The Issue The matter for consideration in this case concerns Petitioner's challenge to the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services', award of a contract for services to provide treatment of youth in the Juvenile Alternative Services Projects (JASP) for Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. In particular, Petitioner contends that it did not receive due and fair consideration in accord with the criteria established by law. Petitioner stipulated, during the hearing, that it was not challenging the sufficiency of the Request for Proposal (RFP) pursuant to which bids were submitted nor the sufficiency or propriety of the criteria contained within the RFP. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS Petitioner presented as witnesses Dr. Peter Parrado, Executive Director of Juvenile Services Program, Inc.; Mr. Jack F. Wood, Program Supervisor, Children, Youth & Families (HRS); Mr. Patrick Keefe, District VI Intake Supervisor for HRS; Judge James P. Calhoun, Circuit Judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; Mr. John Benito, Assistant Public Defender for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; and Mr. Andrew Alexandre, District VI Intake Supervisor for Respondent (HRS). By stipulation of counsel, the direct testimony of Mr. Benito and Mr. Alexandre were presented by deposition and counsel for Respondent had the opportunity to cross examine those two (2) witnesses during the hearing. Respondent called as its witnesses Mr. Larry Lumpee, an employee of Respondent and Mr. William F. Bowman, Director of Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. The parties presented twelve (12) joint exhibits. Joint Exhibit I was the Request for Proposal for the Manatee County JASP and Joint Exhibit 2 was the Request for Proposal for the Hillsborough County JASP. Joint Composite Exhibits 3 and 4 were the proposals or bids of Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., for Manatee and Hillsborough Counties respectively. Joint Composite Exhibit 5 was the proposal or bid of Boy's Club of Manatee County, Inc., for the Manatee County JASP. Joint Composite Exhibits 6' and 7 were the proposals or bids of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., for Manatee County and Hillsborough County respectively. Joint Composite Exhibit 8 was the rating sheets of the selection committee for Hillsborough County and Joint Composite Exhibit 9 was the rating sheets for the selection committee for Manatee County. Joint Exhibits 10, 11 and 12 were the letters of notification of action dated May 28, 1982, from the Respondent to Boy's Club of Manatee County, Inc., Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., respectively. Those exhibits were admitted. Petitioner also offered the depositions of Mr. John Benito and Mr. Andrew Alexandre and with agreement of counsel for Respondent, these were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2. Petitioner had marked for identification its letter of protest dated June 10, 1982. This was not admitted as an exhibit. Respondent offered no exhibits other than the Joint Exhibits listed above. Counsel for both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such findings of fact are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has, since 1979, operated the Juvenile Alternative Services Project. The program provides diversion and treatment for first-time less serious juvenile offenders prior to an adjudication of delinquency by the courts. The JASP program came into existence in 1979, through a pilot program in HRS Districts V, VI and VII. The pilot program in District VI was operated by Youth Program Services, Inc., based in Orlando, Florida. The JASP pilot program in District V was operated by Juvenile Services Program, Inc., the Petitioner in this case. The contract for District VI, which consists of Manatee and Hillsborough Counties, was re-bid annually. The Requests for Proposal used in the years 1980, 1981, and 1982, except for very minor changes, were virtually identical. The contracts which are the subject of this case were let for bid pursuant to two (2) Requests for Proposals (hereafter RFP) dated April 23, 1982. (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2) These two (2) RFPs advertised for two (2) separate contracts for the Manatee County JASP and Hillsborough County JASP. Proposals under both RFPs were required to be submitted no later than May 14, 1982, at 5:00 P.M. The Boys' Clubs of Manatee County, Inc.; Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., submitted timely proposals for the Manatee County program. (Joint Exhibits 3, 5 and 6) Timely proposals for the Hillsborough County program were received from Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. (Joint Exhibits 4 and 7) The proposals were evaluated by selection committees for each county. Members of the selection committee for Hillsborough County were Judge James Calhoun, Marcia Leonard Bailey, John Benito, Jack Wood, Patricia Moran, Andrew Alexandre and Patrick Keefe. These persons included a Circuit Judge, Assistant State Attorney, Assistant Public Defender, a citizen at large, and three (3) HRS employees. A similar committee performed the evaluation for Manatee County. In addition to reviewing the written proposals, the committees heard oral presentations from those parties which had submitted written proposals. Following the oral presentations, the committee members rated the various proposals by filling out rating sheets containing the various criteria contained in the RFP and used by the selection committee in arriving at a recommendation. (Joint Exhibits 8 and 9) The criteria were: A programmatic expertise; Prior experience--personnel history; Organization abilities; Qualifications of personnel--abilities to hire qualified personnel; Budget in cost effectiveness program; and Overall adequacy of personnel. The committee for Hillsborough County rated the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., very closely, with Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., receiving 677 total points and Juvenile Services Program, Inc., receiving 668 points. Following their evaluations, the committees recommended Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., as the entity to provide JASP programs for both Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. Thereafter, Juvenile Services Program, Inc., timely and properly filed its protests and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 120.57(1). Both Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., were qualified to perform the services requested by the RFPs. No evidence was presented relating to the selection process in Manatee County and there was no evidence that the Petitioner did not receive a full, fair, and proper evaluation of all criteria in the RFP for the Manatee County program. All five (5) committee members from the Hillsborough County selection committee who were called as witnesses testified that both the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., were well qualified. The major contention of the Petitioner focused on the fact that Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., was a new corporation and would not be able to perform the administrative and financial functions of the JASP programs as well as Juvenile Services Program, Inc., which had been in existence since 1976. There was no evidence presented which showed that the selection committees failed to evaluate each and every criterion established by the RFP. This was borne out by the rating sheets as well as the five (5) committee members called as witnesses by Petitioner. Dr. Peter Parrado, Executive Director of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., also testified about the inquiry by the committee into the various criteria during the oral presentations. Both the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services were evaluated by the committee in all criteria areas. The committee specifically inquired into the fact that Bay Area was a new organization, incorporated in April, 1982, and was satisfied that that would not interfere with the proper performance of the services requested by the RFP. Mr. William F. Bowman, Director of Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., and one (1) of the members of its Board of Directors appeared before the selection committee. The entire existing District VI staff of Youth Programs, Inc., was to continue in place with Bay Area Youth Services. Both Dr. Parrado and Mr. Bowman had been involved in the JASP program since its inception in 1979. Dr. Parrado was executive director of the Petitioner which had had the JASP contract for District V since the pilot program in 1979. Mr. Bowman, as a former employee of Youth Program Services, Inc., was the program director for the JASP program in District VI and had performed that function since the pilot program in 1979. Both men were well qualified to supervise the JASP programs for District VI. There was a specific requirement that the providers submitting proposals be able to have the projects operational by July 1, 1982. The committee was concerned with the ability of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., to step inland take over a program with which it was not familiar. The JASP program in District VI operated differently than the program in District V where Juvenile Services Program was already operating JASP. Mr. Bowman and the staff of Bay Area Youth Services were the same staff that had previously operated the JASP program in District VI for Youth Programs, Inc. Mr. Bowman and his staff were thoroughly familiar with the operation and procedures of the JASP program in District VI. The Committee was also concerned with continuity of the existing JASP operations in District VI and Dr. Parrado had not given assurance as to what, if any, of the existing staff would be retained if Juvenile Services Program, Inc., was awarded the contract. Bay Area Youth Services already had its staff and physical operation in place and would be less disruptive of the program'5 continuity if awarded the contract. The key individuals in the supervision and operation of JASP in District VI by the two (2) bidders would have been Dr. Parrado and Mr. Bowman. JASP in District VI would be the only program operated by Bay Area Youth Services and Mr. Bowman would be giving one hundred percent (100 percent) of his time to that program. On the other hand, Dr. Parrado's organization would have been operating JASP in three (3) other districts as well as several other youth programs in other counties. The budget submitted by Juvenile Services Program reflected that Dr. Parrado would spend fifteen percent (15 percent) of his time supervising the District VI JASP. Dr. Parrado testified that he would give as much time to District VI required but gave the committee no firm estimate as to how much of his time he would be able to be personally involved in District VI. The witnesses rated the performance of Mr. Bowman and his staff as excellent for the previous years they had operated JASP in District VI. Some administrative problems had developed while Youth Programs, Inc., provided JASP services in District VI. These were in the nature of late payrolls and delays in paying bills. The problems emanated from the Orlando office and were not attributable to Mr. Bowman and the staff in District VI. Because of the problems which had occurred with the large organization of Youth Programs, Inc., the committee was concerned that the same types of problems might arise with Juvenile Services Program, Inc., which is also a large organization. To aid in handling the administrative details of JASP, Bay Area Youth Services had retained an outside firm to do the payroll and tax and other payroll-related functions. A local accounting firm had been retained to monitor and take care of accounting and bookkeeping functions. The committee was satisfied that Mr. Bowman's organization would be able to adequately handle the administrative details of JASP in District VI. Although much of the administrative and personnel matters under Youth Programs, Inc., were handled out of the Orlando Central Office, Mr. Bowman had for three (3) years been responsible for all hiring, firing, and supervision of personnel in the District VI JASP. He also did all local buying of supplies and related items. He also was responsible for locating and obtaining office space and equipment. The director of the program in District VI performs a liaison function between the provider and those entities using the services such as the State Attorney's office, Public Defender's office, and the Circuit Judges responsible for juvenile matters. Mr. Bowman had developed good rapport and credibility with each of these entities as well as HRS counselors in District VI and had done an excellent job in selling the JASP program to these agencies.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Department of Revenue should retain Petitioner's lottery winnings in the amount of $1,033.01 because of his obligation to pay child support as ordered by a court of record.
