The Issue The issues are: whether proposed amendments to Florida Administrative Code1 Rules 9K-9.003(6) and 9K-9.006(2) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority under Section 120.52(8)(b), (c), and (e), Florida Statutes2; and, if so, whether costs and attorney's fees should be assessed against Respondent and paid to Petitioner under Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The FCT has the power "to undertake, coordinate, or fund activities and projects which will . . . serve to conserve natural resources and resolve land use conflicts, including . . . [w]orking waterfronts." § 380.507(2)(g), Fla. Stat. The FCT also is specifically authorized to "award grants and make loans to local governments and nonprofit organizations for" that purpose. Id. at ¶ (6). In 2008, the Florida Legislature enacted the Stan Mayfield Working Waterfront grant program. Codified as Section 380.5105, Florida Statutes, paragraph (2) of the statute authorizes the FCT to promulgate "rules specifically establishing an application process and a process for the evaluation, scoring and ranking of working waterfront acquisition projects. . . . Such rules shall establish a system of weighted criteria to give increased priority to projects: Within a municipality with a population less than 30,000; Within a municipality or area under intense growth and development pressures, as evidenced by a number of factors, including a determination that the municipality's growth rate exceeds the average growth rate for the state; Within the boundary of a community redevelopment agency established pursuant to s. 163.356; Adjacent to state-owned submerged lands designated as an aquatic preserve identified in s. 258.39; or That provide a demonstrable benefit to the local economy." The purpose of the grant program is to preserve working waterfronts, which have been under pressure to convert to other uses. Some driving forces behind the conversion of working waterfront to other uses include: high coastal property values; high and unpredictable property taxes; increased regulation of commercial fishing to protect reduced fishery stocks; confusing and time-consuming regulatory processes for expanding or creating new working waterfronts; increased cheaper imported seafood; and rising fuel costs. The Stan Mayfield Working Waterfront grant program is administered by the FCT. In 2008, the FCT adopted rules governing the program, including Rule Chapter 9K-9 on Grant Application Procedures. In the first cycle of grant applications, evaluations, and awards, Monroe County applied for a grant to purchase and preserve Intervenor's property on Stock Island in Key West. Monroe County's Stock Island application was not granted. The FCT announced its intention to amend the rules based on the experience of the first grant cycle under the existing rules and input from "stakeholders" (mostly local governments and private not-for-profit entities interested in applying for grants) throughout the State. Workshops were conducted, and stakeholders (including Monroe County) participated. Proposed amendments were drafted, and stakeholders were invited to comment on the draft proposed amendments. The draft proposed amendments and comments were considered by the governing board of the FCT at its meeting in May 2009. The Board made some revisions to the draft proposed amendments and initiated rulemaking. Petitioner and Intervenor challenge proposed amendments to Rules 9K-9.003(6) and 9K-9.006(2). The proposed amendment to Rule 9K-9.003(6) caps awards at five million dollars or the amount appropriated by the Legislature, if less than five million dollars (sometimes referred to as "the cap"). The proposed amendment to Rule 9K-9.006(2) adds paragraph (d) and awards evaluation points based on the amount of grant money requested in an application, as follows: 8 points for a request not exceeding $1.5 million; 4 points for a request not exceeding $2.5 million; and 2 points for a request not exceeding $3.5 million.3 This proposed rule amendment is sometimes referred to as "the sliding scale." It is common for grant programs to adopt a "cap" on awards. The FCT's proposed "cap" took into account recent and expected future legislative appropriations, as well as the grant amounts requested in the first grant application cycle and expected in the immediate future, with the understanding that the "cap" could be adjusted by rule amendment in the future if that became necessary. The purpose of the proposed "cap" was to ensure that at least two applicants would receive grant money in each grant cycle. The proposed "sliding scale" was suggested by a representative of Dixie County at a noticed public FCT meeting. It was designed promote the use of non-State matching funds and to help local governments with less resources to compete in the grant application process. The proposed "sliding scale" was thoroughly discussed in-house by FCT staff and was discussed by the FCT governing board before it was approved unanimously. The challenged proposed rules cite Sections 380.507 and 380.5105(2), Florida Statutes, as their statutory authority. They cite Sections 259.105 and 380.501-380.515, Florida Statutes, as the specific laws they implement. Section 259.105, Florida Statutes, is the Florida Forever Act. Some of the funds in the Florida Forever Trust Fund are designated for distribution "to the Department of Community Affairs for the acquisition of land and capital project expenditures necessary to implement the Stan Mayfield Working Waterfronts Program within the Florida communities trust pursuant to s. 380.5105." § 259.105(3)(j), Fla. Stat. Sections 380.501-380.515, Florida Statutes, are the Florida Communities Trust Act, which includes the Stan Mayfield Working Waterfronts grant program. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that the proposed rule amendments are not authorized by statute and enlarge, modify, or contravene the law implemented because they add to the evaluation criteria in Section 380.5105(2), Florida Statutes. But it is clear that, besides the two proposed rule amendments under challenge in this case, the "system of weighted criteria" adopted in Rule Chapter 9K-9 includes several unchallenged criteria, in addition to the ones required by the statute to be given "increased priority." In addition, the evidence was that evaluation criteria in addition to those to be given "increased priority" are essential for the "system of weighted criteria" to function properly to differentiate and rank the most worthy grant applications. Without additional criteria, it is likely that many if not all grant applications would get the same score in the evaluation process. Petitioner and Intervenor also contend that the proposed "cap" and "sliding scale" result in "increased priority" not being given to the criteria specified in Section 380.5105(2), Florida Statutes. Actually, "increased priority" still is given to the criteria listed in Section 380.5105(2), Florida Statutes. Rule 9K-9.006(1)(c) gives "increased priority" (ten points) for the criterion listed in Section 380.5105(2)(a), Florida Statutes. Rule 9K-9.006(2)(b) gives "increased priority" (ten points) for the criterion listed in Section 380.5105(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Rule 9K-9.006(1)(a) gives "increased priority" (ten points) for the criterion listed in Section 380.5105(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Rule 9K-9.006(1)(b) gives "increased priority" (ten points) for the criterion listed in Section 380.5105(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Rule 9K-9.006(2)(a) gives "increased priority" (ten points) for the criterion listed in Section 380.5105(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Petitioner and Intervenor also contend that the challenged proposed amendments discriminate against grants to higher-priced properties. They contend that higher prices indicate higher pressure to convert, larger size, and greater benefit to the local economy from preservation. They contend that all of these indicators exist in the case of Intervenor's Stock Island property--indeed, the Stock Island property is under relatively high pressure to convert, is relatively large in size, and would stand to continue to greatly benefit the local economy if preserved. They contend that discriminating against higher- priced properties like Intervenor's Stock Island property is not authorized by