverage requirements. At the final hearing, Harris (through Michael Hancock, a Bids and Proposals Manager for Harris) emphasized that one of the most important aspects of a law enforcement radio system is its coverage. “Coverage” refers to the area in which a radio user can communicate with other users at a certain level of quality. The ITN required the vendors’ system to provide mobile coverage at 98 percent of the area - 98 percent of the time, and portable (handheld) outdoor coverage at 95 percent of the area - 95 percent of the time. See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A – Final Statement of Work, Section 3.3.1. SLERS radio communications will entail two types of structures, RF tower sites and Microwave Relay sites. Factors that affect the efficacy of coverage include a tower’s height, as well as the location of the radio or microwave antennae on the tower. If there are coverage gaps in the geographic area where law enforcement officers are attempting to use their radios (such as, holes left after removing the Conveyed Towers), then the SLERS will not function as desired. Harris claims that Motorola is attempting to save costs by designing a network with fewer tower sites. By way of comparison, Harris’ EDACS-EA system includes 219 towers, consisting of 197 RF sites and 23 Microwave Relay sites. In addition, while Motorola represents that it can achieve the P25 SLERS performance objectives with 144 RF towers site, Harris’ own reply includes 190 RF tower sites. Mr. Hancock also observed that Motorola represented in its Best and Final Offer that it might incorporate a number of local government RF tower sites into its network. Mr. Hancock expressed skepticism that Motorola could actually use local government towers in its network indicating that many government systems may not accommodate P25 equipment. Capacity of Motorola’s Service Design: Harris argues that Motorola’s proposed service design will not meet the ITN’s mandatory capacity objective. “Capacity” refers to the communication system’s ability to accommodate multiple radio users, i.e., the number of users who can talk on the SLERS at any one time. The ITN required the vendors’ service to “provide capacity with a goal of achieving a Grade of Service of one percent ([n]o more than 1 out of 100 calls queued) during the busy hour for each Terrestrial and Maritime Service RAN [Radio Access Network] site.” (If there was no room for a user to talk, the system queued their call until a line/channel opened.) See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A – Final Statement of Work, Section 3.4.2. As with the coverage issue, Harris charges that Motorola’s system design cannot meet the ITN’s mandatory capacity requirements due to the low number of RF tower sites and working radio channels. Reliability of Motorola’s Service Design: Harris argues that Motorola’s system design will not meet the ITN’s reliability objectives. The ITN requires the vendor’s to provide a service “based upon a high availability/high reliability system providing resilience and tolerance to component and connectivity failures.” See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A – Final Statement of Work, Section 3.1.5. Harris asserts that Motorola’s Best and Final Offer fails to comply with this requirement. Harris argues that Motorola’s proposed system design is unreliable because of Motorola’s extensive use of, often lengthy, microwave paths. Harris' expert, Mr. Tusa, explained that microwave signals are used for point-to-point (i.e., tower-to- tower) transmission. Motorola intends to use mostly 11- gigahertz (“GHz”) microwave links, as opposed to 6-GHz microwave links. Mr. Tusa explained that 11-GHz microwave channels are more susceptible to outages and “rain fade”19/ under adverse weather conditions. Furthermore, the likelihood of rain fade affecting 11-GHz microwave links increases with the length of the connectivity path between two tower sites.20/ Because of the amount of rain activity in Florida, these deficiencies make for a highly unreliable system. (In contrast, Harris’ proposed network uses hardened network connectivity at all equipment locations. These locations are also connected together with a redundant microwave network to ensure reliable connectivity.) Mr. Tusa declared that Motorola's service design fails to provide a “highly reliable” antenna configuration because the number of long, 11-GHz microwave paths between tower sites will expose the SLERS network to possible signal distortion and loss of radio signals during rain storms. Furthermore, Motorola’s backup plan, the use of Ethernet and carrier-provided circuits, is also typically unreliable. Consequently, the network design Motorola’s proposes in its Best and Final Offer creates an unacceptable risk and places the reliability of the SLERS service in jeopardy. Motorola’s Inadequate Frequency Plan: Finally, Harris attacks the “detailed frequency plan” Motorola provided in its Best and Final Offer. The ITN required the vendors to list the proposed radio frequencies per tower site and indicate whether each frequency passed the respective analysis for each frequency type. The ITN specifically directed the vendors to “[d]escribe how a detailed frequency plan will be developed and any special considerations for use of 700 MHz and 800 MHz channels.”21/ See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A – Final Statement of Work, Sections 3.5 and 16.4. Harris criticizes Motorola’s decision to transmit approximately 50–70 percent of its frequencies using 700 band channels, as opposed to the 800 band. (Harris intends to only use 800 band channels.) Harris (through Mr. Tusa and Mr. Hancock) asserts that this proposed frequency plan is defective. Specifically, the Motorola frequency plan includes radio frequencies that are not currently available for use in the SLERS network. Other frequencies are not licensable in the state of Florida as they are currently used by the state of Georgia. Consequently, because many of the 800 MHz channels Motorola listed in its frequency plan are unavailable, the Department could not reasonably determine whether Motorola’s service design will meet the ITN’s coverage and capacity objectives. Therefore, the Department’s decision to award the SLERS contract to Motorola based on the information included in its Best and Final Offer is faulty and must be rejected. To conclude, based on all the above technical deficiencies, Harris argues that the Department could not discern the actual design of Motorola’s SLERS service when it ranked the vendors’ Best and Final Offers. The intent behind the Department’s Request for Best and Final Offer was to solidify the essential details of each vendor’s proposed P25 service. Harris asserts that, based on the amount of ambiguous or misrepresented elements in Motorola’s reply, the Department’s Negotiation Team/scorers could not have reasonably determined Motorola’s plan. Consequently, when the Department scored Motorola’s Best and Final Offer, it could not have known, or verified, exactly how Motorola intends to deliver the SLERS service. As a result, the Department’s determination that Motorola’s Best and Final Offer constitutes the “best value” to the state is fundamentally flawed. The Price of Motorola’s Proposed System Design is Unknown: Finally, Harris complains about the contract price Motorola offered in its Best and Final Offer. Harris asserts that Motorola has presented an incomplete price which, based on Motorola’s flawed service design, will actually cost the state substantially more than the amount Motorola seeks. Harris alleges that Motorola’s response to Final Pricing Workbook does not contain Motorola’s complete price to construct, operate, and maintain its proposed network. Harris points to the ITN’s requirement that the vendors shall submit detailed component pricing including the cost of each specific tower site listed in the vendor’s Best and Final Offer. See ITN, Section 3.9.6, and the SLERS Design Pricing Workbook. Because Motorola cannot use some or all of 144 RF tower sites it identified, the Department cannot accurately evaluate the price of the network