Findings Of Fact On or about March 29, 1988, Applicants filed their application for conditional use approval for on premises consumption of beer and wine at 1218 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, Florida. The property is located at the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and Jefferson Avenue, and a restaurant and lounge known as "Sandpiper's" is located on the subject property. The property is zoned urban center - eastern corridor (UC-E). The subject property also uses the mailing address of 1214A and 1214 Cleveland Street, but the property and business operated thereon is the same as described in Finding of Fact 1. At all times material hereto, Applicant Kallivokas has owned the subject real property. On or about March 31, 1988, Applicant McCabe acquired ownership of Gulf Coast Rathskeller, Inc., and all assets pertaining to the restaurant and lounge known as "Sandpiper's" located on the subject property. Gulf Coast Rathskeller, Inc., has been the lessee of the premises, and has operated the Sandpiper at all times material hereto, both before and after the transfer of ownership to Applicant McCabe on March 31, 1988. This transfer was accomplished through a 100 percent sale of stock in Gulf Coast Rathskeller, Inc., to the Applicant McCabe. This sale and stock transfer constitutes a "change of business ownership" as that term is used in the Land Development Code. The Planning and Zoning Board considered this application on April 19, 1988, and by a 5-2 vote approved the application with the following conditions: That the occupational license be obtained by the current owner (McCabe) within 6 months; That the closing hours be 10 p.m. on week nights, and midnight on Friday and Saturday nights; That the kitchen remain open until closing; That no outside speakers be permitted and That the doors be kept closed during live entertainment. Although the Applicants timely appealed all conditions, at hearing only the hours of closing were in dispute, and Applicant McCabe stated he is complying with all other conditions without any adverse impact on his business. He is not complying with the condition on hours of closing, pending this appeal. He estimates that the closing condition would reduce his business by 40 percent. John W. Homer, the owner of commercial property across Jefferson Avenue from the subject property, has also timely appealed the action of the Planning and Zoning Board, but he urges that the application be denied in its entirety, notwithstanding the conditions placed upon its approval by the Board. The City's Planning Director, Paula Harvey, testified without contradiction, and it is therefore accepted as fact, that the location of "Sandpiper's" was specifically approved by an ordinance adopted by the City Commission pursuant to designation procedures set forth in former Section 72.01, Code of Ordinances. As such, the subject property, and the alcoholic beverage establishment known as "Sandpiper's" have been grandfathered under the separation requirements set forth in Section- 136.024(d), Land Development Code, as enacted by Ordinance Number 4420 on January 21, 1988. Although "Sandpiper's" has closed from time to time, and was specifically closed for a period of time between October, 1987 and April, 1988, when it was reopened by Applicant McCabe, it has never been closed for a continuous period of one year or more. It is, therefore, uncontroverted that "Sandpiper's" has been an "existing alcoholic beverage establishment" at all times material hereto. No other restaurant and lounge is currently operating in the City subject to the same closing hour condition as was imposed on this Applicant by the Planning and Zoning Board. Such businesses are allowed to, and do in fact, stay open until 2:00 a.m. on all days, except Sunday. The City's Traffic Engineering and Police Departments have expressed no opposition to this application. The City's Planning Director supports the approval of this application. Public testimony and evidence in opposition to this application is primarily directed to the operation of this establishment by its former owner, prior to October, 1987. Numerous police reports involving incidents at the Sandpiper occurring prior to October, 1987 while the business was operating under prior ownership are irrelevant to this application. Applicant McCabe has made improvements in the Sandpiper, and is now attracting a higher class clientele than under the former owner. Outside litter has been reduced. No outside speakers are used, the door is closed during live entertainment, and the kitchen stays open each night until the Sandpiper closes. There has been only one police report of any incident at the Sandpiper since April, 1988, while under McCabe's ownership.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 12, 1986, Appellants, Ronald and Philip Hitchcock, through their authorized representative, Carlos Yepes of Cay Oil Enterprises, Inc., applied to the Planning And Zoning Board for conditional alcoholic beverage sales use of their general commercial zoned property at the corner of Belcher Road and Coachman Road in Clearwater. Specifically, they applied to enable the prospective buyer of their property, Cay Oil, to use a State I-APS beverage license (package sale of beer only for consumption off-premises) in connection with Cay Oil's planned convenience food and gasoline store, Choice Food Mart. Cay Oil obtained the license by transfer from a previous tenant of a portion of the property, Jewel T Discount Grocery. The Planning And Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on the application on September 2, 1986. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board voted unanimously (with one abstention) to deny the application. At the public hearing, there was ample competent, substantial evidence that Appellants' property is within 500 feet of at least one church and school. In fact, the closest church and school is on property immediately adjacent to Appellants' property. There also was ample competent, substantial evidence on which the Board could have found that conditional 1-APS use would not be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Appellants' notice of appeal essentially restates the presentation it made before the Board; likewise, Appellants' presentation at the appeal hearing essentially repeated the presentation to the Board.