Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 26 years old. She lives by herself. Her residence is 280 John Knox Road, Tallahassee, Florida. She has maintained that residence since September of 1993. Petitioner works at Pyramid Industries, a structured workshop. She is receiving training as a receptionist. In addition, she packages headrests and does other duties which are assigned to her at the workshop. Petitioner's employment with Pyramid Industries is for four days a week, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., on each day. That employment began on January 8, 1994. Petitioner was referred to Pyramid Industries by officials of Vocational Rehabilitation. Petitioner has difficulty in controlling a tendency to use inappropriate language, which she described as "swearing". Petitioner's parents take her shopping, to include trips to the grocery store, assist the Petitioner in maintaining her checkbook, visit with Petitioner on a daily basis, and give her support and try to assist her in controlling her "swearing". When Petitioner's mother was pregnant with Petitioner, the mother contracted rubella. Subsequently, Petitioner was taken to a pediatrician at age one and one-half because Petitioner was not speaking. Petitioner was then taken to Yale Child Study in an effort to analyze her condition. No competent evidence was presented concerning the findings made by that organization. Petitioner participated in a program administered by Yale Child Study, which, from a layperson's perspective, was designed to address Petitioner's behavior. When attending schools in Connecticut, Petitioner rode a special school bus with other students. There is no competent proof in the record concerning the nature of the problem which Petitioner and the other students experienced which required them to have special transportation to school. When Petitioner was a child, her mother attempted to address Petitioner's problems of verbal skills by using vocabulary flash cards and engaging in conversations with Petitioner. As a child, Petitioner was removed from kindergarten and reading readiness class to a private school in which an Individual Education Plan (IEP) was prepared to address her problems. No competent evidence was presented concerning the nature of the problem experienced by Petitioner at that time. Under funding provided by the Guilford, Connecticut, public school system, Petitioner was provided a residential placement at Devereux Foundation for education in middle school in accordance with an IEP. Petitioner attended Guilford High School in Guilford, Connecticut and received a certificate pursuant to a special education program in lieu of a diploma. No evidence was presented concerning the nature of this special education program. Petitioner has sought developmental services from Respondent so that she might be provided transportation to certain outings, such as bowling, and would be allowed to participate in the outings with persons who receive developmental services. The basis for the claim for developmental services is the allegation that Petitioner suffers from retardation, as defined in Section 393.063(41), Florida Statutes. No competent evidence was presented to prove that Petitioner suffers from retardation, as defined in Section 393.063(41), Florida Statutes. When Petitioner initially made application for developmental services from Respondent, she provided supporting information, to include a document which was entitled "Report of Psychological Assessment-Intellectual Functioning", performed by the Devereux Foundation, Devon, Pennsylvania. Consistent with its policy, Petitioner considered information in that document, which was dated March 10, 1992. In particular, Respondent took cognizance of a Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, a test administered to Petitioner.1 Respondent considered this test and its results to be collateral source information. Respondent relied upon the test results in making a preliminary decision about Petitioner's entitlement to receive developmental services. At hearing, Respondent, in the person of its employee and policy spokesperson, continued to defer to the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children scores in the Devereux Foundation testing as a means of determining Petitioner's eligibility for developmental services. Preliminarily and at hearing, Respondent held to the opinion that the full-scale score of 72 obtained by Petitioner disqualified Petitioner from receiving developmental services. Respondent's preliminary decision and position at hearing, was to the effect, that the full-scale score of 72 in the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children obtained by Petitioner placed Petitioner above the range of persons who have significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning. When Respondent saw the full-scale score on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children that had been administered by the Devereux Foundation to Petitioner, and having been persuaded by that information that Petitioner was not entitled to developmental services, it took no further action to review the material submitted by Petitioner or to seek additional material from Petitioner. Additional information which Petitioner provided to Respondent prior to hearing, on a form from the Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, which contained information purportedly related to a WAIS76-69-72 assessment of Petitioner's intellectual functioning, was not considered in determining the question of eligibility because Respondent was persuaded that this testing was done too late in Petitioner's life to be of value. The Social Security Administration form entitled "Disability Determination and Transmittal" makes reference to a report prepared on March 31, 1986 concerning Petitioner's intellectual functioning as purportedly prepared by Kenneth Gilstein, Ph.D. C/E. The Disability Determination and Transmittal form paraphrases that report. The actual report is not part of the Disability Determination and Transmittal form.2 Other than the reference to the full-scale score of 72 obtained by Petitioner in the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, administered by the Devereux Foundation, Petitioner presented no other competent evidence in support of her application for developmental services, as such information would address Petitioner's general intellectual functioning, manifested during the period from conception to age 18. Petitioner presented no competent evidence concerning deficits in her adaptive behavior that existed concurrently with the measurement of her general intellectual functioning, as manifested during the period from conception to age 18. Neither party presented competent evidence concerning Petitioner's intellectual function to establish that Petitioner's performance was two or more standard deviations from the mean score on a standardized intelligence test specified in the rules of the Respondent, as this proof might describe significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's eligibility for developmental services. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 29th day of September, 1994.
The Issue Whether the proposed award of Request for Proposal No. P2021 to Psychotherapeutic Services of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter "Psychotherapeutic Services"), is contrary to Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice's (hereinafter "Department"), governing statutes, rules or policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 2007, the Department issued RFP P2021 to solicit proposals for a Department Detention Screening Unit in the Circuit 17 Juvenile Assessment Center. The contract for RFP P2021 was for an initial three-year period, with the possibility of renewal for an additional three-year period. Two prospective providers, Petitioner, Juvenile Services Program, and Psychotherapeutic Services submitted responses to RFP P2021. Sarah Smith (hereinafter "Ms. Smith"), acting as the Department's contract administrator, evaluated the proposals for compliance with the mandatory requirements of RFP P2021. Based on Ms. Smith's review of the proposals and her determination that the proposals met the mandatory requirements of the RFP, the Department accepted both Petitioner's proposal and Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal as responsive to the RFP. The RFP consisted of the following three proposals, all of which were evaluated and scored by the appropriate evaluators: (1) the Technical Proposal, which comprises two sub-parts, Management Capabilities and Program Services; (2) the Financial Proposal, which comprises two sub-parts, Price and Financial Capabilities; and (3) the Past Performance Proposal. The maximum allotted points for each of the proposals were as follows: 160 b. Program Services 400 100 b. Financial Capabilities 100 3. Past Performance (Part I) 200 Technical Proposal Management Capabilities Financial Proposal Price The Technical Proposals were reviewed, evaluated, and scored by three evaluators, Loretta Bright, Lucille Rapale and Terria Flakes. Each evaluator scored each proposal separately and independently without consulting and conferring with the other evaluators. All three evaluators were Department employees who were trained and randomly selected to evaluate the proposals. The scores of the three evaluators who evaluated the Technical Proposal were averaged. Based on those averages, Petitioner was awarded 117.33 points for the Management Capabilities sub-part and 278.33 points for the Program Services sub-part. Psychotherapeutic Services was awarded 108.80 for the Management Capabilities subpart and 276.67 for the Program Services subpart of the Technical Proposal. The Financial Proposal was evaluated by Ms. Smith, an operations and management consultant in the Department's Contract Administration Office, Bureau of Contracts. Based on her evaluation of the Financial Proposals, Ms. Smith awarded 200 points each to Petitioner and Psychotherapeutic Services. The Past Performance Proposals of the RFP were evaluated and scored by Paul Hatcher, a senior management analyst with the Department. Based on Mr. Hatcher's review and evaluation of this section, he awarded 173.75 points to Petitioner and 192.50 points to Psychotherapeutic Services. After calculating the total points awarded for the three proposals/sections of the RFP, Psychotherapeutic Services, with a total score of 777.97, was ranked as the highest scored proposal. Petitioner, with a total score of 769.42, was ranked second. On April 3, 2007, the Department posted the notice of its intended decision to award the contract for RFP P2021 to Psychotherapeutic Services. This decision was based on Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal having a higher point total than Petitioner's proposal. General Instructions for Completing RFP P2021 RFP P2021 is comprised of a one-page transmittal letter and several attachments and exhibits, some of which are in the 47-page printed RFP P2021, and others which, according to the RFP, are available electronically. Relevant