solution Motorola proposes to deliver. Consequently, because the Department has no way of knowing the true price of the SLERS system it will be buying from Motorola, the Department’s award of the SLERS contract to Motorola is erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious. Harris further asserts that Motorola’s reply omits certain costs. Harris objects to Motorola’s statement in its Best and Final Offer that certain “tower costs will be a subject for negotiations.” Motorola also indicated that other costs, such as security fences, “have not been included in our pricing sheets.” Harris also points out that a cost is typically associated with the use, access to, and maintenance of systems owned and operated by third parties, which was not included in Motorola’s pricing summary. Harris suggests that this pricing obfuscation explains why Motorola’s proposed contract price is significantly lower than Harris’ price (by approximately $300,000,000). Motorola either does not accurately portray anticipated costs, or simply omits costs from its Final Pricing Workbook in hopes of negotiating a price increase after the contract is awarded. This tactic not only enabled Motorola to obtain an unfair pricing advantage over its competitor, but impaired the Negotiation Team’s ability to reasonably ascertain whether Motorola will actually deliver the SLERS service the Department seeks. Consequently, because the true price and functionality of Motorola’s proposed service design cannot be calculated or evaluated, the Department does not know what it is paying for if it awards the SLERS contract to Motorola. As a result, the Department cannot fairly conclude that Motorola will provide the “best value” to the state. (Harris, on the other hand, asserts that it can build and deliver the system design the ITN solicited with no further calculations, hidden costs, or modifications.) Therefore, the Department’s contract award to Motorola must be rejected. DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO HARRIS’ PROTEST In response to Motorola’s challenge, the Department asserts that it properly acted within its legal authority, as well as the ITN specifications, to award the SLERS contract to Motorola. Initially, the Department (through Robert Downie II, its Deputy Director for the Division of Telecommunications) emphasized that, in this procurement, the Department is searching for a vendor to provide a “service.” The Department is not purchasing the new P25 SLERS system. Therefore, when determining the “best value,” the Department focused on each vendor’s ability to construct, and then implement, a radio communications “solution” that would meet the SLERS objectives. The Department believes it found the “best value” in Motorola’s proposed service design. Harris Lacks Standing to Protest the Department’s Notice of Intent to Award: As a preliminary issue, the Department asserts that Harris lacks standing to challenge the Department’s Notice of Intent to Award the SLERS contract to Motorola. In support of its position, the Department argues that its Request for Best and Final Offers advised that: By submitting a Best and Final Offer, the vendor confirms acceptance of the attached final Contract and Special Conditions, as is; do not make any changes, revisions, exceptions, or deviations. (emphasis added). See Request for Best and Final Offer, page 2. Despite this directive, Harris wrote in the cover letter of its Best and Final Offer, as well as its Pricing Summary (both dated February 14, 2018): Harris’ value proposition comes with basic assumptions regarding funding and financial risk. . . . [T]he ITN terms and conditions present risks to the Contractor and its lenders making it difficult to finance the Contractor’s capital investment program. With no additional funding identified to promptly pay the Contractor as capital investment costs are incurred, Harris is unable to assume such risk. (emphasis added). Harris added: Until additional adequate funding is provided by the Legislature and until the Department agrees to pay costs as incurred, or another mutually agreeable resolution is arrived at (including assurances of capital cost recover upon early contract termination), project implementation will be delayed. Harris looks forward to working with the Department to address this challenge. Until this and the final remaining open items have been mutually agreed upon, Harris agrees that a notice of intent to award does not form a contract between the Department and Harris and that no contract is formed until such time as Harris and the Department formally sign a contract. (emphasis added). Harris appears to condition its acceptance of the SLERS contract on the Department’s ability to obtain “additional adequate funding.” Despite Harris’ choice of words, the Department accepted, evaluated, found responsive, and scored Harris’ Best and Final Offer. At the final hearing, however, the Department (and Motorola) argued that Harris’ cover letter creates a “conditional” offer. The Department (and Motorola) further maintained that Harris is attempting to create an “exception or deviation” from the terms of the Department’s Request for Best and Final Offer, by refusing to execute the Final Contract until the Department agrees to pay its capital investment costs. To counter the Department’s standing argument, Harris presented Danielle Marcella, the author of Harris’ cover letter, to clarify its intent. Ms. Marcella, who led Harris’ effort to win the SLERS contract, acknowledged that, after reviewing the Department’s Request for Best and Final Offer, Harris had several reservations about agreeing to the SLERS contract. Ms. Marcella first explained that Harris objected to executing a contract that was not adequately and fully funded. Ms. Marcella correctly observed that the price both Harris and Motorola offered to provide the SLERS service exceeds the existing legislative appropriation. See also Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment B – Final Contract, Section 3.7, which states that, “The State of Florida’s performance and obligation to pay under this contract is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Legislature.” Ms. Marcella testified that Harris did not desire to sign a contract “until the Department agree[d] to pay costs as incurred or another mutually agreeable resolution is arrived at.” Harris also had serious concerns about the Termination For Convenience provision in the SLERS contract, as well as the Department’s position that it would not reimburse the vendors’ start-up costs during the transition period. See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment F – Final Special Conditions, Section 22, and Attachment B – Final Contract, Sections 2.1 and 3.7. Harris feared that building a new P25 SLERS would not be commercially viable unless it received some payment during the transition period. Harris hoped that the Department would change its mind about this provision prior to executing the contract. At the final hearing, Ms. Marcella softened Harris’ arguably uncompromising position in its cover letter. Ms. Marcella claimed that Harris was “simply stating in the [cover] letter that we want the ability to ask the Legislature . . . if the Legislature appropriated money.” Ms. Marcella represented that Harris would have agreed to the SLERS contract even if the Legislature did not appropriate additional money. Ms. Marcella further declared that, “to the extent that the contract could be executed, [Harris] would execute it.” Ms. Marcella stressed that Harris would not have submitted a Best and Final Offer unless it was prepared to sign the Final Contract the Department presented. (As discussed in paragraphs 131 through 139 below, the undersigned concludes that Harris has standing to bring this bid protest matter.) The Negotiation Team Was Qualified: The Department rejected Harris’ allegation that the Negotiation Team members lacked the requisite, collective experience and knowledge in negotiating contracts, contract procurement, and the program areas and service requirements in order to negotiate, then score the vendors’ Best And Final Offers. At the