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an ACLF which is owned by Vivian Zaleta, its sole stockholder. Prior to May, 1980, and continuing through the present, the Petitioner corporation operated the ACLF from its location at 700 S. E. 20th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mrs. Zaleta purchased the property and improvements at 700 S. E. 20th Street for $150,000 and from the period May, 1980, through the date of the final hearing, November 16, 1982, invested an additional $80,000 to $100,000 on repairs and improvements to the property. Petitioner was granted a license by the Department to operate as an ACLF and began operations on May 2, 1981. The Petitioner's initial license expiration date was August 5, 1981. Applications for renewal of the license must be submitted to the Department on required renewal forms which were furnished to Petitioner by the Respondent for completion and submission. Petitioner's renewal license application was completed May 9, 1981, and received by the Department on May 11, 1981. By letter dated June 2, 1981, the Department requested the Petitioner to complete certain financial reports which were enclosed in said letter and required: ...in order to comply with the Florida Statute 400, Chapter II and the changes in Section 10A-5 of the Florida Administrative Code which became effective May 14, 1981.." (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Petitioner completed the additional financial report requested by the Department. This financial report was received by the Department on August 7, 1981. On September 14, 1981, the Department requested additional information from the Petitioner. The Petitioner's application was denied by the Department by letter to Mrs. Zaleta dated November 24, 1981, due to a failure of Petitioner to comply with Chapter 10A-5.14, Florida Administrative Code, and requests for specified information. Moreover, in its letter of denial, the following was noted: Florida Statute 120, "Administrative Procedure Act stipulates that every application for license shall be approved or denied within ninety days after receipt of the application. Since your application was received on May 11, 1981, the expiration of the ninety-day time limit was August 11, 1981. There is no statutory provision (sic) to extend this mandated time limit on applications, there fore, it is necessary that your application for a license for an Adult Congregate Living Facility be denied because the fol lowing licensure requirements have not been met... (Petitioner's Exhibit 1a) By letter dated November 27, 1981, and received by the Department on November 30, 1981, Mrs. Zaleta, as administrator of Yesterday's, filed a timely request for an administrative hearing to review the denial of the requested license renewal. During the pendency of these proceedings, counsel for the parties attempted to resolve their dispute. On behalf of Petitioner, Rosen and Santini, P.A., Certified Public Accountants, prepared a financial report and revised financial report concerning the financial status of the corporation on forms furnished by the Department and submitted the same to Aging and Adult Services. The Department apparently considered the documents submitted pursuant to settlement discussions between counsel as part of a new and separate license renewal application and by letter dated June 29, 1982, again denied the requested license renewal for the failure of the Petitioner to provide a Statement of Operation or Renewal Questionnaire. At the final hearing, the Department conceded that the letter of June 29, 1982, was incorrect, and that Petitioner had submitted and the Department had received and reviewed a Statement of Operations or Renewal Questionnaire which was submitted by the Petitioner's accounting firm. Since August, 1981, the Department has deleted the Petitioner from its list of Adult Congregate Living Facilities to which health care providers may refer potential residents, thereby, causing Petitioner to lose both referrals and income.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services granting the requested license to the Petitioner Yesterday's Retirement Manor, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Clearwater Beach Community Church (the Church) applied to the City of Clearwater for a conditional use permit on November 14, 1988. The conditional use requested by the Church was to establish and operate a non-profit day care center for no more than 49 children, ages 2 to 5. The proposed center would be operated on the Church property by Latchkey Services for Children, Inc., a non- profit organization which provides subsidized child care. Latchkey currently operates six preschool centers and 36 school-age centers in Pinellas County. The Church's proposed center would operate weekdays from approximately 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and would accommodate parents who live or work on Clearwater Beach. Five staff members, or one adult per 10 children, would be employed to operate the center. No day care centers currently exist on Clearwater Beach. Minimum standards for day care centers in Pinellas County are set by the Pinellas County License Board for Children's Centers and Family Day Care Homes. The Church's proposed center meets all standards set by the licensing board. Based on the available classroom space at the Church, the largest group of children would be limited to 13. The proposed outdoor play area is 81 feet by 33 feet and would be utilized by no more than 13 children at one time. At least one adult would be present at all times to supervise the children's outdoor play periods. The play area is enclosed on the south and west sides by Church buildings and on the north side by a six (6) foot high cement block wall. A fence is to be constructed on the east side to fully enclose the play area. Outside play time would be almost continuous between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Parents would drop off their children between 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the circular drive area on the east side of the Church's property. Three areas with a total of 14 parking spaces have been designated as parking areas for day care center employees and for parents required to park their cars when dropping off or picking up their children. In addition, a city- owned public parking lot is located directly across Bay Esplanade to the south of the Church. On-street parking exists on Poinsettia Avenue on the west side of the Church. It is to be anticipated that some parents will walk or use public transportation to deliver their children to the school. Parents will pick up their children between 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The Church property is zoned Public/Semi-Public. To the immediate south across Bay Esplanade lies city-owned property on which are located, from west to east: public tennis courts; a public metered parking lot; public basketball courts; a city youth recreation center; and a public boat ramp. To the immediate west, from south to north, are a motel, an apartment building and a public soccer field. To the north on the Poinsettia (west) side, lies, from south to north, a vacant privately-owned lot, a triplex and a 13-unit apartment building. To the north on the Cyprus Avenue (east) side, and directly behind the Church's sexton residence, is a four-unit, two-story apartment house which is partially occupied by its owner. Across Cyprus Avenue to the east of the Church property, from south to north, are a motel and several duplexes. The area surrounding the Church is a quiet area inhabited by a large proportion of permanent residents, mostly elderly retirees, and by residents of motels who choose the area because it is quiet. Some of these residents live close enough to the proposed day care center to be disturbed by the noise that would surely result, even with the proposed noise buffers, from the process of dropping off and picking up the children each day, five days a week, especially the process of dropping them off between approximately 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., and from the continuous use of the play area by 10-13 children for approximately 8 hours a day, five days a week. Because of the character of the neighborhood, the noise disturbance could reasonably be expected to have an adverse impact on property values of both the motels and residences in the immediate area.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to renewal of its standard license as a group home for the developmentally disabled.