to this proceeding are terms contained in the transmittal letter and in Attachments A, B, C, D, G and J. Several provisions in RFP P2021, including the transmittal letter and Attachments A and B, give general instructions for preparation of the proposal. The transmittal letter provides that "prospective providers shall fully comply with the instructions on how to respond to the RFP." Attachment A, General Instructions to Respondents, provides that "respondents to the solicitation are encouraged to carefully review all the materials contained herein and prepare responses accordingly." Attachment B, Section XVIII, "General Instructions for the Preparation and Submission of Proposals," provides in relevant part the following: The instructions for this RFP have been designed to help ensure that all proposals are reviewed and evaluated in a consistent manner, as well as to minimize costs and response time. INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN VARIANCE WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS MAY NOT BE REVIEWED OR EVALUATED. * * * Failure of the prospective Provider to provide any of the information required in either Volume 1 (the Technical Proposal), Volume 2 (the Financial Proposal), or Volume 3 (Past Performance) portions of the RFP proposal shall result in no points being awarded for that element of the evaluation. Attachment B also provides the general instructions for the Technical Proposal, the Financial Proposal and the Past Performance Proposal of RFP P2021. Those instructions are described and discussed below. Notwithstanding the general instructions for completing the RFP, Attachment A, paragraph 15, gives the Department the right to waive any minor irregularities. According to that provision, "[t]he Department reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Department determines that doing so will serve the State's best interests." The RFP deems certain requirements as mandatory. Attachment B, Section V, sets forth those requirements and the consequences for a prospective provider's failing to comply with those requirements. Attachment B, Section V, provides in pertinent part the following: Mandatory Requirements The following requirements must be met by the prospective Provider to be considered responsive to this RFP. Although there are other criteria set forth in this RFP, these are the only requirements deemed by the Department to be mandatory. Failure to meet these requirements will result in a proposal not being evaluated and [being] rejected as non-responsive. [Emphasis supplied.] It is MANDATORY that the prospective Provider submit its proposal within the time frame specified in the Calendar of Events (Attachment B, Section IV.) It is MANDATORY that the prospective Provider draft and submit a fully completed, originally signed Transmittal Letter that contains all the information required by Section XVIII. A. It is MANDATORY that the prospective Provider submit a complete and signed Attachment J that proposes an annual contract dollar amount at or below the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP. Any proposal without a completed and signed Attachment J or with a proposed annual contract dollar amount exceeding the annual maximum contract dollar amount will be rejected. Attachment D, "Evaluation Criteria," sets forth the evaluation criteria and the scoring methods for proposal. Attachment D also provides that failure to meet the mandatory requirements "that are specified in Attachment B, Section V," will result in the proposal not being evaluated and being rejected as non-responsive. The Financial Proposal Attachment B, Section XVIII, D.1., provides in pertinent part the following: The prospective Provider shall provide a price for the program by returning a completed and signed Attachment J-Price Sheet. The price evaluated is the "proposed Annual Contract Amount." The price must include all services, material and labor necessary to complete the Scope of Services (Exhibit 1) as described in this RFP and the prospective Provider's proposal. A renewal price shall also be entered on Attachment J. It is MANDATORY that the prospective Provider submit a completed and signed Attachment J that proposes an annual contract amount at or below the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP. Any proposal without a completed and signed Attachment J or with a proposed dollar amount exceeding the annual maximum contract dollar amount will be rejected. RFP P2021 established the "annual maximum contract dollar amount" as $473,594.16 and the "maximum contract dollar amount" as $1,420,782.48 (three times the annual maximum contract amount). Attachment J had three lines on which the prospective provider was to list: (1) the "proposed annual dollar amount"; (2) the "proposed annual dollar amount for each renewal year"; and (3) the "renewal dollar amount proposed."1/ Attachment J also included directions for completing the form and a line for the prospective provider's signature. A pre-printed statement above the signature line indicated that "[b]y submission and signature of this form, the prospective provider agrees to all the terms and conditions of this RFP and commits to the prices stated." In lieu of submitting the Amendment J form that was attached to the RFP, Psychotherapeutic Services submitted its re-created version of Attachment J. The Department recognized that the page titled Attachment J in Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal was re-created by Psychotherapeutic Services. However, the re-created version of Attachment J and submission of that document does not in itself constitute a non-responsive response. In the Department's view, the significant factor is whether the relevant and required information indicated as mandatory in the RFP is provided on the re-created version of the form. By consistent practice, the Department routinely accepts re-created forms and/or attachments in responses from prospective providers for the convenience of respondents. In accordance with this practice, the Department accepted the re-created Attachment J submitted by Psychotherapeutic Services. On the re-created version of Attachment J, Psychotherapeutic Services did not include: (1) the instructions for completion of the form; and (2) the language that by signing and submitting the form, Psychotherapeutic Services agrees to all the terms and conditions of the RFP and commits to the prices stated. However, Psychotherapeutic Services included on the re-created Attachment J all the relevant and required information as indicated by the mandatory requirements in the RFP. The mandatory requirements related to the Financial Proposal are that the provider "submit a completed and signed Attachment J that proposes an annual contract dollar amount that is at or below the maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP. See paragraphs 21 and 23 above. The mandatory requirements for the Financial Proposal do not require the "renewal terms" to be included in the re-created version of Attachment J, but require that the proposed annual contract amount be at or below the annual maximum contract amount. Similarly, there is no mandatory requirement that omission of the "renewal terms" must result in a finding that the proposal is non-responsive. At most, if such language were required and not provided, no points should be awarded for that section. Here, the evaluation criteria for the Financial Proposal does not include or require consideration of the "renewal terms" on Attachment J.2/ See Attachment A, paragraph 9(i) and (j); Attachment B, Section XIV; and Attachment G, Part IV, C. The re-created version of Attachment J, as completed by Psychotherapeutic Services, is as follows: ATTACHMENT J - PRICE SHEET JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER SERVICES PROPOSED ANNUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT: $473,593.47 PROPOSED ANNUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH RENEWAL YEAR: $473,593.47 *PROPOSED ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT $1,420,780.41[3/] DOLLAR AMOUNT for all Services in thie [sic] RFP multimplied [sic] by the number of initial years (3) of the contract + [sic] $1,420,782.48 *THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT WILL BE MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER O FYEARS [sic] IN THE INITIAL TERM OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SCORING THE PRICE SECTION OF THIS PROPOSAL. THE PRICE STATED ON THIS SHEET (ATTACHMENT J) WILL BE USED FOR DETERMINIATION [sic] OF POINTS AWARDED TO EACH PROSPECTIVE PROVIDER. TERMS OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR SHALL BE PRO-RATED. RENEWAL TERM DOLLAR AMOUNT PROPOSED: $473,594.16[4/] Psychotherapeutic Services' proposed annual contract dollar amount of $473,593.47 is below the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP, $473,594.16. Therefore, it met the mandatory requirement for the price category of the Financial Proposal. Ms. Smith testified credibly that the Department's focus, as reflected in the evaluation criteria, is to ensure that the proposed annual contract dollar amount does not exceed the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP. Ms. Smith evaluated and scored that Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal in accordance with the provisions of the RFP. Based on her evaluation, Ms. Smith properly awarded Psychotherapeutic Services the maximum 200 points for its Financial Proposal. Of those points, 100 points were for the "price" category. Ms. Smith also awarded Petitioner's Financial Proposal the maximum 200 points for its Financial Proposal, including 100 points for the "price" category. Petitioner was awarded 100 points for the "price" category, even though its proposed annual contract amount was higher than that of Psychotherapeutic Services. Ms. Smith determined that this was appropriate because the difference in the price proposed by Petitioner and Psychotherapeutic Services was less than ten percent. Psychotherapeutic Services submitted a signed and completed Attachment J that included a proposed annual contract dollar amount, $473,593.47, which was below the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP, $473,594.16. Having met the mandatory provisions of the RFP, related to Attachment J, the Department appropriately did not reject the Psychotherapeutic Services, but instead properly evaluated that proposal. The Technical Proposal The Technical Proposal required prospective providers to prove that they were registered to do business in Florida. The general instructions for preparation of the Technical Proposal of the RFP are set forth in Attachment B, Section XVIII, C.2., which provides in relevant part: a. Management Capability * * * 3) This section shall provide proof that the prospective Provider is registered to do business in Florida evidenced by Articles of Incorporation or Fictitious Name Registration or Business License and, if applicable, a copy of the most recent Certification of Good Standing. (This information may be obtained from the Secretary of State's Office) . . . . Psychotherapeutic