final hearing, each of the Negotiation Team members testified about their background and experience in state procurements and radio communication systems as follows: Neal Morris is currently the Bureau Chief of Prison Monitoring for the Department. In his job, Mr. Morris coordinates the development and negotiation of contracts with private contractors for the acquisition, construction, and operation of private correctional facilities. Mr. Morris has participated as a negotiator in approximately ten prior invitations to negotiate. Mr. Morris earned a degree in Management Information Systems. He is also a Florida Certified Contract Manager, as well as a Florida Certified Contract Negotiator. Mr. Morris used law enforcement radios while serving in the United States Marine Corps. Mr. Morris testified that, before he ranked the replies, he reviewed and understood the ITN. He also received technical information from the Subject Matter Experts, as well as reviewed the vendors’ responses to questions during the Negotiation Team meetings. Mr. Morris also represented that the Negotiation Team members treated the vendors fairly and gave their replies equal consideration. In scoring the Best and Final Offers, Mr. Morris ranked Motorola higher than Harris, awarding Motorola’s reply more points in the Experience & Ability category. Becky Bezemek is the Planning and Policy Administrator for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”). In her job, Ms. Bezemek manages all information technology contracts and issues relating to procurements for FDLE. She has a degree in Management Information Systems. Ms. Bezemek is also a Florida Certified Contract Manager and has had more than ten years of information technology experience, including experience as an Information Security Manager. Ms. Bezemek testified that, during the Negotiation Team meetings, she relied upon the Subject Matter Experts to educate her on the technical aspects of each vendor’s reply. In scoring the Best and Final Offers, Ms. Bezemek ranked Motorola higher than Harris, awarding Motorola’s reply more points in the Approach, Testing, and Technology Evolution categories. Phil Royce serves as the Communications Branch Director for Florida Division of Emergency Management. He is also the Statewide Interoperability Coordinator. Mr. Royce received a degree in Emergency Management and Public Administration. Mr. Royce has over 33 years of experience in communications, electronics, and electrical development, and management experience in 911 centers, communications sites, satellite networks, and first responder subscriber units. He has also worked with state, national, and international committees on communications governance, systems development, and policy. Mr. Royce also sits on the SLERS technical committee for Florida’s Joint Task Force. Mr. Royce testified that he understands how land mobile radio communications systems work, and that he provides consulting and coordination around the state and nation to improve interoperability between radio systems. In addition, Mr. Royce has received instruction on radio operating systems, encryption, radio system infrastructure and maintenance, as well as P25 radio implementation at both Motorola University and Harris University. He formerly served as the lead communications technician for the Alachua County Sherriff’s Office where he played a significant role in procuring and implementing its law enforcement radio system. Mr. Royce also assisted the sheriff’s office with loss of signal and coverage issues, and helped develop and build a radio frequency tower. Mr. Royce added that he had no concerns about the Negotiation Team members’ ability to score the ITN. In scoring the Best and Final Offers, Mr. Royce ranked Motorola higher than Harris, awarding Motorola’s reply more points in the Approach and Capabilities & Technology categories. He scored Harris higher in Transition Plan. Matthew Matney currently serves as the Bureau Chief of Public Safety for the Division of Telecommunications at the Department. In his role, Mr. Matney supervises Department employees who manage and repair of Florida’s current SLERS system. As part of his responsibilities, Mr. Matney works to ensure that the SLERS remains operational. He also supervises engineers who work on SLERS. In addition, he provides administrative support to the Joint Task Force on State Agency Law Enforcement Communications, the state governing body that manages improvements and changes to SLERS. Mr. Matney also oversees the Florida Interoperability Network and Mutual Aid programs. He is a Florida Certified Contract Manager. Since 1977, Mr. Matney has attended numerous specialized radio and network communications training classes and courses. As a former law enforcement officer, Mr. Matney gained hands-on experience using law enforcement radios. Mr. Matney testified that, during the Negotiation Team meetings, he was able to ask the Subject Matter Experts any questions he had about coverage maps and modelling. Mr. Matney had no concerns whether Motorola could provide a network design that met the ITN’s coverage objectives. In scoring the Best and Final Offers, Mr. Matney ranked Motorola higher than Harris, awarding Motorola’s reply more points in the Approach, Capabilities & Technology, and Service Level Agreements categories. He scored Harris higher in Coverage & Capacity. Jonathan Rakestraw is an Operations and Management Consultant II in the Division of Telecommunications for the Department. He has served as a Contract/Project Manager for over a decade. Mr. Rakestraw is a certified Project Management Professional, a Florida Certified Contract Manager, and a Florida Certified Contract Negotiator. Mr. Rakestraw testified that he believed Motorola’s system design will meet the ITN’s coverage objectives. On the other hand, Mr. Rakestraw was the lone negotiator who scored Harris’ Best and Final Offer higher than Motorola’s. He awarded Harris more points in the Transition Plan category. Assisting the Negotiation Team were several Subject Matter Experts, including John Hogan, Philip Shoemaker, Robert Downie II, Keith Gaston, and Bill Skukowski. John Hogan is vice president of Omnicom Consulting Group, which performs needs assessments, develops procurements, and assists in the implementation and management of public safety radio systems. Mr. Hogan has been a licensed professional electrical engineer since 1997, and has performed an extensive amount of coverage analysis, system design propagation, and design modeling for land mobile radio systems. Mr. Hogan participated in all negotiation session, but one, and every strategy session, except one. Throughout the negotiation process, Mr. Hogan answered questions and provided guidance to the Negotiation Team members. He also suggested questions the negotiators might ask the vendors, as well as provided information to facilitate the negotiators’ understanding of any highly technical matters. Mr. Hogan relayed that he ensured that the negotiators sufficiently understood the vendors’ presentations so that they were able to knowledgably score the replies. Philip Shoemaker is currently the chief executive officer of Inspired Technologies. Mr. Shoemaker helped write the SLERS Business Case for the Department. He also assisted in drafting the ITN. Mr. Shoemaker has over 28 years of experience in the information technology field and vast experience in telecommunication procurements. Mr. Shoemaker participated in all aspects of the Department’s negotiation process involving the Negotiation Team, except for actually scoring the vendors’ Best and Final Offers. Robert Downie II serves as the Deputy Director of the Department’s Division of Telecommunications. Mr. Downie assisted the Negotiation Team by advising on the program area during the negotiations. Keith Gaston is a Major with the Florida Highway Patrol. Major Gaston is the security manager for the current SLERS system, as well as a Joint Task Force Technical Committee member. Major Gaston participated in at least one strategy session. Bill Skukowski is a Fish and Wildlife Commission employee and a member of the Joint Task Force Technical