Findings Of Fact By Final Judgement of Paternity dated September 13, 1994, J. Tim Strickland, Circuit Judge for the 10th Judicial Circuit in Polk County, ordered Petitioner, inter alia, to pay child support and retroactive child support to the State of Florida for the dependent child of which Petitioner was adjudged the father, in the amount of $25.00 per week in future child support, and $5.00 per week in retroactive child support until the sum of $5,007.00 has been paid in full. Petitioner thereafter arranged for the payments required as to both future child support and the retroactive child support to be deducted out of his earnings or unemployment compensation payments when he was unemployed. The Department of Revenue agrees that all periodic payments required by the court order have been paid timely. On May 4, 1996, Petitioner purchased a lottery ticket from an agent of the Florida Lottery. One of the number series he purchased on May 4 was a partial winner and Petitioner was entitled to receive the sum of $1,033.00. On May 5, 1996, Petitioner submitted a winner claim form to claim the $1,033.00. Before any money was paid to the Petitioner, however, consistent with the pertinent provisions of the Florida Statutes, the Department of Lottery transmitted the Petitioner's prize money to the Department of Banking and Finance so that any debts due the state by the winner, or unpaid court-ordered child support could be identified and prize money withheld to satisfy all or a part of such claim. Consistent with established procedure, the Department of Revenue informed the Department of Banking and Finance that Petitioner owed $4,305.01 in unpaid retroactive child support assessed by the Circuit Court in May, 1994. Since the amount the Department of Revenue claimed was owing exceeded the amount of Petitioner's prize of $1,033.00, the Department of Banking and Finance advised Petitioner it intended to apply the entire prize amount to the unpaid retroactive child support. Petitioner protests, claiming that since he is fully in compliance with the terms of the Final Judgement of Paternity, and none of the required weekly payments is delinquent, he is not indebted and the state has no basis to withhold his prize.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued providing for payment of the $1, 033.00 prize attributable to the ticket held by Petitioner Gary Roberts, to the Department of Revenue on behalf of his minor child. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 23rd day of September, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Roberts 527 6th Street Northeast Ft. Meade, Florida 33841 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Ellen C. Marino, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Louisa H. Warren, Esquire Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper General Counsel The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Dr. Marcia Mann, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ken Hart General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Revenue should intercept and apply Petitioner’s lottery prize to reduce an outstanding arrearage for child support.
Findings Of Fact On January 25, 2002, Molina signed a Florida Lottery Winner Claim Form and transmitted it to DOL to redeem a lottery prize in excess of $600. Thereafter, shouldering its legal responsibility, DOR notified DOL that Molina was in arrears on a child support obligation that DOR was enforcing. On or around January 30, 2002, DOR notified Molina of its intent to intercept his lottery prize and apply it to satisfy or reduce an unpaid child support debt. Molina’s child support obligation is payable to the Central Depository of the Clerk of the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court pursuant to an order issued by a judge of that circuit on March 28, 1996. Molina owes in excess of $20,000 in unpaid child support.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED (if this has not been done already) that the Department of the Lottery transmit Molina’s lottery prize to the Department of Revenue. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order directing that Molina’s lottery prize be applied to satisfy or reduce the accrued arrearage on his child support obligation and providing that the balance of the prize, if any, be paid to Molina. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 15th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Pablo Y. Molina 10815 Northwest 50th Street Apartment 303 Miami, Florida 33178 Chriss Walker, Esquire Child Support Enforcement Department of Revenue Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 David Griffin, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ken Hart, General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the proposed action to award a contract to the Intervenor, Three Springs, Inc., is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact In April of 2001, the Department of Juvenile Justice (Department) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for proposals to design and operate a 50 bed high-risk sexual offender program in Broward County, Florida for male youth ages 10-18. Such facility, known as the Elaine Gordon Treatment Center, was to be operated 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Two entities timely submitted proposals for the facility: BSF and TSI. Their responses were submitted on May 8, 2001. Three Department employees (Jennifer Gallman, Ken Mason, and Barbara Manakas) were to evaluate the proposals based upon the criteria identified in the RFP. The Department gave each of the evaluators a score sheet upon which to calculate each proposal relative to the RFP criteria. The evaluators assigned scores ranging from 0 to 5 for each listed item. The evaluator's score was then multiplied by an assigned weight to calculate an overall score for the criterion. After all the computations were completed, Jennifer Gallman scored TSI at 325 and BSF at 346. Similarly, Ken Mason scored TSI at 399 and BSF at 399. Barbara Manakas scored TSI at 326 and BSF at 282. The scores from the three evaluators were then averaged to reach scores of 342.33 for TSI and 337.33 for BSF. On June 4, 2001, the Department posted its Notice of Intended Contract Award and identified TSI as the offeror with the highest score (and therefore the intended recipient for the contract). The Petitioner timely filed the instant challenge to the proposed award to TSI. The Petitioner currently operates the Elaine Gordon Treatment Center. On May 8, 2001, the same date the proposals were due for the instant RFP, the Petitioner received a "cure notice" from the Department citing alleged deficiencies at the Elaine Gordon Treatment Center. The purpose of the notice was to advise the provider (BSF) that the agency intended to take action on the alleged deficiencies. The allegations of the notice surprised Petitioner's management as it had been working in tandem with the Department to correct deficiencies that had occurred at the facility and were well known to the parties. One of the evaluators for the instant RFP was aware of the cure notice and the alleged deficiencies. That evaluator scored the BSF proposal approximately 40 points lower than the proposal submitted by the Intervenor. The Petitioner asserts that the evaluator's assessment of the BSF proposal was biased. In essence, the Petitioner theorizes that an evaluator considering only the information within the four corners of the proposals would have more objectively scored the Petitioner's proposal. Petitioner maintains that the evaluator's bias is demonstrated by the written comments on the forms that are positive for the Intervenor, but are inappropriately silent or negative toward the Petitioner. In support of these assertions, the Petitioner relies in part on an e-mail sent by the evaluator to a superior that stated: If I am aware of deficiencies in operating programs may I include my knowledge (such as results of DJJ QA reviews) in scoring this item or do I have to use only the information provided in the proposal? The evaluator was aware of quality reviews (QA reviews) wherein the Petitioner had been deemed unsatisfactory. That rating had led to the cancellation of a Department contract with the Petitioner in Palm Beach County. The evaluator maintains that despite a reference to the outside information she possessed (specifically cited in one section of her assessment of the Petitioner's proposal), she judged the instant proposal on the merits of the information contained within the proposal itself. Nevertheless the contract cancellation she referred to had occurred a couple of years ago. The other two evaluators did not consider such outside information in scoring the proposals. Neither evaluator knew of the alleged deficiencies at the subject facility or of the history in Palm Beach County. The evaluators were also obligated to review a second portion of the proposals known in this record as "the cost proposal." One evaluator refused to consider that information in scoring the contested portions of the proposal. That is, she would not consider data included in the cost proposal to clarify or augment the technical response even if such information helped to more fully understand the first portion. In comparing the scores, if the Petitioner's scores were increased to allow for additional points and TSI's points are not reduced, the overall scoring of the RFP would not change. That is, the overall result of the proposal calculations would not change the outcome of the intended award. Only if TSI's scores are lowered could the result change. The unchallenged, unbiased evaluators gave TSI scores comparable to the third evaluator. TSI's score fairly relates to the responses it submitted for the RFP.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order dismissing the challenge filed by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 25th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: David C. Ashburn, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian D. Berkowitz, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of the contract for Request for Proposals (RFP) No. P2032 to Daniel Memorial, Inc. (Daniel), is contrary to the specifications of the RFP.