Findings Of Fact For many years, Petitioner was a licensed group home under APD and filed its annual application for renewal of its license. The group home was known as Lindsey’s Group Home and was located in Cantonment, Florida. It was operated by Minnie Lindsey. Around October 1, 2007, Petitioner was again licensed by the Department as a group home caring for developmentally disabled persons. The license issued was Standard license #S- 1031. It expired on September 30, 2008. Petitioner and APD also entered into a Medicaid Waiver Services Agreement to provide services to disabled clients of APD under the Developmental Disabilities Home and Community Based Waiver program or the Family and Supported Living Program. Because of its contract with APD, Petitioner was issued a Medicaid provider number by the Agency for Health Care Administration. The Medicaid provider number permitted Petitioner to be paid for providing Medicaid qualified services to APD’s clients. By letter dated July 30, 2008, Petitioner was notified that APD was terminating the Medicaid Waiver Services Agreement with Petitioner. The effective date of the termination was August 29, 2008. The letter took no action against Petitioners’ license. As a result of APD’s termination of its contract with Petitioner, AHCA cancelled Petitioners’ Medicaid provider number. Both actions are in litigation in the Escambia County Circuit Court and the issues and evidence surrounding those actions are not relevant to this proceeding. On the other hand, the evidence was clear, and Petitioner admitted, that no application for renewal of Petitioners’ license was submitted to APD. Petitioner also admitted that she knew an application was required for license renewal. Given these facts, Petitioner is not entitled to renewal of its license as a group home since it failed to submit an application for renewal of its license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Petitioner is not entitled to renewal of its license and dismissing the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 19th day of August, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan Grabb, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities Office of the General Counsel 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Minnie Lindsey Lamar’s Companion Service Corporation 1792 Terex Circle Cantonment, Florida 32533 John Newton, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 James DeBeaugrine, Executive Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Department of Corrections? action to withdraw its Intent to Award and to reject all replies to ITN 12-DC-8396 is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and if so, whether its Intent to Award is contrary to governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The DOC is an agency of the State of Florida that is responsible for the supervisory and protective care, custody, and control of Florida?s inmate population. In carrying out this statutory responsibility, the Department provides access to inmate telephone services. On April 15, 2013, the DOC issued the ITN, entitled “Statewide Inmate Telephone Services, ITN 12-DC-8396,” seeking vendors to provide managed-access inmate telephone service to the DOC. Responses to the ITN were due to be opened on May 21, 2013. The DOC issued Addendum #1 to the ITN on April 23, 2013, revising one page of the ITN. The DOC issued Addendum #2 to the ITN on May 14, 2013, revising a number of pages of the ITN, and including answers to a number of vendor questions. EPSI, GTL, and Securus are providers of inmate telephone systems and services. Securus is the incumbent contractor, and has been providing the Department with services substantially similar to those solicited for over five years. No party filed a notice of protest to the terms, conditions, or specifications contained in the ITN or the Addenda within 72 hours of their posting or a formal written protest within 10 days thereafter. Replies to the ITN were received from EPSI, GTL, Securus, and Telmate, LLC. Telmate?s reply was determined to be not responsive to the ITN. Two-Part ITN As amended by Addendum #2, section 2.4 of the ITN, entitled “ITN Process,” provided that the Invitation to Negotiate process to select qualified vendors would consist of two distinct parts. In Part 1, an interested vendor was to submit a response that described certain Mandatory Responsiveness Requirement elements, as well as a Statement of Qualifications, Technical Response, and Financial Documentation. These responses would then be scored using established evaluation criteria and the scores would be combined with cost points assigned from submitted Cost Proposals. In Part 2, the Department was to select one or more qualified vendors for negotiations. After negotiations, the Department would request a Best and Final Offer from each vendor for final consideration prior to final award decision. The ITN provided that the Department could reject any and all responses at any time. High Commissions and Low Rates Section 2.5 of the ITN, entitled “Initial Cost Response,” provided in part: It is the Department?s intention, through the ITN process, to generate the highest percentage of revenue for the State, while ensuring a quality telephone service with reasonable and justifiable telephone call rate charges for inmate?s family and friends similar to those available to the public-at- large. Section 2.6 of the ITN, entitled “Revenue to be Paid to the Department,” provided in part that the Department intended to enter into a contract to provide inmate telephone service at no cost to the Department. It provided that, “[t]he successful Contractor shall pay to the Department a commission calculated as a percentage of gross revenues.”1/ The commission paid by a vendor is the single largest expense in the industry and is an important aspect of any bid. Contract Term Section 2.8 of the ITN was entitled “Contract Term” and provided: It is anticipated that the initial term of any Contract resulting from this ITN shall be for a five (5) year period. At its sole discretion, the Department may renew the Contract in accordance with Form PUR 1000 #26. The renewal shall be contingent, at a minimum, on satisfactory performance of the Contract by the Contractor as determined by the Department, and subject to the availability of funds. If the Department desires to renew the Contracts resulting from this ITN, it will provide written notice to the Contractor no later than thirty days prior to the Contract expiration date. Own Technology System Section 3.4 of the ITN provided in part: The successful Contractor is required to implement its own technology system to facilitate inmate telephone service. Due to the size and complexity of the anticipated system, the successful Contractor will be allowed a period of transition beginning on the date the contract is executed in which to install and implement the utilization of its own technology system. Transition, implementation and installation are limited to eighty (80) days. The Department realizes that some "down time" will occur during this transition, and