Committee. Bill Skukowski participated in at least one strategy session. Based on their various professional and educational backgrounds and vocational experience, the Department was quite comfortable that the negotiators were fully capable and competent to review and score all aspects of Harris’ and Motorola’s Best and Final Offers. The negotiators were adequately knowledgeable of, and well-prepared for, their task of understanding and evaluating the vendors’ network designs, coverage, capacity, and reliability (including use of microwave paths) capabilities, frequency plans, and responses to other objectives in the ITN’s Final Statement of Work. The Department asserts that the Negotiation Team reached the right conclusion for the right reasons. Based on the testimony received at the final hearing, the Department demonstrated that the members of the Negotiation Team “collectively [had] the experience and knowledge” required to conduct and score the ITN. Each negotiator convincingly testified regarding their ability to ably and proficiently participate in the Department’s solicitation process. Although, none of the negotiators, individually, had prior experience developing a statewide telecommunications network or administering a P25 system, as a team, they possessed the acumen and competence to conduct this SLERS procurement. Therefore, Harris did not establish that the Department’s appointment of a Negotiation Team consisting of Neal Morris, Becky Bezemek, Phil Royce, Matthew Matney, and Jonathan Rakestraw was contrary to its governing statutes (section 287.057(16)(a)2.). Coverage, Capacity, Reliability Of Motorola’s Service Design: Motorola’s Use of Conveyed Towers: Regarding Harris’ contention that Motorola should not have incorporated Conveyed Towers into its tower network (and, therefore, the Department’s scoring of Motorola’s Best and Final Offer was flawed), the Department (through each negotiator, as well as Mr. Hogan) explained that it was well aware that Motorola’s system design of 144 RF Towers included 21 Conveyed Towers. The Negotiation Team specifically examined the issue of Motorola’s (or any winning vendor) reliance on Conveyed Towers if it is awarded the SLERS contract. The negotiators concluded that the state has the right to authorize Motorola to use the Conveyed Towers. The Department relayed that, to help reduce costs, the ITN encouraged vendor’s to take advantage of state resources. As stated in the 2016 budget proviso language, the Legislature instructed the Department, “[w]hen scoring proposals, the department shall consider, among other factors, any respondent’s ability to leverage existing resources to the public’s best interest.” (The ITN specifically referenced this quote in its Request for Best and Final Offer, Section 9.) Furthermore, even assuming that Harris’ expert (Mr. Tusa) accurately testified that Motorola cannot meet the ITN’s coverage requirements without the Conveyed Towers, the Negotiation Team was satisfied with Motorola’s representation that, for each Conveyed Tower in its proposed network, Motorola could acquire or construct an alternate tower that would enable Motorola to meet and maintain all coverage and capacity requirements. The Department, through Mr. Hogan and Mr. Shoemaker, testified that the ITN allowed the vendors flexibility in constructing their service design. The Department also understood that either vendor might alter their tower networks before the SLERS contract officially starts in July 2021. Mr. Hogan relayed that Motorola satisfactorily demonstrated the ability to build and adapt a tower network that would meet the ITN’s coverage objectives. The Department stressed that the ITN did not mandate a specific number of radio towers a vendor must use to reach the coverage and capacity objectives. Neither did the ITN dictate where a vendor was to actually locate its constellation of tower sites. Furthermore, Mr. Hogan attested that neither the ITN nor the Negotiation Team required the vendors to identify alternative tower sites. Mr. Hogan acknowledged that a vendor will confront a number of factors in selecting a new tower site, including access, construction, cost, environment, and permitting issues. However, he believed that six months was a reasonable amount of time Motorola would need to find an alternate tower site. In addition, to protect the Department’s interests, the Final Statement of Work provides that, before the SLERS contract begins, the vendor’s system will undergo significant final acceptance testing. If the vendor is unable to meet the 98 percent/95 percent coverage requirements and pass the final acceptance test, the vendor will be obligated to make whatever changes are necessary to ensure that its service meets the coverage requirements at no additional charge to the State. The state will bear no costs beyond the “Total Price for Scoring” the vendor listed on its SLERS Design Pricing Workbook Pricing Summary, even if the vendor must construct additional towers.22/ The Department fully expected the vendors to rely upon their own experience to develop innovative solutions to meet the ITN’s coverage and capacity objectives. In line with this approach, the Department pointed to an e-mail sent on November 6, 2017, when it made clear to both vendors that: All price submissions represent maximum amounts owed to the vendor. The Department will not be responsible for payment in excess of the prices submitted, regardless of the eventuality. For example, if the awarded vendor proposes to use a resource controlled by the state or a governmental entity and is unable to secure the use of that resource, then the vendor must utilize an alternate resource and charge no higher cost than set forth in the vendor’s Best and Final Offer. In other words, if Motorola could not use the Conveyed Towers in its network, then Motorola assumed all risk to buildout and complete its tower constellation. The state will not bear any additional costs or expenses necessary to replace or substitute towers. Motorola’s Service Design: The Department is fully satisfied that Motorola is capable of designing and implementing a system that will meet the ITN’s requirements. Mr. Downie and Mr. Shoemaker expressed that the Department sought to place the onus on the vendors, not the state, to build the P25 SLERS system. Therefore, the ITN allowed the vendors to be creative and flexible in crafting a proposed “solution” to build, then operate, the new P25 SLERS. Mr. Hogan represented that, based on the methodology and coverage prediction maps Motorola presented in its Best and Final Offer, the Department believes that Motorola will build a system that meets the ITN’s coverage and capacity objectives. Regarding Harris’ charge that the frequency plan Motorola listed in its Best and Final Offer was inadequate to meet the ITN’s capacity objective, Mr. Hogan pointed out that the ITN did not require vendors to present a “valid final” frequency plan. Instead, the Request for Best and Final Offer asked vendors to describe how they would develop their frequency plan. Furthermore, Mr. Hogan explained that radio frequencies available on one date, (e.g., February 14, 2018) might not be available at a later date (e.g., July 1, 2021) when the vendor would apply to the Federal Communications Commission for the frequency licenses. Further, Mr. Hogan testified that the Department recognizes that conducting a frequency interference analysis or intermodulation analysis is an enormous and costly undertaking. Therefore, the Department did not request the vendors complete this task prior to an award of the SLERS contract. He commented that this type of analysis for a statewide network of this scale is normally accomplished during system implementation, along with an extensive site-by-site review. Mr. Hogan further articulated that if a proposed tower site is determined to be unusable during the construction and implementation of the network, the vendor, not the state, is obligated to identify and secure a viable, alternate tower site. The Department also found that Motorola’s proposed service design satisfies the reliability requirements of the Request for