statute, contravenes the statutes, and is arbitrary and capricious. Actually, the challenged proposed rules do not necessarily discriminate against higher-priced properties. An applicant can use non-State matching funds to bring a more costly proposal under the "cap" of the proposed amendment to Rule 9K- 9.003(6), and unchallenged existing Rule 9K-9.006(4)(a) provides that grant proposals with non-State matching funds score significant points--far more than would be lost under the "sliding scale" of paragraph (d) of the proposed amendment to Rule 9K-9.006(2). In addition, higher-priced projects are favored by other criteria in parts of the rule and proposed rule amendments that are not under challenge. For example, points are awarded for docking facilities, seafood houses, storage areas for traps, nets, and other gear, and boat ramps. These are more likely to be attributes of a larger, more expensive property. A proposed amendment to Rule 6K-9.006(3) significantly increased the amount of points available for docking facilities, especially existing usable docking facilities, which are more likely to exist on larger properties. A grant proposal with these kinds of amenities and attributes will "blow away in point-scoring" an application for a smaller grant for a proposal without these features. In support of their contentions, Petitioner and Intervenor hypothesize two grant proposals for projects (whether in the same locale or in different parts of the state) with identical attributes except for property cost. However, the evidence was that such a scenario is unlikely. If that unlikely scenario were to occur, it is possible that the higher-cost proposal would exceed the "cap" of the proposed amendment to Rule 9K-9.003(6), and the lower-cost proposal would score more points as a result of the proposed addition of paragraph (d) to Rule 9K- 9.006(2). However, the former scenario would create the desired incentive to secure enough non-State matching funds to get under the "cap"; and under the latter scenario, it would make sense to favor the grant proposal requesting less State money. Petitioner and Intervenor also contend that the proposed amendments fail to include a provision suggested by Monroe County to adopt a "sliding scale" for the "benefit to the local economy" and add other quantifiable criteria on a "sliding scale" (e.g., a "sliding scale" to give credit for the capacity of docking facilities and storage areas) that would give a greater competitive advantage to a large project like Monroe County's Stock Island proposal. The evidence was that these kinds of criteria would be difficult to devise and implement to achieve the desire result. For example, a large project might appear to benefit the local economy greatly but actually just consolidate several different areas of economic activity into one location. As a result, it was logical for the FCT not to adopt rules attempting to quantify and score these criteria on a "sliding scale." The challenged proposed amendments are supported by logic and the necessary facts, and were adopted with thought and reason and are rational. The contention that the FCT thoughtlessly adopted a suggestion by a representative of Dixie County and ignored suggestions by Monroe County is rejected.
The Issue The threshold issue in this case is whether the decisions giving rise to the dispute, which concern the allocation and disbursement of funds appropriated to Respondent by the legislature and thus involve the preparation or modification of the agency's budget, are subject to quasi-judicial adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act. If the Division of Administrative Hearings were possessed of subject matter jurisdiction, then the issues would be whether Respondent is estopped from implementing its intended decisions to "de- obligate" itself from preliminary commitments to provide low- interest loans to several projects approved for funding under the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program; and whether such intended decisions would constitute breaches of contract or otherwise be erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or abuses of the agency's discretion.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Pasco CWHIP Partners, LLC ("Pasco Partners"); Legacy Pointe, Inc. ("Legacy"); Villa Capri, Inc. ("Villa Capri"); Prime Homebuilders ("Prime"); and MDG Capital Corporation ("MDG") (collectively, "Petitioners"), are Florida corporations authorized to do business in Florida. Each is a developer whose business activities include building affordable housing. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("FHFC") is a public corporation organized under Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, to implement and administer various affordable housing programs, including the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program ("CWHIP"). The Florida Legislature created CWHIP in 2006 to subsidize the cost of housing for lower income workers performing "essential services." Under CWHIP, FHFC is authorized to lend up to $5 million to a developer for the construction or rehabilitation of housing in an eligible area for essential services personnel. Because construction costs for workforce housing developments typically exceed $5 million, developers usually must obtain additional funding from sources other than CWHIP to cover their remaining development costs. In 2007, the legislature appropriated $62.4 million for CWHIP and authorized FHFC to allocate these funds on a competitive basis to "public-private" partnerships seeking to build affordable housing for essential services personnel.1 On December 31, 2007, FHFC began soliciting applications for participation in CWHIP. Petitioners submitted their respective applications to FHFC on or around January 29, 2008. FHFC reviewed the applications and graded each of them on a point scale under which a maximum of 200 points per application were available; preliminary scores and comments were released on March 4, 2008. FHFC thereafter provided applicants the opportunity to cure any deficiencies in their applications and thereby improve their scores. Petitioners submitted revised applications on or around April 18, 2008. FHFC evaluated the revised applications and determined each applicant's final score. The applications were then ranked, from highest to lowest score. The top-ranked applicant was first in line to be offered the chance to take out a CWHIP loan, followed by the others in descending order to the extent of available funds. Applicants who ranked below the cut-off for potential funding were placed on a wait list. If, as sometimes happens, an applicant in line for funding were to withdraw from CWHIP or fail for some other reason to complete the process leading to the disbursement of loan proceeds, the highest-ranked applicant on the wait list would "move up" to the "funded list." FHFC issued the final scores and ranking of applicants in early May 2006. Petitioners each had a project that made the cut for potential CWHIP funding.2 Some developers challenged the scoring of applications, and the ensuing administrative proceedings slowed the award process. This administrative litigation ended on or around November 6, 2008, after the parties agreed upon a settlement of the dispute. On or about November 12, 2008, FHFC issued preliminary commitment letters offering low-interest CWHIP loans to Pasco Partners, Legacy, Villa Capri, Prime (for its Village at Portofino Meadows project), and MDG. Each preliminary commitment was contingent upon: Borrower and Development meeting all requirements of Rule Chapter 67-58, FAC, and all other applicable state and FHFC requirements; and A positive credit underwriting recommendation; and Final approval of the credit underwriting report by the Florida Housing Board of Directors. These commitment letters constituted the necessary approval for each of the Petitioners to move forward in credit underwriting, which is the process whereby underwriters whom FHFC retains under contract verify the accuracy of the information contained in an applicant's application and examine such materials as market studies, engineering reports, business records, and pro forma financial statements to determine the project's likelihood of success. Once a credit underwriter completes his analysis of an applicant's project, the underwriter submits a draft report and recommendation to FHFC, which, in