Respondents shall propose an implementation plan that reduces this "down time" and allows for a smooth progression to the proposed ITS. GTL emphasizes the language stating that the successful contractor must implement “its own” technology system, and asserts that the technology system which EPSI offers to install is not owned by it, but by Inmate Calling Solutions, LLC (ICS), its subcontractor. However, EPSI demonstrated that while the inmate telephone platform, dubbed the “Enforcer System,” is owned by ICS now, that EPSI has a Master User Agreement with ICS and that an agreement has already been reached that before the contract would be entered into, a Statement of Work would be executed to create actual ownership in EPSI for purposes of the Florida contract. GTL alleges that in EPSI?s reply, EPSI relied upon the experience, qualifications, and resources of its affiliated entities in other areas as well. For example, GTL asserts that EPSI?s claim that it would be providing 83 percent of the manpower is false, since EPSI has acknowledged that EPSI is only a contracting subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc., and that EPSI has no employees of its own. While it is clear that EPSI?s reply to the ITN relies upon the resources of its parent to carry out the terms of the contract with respect to experience, presence in the state, and personnel, EPSI demonstrated that this arrangement was common, and well understood by the Department. EPSI demonstrated that all required capabilities would be available to it through the resources of its parent and subcontractors at the time the contract was entered into, and that its reply was in conformance with the provisions of the ITN in all material respects. EPSI has the integrity and reliability to assure good faith performance of the contract. Call Recording Section 3.6 of the ITN, entitled “Inmate Telephone System Functionality (General),” provided in part: The system shall provide the capability to flag any individual telephone number in the inmate?s „Approved Number List? as „Do Not Record.? The default setting for each telephone number will be to record until flagged by Department personnel to the contrary. Securus alleges that section 3.6 of the ITN implements Department regulations2/ and that EPSI?s reply was non-responsive because it stated that recording of calls to specific telephone numbers would be deactivated regardless of who called that number. Securus alleges that this creates a security risk because other inmates calling the same number should still have their calls recorded. EPSI indicated in its reply to the ITN that it read, agreed, and would comply with section 3.6. While EPSI went on to say that this capability was not connected to an inmate?s PIN, the language of section 3.6 does not mention an inmate?s PIN either. Read literally, this section requires only the ability to “flag” any individual telephone number that appears in an inmate?s number list as “do not record” and requires that, by default, calls to a telephone number will be recorded until it is flagged. EPSI?s reply indicated it could meet this requirement. This provision says nothing about continuing to record calls to that same number from other inmates. Whether or not this creates a security risk or is what the Department actually desired are issues which might well be discussed as part of the negotiations, but this does not affect the responsiveness of EPSI?s reply to section 3.6. Furthermore, Mr. Cooper testified at hearing that EPSI does have the capability to mark a number as “do not record” only with respect to an individual inmate, at the option of the Department. EPSI?s reply conformed to the call-recording provisions of section 3.6 of the ITN in all material respects. Call Forwarding Section 3.6.8 of the ITN, entitled “System Restriction, Fraud Control and Notification Requirements,” provided that the provided inmate telephone services have the following security capability: Ability to immediately terminate a call if it detects that a called party?s telephone number is call forwarded to another telephone number. The system shall make a “notation” in the database on the inmate?s call. The system shall make this information available, in a report format, to designated department personnel. In response to an inquiry noting that, as worded, the ITN did not technically require a vendor to have the capability to detect call-forwarded calls in the first place, the Department responded that this functionality was required. Securus alleges that EPSI is unable to comply with this requirement, citing as evidence EPSI?s admission, made some months before in connection with an RFP being conducted by the Kansas Department of Corrections, that it did not yet have this capability. EPSI indicated in its reply to the ITN that it read, agreed, and would comply with this requirement. As for the Kansas solicitation, EPSI showed that it now possesses this capability, and has in fact installed it before. EPSI?s reply conformed to the call-forwarding provisions of section 3.6.8 of the ITN in all material respects. Keefe Commissary Network Section 5.2.1 of the ITN, entitled “Respondents? Business/Corporate Experience,” at paragraph e. directed each vendor to: [P]rovide and identify all entities of or related to the Respondent (including parent company and subsidiaries of the parent company; divisions or subdivisions of parent company or of Respondent), that have ever been convicted of fraud or of deceit or unlawful business dealings whether related to the services contemplated by this ITN or not, or entered into any type of settlement agreement concerning a business practice, including services contemplated by this ITN, in response to a civil or criminal action, or have been the subject of any complaint, action, investigation or suit involving any other type of dealings contrary to federal, state, or other regulatory agency regulations. The Respondent shall identify the amount of any payments made as part of any settlement agreement, consent order or conviction. Attachment 6 to the ITN, setting forth Evaluation Criteria, similarly provided guidance regarding the assessment of points for Business/Corporate Experience. Paragraph 1.(f) provided: “If any entities of, or related to, the Respondent were convicted of fraud or of deceit or unlawful business dealings, what were the circumstances that led to the conviction and how was it resolved by the Respondent?” Addendum #2. to the ITN, which included questions and answers, also contained the following: Question 57: In Attachment 6, Article 1.f. regarding respondents “convicted of fraud, deceit, or unlawful business dealing . . .” does this include associated subcontractors proposed in this ITN? Answer 57: Yes, any subcontractors you intend to utilize on this project, would be considered an entity of and related to your firm. As a proposed subcontractor, ICS is an entity of, or related to, EPSI. There is no evidence to indicate that ICS has ever been convicted of fraud or of deceit or unlawful business dealings. There is no evidence to indicate that ICS has entered into any type of settlement agreement concerning a business practice in response to a civil or criminal action. There is no evidence to indicate that ICS has been the subject of any complaint, action, investigation, or suit involving any other type of dealings