Findings Of Fact DJJ issued RFP No. P2032 on April 2, 2007. The RFP solicited proposals for a “20-slot day treatment program for youth placed on Probation, being released from a residential program, transitioning back into the community or classified as minimum risk, and a 100-slot service- oriented Intervention program with comprehensive case management services for youth which the programs are currently located in Pinellas and Pasco Counties ” The contract resulting from the RFP will be for a three-year term -- July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010 -- with a renewal option for up to an additional three years at DJJ’s sole discretion. The RFP states that the maximum annual contract amount is $948,308, and prospective providers were required to propose a price at or below that amount EYA and Daniel submitted timely, responsive proposals in response to the RFP. Daniel’s proposal offered a slightly lower price than EYA’s proposal.1 On June 11, 2007, DJJ posted notice of its intent to award the contract to Daniel. Thereafter, EYA timely filed a notice of intent to protest and a formal written protest challenging the proposed award of the contract to Daniel. The RFP provides that the proposals were to be evaluated and scored in three categories: technical proposal, financial proposal, and past performance. The past performance category focuses on the prospective provider’s knowledge and experience in operating non-residential juvenile justice programs. The criteria related to the past performance category are contained in Attachment C to the RFP. Attachment C consists of three parts: Part I - Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs; Part II - Evaluation for Past Performance in the United States Outside of Florida; and Part III - Evaluation for Professional Accreditation in the United States. The focus of the dispute in this case is on Part III. A proposal could receive a total of 1,000 points if, as is the case with both EYA and Daniel, the prospective provider operated other DJJ-contracted non-residential programs in Florida. The proposals could receive up to 240 points for Attachment C, with a maximum of 40 points for Part III. The RFP provides that the proposal that receives the highest total points will be awarded the contract. Daniel’s proposal received a total of 600.13 points, which was the highest overall score. Daniel received 176 points for Attachment C, including 30 points for Part III. EYA’s proposal received a total of 573.46 points, which was the second highest overall score. EYA received 143.7 points for Attachment C, including zero points for Part III. EYA contends that Daniel should not have received any points for Part III, which would have resulted in Daniel’s overall score being 30 points lower, or 570.13, and would have given EYA the highest overall score. Part III of Attachment C asks whether the prospective provider currently operates non-residential juvenile justice programs that are accredited and in good standing with certain accrediting agencies, including the Council on Accreditation (COA). If so, the RFP requires the prospective provider to include supporting documentation. The prospective provider receives 10 points for each accredited program listed in Part III of Attachment C. The RFP states multiple times that the supporting documentation “must include the start and end dates [of the programs], be current dated and valid at least through the start date of the Contract that results from this RFP,” and that it must state that “the program cited is a non-residential juvenile program and that is run by the prospective Provider.” The RFP also states multiple times that a prospective provider’s failure to provide the required supporting documentation “shall” result in zero points being awarded for Part III of Attachment C, and that DJJ “is not responsible for research to clarify the prospective Provider's documentation.” EYA did not list any programs in its response to Part III of Attachment C. Its wilderness programs are accredited by COA, but its non-residential juvenile justice programs are not accredited. EYA is currently seeking COA accreditation for the services provided in its non-residential programs based, in part, on DJJ’s scoring of Daniel’s proposal in this proceeding. Daniel listed three programs in its response to Part III: a behavioral management program in Circuit 4; a conditional release program in Circuits 6 and 13; and a behavioral management program in Circuit 7. The documentation provided by Daniel to show that the listed programs are accredited was a letter from COA dated August 18, 2006. The letter confirms that Daniel is accredited by COA; that the accreditation runs through September 30, 2010; and that the accreditation includes “the following programs:” Mental Health Services Psychosocial and Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Services Case Management Services Foster and Kinship Care Services Supported Community Living Services Residential Treatment Services The letter does not on its face refer to the three programs listed by Daniel in its response to Part III. The letter does not on its face reflect whether the listed services were accredited in non-residential programs (as compared to residential programs) or in juvenile justice programs (as compared to adult programs or juvenile programs that do not involve the juvenile justice system). Each of the three programs listed by Daniel in its response to Part III is a non-residential program operated under contract with DJJ. Those programs were also listed by DJJ contract number in Daniel’s response to Part I of Attachment C. Paul Hatcher, the DJJ employee who evaluated the responses to the RFP with respect to Attachment C, was familiar with the three programs listed in Daniel’s response to Part III. He knew from his experience and his review of Part I of Attachment C that the programs were non-residential juvenile justice programs and he knew that the programs provided case management services and mental health services. Mr. Hatcher acknowledged that the COA letter does not specifically mention the three listed programs. He nevertheless considered the letter to be sufficient documentation of accreditation for the three programs because the letter indicated that Daniel, as an organization, was accredited and that it had specific accreditation for the services provided at the three listed programs. COA accredits organizations and services, not specific programs.2 On this issue, Dr. Hilda Shirk, a member of the COA Board of Trustees and an experienced COA peer reviewer, testified that “COA accreditation applies to the entire organization and the services that it provides” and that Daniel’s accreditation includes all of its programs that fall under the service areas listed in the COA letter, which is consistent with Mr. Hatcher’s interpretation of the letter. COA does not separately accredit services provided in residential and non-residential settings, nor does it separately accredit services provided to adults or juveniles. The standards used to evaluate case management services and mental health services, for example, are the same notwithstanding the setting or the type of client being served. COA performed its on-site accreditation review of Daniel in April 2006. It is unlikely that two of the three programs listed by Daniel in response to Part III -- the conditional release program in Circuits 6 and 13 (DJJ Contract No. P2013 and the behavior management program in Circuit 7 (DJJ Contract No. G8101 -- were evaluated by COA as part of that review because those programs had just started. That does not mean, however, that those programs are not accredited. Indeed, Dr. Shirk testified that an organization is not required to submit each new program to COA for review if the services offered in the program fit within a service area for which the organization has been accredited.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that DJJ issue a final order dismissing the EYA’s protest and awarding the contract for RFP No. P2032 to Daniel. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 14th day of December, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's decision to reject all bids in DJJ Solicitation Number: RFP# P2043 was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Parties DJJ is a state agency whose mission is to reduce juvenile delinquency. One of the methods used to attempt to attain this goal is through the provision of community-based intervention services programs for boys and girls. EYA and the White Foundation, both of whom are not-for- profit foundations, are contractors who are in the business of providing community-based intervention services for boys and girls. There are about 320 to 360 contracts between DJJ and private contractors. Both EYA and the White Foundation, at all times pertinent, had contracts with DJJ. The White Foundation operates only non-residential programs. EYA operates both non- residential and residential programs. Background In RFP#R2043 dated April 30, 2008, DJJ solicited requests for proposals for a contract to provide, "A 120-slot community based intervention program for boys and girls in Circuit 5 (Marion, Citrus, Hernando, Sumter, and Lake Counties, as described in the Scope of Services (Exhibit 1)." EYA is the current operator of the program and continues to operate the program pursuant to an extension of their current contract. That extension is set to expire December 31, 2008. The program sought can be further described as a nonresidential, service-oriented intervention program with comprehensive case