Best and Final Offer. During negotiations (and at the final hearing), Motorola presented credible testimony explaining that any risk of rain fade in its 11-GHz microwave paths would not unacceptably disrupt SLERS radio communications. Mr. Hogan explained that microwave is commonly used in public safety communication systems. Microwave is the mechanism that allows wide area communication over long distances. Therefore, the Department anticipated the vendors’ use of microwave paths between towers to enable their systems to meet the required reliability expectations. The ITN did not prohibit vendors from using 11-GHz microwave paths. Mr. Hogan was aware that rain may cause the microwave signal levels to decrease. Mr. Hogan was also cognizant that 11-GHz microwave paths are more susceptible than 6-GHz microwave paths to rain fade. Therefore, thunderstorm activity combined with the lengthy distance between towers in Motorola’s network might affect the connectivity of Motorola’s system design. However, Mr. Hogan was satisfied that Motorola’s design includes a mechanism to reduce loss due to rain fade, thereby maintaining the desired reliability of its system. Motorola intends to equip its RF towers with a back-up Ethernet system, as well as multiple alternate paths. This system design will operate to prevent RF towers from losing connection to the network during a rain storm. MOTOROLA RESPONSE TO HARRIS’ PROTEST In arguing that Harris’ protest has no merit, Motorola asserts that not only does its Best and Final Offer comply with all ITN requirements, but its proposed service design will provide the state with a new P25 radio system that takes advantage of the latest advancements in technology and network designs. Motorola’s solution will meet the performance objectives set forth in the ITN. And, it will do so for approximately $300 million less than Harris. Coverage, Capacity, Reliability of Service Design: Regarding Harris’ allegations that Motorola’s Best and Final Offer does not meet the ITN’s technical requirements, Motorola responds as follows: Use of Conveyed Towers: Motorola testified that the Department fully supported Motorola’s (or any vendor’s) use of Conveyed Towers to develop their tower network. Motorola points to the Department’s Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment A – Final Statement of Work, Section 9, which refers directly to Specific Appropriation 2838, chapter 2016-66, Laws of Florida, and states, “When scoring proposals, the department shall consider, among other factors, any respondent's ability to leverage existing resources to the public's best interest.” Motorola understood that the state will have access to the Conveyed Towers, rent free, beginning in 2021 after the Harris SLERS contract expires. Based on the legislative directive to “leverage existing resources,” Motorola readily incorporated the Conveyed Towers into the overall architecture of its system. Motorola also points out that the ITN did not require vendors to provide a list of fixed and immutable tower sites or identify alternate tower sites in their Best and Final Offers. Instead, the winning vendor was free (if not expected) to finalize their tower networks during the transition period prior to the start of the SLERS contract.23/ Several provisions of the ITN demonstrate that the Department sought the vendors’ preliminary plans for future development of a coverage configuration that would meet the SLERS service requirements. For example, ITN, Section 3.3.1, directed the vendors to “[d]escribe how the proposed Terrestrial and Maritime Service design will be developed.” (emphasis added). ITN, Section 9, advised that the Department required “a detailed Transition Plan that defines the proposed activities that will be completed during the SLERS implementation. Should the [vendor] propose utilization of existing resources[,] the Transition Plan shall explain how these resources will be leveraged in the transition of the implementation.” (emphasis added). At the final hearing, Motorola, through Andrew Miller, a system engineer, credibly testified that Motorola had already identified potential alternative sites to replace any of the 144 towers listed in its Best and Final Offer should they not be available or feasible for use in its final tower network. In reaching its proposed list of 144 tower sites, Motorola personnel visited more than 290 potential sites to evaluate suitable candidates. Motorola personnel also assessed approximately 300 additional sites in case any of the 144 tower sites were unavailable for the new P25 system. In addition, to verify its coverage assumptions, Motorola ran coverage-prediction scenarios through computer programs which enabled Motorola to further refine its service design. Mr. Miller was confident that Motorola would find alternative tower sites before July 2021 if Harris’ Conveyed Towers were not available. Furthermore, Motorola’s Best and Final Offer represented to the Department that if access to any of the Conveyed Towers was delayed, Motorola is prepared to deploy temporary sites and Project 25 Inter RF Subsystem Interfaces (“ISSI”) to ensure that its SLERS system meets the required level of operational capacity. Finally, Motorola also points out that the Department made it clear during negotiations that if Motorola won the contract, but was not able to use any of Harris’ Conveyed Towers (or any other “existing resource”) in its system design, Motorola was responsible for finding an alternative at no additional cost to the Department. Motorola also referenced Ms. Covell’s e-mail, dated November 6, 2017, wherein she explained that, “All price submissions represent maximum amounts owed to the vendor. The Department will not be responsible for payment in excess of the prices submitted, regardless of the eventuality.”24/ Reliability of Motorola’s Service Design: Motorola declares that its service design fully complies with the ITN’s requirement that vendors must build redundancies and backup options into the P25 system to account for possible connectivity, component, or hardware failures. See ITN, Section 3.1.5. Regarding Harris’ charge that Motorola’s use of 11-GHz microwave paths is less reliable than 6-GHz microwave in bad weather, Motorola responds that it designed its system with several layers of redundancy. At the final hearing, Motorola presented Said Jilani, a network solutions architect with Aviat Networks, who described how Motorola’s microwave transport system was designed to account for, and circumvent, possible rain fade. Mr. Jilani explained that Motorola’s network includes: 1) industry traditional microwave radio (operating mostly on 11-GHz channels, as well as some 6-GHz channels)25/; 2) carrier circuits supplied by AT&T (referred to as Ethernet); and 3) 4G LTE wireless (similar to cell phone service). Furthermore, in designing its system’s microwave paths, Motorola assessed microwave path reliability, and identified backup paths or other options in the event of outages or microwave fading due to rain, equipment failure, or other adverse conditions. Mr. Jilani further testified that Motorola’s proposed system design includes Internet Protocol/Multiple Protocol Layer Switching (“IP/MPLS”) routing equipment at every tower site. This IP/MPLS equipment serves to identify the optimal microwave path to transmit radio signals. The optimal path might be a microwave path or an AT&T-owned carrier path. Mr. Jilani stated that IP/MPLS technology provides full detection, quick recovery, and scaling of the network through virtualization. The use of IP/MPLS technology is a common practice in the public-safety industry. In developing its system, Motorola also used a software program to analyze the parameters and availability of each microwave path. Factored into the program’s analysis was historical rain data for the applicable region of the state. Should rain fading occur, Motorola’s system will be programed to detect the issue and switch transmission to the second-shortest microwave path (or AT&T carrier path). With its multi-layered design, Motorola asserts that its system will remain fully operational during extreme weather events. Motorola’s preliminary design is expected to provide 99.999966 percent composite path availability. (Mr. Miller explained that this standard equates to approximately 15 seconds of lost radio signal per year if every communications system at a tower site failed at once-–thus, a highly reliable number.) Therefore, while Motorola’s decision to use mostly 11-GHz microwave paths (instead of 6-GHz channels) increases the potential for rain fade, Mr. Jalani and Mr. Miller credibly testified that Motorola’s backup paths enable its SLERS system to continue operations and remain viable even during heavy rainstorms. 