contrary to federal, state, or other regulatory agency regulations. The only evidence at hearing as to convictions involved “two individuals from the Florida DOC” and “two individuals from a company called AIS, I think that?s American Institutional Services.” No evidence was presented that AIS was “an entity of or related to” EPSI. Conversely, there was no evidence that Keefe Commissary Network (KCN) or anyone employed by it was ever convicted of any crime. There was similarly no evidence that KCN entered into any type of settlement agreement concerning a business practice in response to civil or criminal action. It was shown that KCN “cooperated with the federal government in an investigation” that resulted in criminal convictions, and it is concluded that KCN was therefore itself a subject of an investigation involving any other type of dealings contrary to federal, state, or other regulatory agency regulations. However, KCN is not an entity of, or related to, EPSI. KCN is not a parent company of EPSI, it is not a division, subdivision, or subsidiary of EPSI, and it is not a division, subdivision, or subsidiary of EPSI?s parent company, CenturyLink, Inc. EPSI?s reply conformed to the disclosure requirements of section 5.2.1, Attachment 6, and Addendum #2 of the ITN in all material respects. Phases of the ITN Section 6 describes nine phases of the ITN: Phase 1 – Public Opening and Review of Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements Phase 2 – Review of References and Other Bid Requirements Phase 3 – Evaluations of Statement of Qualifications, Technical Responses, and Managed Access Solutions3/ Phase 4 – CPA Review of Financial Documentation Phase 5 – Review of Initial Cost Sheets Phase 6 – Determination of Final Scores Phase 7 – Negotiations Phase 8 – Best and Final Offers from Respondents Phase 9 – Notice of Intended Decision Evaluation Criteria in the ITN As amended by Addendum #2, the ITN established scoring criteria to evaluate replies in three main categories: Statement of Qualifications (500 points); Technical Response (400 points); and Initial Cost Sheets (100 points). It also provided specific guidance for consideration of the commissions and rates shown on the Initial Cost Sheet that made up the pricing category. Section 6.1.5 of the ITN, entitled “Phase 5 – Review of Initial Cost Sheet,” provided in part: The Initial Cost Proposal with the highest commission (percentage of gross revenue) to be paid to the Department will be awarded 50 points. The price submitted in Table 1 for the Original Contract Term, and the subsequent renewal price pages for Table 1 will be averaged to determine the highest commission submitted. All other commission percentages will receive points according to the following formula: (X/N) x 50 = Z Where: X = Respondents proposed Commission Percentage to be Paid. N = highest Commission Percentage to be Paid of all responses submitted. Z = points awarded. * * * The Initial Cost Proposal with the lowest telephone rate charge will be awarded 50 points. The price submitted in Table 1 for the Original Contract Term, and the subsequent renewal price pages for Table 1 will be averaged to determine the highest commission submitted. All other cost responses will receive points according to the following formula: (N/X) x 50 = Z Where: N = lowest verified telephone rate charge of all responses submitted. X = Respondent?s proposed lowest telephone rate charge. Z = points awarded. The ITN as amended by Addendum #2 provided instructions that initial costs should be submitted with the most favorable terms the Respondent could offer and that final percentages and rates would be determined through the negotiation process. It included the following chart:4/ COST PROPOSAL INITIAL Contract Term 5 years ONE Year Renewal TWO Year Renewal THREE Year Renewal FOUR Year Renewal FIVE Year Renewal Initial Department Commission % Rate Proposed Initial Blended Telephone Rate for All Calls* (inclusive of surcharges) The ITN, including its Addenda, did not specify selection criteria upon which the determination of best value to the state would be based. Allegation that EPSI Reply was Misleading On the Certification/Attestation Page, each vendor was required to certify that the information contained in its reply was true and sufficiently complete so as not to be misleading. While portions of its reply might have provided more detail, EPSI did not mislead the Department regarding its legal structure, affiliations, and subcontractors, or misrepresent what entity would be providing technology or services if EPSI was awarded the contract. EPSI?s reply explained that EPSI was a wholly owned corporate subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc., and described many aspects of the contract that would be performed using resources of its parent, as well as aspects that would be performed through ICS as its subcontractor. Department Evaluation of Initial Replies The information on the Cost Proposal table was reviewed and scored by Ms. Hussey, who had been appointed as the procurement manager for the ITN. Attempting to follow the instructions provided in section 6.1.5, she added together the six numbers found in the boxes indicating commission percentages on the Cost Proposal sheets. One of these boxes contained the commission percentage for the original five-year contract term and each of the other five boxes contained the commission percentage for one of the five renewal years. She then divided this sum by six, the number of boxes in the computation chart (“divide by six”). In other words, she calculated the arithmetic mean of the six numbers provided in each proposal. The Department had not intended for the commission percentages to be averaged in this manner. Instead, they had intended that a weighted mean would be calculated. That is, they intended that five times the commission percentage shown for the initial contract term would be added to the commission percentages for the five renewal years, with that sum then being divided by ten, the total number of years (“divide by ten”). The Department did not clearly express this intent in section 6.1.5. Mr. Viefhaus testified that based upon the language, Securus believed that in Phase 5 the Department would compute the average commission rate the way that Ms. Hussey actually did it, taking the arithmetic mean of the six commission percentages provided by each vendor, and that therefore Securus prepared its submission with that calculation in mind.5/ Mr. Montanaro testified that based upon the language, GTL believed that in Phase 5 the Department would “divide by ten,” that is, compute the weighted mean covering the ten-year period of the contract, and that GTL filled out its Cost Proposal table based upon that understanding. The DOC posted a notice of its intent to negotiate with GTL, Securus, and EPSI on June 3, 2013. Telmate, LLC, was not chosen for negotiations.6/ Following the Notice of Intent to Negotiate was this statement in bold print: Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. On June 14, 2013, the DOC issued a Request for Best and Final Offers (RBAFO), directing that Best and Final Offers (BAFO) be provided to the DOC by June 18, 2013. Location-Based Services The RBAFO included location-based services of called cell phones as an additional negotiated service, requesting a narrative description