management services for department-served youth through the development of a provider designed, developed, implemented, and operated intervention program for youth. The program is to serve youth on probation, conditional release, or post-commitment probation, and is to include supervision of youth transitioning from a residential commitment program, released from residential commitment program for post-commitment services, or placed on probation. The RFP provided that "The Department reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, . . . if the Department determines that doing so will serve the State's best interests." EYA and the White Foundation submitted timely, responsive proposals. Proposals were also submitted by Gulf Coast Treatment Center, Psychotherapeutic Services of Florida, Silver River Mentoring & Instruction, Community Action Foundation of Citrus County, and Taylor Human Services. No responder availed themselves of the opportunity to ask questions about the RFP. On June 20, 2008, DJJ published its notice of intent to award the contract to EYA. On June 25, 2008, DJJ published a notice of its withdrawal of its previous decision on the RFP and its intended decision to re-issue the solicitation for the program. On June 26, 2008, the White Foundation timely filed a notice of intent to protest DJJ's intended decision. On July 9, 2008, the White Foundation timely filed a formal bid protest challenging DJJ's intended decision. Evaluation generally The language contained in the RFP is boilerplate language that is repeated with little change in all solicitations for both non-residential and residential programs, with the exception of the scope of services portion. Attachment D of the RFP is entitled, "Evaluation Criteria." It provides that the proposals are to be evaluated and scored in three categories: technical proposal (referred to as "Volume 1"), financial proposal (referred to as "Volume 2"), and past performance (referred to as "Volume 3"). Generally, at DJJ, an evaluation panel of three to five evaluators reviews Volume 1, the programmatic elements, or the technical proposal. In this case, three evaluators scored Volume I. The financial proposal, or Volume 2, was a mathematical formula that essentially required no subjective analysis. A single evaluator simply determined the lowest price that was under the maximum amount the RFP permitted. The evaluation of the third part or Volume 3, past performance, was accomplished by Senior Management Analyst II, Paul Hatcher, acting alone. Mr. Hatcher has been an employee of DJJ for 23 years and has been an evaluator of RFPs for seven years. His role in evaluating the RFP was intended to be objective. In other words, he was tasked with reviewing the information provided and ensuring that it met the requirements of the RFP. His evaluation was not supposed to be subjective or judgmental. Typically, and in this case, subsequent to the evaluation of the parts, the DJJ Contract Administrator enters the various scores into a bid tabulation sheet to determine the high scorer. It is DJJ's intention in all cases to award the contact to the prospective provider whose proposal receives the most points. In this case, on June 19, 2008, the contract administrator determined that EYA received 817.22 points and the White Foundation received 785 points. Other responders scored lower. To the extent the controversy is concerned with which party should have been awarded the most points, the focus is on the past performance evaluation. The past performance category addresses the prospective provider's knowledge and experience in operating non-residential juvenile justice programs. The criteria related to the past performance category, Volume 3, are contained in Attachment C to the RFP. Attachment C consists of three parts: Part I - Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs; Part II - Evaluation for Past Performance in the United States Outside of Florida; and part III - Evaluation for Professional Accreditation in the United States. Attachment C further states that if the prospective provider has received DJJ Quality Assurance (QA) reviews and recidivism rate results for its non-residential programs, the provider should complete only Parts I and III. Both the White Foundation and EYA had QA reviews and thus were required to address only Parts I and III. This information was available to all parties through access to DJJ databases. Part I of Attachment C - Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs Part I of Attachment C permitted the assignment of 100 points for "Average QA." For programs receiving a quality assurance review prior to 2007, responders could receive up to 75 points for performance scores and up to 25 points for compliance scores. Part I provided a grid entitled, "Attachment C-1 Part I, Data Sheet: Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs." (past performance data sheet). The past performance data sheet has columns labeled "Contract Number," "Program Type," "Contract Begin Date," "Contract End Date," "Most Recent QA Performance Percentage Score," "Most Recent QA Compliance Percentage Score (if evaluated prior to 2007)," and "Failure to Report." There is also a column entitled "Number of Completions during FY 2005-2006" in which is recorded the number of youths who complete the programs. A final column is labeled, "2005- 2006 Recidivism Rate." The "Most Recent QA Performance Percentage Score," "Most Recent QA Compliance Percentage Score (if evaluated prior to 2007)," "Failure to Report," "Number of Completions during FY 2005-2006," and "2005-2006 Recidivism Rate," are found in databases available from DJJ. This form is quite similar to the forms in RFPs for the residential programs. Ashley Nevels, an accountant, and vice-president of administration for the White Foundation, reviewed all of the records pertaining to the responses to the RFP. Mr. Nevels found Volumes 1 and 2 to be essentially correct. He found errors in Volume 3. Though not qualified or considered as an expert witness, his testimony was helpful in illuminating the forms and procedures used in evaluating the responses. Mr. Nevels carefully reviewed responses in Volume 3 submitted by the White Foundation and EYA. With regard to the past performance data sheet, he found that there was information provided by EYA that was erroneous and information that was omitted. He found that Mr. Hatcher had corrected the erroneous information supplied by EYA, but did not consider whether or not it was complete. Mr. Nevels concluded that the White Foundation was correct in its report as presented on the past performance data sheet. Laura Moneyham, an employee of DJJ, working in its purchasing section, also reviewed the past performance data sheet. She found that EYA should have been awarded only 813.04 total points instead of the 817.22 that Mr. Hatcher awarded. In other words, EYA received 4.18 more points than it should have received. Her findings generally comported with Mr. Nevels, except he believed EYA received slightly more underserved points than reported by Ms. Moneyham. Based on the testimony of Mr. Nevels, the figures derived by Ms. Moneyham, and a review of the data contained in the exhibit, it is found as a fact that EYA should have received at least 4.18 fewer points on the Attachment C-1 Part I, Data Sheet, than was awarded by Mr. Hatcher. It is further found that the White Foundation's data was correct. The errors found on the past performance data sheet would have not affected the outcome of the award. After corrections, EYA would still have enough points to prevail. However, there was also an error in scoring the Part III accreditation portion of Attachment C. As Ms. Moneyham found on her re-scoring, and as Mr. Nevels had found, the White Foundation was entitled to 30 more points than it received in that category. Part III of Attachment C - Evaluation for Accreditation It was DJJ's policy, through the accreditation section that was denominated in Part III, to reward providers with points in the procurement process for achieving accreditation status. This was DJJ's policy because accreditation is a qualified endorsement by an outside, objective party that confirms that an organization conforms to recognized service standards. Ten points were to be awarded for each accredited program submitted in the response to the RFP. Both EYA and the White Foundation submitted information on three accreditations. Both responders were eligible to receive 30 points in this category. Attachment C provides, with regard to Part III - Evaluation for Professional Accreditation in the United States, found at page 16 of 63 of the RFP, as follows: All documentation provided . . . 