Services did not submit as part of its proposal Articles of Incorporation, Fictitious Name Registration, or Business License to prove that it is licensed to do business in the State of Florida. However, Psychotherapeutic Services submitted an untitled document that appeared to be a certificate from the State of Florida, Department of State, which had the electronic signature of the Secretary of State and was dated May 13, 2006. Petitioner submitted its Articles of Incorporation, as well as the untitled document from the Department of State. (The latter document was the same type of certificate Psychotherapeutic Services submitted with its proposal.) That referenced untitled document stated in relevant part the following: I [Secretary of State] certify from the records of this office that PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, authorized to transact business in the State of Florida, qualified on December 4, 1996. * * * I further certify that said corporation has paid all fees due this office through December 31, 2006, that its most recent annual report was filed on May 10, 2006, and its status is active. I further certify that said corporation has not filed a Certificate of Withdrawal. The document was identified at hearing by Petitioner's executive director as a Certificate of Good Standing. However, there was nothing on the document to indicate what the document was. The Technical Proposals were rated on a scale of zero to five, based on criteria established in the RFP. The rating system for the Technical Proposal was as follows: Score Evaluation Description 5 The proposal exceeds all technical specifications and requirements for the component specified. The approach is innovative, comprehensive, and complete in every detail. 4 The proposal meets all technical specifications and requirements for the component specified. The approach is comprehensive and complete in every detail. The proposal approach contains some innovative details for some of the components specified. 3 The proposal meets all technical specifications and requirement for the component specified. 2 The proposal does not meet all technical Specifications and requirements for the component specified, or it does not provide essential information to substantiate the provider's ability to provide the service. 1 The proposal contains errors and/or omissions in the area of the component specified. 0 The provider's proposal fails to demonstrate the ability to provide the service. The evaluation criteria for Criterion No. 2, which relates in part to prospective providers being registered to do business in the State of Florida, required the evaluators to rate the proposal on the following: Does the proposal reasonably, logically, and clearly identify an organizational structure with the capability to perform the services specified and required by the RFP? Petitioner contends that Psychotherapeutic Services failed to respond fully to the Technical Proposal by not submitting the Articles of Incorporation, Fictitious Name Registration, or Business License, whichever was applicable. By failing to submit any of the other named documents, Petitioner contends that Psychotherapeutic Services' Technical Proposal was non-responsive. The untitled documents submitted by both Petitioner and Psychotherapeutic Services, described in paragraph 42, appeared to be issued by the State of Florida. The evaluators' credible testimony was that they interpreted and considered the certificate from the Department of State as the Business License, and/or one of the other acceptable means of proof that the prospective providers were registered to do business in Florida, as required in the RFP. In light of their review and interpretation of the document from the Department of State, the evaluators awarded Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal and Petitioner's proposal the following scores for Evaluation Criterion No. 2: Psychotherapeutic Services Juvenile Service Program Evaluator Bright 4 4 Evaluator Flakes 3 4 Evaluator Rapale 3 3 Petitioner contends that because Psychotherapeutic Services did not submit its Articles of Incorporation, Fictitious Name Registration, or Business License as required by the RFP,5/ it should not have received scores of three or above for Criterion No. 2. The RFP required the prospective providers' proposals: to include a work plan for the collaboration and coordination of operations with other agencies providing services at the Circuit 17 Juvenile Assessment Center; and to specify procedures for collaboration and coordination with the local Department office in certain cases. Evaluation Criterion No. 3 provides as follows: Does the proposal reasonably, logically, and clearly identify the providers' intended interaction with local service resources as specified and required by the RFP? There is no dispute that both Psychotherapeutic Services' and Petitioner's proposals addressed the issues noted in paragraph 50 above. In addition to complying with those requirements, Petitioner submitted three letters of support to supplement its response to the requirement regarding the involvement of local agencies. As to Evaluation Criterion No. 3, Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal was awarded two scores of three and one score of four. Petitioner's proposal was awarded scores identical to those of Psychotherapeutic Services' scores. Petitioner argues that it should have been awarded more points and/or Psychotherapeutic Services should have been awarded fewer points for Evaluation Criterion No. 3, because it submitted three letters to indicate community support and no such letters were provided by Psychotherapeutic Services to support its bid proposal. The RFP neither prohibited, nor required, prospective providers from submitting letters to supplement their responses related to collaborating and coordinating with local agencies. Accordingly, no points were awarded or required to be awarded based on the submission of letters of support. The three evaluators' scores were based on their individual review and evaluation of the proposals submitted by Petitioner and by Psychotherapeutic Services. No proposal was scored against each other, but rather each proposal was scored separately and not compared to each other. Past Performance The general instructions for preparation of the Past Performance section of the RFP are provided in Attachment B, Section XVIII, E., which states in relevant part the following: 1. The purpose of this section is for the prospective provider to demonstrate its knowledge and experience in operating similar programs by providing information requested on the enclosed Attachment C, Part I, II, and/or III and all required supporting documentation. On the forms provided (Attachment C, Part I, II and/or III), the prospective Provider shall provide, if applicable, information regarding its past performance in the State of Florida, information regarding programs operated by the prospective Provider that have attained professional accreditation, and information regarding past performance in the United States outside of the State of Florida. The prospective Provider shall complete Attachment C and attach dated supporting documentation for Part II and/or III, if applicable. Failure to complete and return Attachment C for this RFP or supporting documentation, if applicable, shall result in a zero (0) score for Past Performance. All documentation provided for Parts II or III of Attachment C must include the start and end dates, be current dated and valid at least through the start date of the Contract that results from this RFP. The documentation must state that the program is a non-residential juvenile [program] and that is run by the prospective Provider. The Department is not responsible for research to clarify the prospective Provider's documentation. Prospective providers shall include the Attachment C, Part I, II and/or III for this RFP and the required supporting documents in Volume III. Failure to include these documents in Volume III shall result in zero (0) points being awarded for Past Performance. Further instructions on how to complete this section may be found in Attachment C. Attachment C provides in relevant part the following: If the prospective Provider has received Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Quality Assurance (QA) Reviews for its Non-Residential programs, that prospective Provider shall complete Parts I and III. Only scores from Parts I and III shall be considered for these prospective Providers. A prospective Provider who is operating or has operated Non-Residential program(s) in Florida must complete Part I of Attachment C. To complete Part I of Attachment C, the prospective Provider shall list all non-residential program information requested for each category. Failure to submit the attached Part I shall result in a score of zero (0) for this section. Part I of other RFP's will not be considered. All other prospective Providers shall complete Parts II and III. . . . The RFP required prospective providers to provide information regarding their past performance of juvenile justice non-residential programs on Attachment C, which consists of the following three parts: Part I, "Data Sheet: Past Performance on Non-Residential JAC [Juvenile Assessment Center] Programs; Part II, "Evaluation Questionnaire for Past Performance in the United States Outside of Florida"; and Part III, titled "Evaluation Questionnaire for Professional Accreditation in the United States." Psychotherapeutic Services was required to complete Attachment C, Part I, because it had experience operating a non-residential juvenile justice program in the State of Florida. However, because the programs Psychotherapeutic Services operated in Florida did not have professional accreditation, it was not required to complete Attachment C, Part III. Attachment C, Part I, required each respondent to provide the following information about non-residential programs it operates, or has operated, in the State of Florida: the program(s) that it had contracts to administer; the contract number(s); the program type; the beginning date of the contract; the ending date of the contract; the most recent quality assurance performance score of the program; and the most recent quality assurance compliance score of the program. For each category on Attachment C, Part I, there was a corresponding footnote, which provided the rationale and/or explanation regarding the requested information. Relevant to this proceeding are the categories contract number, the most recent quality assurance (QA) performance score, the most recent QA compliance score, and the footnotes related thereto. The footnote that corresponds to the category "contract number" provides the following: "This information is only to aid the Department in identifying the program named." The footnote that corresponds to the category "most recent quality assurance performance score," provides the following: "Quality Assurance Performance score for current year. If not evaluated yet and the program was reviewed last year, use last year's score." The footnote that corresponds to the "most recent Quality Assurance compliance score" provides the following: "Quality Assurance compliance score. If not evaluated yet and the program was reviewed last year, use last year's score." Psychotherapeutic Services did not submit the Attachment C, Part I, form that was included in the RFP. Instead, Psychotherapeutic Services prepared a re-created version of that form which was completed and submitted as part of its proposal. Except for a notation explaining its responses to the categories related to QA performance and compliance scores, Psychotherapeutic Services' re-created version of Attachment C, Part I, was almost identical to the Department's Attachment C. On the re-created Attachment C, Part I, Psychotherapeutic Services listed the one non-residential program it was operating in Florida and provided responses to the specified categories as follows: Category Response Program Name Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services (IDDS) Contract Number R601 Program Type Probation/Community Service Contract Begin Date 9/15/2003 Contract End Date 9/14/2009 Most Recent QA Performance Score 90 percent or Above Most Recent QA Compliance Score 90 percent or Above Psychotherapeutic Services included a notation on the re-created Attachment C, Part I, to explain the responses of "90% or above" that were listed as the most recent QA performance score and the most recent compliance score. The notation stated, "To maintain 'deemed status' all scores must be 90 percent or above. We do not have an exact number score." Petitioner contends that Psychotherapeutic Services' Past Performance Proposal is non-responsive to the RFP. First, Petitioner contends that Psychotherapeutic Services failed to submit the required information on the Attachment C form that was attached to the RFP, but submitted its information on the re-created version of Attachment C. The Department acknowledged that Psychotherapeutic Services re-created Attachment C, Part I. However, as previously indicated, the Department does not penalize respondents for re-creating required forms for their convenience. Rather, the information required by the forms must be provided in the response to obtain the proper score or evaluation. In response to the category related to the contract number of the program it was currently operating, Psychotherapeutic Services incorrectly listed the contract number as R601. The correct contract number of the non-residential program Psychotherapeutic Services was currently administering is RK601. The Department acknowledged that there was a typographical error or mistake on the re-created Attachment C, Part I, in listing the contract number of the program operated by Psychotherapeutic Services. However, the Department determined that this error was not critical with regard to the information that was to be provided.6/ Attachment C requires a respondent to provide performance and compliance scores for its most recent QA review of any programs currently run by the prospective provider. Instead of providing an exact score for the QA reviews, Psychotherapeutic Services provided and inserted a score of "90% or above" as their most recent QA performance and compliance scores on its Attachment C, Part I form. By way of explanation, Psychotherapeutic Services included a notation that the score was based on its "special deemed status." In accordance with the RFP, Psychotherapeutic Services submitted a report from the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance as supporting documentation for information regarding its QA performance and compliance scores. The report confirmed Psychotherapeutic Services' responses regarding its most recent performance and compliance scores. The report from the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance reflected that Psychotherapeutic Services' program received QA scores in 2003, but had not received any scores since then. As a result of its QA scores in 2003, Psychotherapeutic Services received "deemed status" by the Department. Psychotherapeutic Services had not received QA scores during the current year or the year prior to responding to the RFP. Therefore, Psychotherapeutic Services retained its special "deemed status" every year since 2003. The supporting documentation explained that to retain "deemed status," a provider must obtain a score of 90 percent or above each year at program review. The Department will no longer be using "deemed status" in the future, but that decision does not affect a provider/program currently holding this status. Thus, the status and scores as reported by Psychotherapeutic Services on the re-created version of Attachment C were properly reported at the time the proposal was submitted, verified, and scored. It is the Department's practice to verify the scores provided by the prospective providers who complete Attachment C, Part I, by accessing the information on the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website. This website is not limited to use by the Department, but is also available for use by the general public. Prior to scoring Past Performance proposals, the evaluator, Mr. Hatcher always verifies the QA information provided by any prospective provider using the official Department QA reports on the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website. He does not and has never viewed this practice as research, but as verification. The QA scores listed on the Department's official reports are the scores used by Mr. Hatcher in scoring the Past Performance Proposals. Consistent with his usual practice, Mr. Hatcher verified the responses given in Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal by accessing the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website. Mr. Hatcher used the scores on the official report posted on that website to evaluate the Past Performance Proposals. The information on the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website confirmed that Psychotherapeutic Services' performance and compliance scores were 90 percent or above. Psychotherapeutic Services' performance score was 95 percent, and its compliance score was 100 percent. Mr. Hatcher also utilized the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance to verify the information provided by Petitioner and confirmed that Petitioner's most recent average QA performance and compliance scores were 82.5 percent and 100 percent, respectively. These were the QA scores Petitioner provided on Attachment C, Part I, of its proposal for the average of its most recent QA performance and compliance scores. The "90% or above" figure provided by Psychotherapeutic Services, while accurate, is not a specific numbered percent score that could be used in calculating Psychotherapeutic Services' overall score for its Past Performance Proposal. Therefore, the evaluator appropriately did not use those figures. Instead, he used Psychotherapeutic Services' QA performance and compliance figures, 95 percent and 100 percent, that were on the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website. To determine the score for the Past Performance Proposal, the evaluator had to apply the required formula. The formula required that the most recent average performance score be multiplied by 1.5 and the most recent average compliance score be multiplied by 0.5. The score for the Past Performance Proposal is the sum of those numbers. By applying the required formula, Psychotherapeutic Services was awarded 142.5 points for its performance score and 50 points for its compliance score. This resulted in Psychotherapeutic Services being appropriately awarded a total score of 192.50 points for its Past Performance Proposal. By applying the required formula, Petitioner was awarded 123.75 points for its performance score and 50 points for its compliance scores. This resulted in Petitioner's being appropriately awarded a total score of 173.75 points in the Past Performance Proposal. The evaluators for the Technical Proposal, the Financial Proposal and the Past Performance Proposal of RFP P2021 properly and adequately evaluated those proposals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice, issue a final order dismissing the Juvenile Services Program, Inc.'s, Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2007.
Findings Of Fact M.G., as he is now known, was born on May 30, 1966. He attended kindergarten at Rainbow Park Elementary School. After beginning first grade in the fall of 1972, at Miami Baptist Temple, a private school, he entered Westview Elementary, one of Respondent's schools, in 1973. On May 3, 1974, he transferred to South Miami Elementary, another public school. Even before the transfer, his mother realized M.G. could not read, but she approached his teachers only after the family had moved and M.G. was settled in his new school. Ms. Mitchell, the second grade teacher with whom Mrs. G. conferred in the spring of 1974, told her that the school system would arrange various tests and interviews that might shed some light on M.G.'s academic difficulties. Among Respondent's records is a note from Ms. Mitchell dated June 13, 1974, saying, "M.G.'s Mother has requested a psychological evaluation. She is very much concerned as to why M. [h]as not been able to make more academic progress (and so am I)." Respondent caused psychological testing to be done in the middle of the following school year. On January 27, 1975, Elizabeth I. Smith, a psychologist in Respondent's employ, finished her psychological evaluation of M.G. Ms. Smith decided that M.G. had "a poor self-concept", "dependency needs", and "paranoid tendencies"; and that he was "a rather lonely child" and "ha[d] too strong a tendency to delay emotional satisfaction." Joint Exhibit No. 7. At this time, administration of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children indicated that M.G. had normal "full scale" intelligence (101), with subtest scores ranging from 5 (coding) to 16 (object assembly). Contemporaneous Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) scores put him a year or more behind the average child at his grade level, with scores ranging from 1.8 (spelling) to 2.1 (reading) to 2.4 (arithmetic). On the WRAT, he mistook "41" for "14". Errors on the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test indicated inadequate auditory discrimination. Ms. Smith concluded that M.G. had perceptual difficulties that should be evaluated, but decided that his main problems were emotional. Inter alia, she recommended "[r]esource into an Emotionally Disturbed Class . . . [and a]dministration of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities" (ITPA). Joint Exhibit No. 7. The ITPA is administered to children (up to ten years old) in an effort to measure auditory and visual process deficits, among other things. After talking to Ms. Smith, Mrs. G. signed a form on February 21, 1975, authorizing Respondent to place M.G. in a class for emotionality disturbed children for part of the day. At the time, she was unaware that Respondent had full-time classes for children with specific learning disabilities. The teacher of the class for emotionally disturbed