3) Motorola’s Frequency Plan: Motorola asserts that the frequency plan it provided in its Best and Final Offer fully complies with the terms of the ITN. Motorola argues that Harris’ contention that Motorola cannot implement a viable frequency plan is incorrect. In addition, the ITN sought a preliminary, not final, frequency plan.26/ (The ITN directed the vendors to “[d]escribe how a detailed frequency plan will be developed and any special considerations for use of 700 MHz and 800 MHz channels.” See Final Statement of Work, Section 3.5. (emphasis added).) The Department did not require the vendors to pre-license their frequencies at the time they submitted their Best and Final Offers. Motorola’s expert witness, Dominic Villecco of V-Comm, LLC, credibly testified that, if awarded the SLERS contract, Motorola will be able to effectuate a fully capable and compliant frequency plan to meet the ITN’s coverage objectives. Motorola intends to find the majority of the frequencies it will use for radio transmissions in 700 band frequencies. Mr. Villecco explained that 800 band frequencies are congested because they have been allocated and licensed for public-safety purposes since the 1980s. In contrast, 700 band frequencies, which were not licensed for public-safety purposes until the 2000s, contain more unused channels. Mr. Villecco relayed that Motorola’s system will need between 6-10 channels at each tower site. In its Best and Final Offer, Motorola identified potential frequencies it might use to generate its frequency plan. Mr. Villecco opined that, prior to implementing the SLERS contract in July 2021, Motorola should not have any difficulty acquiring available frequencies in the 700 band over which to conduct radio communications. In addition, using the “cleaner” 700 band will allow Motorola more flexibility to position RF tower sites where necessary to provide maximum coverage and reliability. Motorola further contends that Harris’ allegations ignore how radio frequencies are allocated and licensed in practice. Testimony at the final hearing explained that licenses for radio frequencies are normally issued after a communications tower or network has been constructed or installed. Consequently, the competitors for this SLERS contract will not be able to definitively identify which radio frequencies their communication networks will use (or which frequencies will actually be available for use) until a license is applied for. Furthermore, because the final tower design will be pieced together over the transition period, a frequency that was identified at the time the vendors submitted their Best and Final Offers might not be available when the system “goes live.” Mr. Villecco testified that, consequently, securing the precise statewide frequency plan prior to award of the SLERS contract is impractical, if not impossible. Instead, the standard industry practice in procurements is for a vendor to ascertain the general availability of frequencies. Then, after award of the contract, the winning vendor identifies the specific, available frequencies to incorporate into its network. At that point, a license to use those frequencies is obtained from the Federal Communications Commission in the name of the applicable government entity. Thereafter, the vendor fully develops the final frequency plan (as contemplated by ITN, Section 3.5.) The Price is the Price: Regarding Harris’ complaint that Motorola submitted an (unrealistic) price to provide the SLERS service, Motorola pithily responded that “the price is the price.” In other words, should Motorola be awarded the SLERS contract, the total price that the Department will be obligated to pay for the service is capped by the figure Motorola quoted on the Final Pricing Workbook ($687,797,127). See Request for Best and Final Offer, Attachment B – Final Contract, Section 3.1, which states, “The [Vendor] shall adhere to the prices as stated in Pricing Workbook, Attachment E.” Furthermore, the Department will not pay the winning vendor during the transition period when the vendor is constructing and implementing its system’s final design. Therefore, despite Harris’ claims that Motorola’s much lower price will lead to future financial liabilities on the part of the state, Motorola repeatedly and credibly testified that it has no expectation or intention of seeking additional monies from the state to operate the SLERS service. Furthermore, in response to Harris’ allegation that Motorola’s Best and Final Offer did not include firm component prices, Motorola, through Jay Malpass, its Strategic Project Manager, presented credible testimony reiterating the Department’s description of finality of the price Motorola quoted as its “Total Price for Scoring,” as well as Motorola’s obligation to bear any additional costs after the Department awards the contract (e.g., the cost of locating or constructing alternate tower sites or erecting security fencing). Mr. Malpass explained that Motorola will bear all costs incurred during the four-year transition period to make its system operational. Mr. Malpass further testified that the price recorded in its Final Pricing Workbook ($687,797,127.00) “is locked in.” That figure represents Motorola’s “full total price, all inclusive, not to exceed, complete, compliant design.” Mr. Malpass asserted that Motorola fully intends to be bound by that price and does not expect the state to pay it anything more for the delivery of a successful P25 SLERS service. To summarize the findings in this matter, the competent, substantial evidence presented at the final hearing demonstrates that Motorola submitted a service design in its Best and Final Offer that fully complied with the ITN requirements. Motorola (and the Department) credibly explained the methodology Motorola will use to construct, operate, and maintain a new P25 SLERS service. Motorola presented persuasive evidence that the radio communications system it will build will meet the ITN’s coverage, capacity, and reliability objectives (with or without the Conveyed Towers). Motorola’s witnesses credibly testified that Motorola will be able to acquire any necessary assets or equipment to build its network during the transition period prior to the start of the SLERS contract (e.g., alternate tower sites or radio frequencies). Furthermore, based on its explanation of the “routing diversity” incorporated into its system design, Motorola presented credible and persuasive evidence that its use of 11-GHz microwave paths will be sufficiently structured to meet the ITN’s coverage and reliability expectations in the event of microwave path outages, rain fading, or other severe environmental incidents. Finally, Motorola satisfactorily addressed any concerns about the price it will charge the state. The price it quoted as its “Final Price for Scoring” ($687,797,127.00) is the maximum price the state will pay Motorola upon award of the SLERS contract. Regarding Harris’ complaint that the Department did not assign a qualified Negotiation Team, the evidence establishes the contrary. Testimony at the final hearing demonstrated that the individuals the Department assembled to score the vendors’ responses “collectively” possessed the “experience and knowledge in negotiating contracts, contract procurement, and the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought” as required by section 287.057(16)(a)2. The Negotiation Team’s ranking of the Best and Final Offers was logical, reasonable, and based on a sound understanding of the information sought in the ITN. Finally, Harris did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department’s decision to award the SLERS contract to Motorola was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. There is no evidence Motorola obtained any competitive advantage in this solicitation. Neither is there evidence that the Department conducted this procurement in a manner that was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of the ITN.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order dismissing the protest by Harris. It is further recommended that the Department of Management Services award the contract under Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-15/16- 018 to Motorola. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 5th day of September, 2018.