turn, forwards a copy of the draft report and recommendation to the applicant. Both the applicant and FHFC then have an opportunity to submit comments regarding the draft report and recommendation to the credit underwriter. After that, the credit underwriter revises the draft if he is so inclined and issues a final report and recommendation to FHFC. Upon receipt of the credit underwriter's final report and recommendation, FHFC forwards the document to its Board of Directors for approval. Of the approximately 1,200 projects that have undergone credit underwriting for the purpose of receiving funding through FHFC, all but a few have received a favorable recommendation from the underwriter and ultimately been approved for funding. Occasionally a developer will withdraw its application if problems arise during underwriting, but even this is, historically speaking, a relatively uncommon outcome. Thus, upon receiving their respective preliminary commitment letters, Petitioners could reasonably anticipate, based on FHFC's past performance, that their projects, in the end, would receive CWHIP financing, notwithstanding the contingencies that remained to be satisfied. There is no persuasive evidence, however, that FHFC promised Petitioners, as they allege, either that the credit underwriting process would never be interrupted, or that CWHIP financing would necessarily be available for those developers whose projects successfully completed underwriting. While Petitioners, respectively, expended money and time as credit underwriting proceeded, the reasonable inference, which the undersigned draws, is that they incurred such costs, not in reliance upon any false promises or material misrepresentations allegedly made by FHFC, but rather because a favorable credit underwriting recommendation was a necessary (though not sufficient) condition of being awarded a firm loan commitment. On January 15, 2009, the Florida Legislature, meeting in Special Session, enacted legislation designed to close a revenue shortfall in the budget for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Among the cuts that the legislature made to balance the budget was the following: The unexpended balance of funds appropriated by the Legislature to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation in the amount of $190,000,000 shall be returned to the State treasury for deposit into the General Revenue Fund before June 1, 2009. In order to implement this section, and to the maximum extent feasible, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation shall first reduce unexpended funds allocated by the corporation that increase new housing construction. 2009 Fla. Laws ch. 2009-1 § 47. Because the legislature chose not to make targeted cuts affecting specific programs, it fell to FHFC would to decide which individual projects would lose funding, and which would not. The legislative mandate created a constant-sum situation concerning FHFC's budget, meaning that, regardless of how FHFC decided to reallocate the funds which remained at its disposal, all of the cuts to individual programs needed to total $190 million in the aggregate. Thus, deeper cuts to Program A would leave more money for other programs, while sparing Program B would require greater losses for other programs. In light of this situation, FHFC could not make a decision regarding one program, such as CWHIP, without considering the effect of that decision on all the other programs in FHFC's portfolio: a cut (or not) here affected what could be done there. The legislative de-appropriation of funds then in FHFC's hands required, in short, that FHFC modify its entire budget to account for the loss. To enable FHFC to return $190 million to the state treasury, the legislature directed that FHFC adopt emergency rules pursuant to the following grant of authority: In order to ensure that the funds transferred by [special appropriations legislation] are available, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation shall adopt emergency rules pursuant to s. 120.54, Florida Statutes. The Legislature finds that emergency rules adopted pursuant to this section meet the health, safety, and welfare requirements of s. 120.54(4), Florida Statutes. The Legislature finds that such emergency rulemaking power is necessitated by the immediate danger to the preservation of the rights and welfare of the people and is immediately necessary in order to implement the action of the Legislature to address the revenue shortfall of the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Therefore, in adopting such emergency rules, the corporation need not publish the facts, reasons, and findings required by s. 120.54(4)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Emergency rules adopted under this section are exempt from s. 120.54(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and shall remain in effect for 180 days. 2009 Fla. Laws ch. 2009-2 § 12. The governor signed the special appropriations bills into law on January 27, 2009. At that time, FHFC began the process of promulgating emergency rules. FHFC also informed its underwriters that FHFC's board would not consider any credit underwriting reports at its March 2009 board meeting. Although FHFC did not instruct the underwriters to stop evaluating Petitioners' projects, the looming reductions in allocations, coupled with the board's decision to suspend the review of credit reports, effectively (and not surprisingly) brought credit underwriting to a standstill. Petitioners contend that FHFC deliberately intervened in the credit underwriting process for the purpose of preventing Petitioners from satisfying the conditions of their preliminary commitment letters, so that their projects, lacking firm loan commitments, would be low-hanging fruit when the time came for picking the deals that would not receive funding due to FHFC's obligation to return $190 million to the state treasury. The evidence, however, does not support a finding to this effect. The decision of FHFC's board to postpone the review of new credit underwriting reports while emergency rules for drastically reducing allocations were being drafted was not intended, the undersigned infers, to prejudice Petitioners, but to preserve the status quo ante pending the modification of FHFC's budget in accordance with the legislative mandate. Indeed, given that FHFC faced the imminent prospect of involuntarily relinquishing approximately 40 percent of the funds then available for allocation to the various programs under FHFC's jurisdiction, it would have been imprudent to proceed at full speed with credit underwriting for projects in the pipeline, as if nothing had changed. At its March 13, 2009, meeting, FHFC's board adopted Emergency Rules 67ER09-1 through 67ER09-5, Florida Administrative Code (the "Emergency Rules"), whose stated purpose was "to establish procedures by which [FHFC would] de- obligate the unexpended balance of funds [previously] appropriated by the Legislature " As used in the Emergency Rules, the term "unexpended" referred, among other things, to funds previously awarded that, "as of January 27, 2009, [had] not been previously withdrawn or de-obligated . . . and [for which] the Applicant [did] not have a Valid Firm Commitment and loan closing [had] not yet occurred." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67ER09-2(29). The term "Valid Firm Commitment" was defined in the Emergency Rules to mean: a commitment issued by the [FHFC] to an Applicant following the Board's approval of the credit underwriting report for the Applicant's proposed Development which has been accepted by the Applicant and subsequent to such acceptance there have been no material, adverse changes in the financing, condition, structure or ownership of the Applicant or the proposed Development, or in any information provided to the [FHFC] or its Credit Underwriter with respect to the Applicant or the proposed Development. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67ER09-2(33). There is no dispute concerning that fact that, as of January 27, 2009, none of the Petitioners had received a valid firm commitment or closed a loan transaction. There is, accordingly, no dispute regarding the fact that the funds which FHFC had committed preliminarily to lend Petitioners in connection with their respective developments constituted "unexpended" funds under the pertinent (and undisputed) provisions of the Emergency Rules, which were quoted above. In the Emergency Rules, FHFC set forth its decisions regarding the reallocation of funds at its disposal. Pertinent to this case are the following provisions: To facilitate the transfer and return of the appropriated funding, as required by [the special appropriations bills], the [FHFC] shall: * * * Return $190,000,000 to the Treasury of the State of Florida, as required by [law]. . . . The [FHFC] shall de-obligate Unexpended Funding from the following Corporation programs, in the following order, until such dollar amount is reached: All Developments awarded CWHIP Program funding, except for [a few projects not at issue here.] * * * See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67ER09-3. On April 24, 2009, FHFC gave written notice to each of the Petitioners that FHFC was "de-obligating" itself from the preliminary commitments that had been made concerning their respective CWHIP developments. On or about June 1, 2009, FHFC returned the de- appropriated funds, a sum of $190 million, to the state treasury. As a result of the required modification of FHFC's budget, 47 deals lost funding, including 16 CWHIP developments to which $83.6 million had been preliminarily committed for new housing construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FHFC enter a Final Order dismissing these consolidated cases for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2010, 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 18th day of February, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent's intended award of the contract arising out of Request for Proposal No. 09L04FP4 to Intervenor is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts In accordance with a 2001 legislative mandate, the Developmental Disabilities Program, formerly part of the Department of Children and Family Services and now within the Agency, established a requirement for prior service authorization (PSA) reviews for individuals enrolled in the Developmental Disabilities Home and Community Based Services waiver (waiver). Following a competitive procurement process, Maximus, Petitioner herein, was awarded a contract to provide PSA reviews for persons satisfying certain selection criteria, and related services. These PSA reviews ensure that services for which reimbursement is provided under the waiver are based on medical necessity. Currently only those cost plans that meet certain selection criteria are reviewed. A 2004 legislative mandate required the Developmental Disabilities program to expand the PSA program to review all support and cost plans for the waiver, including those that do not meet the selection criteria that trigger a PSA review under the Agency's existing contract with Maximus. On or about October 13, 2004, the Agency issued Request for Proposal No. 09L04FP4- Agency for Persons With Disabilities Prior Service Authorization Reviews (the APSAR contract). The RFP sought a vendor to serve as the contracted provider to conduct the additional reviews required by the 2004 legislative mandate (the ASPAR Contractor). The RFP proposals were to include responses to inquiries concerning the qualifications and capabilities of each proposer, as well as the proposed's vendor's proposal for providing the requested services (the technical proposal) and a separate proposal setting forth the proposed vendor's costs for providing such services (the cost proposal). Pursuant to the provisions of the RFP, the ASPAR Contractor will be responsible for reviewing these additional support plans and cost plans in order to ensure that individuals receiving waiver services receive medically necessary services to meet their identified needs. Pursuant to the provisions of the RFP, the ASPAR Contractor will be responsible for determining whether the Developmental Disabilities program is the appropriate funding source for the service(s) identified and shall recommend alternative funding mechanisms. The RFP set forth evaluation criteria and a scoring process in which a proposal could receive a maximum of 100 points, 25 of which are attributable to the cost proposal. The RFP states that "[t]he agency will attempt to contract with the prospective vendor attaining the highest total price." The deadline for submission of proposals in response to the RFP was November 2, 2004. The Agency received proposals from three prospective vendors: APS, Maximus, and First Health Services. On November 12, 2004, the Agency posted its Notice of Intended Award of the APSAR contract to APS. The Notice of Intended Award reflected the prospective vendors' scores as follows: APS, 86.45; Maximus, 82.06; and First Health, 71.52. Of its total score of 86.75, APS received 25 points for its cost proposal as the prospective vendor with the lowest total price. On November 16, 2004, Maximus timely filed a notice of intent to protest the Agency's intent to award the ASPAR contract to APS. Maximus timely filed its formal written protest, a Petition for Administrative Proceedings, with an accompanying bond which satisfied the applicable statutory and RFP requirements. Findings of Fact Based on the Evidence of the Record APS has standing to intervene in this proceeding. The APSAR contract being procured through the RFP is a fixed price contract. Lorena Fulcher is the Agency's procurement manager for the RFP. When the proposals were received, the Agency screened each of them for compliance with a list of fatal criteria set forth in Section 6.3.1 of the RFP. According to Ms. Fulcher, the purpose of the initial screening was to determine whether the proposals should go to a formal evaluation process. No scoring or points were associated with whether a vendor met the fatal criteria. The Agency determined that all three vendors met the fatal criteria. Therefore, the three proposals were sent to an evaluation committee which was responsible for evaluating the technical aspects of the proposals. Fatal Criteria Petitioner asserts that Intervenor did not satisfy one of the mandatory requirements of the RFP and, therefore, its proposal should not have been forwarded for further review and scoring by the evaluation committee. Section 5.4 of the RFP states that the mandatory requirements are described as "Fatal Criteria" on the RFP rating sheet and that failure to comply with all mandatory requirements will render a proposal non-responsive and ineligible for further evaluation. Section 6.3.1 of the RFP is entitled, "Fatal Criteria." One criterion reads as follows: "Did the proposal document and describe at least one year of experience in the developmental disabilities field and with Home and Community Based Services waivers?" According to Ms. Fulcher, the Agency looked at each proposal in its entirety to determine that there was prior experience with the sort of review that the Agency was trying to procure with the RFP. Ms. Fulcher referenced several pages of Intervenor's proposal relating to this criterion that the Agency reviewed in making its determination to send Intervenor's proposal to the evaluation committee. One such reference is contained on page 9 of Intervenor's proposal. That page references Intervenor's experience with Georgia Medicaid since 1999. On page 84 of Intervenor's proposal, that experience is further described as "Prior authorization and Concurrent Review for all Medicaid services under the Rehabilitation Option to individuals with mental health disorders and/or developmental disabilities. Specialized projects include technical assistance to HCBS Waiver providers." Intervenor was formed in the early 1990's and was acquired by APS Healthcare in 2002. Intervenor's proposal explains: "APS Midwest is a wholly owned subsidiary of APS Healthcare Bethesda, Inc. APS Midwest, formerly known as Innovative Resource Group, was acquired by APS in 2002." Petitioner argues that the Georgia experience should not have been counted because it was experience acquired prior to the 2002 acquisition of Intervenor. Specifically, Petitioner argues that since the Georgia project has been ongoing since 1999 and since Intervenor was not acquired by the APS parent company until 2002, that Intervenor could not have been the provider. APS Healthcare, and its subsidiaries, including Intervenor, are managed as a single entity and many of their services and resources are integrated. The evidence established that the resources of the APS family of companies are available in the performance of