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 shall also state that the program cited is a non-residential juvenile program and that it is run by the prospective Provider. The Department will verify all information received but is not responsible for research to provide information not submitted and documented by the prospective Provider. Failure to provide the required supporting information for Parts II or III of the attachment shall result in a score of zero (0) for that section. EYA responded to Part III by providing a copy of page 24 of the RFP and providing copies of three certificates from the Council on Accreditation (COA) indicating that EYA was accredited in Circuits 6, 7, and 11; a letter from the copies of Bureau of Quality Assurance Performance Rating Profiles; and an explanation that the three programs are operated in the United States under DJJ contract, are non-residential programs, and are operated under the CBIS program model. The EYA certificates did not indicate start dates. Nevertheless, Mr. Hatcher awarded 30 points to EYA. The White Foundation responded to this section by providing copies of pages 20-23 of the RFP and three certificates from the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) that indicated that the White Foundation was accredited. Mr. Hatcher awarded no points to the White Foundation in the accreditation category. Mr. Hatcher arrived at the White Foundation's score, or non-score, by referring to Part III of Attachment C of the RFP. In that section there appears a list of four accreditation organizations. Accreditation by one or more of these organizations can result in a responder receiving points for the section. Following the list of acceptable accreditation organizations, the form inquires, "Does the prospective provider currently operate or perform a non-residential juvenile justice organization/program/facility/service ('accredited entity') in the United States which is being offered as a part of its RFP proposal, and is that accredited entity in good standing and without restrictions by: . . . " and lists four accreditation agencies. The evaluator is to check "yes" or "no." Immediately following this language, the form recites 12 standards to be addressed if the responder answers "yes." These standards serve as the base requirements for a responder to have an acceptable "yes." Mr. Hatcher found that the White Foundation had not complied with standard eight of the 12 standards, which states, "Must provide documentation that establishes the accredited entity is offered as part of the prospective provider's proposal (i.e. RFP) proposal page and/or section reference)." Mr. Hatcher believed standard eight required documentation of the specific page and section of the RFP to which the accreditation would apply, and that was not provided by the White Foundation in Part III. He believed the White Foundation was required to provide a reference to a specific portion of Volume 1. Because the accreditations supplied did not provide a reference to a proposal page or section, Mr. Hatcher, using a strict interpretation of the requirement, found it to be noncompliant. Mr. Hatcher could have looked at Volume 1 of the White Foundation's response and found the information that was required. He did not look at Volume 1 because he believed that would be "research" of the type prohibited by the guidance found at page 16 of 63 of the RFP. Subsequent to the announcement of the agency decision revealing that EYA had prevailed, as noted, Mr. Nevels and Ms. Moneyham reviewed the evaluations for past performance. Lisa J. Eaton, a Senior Management Analyst II, who is employed by DJJ, also reviewed the evaluations for past performance. Interpreting the same language Mr. Hatcher used for guidance, they all arrived at the opposite conclusion with regard to accreditation and determined that the White Foundation should have been awarded 30 points. It is found as a fact that standard eight of the 12 standards, when read in conjunction with the guidance provided in the first paragraph of Attachment C, Evaluation of Past Performance for Non-Residential Programs, at page 16 of 63, provided guidance that could confuse an evaluator and could result in a decision with regard to accreditation that was contrary to DJJ policy that DJJ attempted to express in the RFP. Agency deliberations with regard to the decision to reject all bids It was brought to the attention of DJJ in December of 2007, by the Recommended Order in Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. v. Department of Juvenile Justice, Case No. 07-4610BID (DOAH December 14, 2007), that the past performance portion of their RFP was infused with ambiguity. As a result, an attempt was made to clarify the type of information that was desired to satisfy the accreditation portion of the past performance part of the RFP. After the responses to RFP# P2043 were received and scored, the contract section of DJJ determined that Mr. Hatcher's scoring was inconsistent with the scoring that had been done on residential RFPs even though the two were 99 percent congruent. The evaluators of the residential programs would provide information omitted by a response, and correct information that was incorrect when submitted. Then they would score the response. Unlike the residential scorers, Mr. Hatcher did not count QA programs that were missing, but did correct information that was incorrect when submitted, if the contract numbers were correct. This meant that a potential vendor could choose to include their well-performing programs and not report programs that were performing poorly, and thereby gain an advantage. This did not comport with the desires of DJJ. DJJ staff also determined that Mr. Hatcher failed to score the accreditation portion in accordance with their policy objectives. Amy Johnson, Chief of the Bureau of Contracts, believed that Mr. Hatcher was confused by the language of the RFP and that accounted for his incorrect scoring. Upon reviewing the situation, Deputy Secretary Rod Love and Assistant Secretary Darryl Olson determined that all bids should be rejected and the process begun anew. It cannot be determined from the evidence whether that decision was made before the White Foundation protested, or after. As a result of the difficulties experienced in RFP# P2043, DJJ staff have attempted to further clarify that information that is omitted or inaccurate will be corrected and used. They have removed standard eight of the 12 standards that referred to the need to cross-reference. It was DJJ's intent to have consistent interpretations and scoring of proposals throughout the Department, and in particular, between bids for residential and non-residential programs. In order to carry out that intent, DJJ decided to reject the bids and initiate a new RFP for the desired project. There was no evidence that the actions of DJJ were illegal, dishonest, or fraudulent. For reasons that will be addressed below, the decision to reject all bids also was not arbitrary.
Recommendation it is Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice issue a final order dismissing the Petition and Formal Protest filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 27th day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Holshouser Stinson, Esquire M. Stephen Turner, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Tonja V. White, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, Room 312L 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs to be awarded to Petitioners pursuant to section 120.595(3), Florida Statutes (2012).
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Okaloosa County and Nassau County, filed a challenge to existing rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes, on the basis that the rules conflicted with section 985.686, Florida Statutes, the law implemented. Okaloosa Cnty. & Nassau Cnty. v. Dep’t of Juv. Just., DOAH Case No. 12-0891RX (Fla. DOAH July 17, 2012). The Petition specifically alleged that “Petitioners are obligated to pay their attorneys a reasonable fee and are entitled to recover their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees under section 120.595(3), Florida Statutes,” and requested an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the same. On July 17, 2012, after a final hearing, the undersigned entered a Final Order invalidating the Challenged Rules and determining that an award of attorneys’ fees and costs was appropriate based on section 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Jurisdiction was retained to determine the appropriate amount of fees and costs. The Department appealed the Final Order in DOAH Case No. 12-0891RX, and on June 5, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed by written opinion the Final Order. Dep’t of Juv. Just. v. Okaloosa Cnty., Case No. 1D12-3929, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA June 5, 2013). Petitioners established by affidavit (attached to their Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs) that they were billed a total of $89,580.00 in attorneys’ fees for services directly related to prosecuting DOAH Case No. 12-0891RX. The hourly rates charged for the work of the attorneys involved in the case, as well as the amount of time expended on each task, are reasonable. Since Petitioners incurred attorneys’ fees and costs well in excess of $50,000.00, they are seeking the maximum attorneys’ fees and costs award allowable pursuant to section 120.595(3), which is $50,000.00. While no formal written stipulation as to the appropriate amount of attorneys’ fees and costs has been filed in this case, there is no indication in this record that the Department disputes the reasonableness of the $50,000.00 award being sought by Petitioners. To the contrary, Petitioners filed a series of e-mail communications between counsel for Petitioners and the Department reflecting that the Department “does not dispute the 50K figure and will pay it” after the appeal is resolved if the Department does not prevail. In addition, the Department’s Motion to Deny the Awarding of Attorneys’ Fees contains the statement that “Respondent stipulated to awarding Petitioners $50,000.00 in attorneys’ fees ” Petitioners have established that the requested award of $50,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs is reasonable.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether part of Petitioner's lottery prize should be withheld and used to pay an allegedly outstanding debt for child support.