The Issue Is Department of Revenue Rule 12A-1.096(1)(b),(1)(d), (4), and (5)(e)1, Florida Administrative Code, an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority? See Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner opened a new commercial laundry facility in Pompano Beach, Florida, in 1993. Petitioner installed in the new facility machinery and equipment costing approximately $1,400,000.00 for the purposes of cleaning and processing linens used by hospitals in the south Florida area (the "Laundry Equipment"). Petitioner charges a fee to hospitals in the south Florida area for cleaning and processing the hospitals' linens with the Laundry Equipment. The new facilities are additional, not replacement, facilities. The Laundry Equipment: Qualifies as "industrial machinery and equipment", as defined by Section 212.08(5)(b) and (6)(c), Florida Statutes; Was purchased by Petitioner for use in a new business; Processes items of tangible personal property, the hospital's linens, at a fixed location; Was purchased before Petitioner first began its productive operations and delivery was made within 12 months of that date; and Has increased productive output at Petitioner's commercial laundry facility. The equipment included a tunnel washer system, conveyers, feeders/folders, ironers, a boiler, and air compressors. By application dated September 3, 1993, Petitioner applied for a temporary tax exemption permit with respect to the Laundry Equipment which it planned to purchase for use in its new business. Section 212.08(5)(b), Florida Statutes, requires that a taxpayer obtain that permit to receive the exemption. The Department denied Petitioner's application. On August 22, 1994, Petitioner paid to the Department, under protest, the sum of $18,095.36, which represented the tax of $16,773.98, plus interest of $1,321.38, on Petitioner's purchase of the Laundry Equipment. Petitioner timely filed its claim for refund, which the Department denied. Respondent denied Petitioner's request for a temporary tax exemption permit, and Respondent denied Petitioner's refund claim based upon Rule 12A- 1.096, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's request for a tax exemption permit and Petitioner's refund claim are based upon the exemption provided in Section 212.08(5)(b), Florida Statutes, which applies to a new (as opposed to an expanding) business.
The Issue Did the Respondent operate an unregistered commercial truck in Florida? Did the Petitioner correctly assess penalties of $4,101 pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, regulating operation of commercial vehicles on a highway in the State of Florida?
Findings Of Fact On April 3, 1992, Beverly Griffin inspected and weighed two commercial vehicles owned and operated by the Respondent at the Sneads, Florida weigh station. The drivers produced the vehicles' Wisconsin apportioned registration, but the IRP permits and trip tickets were expired. The vehicles were weighed. One weighed 76,000 pounds, and the other weighed 76,020 pounds. The Respondent admitted the violation; however, the Respondent's representative indicated in his plea of mitigation that the company had obtained required permits and brought its equipment into the state on the trucks; however, it had taken longer than expected to complete the work with the machinery the trucks were carrying, and the permits had expired before the trucks and equipment could leave the state. The Department levied a fined in the amount of $4,101, at 5 cents/ pound for the overweight trucks plus $80 for new trip tickets, $90 for temporary fuel use permits, and $100 penalty for not having current fuel use permits. The Respondent paid the penalties. The statutes governing the operation of motor vehicles provide for strict liability against the owner of a vehicle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finalizing assessment of the $4,351 in penalties against the Respondent pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Gary Pomeroy, Vice President The Big Red Machinery Movers, Inc. Post Office Box 274 Butler, WI 53007 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue Whether a sign owned by Respondent and located on the southbound side of I- 95 north of Pembroke Road in Broward County, Florida, violates Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the notice dated August 8, 1991; and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Chapter 479 regulates outdoor advertising structures along the state highway system. Respondent is the owner of a sign located adjacent to the southbound side of Interstate 95 ("I-95") near Pembroke Road in Broward County, Florida. Respondent maintains the sign on the side of the trailer portion of a so-called 18 wheel tractor-trailer (an "18 wheeler") in a stationary position. No truck or tractor is affixed to the trailer. The sign and 18 wheeler were situated on property owned by Air Stern. Air Stern is an air conditioning company. Petitioner's Outdoor Advertising Inspector (the "inspector") first observed the sign in August, 1991. The sign consisted of a large advertisement affixed to the side of an 18- wheeler which was placed in a stationary location. The message in the advertisement consisted of the words "Father & Son Moving & Storage" and the company's telephone numbers in Broward and Dade counties. The advertising message was clearly visible from I-95. The advertising message was clearly visible from I- 95. A light facing the sign was affixed to the ground and positioned to illuminate the sign on the side of the 18 wheeler at night. An expired 1990 Florida license plate was affixed to the back of the trailer. Grass had grown up around the tires of the trailer and the trailer had been in its same position for several months. The inspector issued a Notice of Violation by physically attaching it to the trailer on August 8, 1991. The inspector determined that the printed advertisement on the trailer's side was an unpermitted sign that violated Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes. The inspector based his determination upon his observation of the trailer on the premises, its position in relation to I- 95, and the type and content of the message printed on the side. Another copy of the Notice of Violation was mailed to Respondent. After more than 30 days had elapsed with no action by Respondent, Petitioner had the first sign removed by Sal's Towing on September 23, 1991. The sign was stored at Petitioner's maintenance facility in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. On November 9, 1991, Respondent paid the towing charge for removal of the sign and then returned the sign to its original location adjacent to I-95 near Pembroke Road in Broward County, Florida. In addition to placing the sign in its original location, Respondent placed a second sign next to the first sign. The second sign was substantially similar to the first sign. The second sign consisted of a large advertisement affixed to the side of an 18- wheeler which was placed in a stationary position with no truck or tractor attached. The message in the advertisement consisted of the words "Father & Son Moving & Storage" and the company's telephone numbers in Broward and Dade counties. The advertising message was clearly visible from I-95. A sign permit has not been applied for by Respondent nor issued by the Department for either of the signs located adjacent to I-95.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding that Respondent shall have ten days from the date of the Final Order to comply with Notice of Violation No. 4-369 by removing the sign or be subject to the cost of removal and imposition of an administrative fine. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April 1992.