the contract. Moreover, the undersigned is not persuaded that Intervenor was prohibited in any way by the language of the RFP or otherwise, from referencing experience obtained by a parent or related corporate entity prior to the 2002 acquisition. Intervenor's proposal contained references to other experience which the Agency considered in determining that Intervenor's proposal met the one-year experience fatal criterion at issue. These included experience obtained in Pennsylvania, Idaho, and other states in the developmental disabilities field and with home and community based services waivers. The Agency's determination that Intervenor met the "one-year" experience fatal criterion is supported by the evidence of record. The Agency's decision to forward Intervenor's proposal to the evaluation committee was appropriate. Any evaluation or scoring of the content of Intervenor's representations was left to the evaluation committee. The Cost Proposals Section 4.4 of the RFP reads in pertinent part as follows: The prospective vendor shall clearly present in the cost proposal the total cost for each deliverable as described in Section 3.6, Task List. A pricing schedule must be presented that indicates a unit cost for each task to be performed, with all task amounts added for a grand total cost for each deliverable. The total cost of all deliverables will be presented as the proposed total contract amount. The cost proposal must be bound separately. The vendor must submit as supporting documentation, a detailed line-item budget that delineates and constitutes all costs contained in the proposed total contract amount. The line-item budget shall delineate the number and type of positions that will be required to complete the work identified for each major task, and discrete associated expenses. Further, Section 4.4 included a grid described as an "Example Format of the Pricing Schedule." The RFP does not state that a proposer must use the grid format provided in this section. The grid includes columns marked "Unit Cost," "Number of Units," "Amount for Year 1," "Amount for Year 2" and "Amount for Year 3." At the bottom of the grid, there is a line for a "Total per year" and there is a line for the "Grand Total." APS used the grid format as shown in Section 4.4 of the RFP. Below the grid, APS included a notation that reads: "Please note that costs are adjusted for years two and three accordingly." Following this notation are four "bullets" one of which reads: "Unit cost for PSA reviews slightly increase to reflect a 1-2% growth rate in years two and three. However, if the number of reviews significantly increase more than this amount, pricing would have to be adjusted accordingly." Petitioner argues that the language of the above referenced "bullet" constitutes a contingent price, as opposed to a fixed price as required by the RFP, and, therefore, Intervenor should have received a score of zero for its cost proposal. Section 6.3.3. of the RFP provides in pertinent part: "Evaluating Cost Proposals--The prospective vendor with the lowest total price shall be awarded 25 points or 25% of the maximum total score." Section 6.3.3 further provides that the other prospective vendors would be awarded points by dividing the lowest price by the prospective vendor's price and then dividing the resulting percentage by four. The Agency scored the cost proposal by the grand total stated in each proposal. That is, the points assigned for the cost proposals were based solely on the total price proposed. According to Ms. Fulcher, the Agency ignored the bullets for purposes of scoring the cost proposals because the RFP was for a fixed price contract. Petitioner Maximus submitted a total cost proposal in the amount of $10,259,131. Intervenor APS submitted a total cost proposal in the amount of $7,460,615. Accordingly, the Agency awarded Intervenor 25 points for submitting the proposal with the lowest grand total cost of the three vendors, and awarded Petitioner 18 points for its grand total cost. There is nothing in the referenced "bullet" in APS' proposal that implies that the grand total might increase. The "bullet" clearly references "unit costs" only. Moreover, Section 4.3 of the RFP states that payment method and pricing will be determined during negotiations. According to Ms. Fulcher, the cost information requested other than the total cost was to be used only for purposes of negotiating and drafting the contract. Petitioner argues that Intervenor's cost proposal contained mathematical errors that, if corrected, would increase the total cost proposed. The difference between the two proposals was $2,798,516. The evidence does not establish that if the mathematical errors were corrected, Intervenor's actual cost would have been higher than Petitioner's proposed total cost. Further, Petitioner offered testimony speculating how Intervenor's actual costs might be higher than those reflected in Intervenor's proposal. Petitioner's speculation in this regard is of no consequence. Moreover, the contract is clearly a fixed fee contract. The proposers, including Intervenor, are bound by the fixed total cost reflected in the respective proposals.2/ The Technical Proposals Petitioner asserts that the Agency erroneously scored its technical proposal, thereby depriving Petitioner of points that would have resulted in an award of the contract to Petitioner. The RFP required the vendors to submit sealed technical proposals separate from the cost proposals. In contrast to the cost proposals, the scoring formula for the technical proposals was not based on a ratio comparison of the best proposal to the other proposals. Rather, the formula for scoring the technical proposals provided that the total score of each technical proposal would be divided by 48 to arrive at a total percentage of 100 that was then converted into points. Thus the formula for scoring technical proposals is not based on a comparison of one vendor's proposal to the others, but is based on how well each vendor did within a possible score of 36. Section 6.3.4 of the RFP sets forth the formula for scoring the technical proposals: The prospective vendor with the highest rating in this section (36 points) shall be awarded 75% (75 points) of the maximum possible score. Other prospective vendors are awarded points using the following formula: The rating is divided by 48 to determine the points awarded (36/48=75%). Section 6.3.4 of the RFP also provided three examples applying the formula for awarding points to technical proposals, with each example showing a vendor's points divided by 48. The numerator of the above formula was derived by taking the average of the total points assigned by each of the four evaluators, which was then divided by 48. The average of the evaluators' scores for Petitioner's technical proposal was 30.75. The average of the evaluators' scores for the APS technical proposal was 29.5. Accordingly, when the formula was applied, Petitioner's technical proposal score was 64.06 (30.75/48=64.06%) and Intervenor's technical proposal score was 61.45 (29.5/48=61.45%). Petitioner argues that because it received the highest technical score of 30.75, it was entitled to 75 points for its technical proposal. Petitioner, nor any other vendor, received a score of 36, the highest possible score for the technical proposal. Because no vendor received the maximum possible technical rating of 36 points, no vendor was awarded the maximum possible score of 75 points for the technical proposals. The agency applied the formula to the three vendors in a consistent manner. While the wording of Section 6.3.4 is awkward, the Agency's interpretation of that section is a reasonable one that was applied equally to all vendors. Petitioner's Proposal Finally, Intervenor asserts that Petitioner's proposal was non-responsive because it is dependant upon Petitioner continuing to provide services under its existing contract with the Agency. Petitioner's proposal was prepared using a methodology that contemplated allocating some costs to its existing contract and some costs to the contract solicited by the RFP because Petitioner already has certain resources that can be employed to provide services in the solicited contract. There is no dispute that Petitioner holds a current related contract. The Agency's determination that Petitioner's proposal was responsive in this regard was reasonable. How the costs are to be allocated was subject to evaluation and scoring by the evaluation committee.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway The DeSoto Building 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 March, 2005.