children told M.G.'s parents that "she would be working with him with his LD problem." (T. 153.) Respondent never administered the ITPA to M.G.. Dr. Ronald I. Cantwell, a pediatrician who limits his practice to developmental disabilities, first examined M.G. in January of 1975. He found that M.G. confused left with right, had difficulty copying foot patterns, was unable to distinguish between "12" and "21" or between "b" and "d", and could not remember a sequence of five numbers or letters. Codeine acted to excite rather than to sedate M.G. Dr. Cantwell felt M.G.'s principal problems were academic rather than emotional, and recommended tutoring. With tutoring during the summer of 1975, M.G. learned multiplication tables, which he forgot after school began that fall, even though his tutoring continued. In the middle of the following school year, H.U. Puryear, a psychologist in Respondent's employ, concluded, on a psychological referral form dated February 3, 1976, that M.G.'s tutoring should be rescheduled so as not to conflict with school hours, if tutoring was really needed, and that "assignment to another E.D. setting requires no additional professional [psychological] procedures." Joint Exhibit No. 8. M.G. spent the latter part of the fourth grade in a varying exceptionalities class at South Miami Elementary. M.G. is tutored at Dr. Cantwell's Pediatric Achievement Center the summer following fourth grade, just as he had been the summer before. In addition to this tutoring, M.G. had the help of his mother and an uncle, who between them spent four hours a night with M.G., during the first semester of the fifth grade. M.G. and his mother grew increasingly disturbed about his slow progress in school, especially in light of his performance at home. In December of 1976, Mrs. G. attended a conference which Dr. Marshall, head of Respondent's Southwest Area office, Mr. Torano, principal of South Miami Elementary, Lenora Hays, M.G.'s "regular fifth grade teacher," and Ms. Jackson, who had begun two weeks earlier as the teacher of M.G.'s varying exceptionalities class, also attended. At the conference, Ms. Hays undertook to locate either a science or a social studies textbook on a more appropriate level. Mrs. G. sought to persuade the school authorities to transfer M.G. to Ms. Patterson's "continuing LD class," but she was unable to. (T. 168.) After Christmas vacation, in January of 1977, M.G. began at Gables Academy, a private school for children with learning disabilities, where he finished fifth grade and spent sixth and seventh grades. At Gables Academy, M.G. won "an award for advancing two years in every subject . . . an award for reading" (T. 93) , and other awards. The evidence did not reveal the qualifications of Gables Academy's staff, what its school day and school year are, whether it maintains current sanitation, health, or fire inspection certificates, what its procedures to protect the confidentiality of student records are, what written policies it has, if any, and whether it has filed required assurances or reports. Ms. Evelyn Orkney, who was certified as a school psychologist in Connecticut before she moved to Miami, saw M.G. on April 22 and May 13, 1977, before she prepared her initial "psychoeducational evaluation." Joint Exhibit No. 2. She reported WRAT scores of 2.9 (spelling), 3.5 (reading recognition), and 3.9 (arithmetic), and full scale I.Q. of 106. Ms. Orkney observed that M.G.'s "dialogue revealed bitter memories of public school." Joint Exhibit No. 2. She concluded that M.G. "Possesses average aptitude . . . [with] residuals of visual motor problems . . . [and] a significant problem in auditory sequential memory." Joint Exhibit No. 2. Ms. Orkney again evaluated M.G. on August 9, 1979, at which time she observed that he "virtually never experiences depression or bitterness." In the 1979 "psychoeducational re-evaluation," Ms. Orkney reported WRAT scores of 3.5 (spelling), and 6.3 (arithmetic). The Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude, the ITPA, the Slosson Drawing Coordination, Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt, and other tests were also administered. Ms. Orkney concluded that the "Detroit and ITPA tests confirm severe deficit in the auditory memory area and recommended "special instruction in spelling, as well as auditory sequential memory training and design integration exercises." On the basis of second-hand information, some of which was erroneous, Ms. Orkney recommended that M.G. remain at Gables Academy rather than return to public school. M.G. was evaluated at Respondent's Diagnostic and Resource Center on August 29 and 30, 1979, and a report dated September 27, 1979, was prepared. A number of tests were administered, including the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, various psychological projective tests, the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty and Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery: Test of Cognitive Ability, Memory for Sentences. M.G.'s vision and hearing were also tested. The diagnostic team concluded that M.G. was "somewhat rigid hut d[id] not have a primary emotional handicap for educational programming purposes." They recommended a specific learning disability program with "primary emphasis in the auditory and visual attention skill areas," and conferences with the school counselor. In their view, his weakest skills were reading and spelling, reflecting "specific process deficits in the visual aid auditory attention areas," as well as in visual memory of words, while arithmetic and general information were strengths. The team made detailed recommendations regarding teaching techniques. Richard Maisel, a clinical psychologist, evaluated M.G. on January 14 and 23 and February 5 and 14, 1980. Joint Exhibit No. 5. He reported WRAT scores of 2.7 (spelling), 4.1 (reading) and 5.6 (arithmetic). Dr. Maisel concluded that M.G. has average intelligence with "very significant auditory and visual attention, memory and sequencing problems." Joint Exhibit No. 5. Dr. Maisel reported "emotional difficulties . . . superimposed upon the underlying learning disability" for which he recommended "psychotherapeutic intervention." He recommended "full-time placement in a learning disabilities program." Joint Exhibit No. 5. M.G. himself wanted, at the time of the hearing, to go to Gables Academy. He remembered assignments at public school that he felt were insultingly simple; and the taunts of children in regular classes; and he did not get along with one of his teachers in public school. He did not want to go to South Miami Junior High because he had "seen injection needles and pill bottles" (T. 91) there as he rode home from Gables Academy. He wanted to "look over a learning disabilities program at Ponce de Leon Junior High School, another public school, but felt he would "really like to go back to Gables Academy]." (T. 92) On November 7, 1979, public school officials, in conjunction with M.G. and his parents, drew up an IEP for the 1979-1980 school year, recommending a full-time learning disabilities placement. Joint Exhibit No. 6. By that time, however, the G.s were obligated for tuition for the 1979-1980 school year, so M.G. stayed the school year there. No IEP had been prepared for the 1980-1981 school year, at the time of the hearing, but Myra Silverstein, a placement specialist in Respondent's employ, testified that a full-time learning disabilities placement would still be appropriate. Such a program is available at Ponce de Leon Junior High. It would include four hours of specific learning disabilities instruction daily by use more teachers along with "mainstream" classes in physical education and shop, art, or some other elective. At Ponce de Leon Junior High School, there is a counselor who works only with student in special education classes.
The Issue At issue in these proceedings is whether petitioner suffers from "retardation," as that term is defined by Section 393.063(41), Florida Statutes, and therefore qualifies for services under Chapter 393, Florida Statutes, the "Developmental Disabilities Prevention and Community Services Act."
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lucky Graham (Lucky), was born September 18, 1973, and was, at the time of hearing, 19 years of age. Lucky has resided his entire life with his grandmother, Susie Griggs, in Miami, Dade County, Florida, and has been effectively abandoned by his mother and father. When not attending the Dorsey Skill Center, a program offered by the Dade County Public School system to develop minimal skills necessary to acquire a vocational skill, Lucky spends most of his free time alone in his room, and does not interact socially or play with other children beyond his immediate family. Notwithstanding, Lucky does interact with members of his immediate family; attend family outings; contribute to minor chores around the house such as hanging laundry, washing dishes and mopping floors; maintain himself and his room in a neat manner; and prepare food and drink for himself, at least to some unspecified extent. Lucky cannot, however, without supervision, shop or make change, but can utilize public transportation to and from Dorsey Skill Center without supervision. Lucky's limited social skills are, likewise, apparent at the Dorsey Skill Center where his interaction with other students is limited. Lucky's functional performance, as opposed to his learning ability, is also apparent from his past performance at school, where it was rated at the first grade level. As such, he is unable to read or write to any significant extent and cannot perform mathematical calculations beyond the most basic addition and substraction; i.e., he cannot add two digit numbers that require carrying and cannot perform substraction that requires borrowing from another number (regrouping). He did, however, complete a vocational training program for auto body repair and was, as of October 8, 1992, and apparently at the time of hearing, enrolled in a auto mechanics program at Dorsey Skill Center. (Tr. p 46, Petitioner's Exhibit 9). The quality of Lucky's performance was not, however, placed of record. Current and past testing administered through the Dade County School System, for functional ability (vocational ability), as opposed to learning ability, evidence that Lucky functions on a level comparable to mildly mentally retarded individuals. In this regard, he was found to be impulsive, disorganized and lacking concentration, and to be most appropriately placed in a sheltered workshop environment with direct supervision and below competitive employment capacity. During the course of his life, Lucky has been administered a number of intelligence assessment tests. In July 1977, at age 3 years 10 months, he was administered the Stanford Binet by the University of Miami Child Development Center and achieved an IQ score of 55. Lucky was described as "hesitant in coming into the testing room but . . . fairly cooperative throughout." Thereafter, he was administered the following intellectual assessment instruments by the Dade County Public Schools prior to his eighteenth birthday: in March 1980, at age 6 years 6 months, he was administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Revised (WISC-R) and received a verbal score of 65, a performance score of 55, and a full scale IQ score of 56; and, in October 1984, at age 11 years 1 month, he was administered the WISC-R and received a verbal score of 58, a performance score of 58, and a full scale IQ score of 54. During these testing sessions, Lucky was observed to have been minimally cooperative, with low frustration level, and highly distractible. If reliable, such tests would reflect a performance which was two or more standard deviations from the mean, and within the mild range of mental retardation. While not administered contemporaneously with the administration of intellectual assessment instruments, a Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Vineland) was administered to Lucky through the Dade County Public Schools in January 1988, when he was 14 years 4 months. The results of such test reflected an adaptive behavior score of 51, and an age equivalent of 5 years. Such result would indicate a deficit in Lucky's adaptive behavior skills compared with other children his age. On August 8, 1991, pursuant to an order of the Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida, Lucky was evaluated by Walter B. Reid, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist associated with the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Human Resources, Office of Rehabilitative Services, Juvenile Court Mental Health Clinic. Dr. Reid administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) to Lucky, whose cooperation during such testing was observed to be good, and he achieved a verbal score of 68, a performance score of 70, and a full scale IQ of Dr. Reid concluded that Lucky suffered mild mental retardation and opined: . . . his [Lucky's] abilities should be thoroughly assessed by the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation as it is my opinion . . . this young man can function in a sheltered workshop and live in a group adult facility . . . Plans should be under- taken immediately to get this youth into appropriate training as soon as he gets out of high school in order for him to learn skills that will make it possible for him to work and to learn skills in the area of socialization. This is a pleasant young man, who, in my opinion, has the capability of working and living semi-independently. Thereafter, on August 26, 1991, apparently at the request of the Circuit Court, Juvenile Division, Lucky was assessed by the Department pursuant to the "Developmental Disabilities Prevention and Community Services Act," Chapter 393, Florida Services, to determine whether he was eligible for services as a consequence of a disorder or syndrome which was attributable to retardation. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) was administered to Lucky, who was described as cooperative and motivated during the session, and he achieved a verbal score of 71, a performance score of 78, and a full scale IQ of 73. This placed Lucky within the borderline range of intellectual functioning, but not two or more standard deviations from the mean score of the WAIS-R. A subtest analysis revealed strengths in "the putting together" of concrete forms and psychomotor speed. Difficulties were noticed in verbal conceptualization and language abilities. In addition to the WAIS-R, Lucky was also administered the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. He obtained a communication domain standard score of 30, a daily living skills domain standard score of 90, and a socialization domain score of 63. His adaptive Behavior Composite Score was 56. This score placed Lucky within the Moderate range of adaptive functioning. Based on the foregoing testing, the Department, following review by and the recommendation of its Diagnosis and Evaluation Team, advised the court that Lucky was not eligible for services of the Developmental Services Program Office under the category of mental retardation. The basic reason for such denial was Lucky's failure to test two or more standard deviations from the mean score of the WAIS-R which was administered on August 26, 1991, as well as the failure of the Vineland to reliable reflect a significant deficit in adaptive behavior. Also considered was the questionable reliability of prior testing.1/ Following the Department's denial, a timely request for formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, was filed on behalf of Lucky to review, de novo, the Department's decision. Here, resolution of the issue as to whether Lucky has been shown to suffer from "retardation" as that term is defined by law, discussed infra, resolves itself to a determination of the reliability of the various tests that have been administered to Lucky, as well as the proper interpretation to be accorded those tests. In such endeavor, the testimony of Bill E. Mosman, Ph.D., Psychology, which was lucid, cogent, and credible, has been accorded deference. In the opinion of Dr. Mosman, accepted protocol dictates that an IQ score alone, derived from an intelligence assessment instrument, is not a reliable indicator of mental retardation unless it is a valid reliable score. Such opinion likewise prevails with regard to adaptive behavior instruments. Here, Dr. Mosman opines that the IQ scores attributable to Lucky are not a reliable indication of mental retardation because Lucky's performance on most of the various parts of the tests reflects a performance level above that ascribed to those suffering retardation. In the opinion of Dr. Mosman, which is credited, the full scale scores ascribed to Lucky were artificially lowered because of his deficiencies in only a few parts of the tests. These deficiencies are reasonably attributable to a learning disability and, to a lesser extent, certain deficits in socialization, and not mental retardation. Consistent with such conclusion is the lack of cooperation and motivation exhibited by Lucky during earlier testing, and the otherwise inexplicable rise in his full scale IQ score over prior testing. Consequently, the test results do not reliably reflect a disorder attributable to retardation. The same opinion prevails regarding Lucky's performance on the adaptive behavior instruments which, when examined by their constituent parts, demonstrates that Lucky scores lower in the areas consistent with learning disabilities as opposed to retardation. In sum, although Lucky may be functioning at a low intelligence level, he is not mentally retarded. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which denies petitioner's application for services for the developmentally disabled under the category of mental retardation. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of August 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 10 day of August, 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Respondent) wrongfully awarded a contract to provide juvenile alternative services in Polk, Hardee and Highlands Counties to Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. (Intervenor) rather than the existing Provider, Juvenile Services Program, Inc. (Petitioner). At the hearing the parties stipulated to the introduction of seven joint exhibits. Petitioner called six witnesses, aid Respondent called one witness. A transcript of the hearing was filed on September 28, 1987, and the parties were allowed ten days thereafter to file Proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and memoranda. The Appendix to this Recommended Order contains a ruling on each timely filed Proposed finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 24, 1987, Respondent issued a Request For Proposal (RFP) for the Juvenile Alternative Services Project (JASP) in Polk, Highlands and Hardee Counties. JASP is designed to serve delinquent children and status offenders, and is intended to reduce the incidents of their repeated contacts with the juvenile justice system through a program of meaningful sanctions and services. The program is available as a dispositional alternative by referral from Respondent's intake units, the State Attorney's Office and the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court. Specific services to be Provided under this RFP include victim negotiation, community work programs, restitution, family counseling service and volunteer counseling services. The RFP calls for Providing services to 585 clients from July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988. Petitioner and Intervenor each timely submitted proposals in response to the RFP. Petitioner is a social service agency with administrative offices in St. Petersburg, and Intervenor is a private service agency with offices in Tampa. Petitioner is the existing JASP provider in Polk, Hardee and Highlands Counties. The RFP designates $131,654.86 as the anticipated funding level for this program, and Petitioner's proposal identified $131,655 for the provision of the requested services to a minimum of 585 clients while Intervenor's proposal identified $126,631 to provide these services to a minimum of 636 clients. The proposals submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor were responsive to the RFP. Pursuant to the RFP, a seven-member selection team was designated to review and evaluate the responsive proposals. Representative of Respondent on the selection team included JoAnne Harvey, Kevin Roberts and Tom McFadyen; the courts were represented by Jim Vanderwalker, the State Attorney's Office by Steve Houchins, the Public Defender's Office by Jay B. Haviser, and the community by Fran Martin Shiver from the Polk County Sheriff's Office. RFP responses were opened at 4:30 p.m. on June 1, 1987, and the selection team met at 9:00 a.m. on June 3, 1987. Five of the selection team members attended the meeting and participated in the evaluation of these two proposals; Haviser and Shiver did not attend. The RFP specifies that the evaluation was to be completed on June 4, 1987, and that the selection team, upon completion of its review, would submit its "recommendation" to Respondent's contract signer for award "based upon the recommendation made by the selection team and taking into consideration which bidder's offer is most advantageous to the Department." Selection team members Houchins, Roberts and Harvey recommended that Intervenor be awarded the contract, and members Vanderwalker and McFadyen recommended Petitioner. Vanderwalker rated Petitioner one Point higher than Intervenor and McFadyen rated Petitioner three Points higher than Intervenor. Members recommending Intervenor all did so by a greater point spread than members selecting Petitioner. Intervenor received a total of 1325 Points to 1284 for Petitioner, of a total Possible Points of 1625. The selection team, through its chairperson JoAnne Harvey, submitted its report and recommendation on June 4, 1987 that the JASP contract be awarded to Intervenor, and on or about June 11, 1987 Petitioner received formal notification of Respondent's intent to award this contract to Intervenor. On the same day Petitioner filed its notice of intent