Findings Of Fact On April 15, 1990, Petitioner submitted a claim to the Department of the Lottery (Lottery) on a ticket he held for the Lotto drawing of April 14, 1990. The ticket reflected that Petitioner had correctly selected five of the six numbers drawn on April 14 and rendered him eligible for a prize of $4,334.50. On May 4, 1990, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) certified to the Lottery that Petitioner owed $3,625.00 in Title IV-D child support arrearage. By letter dated May 9, 1990, the Lottery notified Petitioner that DHRS had advised it of the outstanding debt and that, pursuant to Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, it had transmitted the prize amount to the Department of Banking and Finance (DBF). Petitioner was further advised that DBF would notify him shortly regarding the distribution of the funds. By letter dated May 15, 1990, DBF notified Petitioner that it was in receipt of his prize from the Lottery and that it intended to apply $3,625.00 of the award toward the unpaid claim for child support. Enclosed with that letter was State of Florida warrant number 2537015 in the amount of $709.50 payable to Petitioner. This warrant was a partial payment of the lottery prize and represented the difference between the amount of the prize and the amount of chld support that HRS had certified as being due. In a letter received by DBF on May 30, 1990, Petitioner disputed that any obligation was outstanding and requested a formal hearing. On July 18, 1990, DHRS notified DBF that Petitioner's child support arrearage had been reduced by $2,154.82 as a result of an IRS tax refund interception. That letter indicated that, as a result of the interception, DHRS had calculated the amount of the Petitioner's outstanding child support obligation to be $1,470.18. In the letter, DHRS specifically relinquished its claim to the additional $2,154.82 it had originally certified. By letter dated July 30, 1990, DBF transmitted to Petitioner State of Florida warrant number 0129960 in the amount of $2,154.82. This warrant was a partial payment of the lottery prize and reduced the amount of the prize being held by DBF to $1,470.18. On July 18, 1991, General Master Helen T. Erstling entered a Recommended Order On Determination Of Arrears which concluded that as of July 11, 1991, Petitioner owed $1,568.68 in child support arrearage. That Recommended Order provided that DBF was authorized to release to DHRS up to $1,568.68 of Petitioner's lottery proceeds. On August 13, 1991, Circuit Court Judge George E. Orr of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, entered an Order Upon Recommended Order On Disputed Arrears which ratified and adopted the Recommended Order of the General Master. The arrearage calculated by the General Master and adopted by the court was calculated as of June 11, 1991, and established that, as of that date, Petitioner owed $1,568.68 in Title IV-D child support arrearage. Petitioner, the party responsible to make such payments, offered no proof at the hearing in this case to establish that such sum has been paid and/or is no longer owing. This arrearage exceeds the remaining amount of the lottery prize being held by DBF.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's request for formal hearing, and that it pay to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services the $1,470.18 remainder of Petitioner's lottery prize in partial satisfaction of Petitioner's debt for child support. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of October 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 16th day of October 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lawrence Fowler Apt. 202 9481 Evergreen Place Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 Bridget L. Ryan Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Louisa Warren Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether Respondent's intended award of a contract to Ramsay Youth Services, Inc., pursuant to RFP No. K8027, is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, applicable rules, or polices or the specifications of the request for proposals.
Findings Of Fact On August 13, 1999, Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice (Department), advertised and released a request for proposals (RFP) for the operation of a 62-bed Male Moderate Risk Residential Education Program in Dade County, Florida, RFP K8027. Petitioner, Youthtrack, Inc. (Youthtrack), and Intervernor, Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. (Ramsay), submitted the only two proposals in response to the RFP. On September 20, 1999, the Department posted an intended contract award to Ramsay. Based on the evaluations conducted by the Department, Ramsay received 401.66 points, and Youthtrack received 376 points. The RFP requested proposals to design, develop, implement, and operate a Moderate Risk Residential Education Conservation Corps on land owned by the South Florida Water Management District located outside of Florida City. The RFP called for a daily capacity of 62 male youths who are committed to the Department after having been classified as a moderate risk to society. Youthtrack is the incumbent provider. The RFP specified the proposal award criteria. The proposals were to be evaluated on the statement of work/program services, organizational capability, management approach, and past performance. The evaluation areas were assigned a maximum number of percentage points. Each area contained subcategories, which were assigned percentage points to equal the maximum number of percentage points that could be awarded in that particular category as follows: Award Criteria STATEMENT OF WORK/PROGRAM SERVICES 50 Soundness of Approach 25 Compliance with Requirements 25 ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITY 20 Soundness of Approach 10 Compliance with Requirements 10 MANAGEMENT APPROACH 20 Soundness of Approach 10 Compliance with Requirements 10 PAST PERFORMANCE 10 Historical implementation 2 Educational achievements 2 Recidivism rates 2 QA evaluation 2 Community involvement 1 CMBE subcontracting 1 In addition to the above criteria, ten bonus points were available for offerors who were certified minority business enterprises (CMBEs) or who utilized CMBEs as subcontractors. The evaluators were to rate each category using the following rating system. A rating of excellent would receive a score of five. Criteria deemed to be very good would be rated as a four. An adequate response for a category would be scored as a three. A rating of poor would garner a score of two. An unsatisfactory rating would be scored as one. If the criteria was not addressed in the proposal, a zero would be assigned. Three Department employees served on the technical evaluation committee: Robert Rojas, Anne McVey, and Joan Berni. Mr. Rojas is the facilities superintendent for the Department's Miami Halfway House, which is a 28-bed moderate risk facility similar to the 62-bed facility addressed in the RFP at issue. Ms. Beri is a program administrator over probation units in the north area. Maria Elena Cadavid served as the contract administrator for the RFP. She was responsible for overseeing the development of the RFP, the evaluation process, and the integrity of the procurement process. On September 15, 1999, Ms. Cadavid held a meeting with two of the evaluators to distribute the RFP, the Ramsay and Youthtrack proposals, and a memorandum of instructions. In addition to the instructions within the memorandum, the evaluators were provided with copies of a sample scoring sheet and an "Evaluation Factor Guide" as attachments to the memorandum. Ms. Berni did not attend the September 15 meeting. At the beginning of the evaluation process, the RFP, the proposal, and the instruction memorandum with attachments were delivered to her office. Once the technical evaluation was complete, the cost proposals were to be evaluated by Martha Bermudez. The members of the technical evaluation committee were not provided with the cost proposal. During the evaluation process, Mr. Rojas could not determine whether Youthtrack intended to provide psychiatric services to residents who were not eligible for Medicaid. In a letter attached to Youthtrack's proposal as an Appendix, (CPC), states that individual therapy and case management services are provided to eligible clients. In Mr. Rojas' past experience with (CPC), services had been provided only to Medicaid eligible clients. Mr. Rojas called Ms. Cadavid and asked whether Youthtrack's separate cost proposal included a budget item for mental health services that are not billable to Medicaid. Mr. Rojas was trying to determine the level of mental health services to be provided by Youthtrack's proposed subcontractor, (CPC). Ms. Cadavid told Mr. Rojas that there was no such budget item and that he did not need to take it into consideration. She did not provide Mr. Rojas with a "bottom-line" price or any other budget information from the Youthtrack proposal. Mr. Rojas concluded that Youthtrack would not provide mental health care unless the individual was eligible for Medicaid. The Department maintains a Contract Manager's Manual (Manual), which "establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes implementing procedures for soliciting and evaluating Offeror's proposals." Section 9.3.2.a of the Department's Manual provides: Technical as well as cost (price) proposals will be submitted to the Contract Manager who will provide technical proposals to the technical evaluators. The technical evaluation will be conducted independent of the cost (price) evaluation. Technical evaluators (unless the district appoints only one team) will not have access to cost data at any time prior to the decision. In the case of one team, the team shall complete the technical evaluation of all technical proposals before beginning the evaluation of the cost proposals. In this context, cost data does not include information required for types and quantities analysis such as labor hours, personnel