The Issue The issues are (1) whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation's (Florida Housing) intended decision to award low- income housing tax credits for an affordable housing development in medium-size counties to Grove Manor Phase I, LTD (Grove Manor), JIC Grand Palms, LLC (Grand Palms), Madison Palms, Ltd. (Madison Palms), and RST The Pines, LP (The Pines), was contrary to solicitation specifications, and if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition; and (2) whether Florida Housing's determination that Brownsville Manor, LP (Brownsville), achieved the maximum available score of 28 points was contrary to solicitation specifications, and if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504. One of its responsibilities is to award low-income housing tax credits, which developers use to finance the construction of affordable housing. Tax credits are made available to states annually by the United States Treasury Department and are then awarded pursuant to a competitive cycle that starts with Florida Housing's issuance of an RFA. On September 3, 2015, Florida Housing issued an RFA in which it expected to award up to an estimated $10,763,426.00 of tax credits for affordable housing developments in medium counties. The RFA also requested proposals for housing developments in small counties, but that portion of the RFA is not at issue. All applicants in this proceeding proposed developments in medium counties. They include Redding (Seminole County), HTG (Hernando County), Brownsville (Escambia), Grove Manor (Polk County), Grand Palms (Manatee County), Madison Palms (Brevard County), and The Pines (Volusia County). Florida Housing retained the right to "waive Minor Irregularities in an otherwise valid Application" filed pursuant to the RFA. Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.008. A "minor irregularity" is defined as "a variation or condition of the Application pursuant to this rule chapter that does not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants, and does not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public." Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.002(6). These rules are particularly relevant in this case, as during the scoring process Florida Housing waived minor irregularities for several applicants. Florida Housing's Executive Director appointed a review committee comprised of Florida Housing staff to evaluate the applications for eligibility and scoring. Ninety-eight applications were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked pursuant to the terms of the RFA, administrative rules, and applicable federal regulations. Applications are considered for funding only if they are deemed "eligible," based on whether the application complies with various content requirements. Of the 98 applications filed in response to the RFA, 88 were found to be eligible, and ten were found ineligible. All applicants in this case were preliminarily deemed to have eligible applications and received a maximum score of 28 points. The RFA specifies a sorting order for funding eligible applicants. Recognizing that there would be more applications than available credits, Florida Housing established an order for funding for applicants with tied scores using a sequence of five tie breakers, with the last being a lottery number assigned by the luck of the draw. Applications with lower lottery numbers (closer to zero) are selected before those with higher lottery numbers. On January 29, 2016, Florida Housing posted a notice informing the participants that it intended to award funding to eight developments in medium counties, including those of Grove Manor, Grand Palms, Madison Palms, and The Pines. While the applications of HTG, Brownsville, and Redding were deemed to be eligible, they were not entitled to a preliminary award of funding because of their lottery number ranking. The randomly assigned lottery numbers of those applicants are as follows: HTG (14), Brownsville (16), and Redding (17). HTG and Redding timely filed formal written protests. HTG's protest is directed only at Grove Manor's application. Because Grove Manor agreed that its score should be adjusted downward, HTG is the next applicant in the funding range and should be awarded tax credits, assuming it successfully emerges from the credit underwriting process. No party has challenged the scoring of HTG's application. Redding's protest is directed at the applications of The Pines, Madison Palms, Grand Palms, and Grove Manor, who were selected for funding. Redding also contends that Brownsville, which has a lower lottery number, should have been deemed ineligible or assigned a lower score so that it would no longer be in the funding range. In an unusual twist of events that occurred after the posting of the notice on January 29, 2016, Madison Palms and Grove Manor agreed that they are either ineligible or out of the funding range. Therefore, assuming that adequate funds are available, in order for Redding to be awarded credits, it must establish that at least one of its remaining targets (Grand Palms, Brownsville, and The Pines) is ineligible or should be assigned fewer points. No party has challenged the scoring of Redding's application. Under the RFA, applicants are awarded points in three categories: general development experience, local government contributions, and proximity to services. Depending on whether family or elderly units are being proposed, to obtain proximity to service points, an applicant may select among several types of community services, including transit, a grocery store, a medical facility, a pharmacy, or a public school. Redding has challenged the number of proximity points awarded to The Pines for proximity to a medical facility and public school, Grand Palms for proximity to a pharmacy, and Brownsville for proximity to a public bus transfer stop. Based on Florida Housing's preliminary review of the applications, all three achieved a total proximity score of 18 points. The RFA requires that an applicant submit a Surveyor Certification Form with its application. The form identifies a Development Location Point (DLP), which is representative of where the development is located and must be on or within 100 feet of an existing residential building or a building to be constructed. The DLP is represented by a latitude and longitude coordinate. The distance from the DLP to the selected service is how the proximity points are awarded. The services on which an applicant intends to rely must also be identified on the form, along with the location of the service, as well as the latitude and longitude coordinates for each service. The RFA requires that the coordinates "represent a point that is on the doorway threshold of an exterior entrance that provides direct public access to the building where the service is located." Jt. Ex. 1, p. 25. Redding contends that the coordinates for certain services selected by The Pines, Grand Palms, and Brownsville are not on the "doorway threshold of an exterior entrance that provides direct public access to the building where the service is located." Accordingly, it argues that the number of proximity points awarded to each applicant must be lowered. The Pines selected a public school that has no doors allowing direct public access to the facility. Instead, the school is a series of buildings and classrooms connected by sidewalks and covered breezeways, making a primary "doorway threshold" problematic. The office is interior to the school. Given this unusual configuration, The Pines placed the coordinates at a student drop-off area in front of the school, where students then walk under the covered breezeways to their classrooms, and members of the public walk to offices and/or classrooms. Even if Redding's desired point for the coordinates was used, there would be no difference in the awarded proximity points, as the change in distance would be minimal. The coordinates for The Pines' medical facility are approximately 90 feet from the door that provides direct public access. This was due to an error by the surveyor, who used the back of the facility, rather than the front doorway threshold. Even if the front door had been used for the threshold, The