Findings Of Fact In January of 1976, petitioner purchased a 1969 model American 4450 truck crane at auction in Lake City, Florida. The purchase price was seventy thousand dollars ($70,000.00). Petitioner, a corporation, is one of four related companies involved in construction and in leasing equipment used in construction. Together these companies own approximately eleven cranes of various kinds. Petitioner rents its cranes to the related construction companies and to others; and was, in the business of renting cranes at the time the used truck crane was acquired. It was originally contemplated that Paul A. Prendergast and Associates, one of the related companies, would purchase the truck crane and, on behalf of that firm, Mr. Prendergast certified that the crane was being "purchased for the sole purpose of resale." Petitioner's exhibit No. 5. The used crane petitioner acquired in January of 1976, was mounted on its own carrier, and was capable of moving from job site to job site under its own power. It has a 40 ton capacity and 80 feet of boom. When petitioner first acquired it, the crane needed reconditioning, which took six months to accomplish. The crane has since been used for lifting, digging and driving piles, but has never been used to haul goods or passengers. In December of 1976, the crane petitioner ordinarily used in its own yard for its own purposes was leased to Industrial Contracting Co. for a job in Atlanta. While this crane was in Atlanta, from the middle of December until the middle of March, petitioner used the truck crane it had acquired at auction for lifting, loading and unloading equipment in its yard. Since its use as a yard crane, the American truck crane has been leased on two occasions. Petitioner has listed the truck crane on its tangible personal property tax returns and has acquired a license plate for it annually. In order to drive the truck crane over public roads, which petitioner has done, it is necessary to acquire a permit.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the proposed assessment be upheld. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lawrence E. Dolan, Esquire Byrne and Dolan, P.A. Suite 1335, CNA Building Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Gordy is the owner of Tracers. He holds an R Recovery Agency license for Tracers, #R91-00031, and an E Recovery Agent license, #E91-00027. On the afternoon of August 20, 1992, in Duval County, Florida, Gordy and Jessica Clark repossessed a 1989 Hyundai Excel from Lisa Clouse based on an Order to Repossess from Sport Acceptance Corporation. The car was parked under the carport attached to the house where Clouse resided with her parents, Russell and Grace Bonitatibus, and her children. The various witnesses related radically different versions of what transpired in the course of this repossession. Having considered the demeanor of the witnesses and the consistency or inconsistency of their stories, it is found that the versions told by Clouse and her parents are contradictory, implausible, and unworthy of belief. The findings set forth below represent the version of the events which is most credible. On August 20, 1992, at around 3:30 p.m., Gordy and Clark located the vehicle for which an Order to Repossess had been issued. They backed the tow truck into the driveway and chained and lifted the car. The car was parked in the carport facing forward such that the car was lifted from its rear and would be towed backwards. Clouse came out and tried to persuade Gordy not to take the car so that she could make a payment by 5:00 p.m. Gordy insisted that he was taking the vehicle. Clouse asked him to come in the house while she called Bob Burnes at Sport Acceptance Corporation. Clouse was cussing at Burnes before and during the telephone call. After speaking with Burnes, Clouse handed the keys to Gordy and said "you can take the damn car, but I want my shit," meaning that she wanted her possessions from inside the car. Gordy told her that would be no problem. Gordy and Clouse went outside to the car. Gordy unlocked it using Clouse's keys. Clouse removed some personal items from the rear hatch. She then opened the driver's door and removed some other items. Clark went to the cab of the truck to get a garbage bag into which Clouse could place her belongings. Meanwhile, Clouse partially closed the driver's door and asked Gordy for a screwdriver to remove her license plate. Gordy went to the driver's door of the truck to get a screwdriver. Clouse was swearing loudly and frequently at the car and Sport Acceptance Corporation, but she seemed to be cooperating in the repossession. While Gordy was in the cab of the truck at the driver's side, Clouse was standing near the rear of the truck and the car, on the opposite side. Clark was coming back from the passenger side of the truck toward the driver's side of the car when Clouse, without warning, picked up a five foot length of chain with a wrecker hook attached from the back of the truck. Clouse swung the hook at Clark. Clark heard the "woosh" of the chain swinging just in time to look up and then duck. Gordy heard the chain rattling and looked back just as Clark ducked the first swing. Clouse gathered herself to swing again and Clark backed up to the open truck door. Gordy yelled at Clouse to stop and he grabbed a 200,000 volt stun gun from inside the truck. While standing by the truck's driver's door and with Clouse on the opposite side of the truck near its rear bumper, Gordy held the stun gun in the air and fired it up into the air. The loud zapping sound from the stun gun got Clouse's attention, she dropped the chain and just stood there. Gordy yelled at Clark to get in the truck and he immediately drove out of the driveway towing the car. Because he had not had an opportunity to release the emergency brake in the car, the car's front tires were dragging. The windows of the truck were open and both Gordy and Clark heard Clouse's father yelling at her to stop and to let go. They looked back and saw Clouse running along and trying to get into the car. The car door on the driver's side was open. Her father was chasing her. Neither Gordy nor Clark had any idea that Clouse was trying to get into or had gotten into the car until they heard her father yelling. As soon as Clouse was away from the car, they stopped and Clark ran back to close the open car door because it was on her side of the truck. Clouse claims that she was in the car and that somehow she was thrown clear. However, a neighbor who witnessed the incident, Gordy and Clark all say that Clouse was standing by the side of the street. Clouse also says she was beinging dragged with one foot out of the car, yet no one, including Clouse, noticed any scrapes or blood on her feet. Clouse's parents describe these events quite differently from Clouse. She also claims that Gordy pressed the stun gun against her stomach when he fired it. However, she was not rendered unconscious and she did not notice any burn or bruise on her stomach. A 200,000 volt stun gun is only effective if in direct contact with the body and it renders the victim unconscious and causes extensive bruising and burning.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Banking, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against David Gordy individually and as owner of Tracers. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-0011 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(2) and 2(3). Proposed findings of fact 3-5 and 8-12 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 6 and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 13 is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 David B. Gordy c/o Tracers 7135 Beach Boulevard Jacksonville, FL 32216 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