qualifications, equipment and material list, and other non- rate information. Technical personnel may examine such data even if it is extracted from the cost proposal. However, they may not be given access to the complete cost proposal. The September 15 memorandum stated: Each Section of the rating sheet has a section for comments. It is requested that you explain your rationale for the scoring of the proposal under each section. The manual provides that the individual evaluators will prepare narratives, which is to be the principal means available to do a comparative analysis of the offers. The narratives are to include as a minimum the following: What is offered; Whether it meets or fails to meet the evaluation standard; Any strengths or weaknesses; and An assessment of the Offeror's proposal approach and ability to perform. Mr. Rojas included comments on his scoring sheets for Youthtrack and Ramsay. The other evaluators, Ms. McVey and Ms. Berni, did not provide any comments on their scoring sheets for either proposal. The Manual provides that the individual narratives are to be consolidated into an evaluation report that is prepared by the evaluation team. The Manual contemplates that "the strengths and weaknesses determined by the individual team members are to be distilled into an integrated, team consensus, preferably by group discussion." Based on the Manual, the evaluation report is done after both the technical and cost proposals have been evaluated. The evaluation report may be done in any format, but it must include the following information: Narrative assessment of the technical evaluation; An analysis of the Offeror's cost (price) (realism, completeness, and reasonableness); and Results of evaluating contractual considerations and any other general considerations that were evaluated by the SSET [Source Selection Evaluation Team]. In Section 9.3.7, the Manual further provides: The objective of the proposal evaluation report is to present a summary of the evaluation of each proposal against solicitation requirements based on established evaluation criteria. The proposal evaluation report encompasses information derived from the results of the evaluation of the proposals. It is an official record of the evaluation of proposals and supporting rationale and, therefore, shall be maintained as a portion of the official contract file. On September 20, 1999, the evaluation committee reconvened to hand in their scores and to allow the contract manager to ensure that there were no math errors. During the meeting, the evaluators were instructed that the points entered under "Criteria" headings on the score sheets should equal the sum of the points of the underlying subfactors. This instruction comports with the directions on the scoring sheets. As a result of this clarification, Mr. Rojas made changes to his criteria scores so that they equaled the sum of his subfactor scores. Mr. Rojas lowered his criteria scores for Youthtrack by 58 points and increased his criteria score for Youthtrack by ten points. For Ramsay's proposal, Mr. Rojas lowered the criteria scores by 13 points. After the scores were tabulated and averaged, a summary of the scoring was prepared and signed by each of the evaluators. The summary stated that Ramsay's average score was 401.66 and that Youthtrack's was 376.00. Ms. Cadavid reported these scores to Ronald E. Williams, the Department's Senior Juvenile Justice Manager, who posted the results and recommended award of the contract to Ramsay by memorandum dated September 20. 1999. At the final hearing, it was noted by Ms. Cadavid that an error had occurred in calculating the average scores. Ms. McVey's score for Ramsay was listed as 500 points, rather the 510 points that was listed on Ms. McVey's score sheet. When the correct 510-point score from Ms. McVey is used, Ramsay's average score is 405, which is 29 points higher than Youthtrack's average score. If an offeror was a CMBE, the RFP required the following: The Offeror, if applicable, shall include a copy of certification or proof of registration (letter) as an eligible certified minority business enterprise to do business in the State of Florida, as set forth in Section 287.0945, Florida Statutes. To be an eligible minority vendor/offeror you shall possess current certification issued by the State of Florida Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office. If an offeror planned to use CMBEs as subcontractors, the RFP required the following: The Offeror shall include a subcontracting plan in every proposal in excess of $75,000. Each subcontracting plan must include the percentage of the total proposed contract dollars the offeror anticipates expending under subcontract to CMBE's as well as the type of services/commodities that will be included as subcontracts. The subcontracting plan shall be incorporated into the contract. Minority Business Enterprise subcontracting shall be an evaluation factor and shall be used as a measure of provider past performance. The clause is not applicable to registered CMBE's. The Ramsay proposal contained a list of the CMBE vendors with whom Ramsay intended to subcontract, the dollar amounts of the intended contracts, and the types of goods or services to be performed by the CMBE subcontractors. Ramsay also included CMBE certificates for three of the subcontractors. Ramsay intended to subcontract raw food products with a minority vendor in the amount of $90,520, but no vendor was listed and no certificate was provided. Youthtrack's proposal contained the following as Youthtrack's CMBE subcontracting plan: As an equal opportunity employer and national member of the National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice (See Appendix), Youthtrack will continue to diligently pursue the development of subcontracts with available minority business enterprise contractors. This will be accomplished by consulting Department of Labor and Employment Security, Minority Business Advocacy & Assistance Office, and by utilizing its Business Commodity Directory for Dade County. Furthermore, Youthtrack has established a goal of spending a minimum of 10% of the programs' goods and services budget on goods and services procured from local minority business enterprises. Services to be provided may include mental health services, vocational and educational services and facility maintenance services such as refuse removal, pest control, clothing, etc. Currently Youthtrack's Hurricane program is in the process of finalizing an agreement with Rockdale Auto Services which is a minority owned business, for the provision of auto repair services, and with Dr. Peterson, whose medical practice is a certified minority business, for the provision of health services. Ms. McVey had awarded Youthtrack ten bonus points for minority subcontracting. At the September 20 meeting, the evaluators were told that the CMBE bonus points could not be awarded unless the offeror submitted CMBE certificates from the Department of Labor with the proposal. As a result of this directive, the ten bonus points awarded to Youthtrack by Ms. McVey were deducted. Neither Mr. Rojas nor Ms. Berni awarded Youthtrack bonus points for CMBE subcontracting. In his evaluation comments, Mr. Rojas questioned the caseload assignments for Youthtrack's case management personnel. Youthtrack included a staffing plan in Appendix I of its proposal, indicating that case management would be provided by four team leaders and two counselors. Mr. Rojas was under the impression that the two counselors would be providing the case management for the 62 children. His notes on Ramsay indicated that Ramsay had three case managers. Mr. Rojas scored Ramsay a three for Section 1.2.2.1 and scored Youthtrack a 2 for the same section dealing with the soundness of approach for organizational capability. Mr. Rojas concluded that Youthtrack had not provided for communicating gang information to the police based on the Department's Policy No. 8.09 regarding street gangs. The policy establishes elaborate procedures for identifying members of street gangs, controlling their behavior, housing them in Department facilities and interfacing with other law enforcement and community groups. The RFP included requirements that the offerors comply with several Department policies which were specifically identified; however, Policy No. 8.09 was not part of the RFP and was not referenced in the RFP. Mr. Rojas downgraded Youthtrack's proposal for not complying with Policy No. 8.09. Mr. Rojas made the same comment concerning street gang information when he evaluated Ramsay's proposal and downgraded Ramsay's proposal for not complying with Policy No. 8.09. Mr. Rojas testified that Youthtrack's proposal failed to provide for submission of progress reports every 30 days. Mr. Rojas notes state that Ramsay also failed to provide 30-day progress reports. Youthtrack and Ramsay both provided for 30-day progress reports in their proposals. In his notes on his evaluation of Youthtrack's proposal, Mr. Rojas stated, "The offeror does not clearly demonstrate a designated health authority." On page 44 of its proposal under the section describing the health services which will be provided, Youthtrack states: Health Services are provided by the Physicians Office of Florida City who is our designated health authority and provides medical services in accordance with the 1998 Department of Juvenile Justice Health Services Manual. In the event that the youth require hospital services, Homestead Hospital is located fifteen miles from the program and has indicated in writing its intent to enter into a cooperative agreement with Youthtrack for such services. In an appendix to its proposal, Youthtrack included a letter from Physician's Office of Florida City, indicating that it was providing the medical services. In another appendix to its proposal, Youthtrack included a proposal for Claudia Hall Peterson, D.O., of Homestead, Florida, to serve as the designated health authority. Thus, when Youthtrack's proposal is read in its entirety, there is an