Pines would still be entitled to the same amount of proximity points, as the change in distance would be minimal and not change the scoring. The slight error in the form is a waivable minor irregularity. Brownsville selected a public bus transfer stop for its transit service. Due more than likely to a digital error in one of the satellites used to pinpoint the spot, the coordinates were approximately 150 feet from the canopy where passengers load and unload. Even if the correct point had been used, it would not change the amount of proximity points awarded to Brownsville. The slight error in the form is a waivable minor irregularity. Finally, Grand Palms selected a pharmacy for one of its services. During the process of locating the doorway threshold at the pharmacy, a traverse point was established 70 feet east of the doorway threshold. This was necessary because of an overhang above the doorway threshold. A measurement was then made from the traverse point to the doorway threshold. By mistake, the coordinates on the form represented the location of the traverse point, instead of the doorway threshold of the pharmacy. However, this 70-foot error did not affect the distance from the pharmacy to the DLP or the points awarded to Grand Palms for proximity to a pharmacy. The slight error in the form is a waivable minor irregularity. Florida Housing determined that the coordinates used by The Pines, Brownsville, and Grand Palms yielded the same proximity point score had they been located at the "doorway threshold" and/or "embark/disembark location" as defined in the RFA. Because there is no language in the RFA that provides direction on how to treat these types of minor errors, or mandates that Florida Housing treat them as a non-waivable item, Florida Housing considers them to be a minor irregularity that can be waived. In sum, the deviations were immaterial, no competitive advantage was realized by the applicants, and they were entitled to the proximity points awarded during the preliminary review. Redding also contends that Brownsville is ineligible for funding because it failed to comply with a material requirement in the RFA. In its application, Brownsville stated that it intends to place an 87-unit development on a "scattered site" consisting of two parcels (Site I and Site II) with an intervening roadway (North X Street) between them. The RFA defines a development which consists of a scattered site "to mean a single point on the site with the most units that is located within 100 feet of a residential building existing or to be constructed as part of the required Development." Jt. Ex. 1, p. 25. Stated another way, if multiple parcels are used for the development, the DLP must be located on the site which contains the majority of the residential units. Florida Housing considers this to be a material, non-waivable requirement of the RFA. In Brownsville's Surveyor Certification Form, the DLP is located on Site I, a 1.49-acre parcel that is zoned Commercial and lies west of Site II. In making its preliminary decision to award funding to Brownsville, Florida Housing relied upon the validity of the DLP as of the application deadline and assumed that Site I would have the majority of the units. It had no way to verify the accuracy of that information during the initial scoring process. The RFA requires an applicant to attach to its application a form entitled, "Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulations." Brownsville's verification form was signed by Horace L. Jones, Director of Development Services for Escambia County, who confirmed that the intended use of the property was consistent with local zoning regulations. The verification forms do not include any information regarding the number of units on each parcel of the site. Florida Housing defers to the local government in determining whether local zoning requirements will be met. Mr. Jones later testified by deposition that Escambia County zoning regulations allow only "25 dwelling units per acre" on Site I. Therefore, on a 1.49-acre parcel, the maximum number of units allowed is 36, or less than a majority of the 87 units. Because Brownsville did not comply with a material requirement of the RFA for a scattered site, Florida Housing now considers the DLP for proximity purposes to be invalid. Had it concluded otherwise, Brownsville would be given a competitive advantage over the other applicants. Brownsville contends, however, that during the County site review process, it will utilize a procedure by which the County can consider the two parcels as a "Single Unified Development" and "cluster" the dwelling units. Although the County has a process to allow the transfer of density from one parcel to another, Brownsville had not started this process as of October 15, 2015, the due date for all applications and the cutoff date for any changes. Also, this process would entail a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners (Board), and there is no guarantee that the Board would approve the density transfer. In fact, Mr. Jones testified that he was not sure if the density transfer was even a viable option. Therefore, the application of Brownsville contains a material deviation from the RFA and is not eligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order rescinding the preliminary award to Grove Manor Phase I, Ltd. and Madison Palms, Ltd.; determining that Brownsville Manor, LP, is ineligible for funding; and designating HTG Hammock Ridge, LLC, and Redding Development Partners, LLC, as the recipients of tax credits being made available for developments in RFA 1015-106. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Kate Fleming, Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Betty C. Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 340 1725 Capital Circle Northeast Tallahassee, Florida 32308-1591 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1706 (eServed) Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2637 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice's (Department) proposed award of certain contracts to Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. (BAYS), based on evaluations of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact On July 2, 2003, the Department issued Request for Proposal (RFP) No. V6P01 for operation of IDDS programs in Judicial Circuits 1 through 20. The Department issued a single RFP and anticipated entering into 20 separate contracts, one for each circuit. Each contract was for a three-year period with the possibility of a renewal for an additional three-year period. The RFP was prepared based on a "contract initiation memo" generated within the Department and upon which the scope of services set forth in the RFP was based. The Department assigned one contract administrator to handle the procurement process. An addendum dated July 18, 2003, was issued to the RFP. As amended by the addendum, the RFP required submission of information in a tabbed format of three volumes. Volume I was the technical proposal. Volume II was the financial proposal. Volume III addressed past performance by the vendor. The addendum also allowed providers to submit some information in electronic format. The addendum requested, but did not require, that it be signed and returned with the submission. BAYS did not return a signed copy of the addendum in its proposal. Failure to sign and return the addendum was not fatal to the consideration of a proposal. The RFP set forth only two criteria for which noncompliance would be deemed "fatal" to a proposal. Failure to comply with a fatal criterion would have resulted in automatic elimination of a provider's response; otherwise, all responses submitted were evaluated. The proposals were opened on July 31, 2003. The contract administrator and staff reviewed the bids to ascertain whether required items were included, and noted the proposed costs on bid tabulation sheets. The first fatal criterion was failing to submit a properly executed "Attachment A" form to a submission. Attachment A is a bidder acknowledgment form. Both BAYS and JSP included a completed Attachment A in the responses at issue in this proceeding. The second fatal criterion was exceeding the Maximum Contract Dollar Amount. RFP Attachment B, Section XIII, provides in relevant part as follows: The Maximum Contract Dollar Amount will be the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount multiplied by