of the service that could be provided. The capability to provide location-based services had not been part of the original ITN, but discussions took place as part of the negotiations. Securus contends that EPSI was not a responsible vendor because it misrepresented its ability to provide such location-based services through 3Cinteractive, Inc. (3Ci). EPSI demonstrated that it had indicated to the Department during negotiations that it did not have the capability at that time, but that the capability could easily be added. EPSI showed that due to an earlier call it received from 3Ci, it believed that 3Ci would be able to provide location- based services to it. EPSI was also talking at this time to another company, CTI, which could also provide it that capability. In its BAFO, EPSI indicated it could provide these services, explained that they would require payments to a third- party provider, and showed a corresponding financial change to their offer. No competent evidence showed whether or not 3Ci was actually able to provide that service on behalf of EPSI, either at the time the BAFO was submitted, or earlier. EPSI showed that it believed 3Ci was available to provide that service, however, and there is no basis to conclude that EPSI in any way misrepresented its ability to provide location-based services during negotiations or in its BAFO. Language of the RBAFO The RBAFO provided in part: This RBAFO contains Pricing, Additional Negotiated Services, and Value Added Services as discussed during negotiation and outlined below. The other specifications of the original ITN, unless modified in the RBAFO, remain in effect. Respondents are cautioned to clearly read the entire RBAFO for all revisions and changes to the original ITN and any addenda to specifications, which are incorporated herein and made a part of this RBAFO document. Unless otherwise modified in this Request for Best and Final Offer, the initial requirements as set forth in the Department?s Invitation to Negotiate document and any addenda issued thereto have not been revised and remain as previously indicated. Additionally, to the extent that portions of the ITN have not been revised or changed, the previous reply/initial reply provided to the Department will remain in effect. These two introductory paragraphs of the RBAFO were confusing. It was not clear on the face of the RBAFO whether “other specifications” excluded only the pricing information to be supplied or also the specifications indicating how that pricing information would be calculated or evaluated. It was not clear whether “other specifications” were the same thing as “initial requirements” which had not been revised. It was not clear whether scoring procedures constituted “specifications.” While it was clear that, to the extent not revised or changed by the RBAFO, initial replies that had been submitted -- including Statements of Qualifications, Technical Response, Financial Documentation, and Cost Proposals -- would “remain in effect,” it was not clear how, if at all, these would be considered in determining the best value to the State. In the RBAFO under the heading “PRICING,” vendors were instructed to provide their BAFO for rates on a provided Cost Proposal table which was virtually identical to the table that had been provided earlier in the ITN for the evaluation stage, including a single square within which to indicate a commission rate for the initial five-year contract term, and five squares within which to indicate commission rates for each of five renewal years. The RBAFO stated that the Department was seeking pricing that would provide the “best value to the state.” It included a list of 11 additional services that had been addressed in negotiations and stated that, “in order to provide the best value to the state,” the Department reserved the right to accept or reject any or all of these additional services. It provided that after BAFOs were received, the Negotiation Team would prepare a summary of the negotiations and make a recommendation as to which vendor would provide the “best value to the state.” The RBAFO did not specify selection criteria upon which the determination of best value to the State would be based. In considering commission percentages as part of their determination as to which vendor would receive the contract, the Negotiation Team decided not to consider commissions that had been listed by vendors for the renewal years, concluding that the original five-year contract term was all that was assured, since renewals might or might not occur. On June 25, 2013, the DOC posted its Notice of Agency Decision stating its intent to award a contract to EPSI. Protests and the Decision to Reject All Replies Subsequent to timely filing notices of intent to protest the intended award, Securus and GTL filed Formal Written Protests with the DOC on July 5 and 8, 2013, respectively. The Department considered and compared the protests. It determined that language in the ITN directing that in Phase 5 the highest commission would be determined by averaging the price for the original contract term with the prices for the renewal years was ambiguous and flawed. It determined that use of a table with six squares as the initial cost sheet was a mistake. The Department determined that the language and structure of the RBAFO could be read one way to say that the Department would use the same methodology to evaluate the pricing in the negotiation stage as had been used to evaluate the Initial Cost sheets in Phase 5, or could be read another way to mean that BAFO pricing would not be evaluated that way. It determined that the inclusion in the RBAFO of a table virtually identical to the one used as the initial cost sheet was a mistake. The Department determined that the language and the structure of the RBAFO could be read one way to require further consideration of such factors as the Statement of Qualifications and Technical Response in determining best value to the State, or could be read another way to require no further consideration of these factors. The Department prepared some spreadsheets demonstrating the varying results that would be obtained using “divide by six” and “divide by ten” and also considered a spreadsheet that had been prepared by Securus. The Department considered that its own Contract Manager had interpreted the Phase 5 instructions to mean “divide by six,” while the Department had actually intended the instructions to mean “divide by ten.” The Department had intended that the Negotiation Team give some weight to the renewal-year pricing, and had included the pricing table in the RBAFO for that reason, not simply to comply with statutory requirements regarding renewal pricing. The Department determined that the way the RBAFO was written and the inclusion of the chart required at least some consideration of ten-year pricing, and that vendors had therefore been misled when the Negotiation Team gave no consideration to the commission percentages for the renewal years. Specifically, based upon the Securus protest, the Department determined that the RBAFO language had been interpreted by Securus to require that the Phase 5 calculation of average commission percentage be carried over to evaluation of the pricing in the BAFOs, which Securus had concluded meant “divide by six.” The Department further determined that based upon the GTL