to Protest, and thereafter Petitioner timely filed its request for hearing on or about June 19, 1987 alleging that the award Procedure was "deficient" and that the deficiency resulted in their not receiving the award. Specifically, it is alleged that the selection team based its recommendation upon erroneous facts and information Provided to it by Chairperson Harvey and Diane Morton, JASP contract manager with Respondent who selected the team members, coordinated, scheduled and attended the team meeting. Chairperson Harvey took notes of the selection team meeting and her report was based upon those notes. Neither a transcript or tape recording of the team meeting was required by the RFP, nor were they made. No opportunity for oral presentations by providers was allowed in the RFP, nor was any provided before the selection team. Although Chairperson Harvey had received and reviewed the proposals prior to the meeting, some of the selection team had not, and therefore time was allowed at the beginning of the meeting for each member to review the two proposals and to ask Diane Morton technical, non-substantive questions about each proposal. Based upon the testimony of McFadyen, Morton and Harvey, Morton functioned only as a facilitator or coordinator during the meeting, assisting members in finding certain items or subject matter in each proposal, and determining if the automatic disqualification items of Part A on the proposal rating sheet applied to either proposal. However, Morton made no qualitative judgments about either proposal, and responded only to members' questions. Her participation assisted, rather than impaired, the fairness and integrity of the process. Following the time allotted for review and asking technical questions, each member completed the rating sheet individually, and thereafter the scores were announced. A discussion period was then provided during which members explained the basis for their evaluation of each Proposal. Following this discussion, members could change their rating based upon new information and the comments of other members, but in this instance no member changed his rating. The final ratings and recommendations were then announced. There is no evidence that the selection team acted arbitrarily or capriciously, or in a manner which was inconsistent with the RFP or rules of Respondent. The sole basis for team member ratings of each Proposal was their own evaluation of each Proposal; there is no evidence of "erroneous" facts or information being supplied to the team by Harvey or Morton. No member of the team asked for additional time to review or rate the Proposals during the meeting on June 3, although the evaluation did not have to be completed until the next day, June 4. At hearing, Petitioner sought to establish that Intervenor did not include a required Civil Rights Statement. The RFP lists a series of appendices which "must" be attached to each Proposal. Appendix 9(g) references a "Civil Rights Statement (Attachment IV of the RFP)." However, Attachment IV to the RFP is a "Civil Rights Certificate" not a "Civil Rights Statement." Attachment X of the RFP is a Civil Rights Compliance Checklist, and Intervenor included Attachment X, rather than the required Attachment IV with its RFP. However, question 6 of the Checklist asks whether "an Assurance of Compliance (is already) on file with HRS?" Intervenor answered this question on the Checklist in the affirmative. The required Attachment IV, Civil Rights Certificate, is the Assurance of Compliance referred to in question 6. Therefore, the unrebutted record in this case establishes that Intervenor already had on file with Respondent the required Attachment IV, and Respondent reasonably accepted this previous filing, along with the additional civil rights information provided on the Checklist as compliance with the RFP Appendix 9(g) requirement. It is also apparent from Section VI, A, 3. of the RFP that the failure to include Appendix IV will "not be fatal to the consideration of the proposal and that only five points are to be given for this Attachment. The three committee members who recommended Intervenor each gave Intervenor the five points on this item; however, even if this five points is deducted from Intervenor's score, Houchins, Roberts and Harvey still would have rated Intervenor higher than Petitioner, and Intervenor's overall point total would still have exceeded Petitioner's. Petitioner produced the testimony of Peter Schatzel, Certified Public Accountant, to establish that Intervenor is not financially able to sustain and carry out the JASP proposal. However, Schatzel had not reviewed any audited or unaudited financial statements for Intervenor covering the period after June 30, 1986, and thus had no knowledge of Intervenor's current financial condition. Chairperson Harvey testified that a successful bidder can receive an advance of amounts due under a contract to support start-up costs. It was therefore not established, by competent substantial evidence, that Intervenor would not be financially able to carry out its obligations under this contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the bid protest filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2800BID Petitioner filed Closing Argument on October 7, 1987 which has been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. However, no specific ruling thereon can be made since this is not a proposed finding of fact as provided in Rule 22I- 6.031, F.A.C. COPIES FURNISHED: Dominic Amadio, Esquire 100 34th Street North Suite 305 St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Frederick P. Wilk, Esquire 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Room 520 Tampa, Florida 33614 William F. Bowman 2410 East Busch Boulevard Suite 303 Tampa, Florida 33612 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Robert D. Taylor, is eligible for the services offered by Respondent's Developmental Services Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert D. Taylor (Petitioner), filed an application with Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department), to receive services of the Department's Developmental Services Program. Based on information provided by Mrs. Tye, the suspected developmental disability/medical conditions which were the basis for Petitioner's potential eligibility were mild mental retardation and behavior problems. Following submittal of Petitioner's application, his eligibility for the Development Services Program was reviewed and determined by Dr. Bruce Crowell, a licensed psychologist employed by the Department. In order to determine Petitioner's eligibility, Dr. Crowell reviewed Petitioner's school psychological evaluations, all of which were completed prior to Petitioner's eighteenth birthday. According to Petitioner's school psychological evaluations, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition, was administered to Petitioner in January 1993. Petitioner obtained a verbal Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 80, a performance IQ of 82, and a full scale IQ of 79. Petitioner was also evaluated by Dr. Ruth Nentwig, a licensed psychologist, in June 16, 1999. As part of her evaluation, Dr. Nentwig administered the WAIS-III, an instrument that measures an individual's overall intellectual functioning. On the WAIS-III, Petitioner obtained a verbal IQ of 86, a performance IQ of 80, and a full scale IQ of 82. This evaluation was completed prior to Petitioner's eighteenth birthday. Based upon the statutory criteria, Petitioner is not eligible for services provided by the Department's Developmental Services Program. The IQ scores obtained by Petitioner place him in the low average to borderline intellectual functioning level and are not indicative of significant cognitive or intellectual functioning impairment reflective of retardation. Petitioner would have to obtain a full scale IQ score of 69 or lower to be considered retarded and eligible for the Department's Developmental Services Program. Moreover, manifestation of such impairment would have to be documented prior to age 18 in order to demonstrate eligibility for the program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services, enter an order denying Petitioner's application for services through the Developmental Services Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Taylor c/o Sarah Tye 1455 Winston Road Fort Myers, Florida 33917 Eugenie Rehak, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906-0085 Virginia Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible for services from the developmental disabilities program (DDP) due to mental retardation as defined in Section 393.063(42), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on March 20, 1951. Dr. C. Joel, a neuropsychiatrist, evaluated Petitioner on September 8, 1969. Petitioner was 18 years and 5 months old at that time. According to Dr. Joel's report, the Kent Simplified IQ Test indicated that Petitioner's mental age was between 8 and 9 years, with an IQ between 55 and 65. In May 1974, the Georgia Department of Human Resources, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, determined that Petitioner could not function in a manner conducive to continued substantial, gainful employment. In August 1974, a federal Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner was entitled to receive disability benefits from the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration. In the written hearing decision, the Administrative Law Judge referred to a Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) administered to Petitioner on October 23, 1967, when she was 16 years old. According to the written decision, Petitioner's full-scale IQ was 74 at age 16. On or about February 5, 1979, a clinical psychologist administered the WAIS to Petitioner. On that test, Petitioner had an overall score of 83. In March 1991, Respondent denied Petitioner's previous application for services. Respondent determined at that time that Petitioner was not eligible for services because she was not disabled. Petitioner was evaluated most recently on January 24, 2002, by Robert E. Napier, Ph.D. According to his report, Petitioner had a full-scale IQ score of 72 on the WAIS III. In making eligibility determinations under the mental retardation category, Respondent adheres to its non-rule policy as set forth in its July 1996 Support Coordination Guidebook, which states as follows in pertinent part: CRITERIA FOR MENTAL RETARDATION All the following criteria are to be met to be eligible under the category of mental retardation: Performance is two or more standard deviations below the mean on an individually administered intelligence assessment instrument. The instrument should be selected from the following list: Stanford-Binet Applicable Weschler Intelligence Scales, depending on the applicant's age Columbia Mental Maturity Scale Leiter International Performance Scale Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude Bayley Scales of Infant Development Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale If an instrument other than the Stanford- Binet or Wechsler series is used as an intellectual assessment, the psychologist's report should state the reason these instruments were inappropriate for the particular applicant. The applicant has significant deficits in adaptive behavior. . . . Manifested prior to the person's eighteenth (18) birthday . . . . Respondent also makes eligibility decisions based on its non-rule policy regarding the diagnostic features of mental retardation as set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, which states as follows in relevant part: Diagnostic Features The essential feature of Mental Retardation is significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning (Criterion A) that is accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two of the following skill areas: communication, self- care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self- direction, functional academic skills, work leisure, health, and safety (Criterion B). The onset must occur before age 18 years (Criterion C). . . . * * * . . . Significantly subaverage intellectual functioning is defined as an IQ of about 70 or below (approximately 2 standard deviations below the mean). . . . With the exception of one evaluation in 1969 (after she was 18 years old), Petitioner consistently achieved an overall IQ score of at least 72 or higher. During the hearing, Petitioner presented no expert witness testimony to support her arguments that she is entitled to services from DDP.