internal conflict as to who will serve as the designated health authority. In light of this discrepancy on the face of Youthtrack's proposal, Mr. Rojas' comment was not arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous. The RFP requires that the offeror provide mental health services which include psychopharmacological therapy. Youthtrack stated in its proposal that CPC would provide mental health services, and that youths placed on psychotropic medications would be under the direct medical care of the prescribing physician and that a psychiatrist from CPC would provide medication for the treatment of mental health disorders. Mr. Rojas commented that Youthtrack's proposal did not include a consulting psychiatrist for psychopharmacology. At hearing, Mr. Rojas explained his view, that it was not sufficient for Youthtrack to state that psychiatric services were to be provided by its subcontractor, CPC. Mr. Rojas was looking for the name of a specific psychiatrist that would be used by the subcontractor. Mr. Rojas also based his comment on the Department's protocol requiring one person to oversee all medication; however, this protocol was not included in the RFP. Mr. Rojas had scored Youthtrack a "2" for soundness of approach for the management approach category and had scored Ramsay a "3" for the same subfactor. Mr. Rojas made comments on his scoring sheets concerning lack of integration with Youthtrack's staff and CPC and particularly questioned the interaction with the individual therapist. Youthtrack lists two individual therapists in its programming staffing. In the narrative of its proposal, Youthtrack states that when one-on-one counseling is needed, the youth will be referred to Youthtrack's overlay counselors and other local specialized service providers. The narrative also mentions overlay case managers from CPC. The narrative further talks about individual counseling being provided by "our staff." In another section on individual counseling, the proposal indicates that some individual counseling will be done by employees of Youthtrack and some will be done by the subcontractor. The proposal is unclear if the individual therapists are employees of Youthtrack or of the subcontractor's overlay counselors. It does not indicate that the individual therapists in the staffing plan are the ones referred to in the narrative. Additionally, it is not clear from Youthtrack's program staffing chart which other staff members are employees of Youthtrack and which staff members are employees of the subcontractor. Mr. Rojas' comments were not arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous. Mr. Rojas' score sheet included a note stating, "no ranking uniform issued to offenders." Mr. Rojas was concerned at the time he evaluated the proposals that the children were not being classified at the time of admission. Youthtrack's classification takes place at the orientation level which follows the admission process. Mr. Rojas was concerned about security during the admission time Mr. Rojas made a similar comment concerning Ramsay's proposal. Mr. Rojas' comment was not arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous. Mr. Rojas gave Youthtrack two points out of a possible five points for community involvement under the category of past performance. As explained in his score sheet comments and at hearing, Mr. Rojas based his score at least in part on Youthtrack's failure to have executed a contract with Everglades National Park for the operation of a recycling plant, despite the fact that Youthtrack is the incumbent provider. Youthtrack claims that Mr. Rojas required more of Youthtrack because it was the incumbent provider. Youthtrack overlooks that the category, is historical implementation; thus, the evaluators looking at what Youthtrack had done in the past and how it has conducted itself on the current contract is relevant. Mr. Rojas did not penalize Youthtrack because it was the incumbent provider. Youthtrack's representative conceded at the final hearing, that there was no evidence that Mr. Rojas, or any of the other evaluators, was prejudiced against Youthtrack or in favor of Ramsay.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That a final order be entered dismissing Youthtrack's petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 14th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William G. "Bill" Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Mary M. Piccard, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Gary V. Perko, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with the St. Lucie County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the authorized entity charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher at Parkway Elementary School in the St. Lucie County School District. During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was assigned to a class of 14 pre-kindergarten children, all of whom received exceptional student education ("ESE") services. Incident of March 14, 2012 As noted previously, this case arises from an interaction between Respondent and one of her students, G.M., during the morning of March 14, 2012. At approximately 9:30 a.m. on that date, Respondent and her paraprofessional, Shameria Baker, assembled the students outside their classroom in preparation for recess. Prior to departing for the school playground, Respondent selected one of the students to act as the "line leader," and chose a second student, G.M., to pull a small cart that held playground toys. Once the students were suitably lined up, Respondent and Ms. Baker began to escort the children towards the playground area, with Ms. Baker situated near the front of the line and Respondent toward the back, in close proximity to G.M. While en route to the school playground, the students, Respondent, and Ms. Baker proceeded down a path that immediately adjoined a volleyball area (on the left) and a basketball court (on the right). For reasons known only to him, G.M. veered from the walkway and headed——with the cart in tow——towards the volleyball net.4/ Respondent, who was attending to another child at that time, attempted, unsuccessfully, to stop G.M. with verbal redirection. Undeterred, G.M. continued onward and entangled the cart in the volleyball net, which had been set at a low height. At that point, Respondent walked over to G.M. (who was crying), removed the cart from the net, and handed off the cart to another child. Seconds later, and in an effort to motion G.M. towards the walkway, Respondent placed her hand——in a benign and wholly appropriate fashion——on G.M.'s upper back area.5/ At no point did Respondent hit or strike G.M. Unbeknownst to Respondent, her interaction with G.M. had been witnessed from an indeterminate6/ distance by the school principal, Ucola Barrett-Baxter. (Ms. Barrett-Baxter's vantage point was from behind the line of students, who were walking in the opposite direction.) Believing, erroneously, that she had observed Respondent hit G.M. on the head, Ms. Barrett-Baxter proceeded to the administration building and instructed the school clerk to find Respondent in the playground area and send her to the office. As she awaited Respondent's arrival, Ms. Barrett- Baxter telephoned Susan Ranew, the School Board's Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources. During the call, Ms. Barrett-Baxter advised Ms. Ranew of the event she believed she had witnessed and discussed the need to contact the Florida Department of Children and Families ("DCF"). After she completed the call, Ms. Barrett-Baxter summoned to her office the school's ESE chairperson, Tammy DePace. A brief discussion ensued, during which Ms. Barrett- Baxter informed Ms. DePace of the allegations. Respondent entered the room moments later, at which point Ms. Barrett- Baxter, who was visibly angry, accused Respondent of committing the improper act (a hit) she thought she had witnessed. The witnesses' accounts as to what occurred next vary considerably: Ms. DePace testified that Respondent initially denied any wrongdoing, yet later admitted, during the same conversation, to hitting7/ G.M. after being confronted by Ms. Barrett-Baxter a second time; Ms. Barrett-Baxter testified, in contrast, that Respondent did not deny the misconduct and stated, "yes, it did happen," or words to that effect, upon being informed of the allegations; Respondent, offering the third (and credible) version of what occurred, testified that she was in a state of shock during the conversation, that she did not knowingly admit to any wrongdoing, and that any affirmative response on her part (e.g., "yes" or "okay") resulted from a misunderstanding as to the nature of the conduct of which she was accused. In the ensuing hours, Fred Bradley,8/ a DCF employee, initiated an investigation concerning that allegations raised by Ms. Barrett-Baxter. An examination of G.M., which Mr. Bradley conducted during the evening of March 14, 2012, yielded no sign of physical injury.9/ The following day, Mr. Bradley interviewed Respondent, who denied the allegations, as well as Ms. Barrett- Baxter, who described (and physically demonstrated) Respondent's conduct as a "shove"——as opposed to a "hit," the precise conduct alleged in the Petition.10/ Significantly, Ms. Barrett-Baxter did not advise Mr. Bradley of Respondent's supposed confession from the previous day.11/ Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of violating School Board Policy 6.301(2). The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of violating School Board Policy 6.301(3)(b). The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of violating School Board Policy 6.302.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Respondent of all charges brought against her in this proceeding; (b) providing that Respondent be reinstated to the position from which she was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Respondent back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. EDWARD T. BAUER 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, 2013.