protest, the RBAFO language had been interpreted by GTL to require the Department to consider the renewal years in pricing, as well as such things as the Statement of Qualifications and Technical Response in the BAFO stage. The Department determined that had “divide by six” been used in evaluating the BAFOs, Securus would have a computed percentage of 70 percent, higher than any other vendor. The Department concluded that the wording and structure of the ITN and RBAFO did not create a level playing field to evaluate replies because they were confusing and ambiguous and were not understood by everyone in the same way. Vendors naturally had structured their replies to maximize their chances of being awarded the contract based upon their understanding of how the replies would be evaluated. The Department concluded that vendor pricing might have been different but for the misleading language and structure of the ITN and RBAFO. The Department did not compute what the final award would have been had it applied the scoring procedures for the initial cost sheets set forth in section 6.1.5 to the cost elements of the BAFOs. The Department did not compute what the final award would have been had it applied the scoring procedures for the Statement of Qualifications and Technical Response set forth in section 6.1.3 to the BAFOs. Ms. Bailey testified that while she had originally approved the ITN, she was unaware of any problems, and that it was only later, after the protests to the Notice of Intended Award had been filed and she had reviewed the specifications again, that she had come to the conclusion that the ITN and RBAFO were flawed. Following the protests of the intended award by GTL and Securus, on July 23, 2013, the DOC posted to the Vendor Bid System a Notice of Revised Agency Decision stating the DOC?s intent to reject all replies and reissue the ITN. On August 5, 2013, EPSI, GTL, and Securus filed formal written protests challenging DOC?s intended decision to reject all replies. Securus subsequently withdrew its protest to DOC?s rejection of all replies. As the vendor initially notified that it would receive the contract, EPSI?s substantial interests were affected by the Department's subsequent decision to reject all replies. GTL alleged the contract had wrongly been awarded to EPSI and that it should have received the award, and its substantial interests were affected by the Department's subsequent decision to reject all replies. The Department did not act arbitrarily in its decision to reject all replies. The Department did not act illegally, dishonestly, or fraudulently in its decision to reject all replies. EPSI would likely be harmed in any re-solicitation of bids relative to its position in the first ITN, because potential competitors would have detailed information about EPSI?s earlier reply that was unavailable to them during the first ITN. An ITN requires a great deal of work by the Department and creates a big demand on Department resources. The decision to reject all replies was not undertaken lightly. The State of Florida would likely benefit in any new competitive solicitation7/ because all vendors would be aware of the replies that had been submitted earlier in response to the ITN, and bidders would likely try to improve upon those proposals to improve their chances of being awarded the contract.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Corrections issue a final order finding that the rejection of all replies submitted in response to ITN 12-DC-8396 was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing all four protests. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 1st day of November, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: On or about March 6, 1986, a conditional use application was submitted by Dijan Development Company and Robert J. Wegiener to the City of Clearwater seeking to utilize the property at the above location specifically 2198 Coachman Road, alcoholic beverages, specifically liquor. The Petitioner already has an approved use for consumption of beer and wine on premises. The Petitioner will sell no alcohol for off-premises consumption. In essence, it seeks to change its present beverage license issued by the State of Florida from a "2-COP" to a "4-COP" which is the type of license which would authorize on-premises consumption of liquor in addition to beer and wine. It seeks the appropriate conditional use zoning approva1 so as to operate that state beverage license. The application was transmitted to the City clerk, the planning director, the City attorney, traffic engineer, the building director and to the police department for review and comment prior to the originally scheduled public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board. Prior to that hearing, both the police department and the traffic engineer reviewed the application and noted that they had no objections and no reason to recommend a denial of the conditional use application on the basis of any traffic or law enforcement problems. At the public hearing of April 1, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Board was informed that the traffic engineer and the police department had no objection to approval of the application and that the Planning and Zoning Board staff, through its director, also recommended approval of the application. Mr. Wegienor appeared and testified on behalf of the Applicant/Petitioner and assured the board that the Petitioner would not engage in package store sales for off- premises consumption. After hearing from Mr. Wegiener, there being no opposition to the application, the board unanimously voted to approve the conditional use application for on-premises consumption of liquor only. It developed, however, that the notice of this April 1, 1986, hearing was faulty, such that the board elected to convene another public hearing on the subject of the application. At that public hearing, Mr. Wegiener appeared for the Applicant/Petitioner once again, reiterating his stipulation that no sales of alcoholic beverages for off- premises consumption would occur, and establishing that the alcoholic content of liquor drinks to be sold, if the conditional use is approved, would be no more than that of a glass of wine or a can of beer, which he is presently authorized to sell. He also demonstrated that his establishment had no history of fights or other forms of disorderly conduct by patrons, no traffic problems nor excessive vehicular noise or light glare emanating from the bar's parking lot or approaches. After hearing the vociferous complaints of the church representatives and several other citizens from the neighborhood, however, the board voted to deny the application and this appeal ensued. The Petitioner, at the instant hearing, established that his tavern is more than 500 feet from the nearest church. Five hundred feet from a church was the former standard for physical location of such establishments for zoning purposes. The current provision in Section 136.025 of the Land Development Code provides merely that such an establishment must be a reasonable distance from a church. In any event, the Applicant established that his "pub" is small, being only 750 square feet in area and is hidden from view of anyone not entering the plaza where it is located, in the shopping center. The Applicant can only seat a maximum of fifty