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order affirming its decision that Petitioner is not eligible for services from the developmental disabilities program. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Collins c/o Ruth Server 3811 Sand Dune Court Destin, Florida 32541 Katie George, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 160 Governmental Center, Bin 410 Pensacola, Florida 32501-5734 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's conduct constitutes just cause for her dismissal from employment with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Petitioner was a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, Section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was employed as a teacher at J. W. Johnson Elementary (Johnson Elementary), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this matter, Respondent's employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD), the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. Respondent holds a professional services contract. Respondent's employment can be terminated for "just cause" as defined by the School Board in the Notice of Specific Charges. Prior to the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was assigned as a pre-K teacher for non-disabled students. Due to decreased enrollment, Johnson Elementary lost unit allocations for teaching positions that year. In order to prevent some teachers from losing their jobs, reassignments were made of existing personnel to new positions. Of the persons Johnson Elementary Principal Maritza Garcia had available in her pool of teachers, Respondent was the most qualified person to teach a pre-K class of autistic students. Such students are qualified as being "exceptional," and the education of such students is commonly referred to as "exceptional student education" or "ESE." As such, during the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was reassigned to teach a pre-K ESE class, which was comprised of autistic students. The autistic students are approximately four to five years old. They cannot speak and express themselves, making them even more vulnerable than ordinary students of similar age. Respondent was certified to teach these pre-K ESE students. In addition to holding the proper certification, Respondent was given the opportunity to participate and did participate in classes and trainings, both before the school year began and during the school year, regarding the instruction of ESE students with a particular emphasis on autistic students. Respondent was also assigned a mentor named Claudia Monsalve who provided her with hands-on assistance in the classroom, giving her guidance and support in the instruction of autistic ESE students. Ms. Monsalve met with Respondent one to two times per month and gave her written feedback on how to develop and improve her instruction methods. Ms. Monsalve also administered the pre-school year trainings. The support and training given to Respondent was extensive and no less than any other would have received as a result of being assigned to a similar classroom situation. Although not testifying on her own behalf, Respondent submits that she was "essentially abandoned" in the classroom with "no prior training." This argument is not supported by the record. Throughout the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent never requested additional help in her classroom from either the school administrators or Ms. Monsalve. According to Ms. Monsalve, it was a common occurrence for teachers to request such assistance, but Respondent made no such requests. Had Respondent requested additional support, she could have been provided additional in-service training or the administration could have assigned additional paraprofessionals to her classroom. Absent any requests, this additional help was not provided. In her time mentoring Respondent, Ms. Monsalve never saw her mistreat a child. On May 27, 2010, the principal's office received a telephone call stating that a package would arrive in the principal's mail that day. A package did arrive, was opened by the principal, and contained both a letter and a DVD. The unsigned letter contained criticisms of Respondent's pre-K autistic class, alleged "verbal and physical abuses" having occurred in the classroom, and referenced the enclosed DVD in support of the allegations. The person or persons who sent the letter have not been identified. School administration denies that it planted the camera that recorded the DVD, and it is more likely than not that a concerned parent placed the camera in the classroom. It is believed the recording was made in May 2010 from the dress of the students and other factors identified by administration. The principal viewed the DVD, which is approximately one hour in length. As a result of viewing the images on the DVD, and out of concern for the safety and welfare of the children in the class, the principal asked the school police to conduct an investigation. By letter dated June 3, 2010, the principal notified Respondent that she was being investigated based on the conduct shown on the DVD. The complainant was listed as unknown. One of the paraprofessionals assigned to Respondent's classroom, Marcia Dominguez, viewed the DVD and testified the footage was recorded on a Wednesday, in early to mid-May 2010. She determined this based upon her appearance in the video, the children present in the video, the state of the classroom, the clothing she and the other paraprofessional were wearing, and the activities occurring that day in the classroom on the day depicted on the DVD. The DVD shows numerous inappropriate actions taken by Respondent, including yelling and scolding the students, using harsh language and referring to their disabilities in a derogatory manner; pulling, jerking, swatting, and striking the students (one on the hand and forearm, one on the bottom), with both an open hand and a stick or classroom pointer; and brandishing a ruler and a stick, which she used to strike classroom furniture and intimidate the students. In addition to what can be viewed on the video, there are instances of other inappropriate behavior that can only be heard or inferred by the viewer. A sound like slapping can be heard, although not seen due to the camera being obscured. It is reasonable to assume the slapping is either of a child or furniture in the classroom. The behaviors and actions exhibited by Respondent in the video are beyond any reasonable explanation and depict Respondent as not being in control of her classroom. None of the actions described above may be considered appropriate behavior for a teacher. At the conclusion of the investigation, a conference was held between one of Petitioner's administrators, Respondent, and Respondent's representative. At that conference, Respondent was directed to refrain from contacting any parties involved in the investigation. Respondent violated this directive and called Ms. Dominguez on numerous occasions. Ms. Dominguez told Respondent she could not discuss the case with her while it was under investigation. The result of the investigation was a probable cause finding against Respondent for violations of the School Board and State Board of Education rules. Based upon the results of the investigation, the superintendent of schools recommended termination of Respondent's employment. The CBA specifically addresses the procedures for handling anonymous complaints made against School Board employees. Petitioner took no steps to ascertain the identity of the complainant who authored the anonymous letter and provided the DVD to the principal. The CBA clearly states that no investigation of allegations of misconduct against an employee shall be made on the basis of an anonymous complaint. The information contained in the anonymous letter and DVD served as the initial basis for the investigation of Respondent. That information was corroborated by the testimony of Ms. Dominguez, who was present in the classroom when the DVD was made. The DVD received by the principal along with the anonymous letter also serves as corroboration of the letter itself. The DVD gives life to the allegations made by the unknown author of the letter. The anonymous letter, by itself, cannot serve as the sole basis for investigating Respondent according to the explicit terms of the CBA. While the source of the DVD is unknown, the evidence supports the fact that the DVD is, in fact, a depiction of Respondent's classroom in May 2010. This is corroborated by the presence of Ms. Dominguez in the classroom and on the video, as well as her testimony at hearing. Dolores Mendoza, Petitioner's supervisor for the pre-K program for children with disabilities, criticized the behavior of Respondent based upon the DVD which was authenticated by the testimony of Ms. Dominguez, the paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom. She candidly admitted that if all teachers were secretly videotaped, most would be seen yelling or screaming at one time or another in class. She admitted that she had yelled and screamed in class on occasion. Teaching pre-K autistic children is difficult. Effectively teaching pre-K autistic students is enhanced by years of classroom experience, and is not honed through only a once-a-month classroom visit or monthly mentoring meetings.
Recommendation it is Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order sustaining the termination of Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 24th day of January, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Gerard Robinson, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles M. Deal, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