people. His insurance coverage expense and risk rating will not increase merely because he would sell liquor by the drink rather than only beer and wine, which fact is indicative of the unlikelihood of any additional law enforcement or personal injury incidents occasioned by the change of use. He does not cater to a loud, raucous clientele. Rather, twenty-five percent of his business involves serving lunches and he sponsors a ladies' softball team in the Clearwater Recreation League. He sponsors and encourages husband and wife dart teams. It seems obvious that he and his wife run a small, fairly sedate, "neighborhood bar." He is merely trying to increase his profit by serving liquor, for which he can obtain more revenue, than by serving only beer and wine. No law enforcement problems have occurred in the history of the tavern's operation nor has it generated any traffic problems. The Petitioner will not expand its physical size so no additional traffic problems will likely be created by any increase in numbers of patrons. Since the on-premises consumption of liquor does not involve any more alcohol per drink than the consumption of beer and wine, the proposed change of use will not likely result in any increase in the number of drivers exiting the bar in an impaired condition, as that relates to the fears expressed by the members of the clergy who testified. The Petitioner will conduct no "double drink" or "happy hour" sales promotions. Several citizens living in the neighborhood and the pastors of two churches in the vicinity of the Petitioner's establishment appeared and voiced opposition to the grant of the conditional use. The church representatives primarily objected on moral grounds, that is, they based their opposition on their Christian belief that allowing the consumption of "hard liquor," especially in the near vicinity of their churches and church- related schools is morally wrong and will pose an adverse influence on young people attending their church programs and church schools. They also expressed their opposition in terms of traffic problems and resultant dangers to young people caused by customers leaving the tavern while under the influence of alcohol. The opposition of the several citizens of the neighborhood was predicated on their personal conviction that any consumption of alcohol is morally wrong and harmful. None demonstrated, however, that any of the feared harmful effects had already been occasioned their various interests by the fact that the Petitioner already sells beer and wine for on-premises consumption, which has about the same alcohol content as will the proposed liquor sales "by the drink." The Petitioner has stipulated that it will not expand the size or customer capacity of its establishment and will not conduct any "happy hour" sales promotions and the like. The property in question is located within the commercial zoning of the City of Clearwater (zoned CG). The sale of alcoholic beverages within that zoning is not one of the seven permitted uses enumerated in Section 135.122 of the Land Development Code. However, alcoholic beverage sales for consumption on the premises, as well as package sales, may be permitted as conditional uses if the use otherwise complies with Chapter 136 of the Code. See Section 135.123 and 135.124. Any change of location or change of designation of an alcoholic beverage sales conditional use, such as the change from beer and wine sales to liquor sales, must also obtain approval as a conditional use. Section 136.024(b), Land Development Code. Only those conditional uses which comply with the "general standards" and the "supplementary standards," by category of use, embodied in Section 136.025(b) and (c), may be authorized by the Planning and Zoning Board. Among the supplementary standards for a conditional use, such as that at bar, is that the use be a sufficient distance from churches, schools, hospitals, residences and like land uses so as to not adversely affect the use, enjoyment or value of such properties. Section 136.025(c)(1) and (2), Land Development Code. The general standards applicable to a conditional use encompass such factors as traffic, noise, parking, landscaping, screening, compatibility with surrounding uses and compliance with the land use plan. Section 136.025(b) (1-7). Since no expansion of the subject business is involved in this application, the considerations of acceptable ingress and egress from the site, the direction and glare of lights from motor vehicles and such considerations as landscaping and screening for purposes of diminishing noise and reducing glare and objectionable views are not truly at issue. The bar is already established and the traffic routes to and from the bar, its parking facilities, and the number of motor vehicles going to and from this establishment will essentially not change. Thus the "traffic" criterion is not really germane and will be met. Only the standards involving ."compatibility" and proximity to churches, etc. were truly at issue before the undersigned. The "hours of operation" consideration as to general standard number seven, (concerning "compatibility"), is the only portion of the seven general standards at issue. The additional supplementary standards for conditional uses involving consumption of alcohol require, in addition to compliance with the seven general standards contained in paragraph (b), that the use be sufficiently distant from churches, schools, and like land uses so as to not adversely affect the use, enjoyment or value of such properties. In this connection, the hours of operation will not change. The Petitioner has experienced no complaints from the churches and surrounding citizens regarding traffic, intoxicated patrons or other problems attendant to the operation of the bar in the present mode nor has the Clearwater Police Department. Further, in view of the stipulated conditions against "happy hour" sales, extended hours of operation, expansion of customer capacity, etc. the tavern's impact on its neighbors, including the churches, in the above particulars, will not increase. In essence, the tavern operation will not change in terms of its compatibility with the interests of the churches and other neighboring residents. Its operations will engender no additional traffic, noise or other nuisances or dangers on surrounding property owners or church goers. Although the former 500 foot standard governing location of taverns from the vicinity of churches and schools is no longer applicable, it is noteworthy in terms of the "reasonable distance" standard, that the location of the Petitioner's establishment is more than 500 feet from the churches who testified in opposition to the petition. The Roman Catholic Church, which owns property and conducts church activities immediately adjacent to the Petitioner's shopping center location, as well as the nearby Episcopal Church, expressed no opposition. These factors, taken with the above factors involving the lack of any additional elements of nuisance or risk which would be experienced by the churches and other opponents, demonstrates that the use proposed would still be sufficiently distant from churches, schools, hospitals, residences and like land uses so as not to affect their use, enjoyment or values. Thus, both general standard number seven and the supplemental standard at issue have been met.