the number of years in the initial term of the Contract . . . . EXCEEDING THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS A FATAL CRITERION. ANY PROPOSAL WITH A COST EXCEEDING THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT WILL BE REJECTED. The information reviewed as to each provider's cost proposal was set forth in Volume II, Tab 1, which included RFP Attachment J. RFP Attachment J is a cost sheet where providers were required to set forth proposal costs identified as the "Maximum Payment" under their proposal. Attachment K to the RFP identifies the counties served in each circuit, number of available slots in each circuit, and the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount for each circuit. JSP appears to have simply copied information from Attachment K onto Attachment J. The Department's contract administrator was the sole person assigned to review Volume II of the responses. Volume II included the cost proposal, the supplier evaluation report (SER), and the certified minority business enterprise (CMBE) subcontracting utilization plan. Neither BAYS nor JSP exceeded the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount applicable to any circuit at issue in this proceeding. Both BAYS and JSP identified a Maximum Payment equal to the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount as their proposal cost. Both BAYS and JSP received scores of 100 points for cost proposals in all responses at issue in this proceeding. JSP asserts that the instructions as to identification of the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount were confusing and that its actual cost proposal was less than that set forth as the "Maximum Payment" on Attachment J. JSP asserts that it actually listed its cost proposal at the section identified on Attachment J as "renewal term dollar amount proposed." JSP asserts that the Department should have reviewed supporting budget information set forth in Attachment H to the RFP to determine JSP's cost proposal, and that the Department should have determined that JSP's actual cost proposal was less than that of BAYS. The Department did not review the budget information in Attachment H, but based its cost evaluation of the proposals on the total figures set forth on Attachment J. Nothing in the RFP suggests that underlying information as to cost proposals would be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence fails to establish that the Department's reliance on the information set forth on Attachment J was unreasonable or erroneous. The evidence fails to establish that the Department's scoring of the cost proposals was contrary to the RFP. The evidence fails to establish that JSP is entitled to have its cost proposal re-scored. One of the requirements of the RFP was submission of a "Supplier Evaluation Report" (SER) from Dunn & Bradstreet. The submission of the SER was worth 90 points. Dunn & Bradstreet transmitted most of the SERs directly to the Department, and the Department properly credited the providers for whom such reports were transmitted. The Department's contract administrator failed to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for the SER included within its proposal. The failure to credit BAYS for the SERs was clearly erroneous. BAYS is entitled to additional credit as set forth herein. The RFP sought utilization of a CMBE in a provider's proposal. BAYS proposal included utilization of The Nelco Company, an employee leasing operation. The Nelco Company is a properly credentialed CMBE. Under the BAYS/Nelco arrangement, BAYS would retain responsibility for identification and recruitment of potential employees. BAYS performs the background screening and makes final employment decisions. BAYS retains the right to fire, transfer, and demote employees. The Nelco Company would process payroll and handle other fiscal human resource tasks including insurance matters. The Nelco Company invoices BAYS on a per payroll basis, and BAYS pays based on the Nelco invoice. JSP asserts that under the facts of this case, the participation of The Nelco Company fails to comply with the RFP's requirement for CMBE utilization. BAYS proposals also included utilization of other CMBEs. There is no credible evidence that BAYS utilization of The Nelco Company or of the other CMBEs included within the BAYS proposals fails to comply with the RFP's requirement for CMBE utilization. The Department assigned the responsibility for service proposal evaluation to employees located within each circuit. The contract administrator and staff distributed appropriate portions of Volume I of each proposal to the evaluators. The evidence establishes that the evaluators received the documents and evaluated the materials pursuant to written scoring instructions received from the Department. Some reviewers had more experience than others, but there is no evidence that a lack of experience resulted in an inappropriate review being performed. In two cases, the evaluators worked apart from one another. In one circuit, the evaluators processed the materials in the same room, but did not discuss their reviews with each other at any time. There is no evidence that evaluators were directed to reach any specific result in the evaluative process. JSP asserts that there was bias on the part of one evaluator who had knowledge of some unidentified incident related to JSP. The evidence fails to establish the facts of the incident and fails to establish that the incident, whatever it was, played any role in the evaluator's review of the JSP proposal. JSP also asserts that another evaluator had contact with JSP at some point prior to his evaluation of the RFP responses. There is no evidence that the contact was negative or was a factor either for or against JSP in the evaluation of the RFP responses. The RFP required that each provider's proposal include letters of intent from "local service resources" indicating a willingness to work with the provider and a letter of support from the State Attorney in the judicial circuit where the provider's program would operate. The RFP indicates that Volume I of a provider's response should contain five tabbed sections. The RFP provides that "information submitted in variance with these instructions may not be reviewed or evaluated." The RFP further provides that failure to provide information "shall result in no points being awarded for that element of the evaluation." JSP included letters of support in Tab 5 of Volume I. BAYS included letters of support in a tabbed section identified as Tab 6 of Volume I. JSP asserts that information included in Tab 6 of BAYS proposals should not have been evaluated and that no points should have been awarded based on the information included therein. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Based on the language of the RFP, submission of information in a format other than that prescribed is not fatal to a proposal. The Department reserved the authority to waive such defects and to evaluate the material. Here, the Department waived the variance as the RFP permitted, and reviewed the material submitted by BAYS. JSP asserts that BAYS proposal breached client confidentiality by inclusion of information regarding an individual who has allegedly received services through BAYS. Records regarding assessment or treatment of juveniles through the Department are deemed confidential pursuant Section 985.04, Florida Statutes (2003). The evidence fails to establish that an alleged violation of Section 985.04, Florida Statutes (2003), requires rejection of the BAYS proposals. There is no evidence that the information was released outside of the Department prior to the bid protest forming the basis of this proceeding. The evidence establishes that JSP misidentified the name of its contract manager in its transmittal letter. The evidence establishes that the misidentification was deemed immaterial to the Department, which went on to evaluate the JSP proposals. The results of the evaluations were returned to the contract administrator, who tabulated and posted the results of the process. On August 25, 2003, the Department posted a Notice of Intent to Award contacts based on the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Insofar as is relevant to this proceeding, the Department proposed to award the contracts for Circuits 5, 6, and 20 to BAYS. The Department received four proposals from IDDS program providers in Circuit 5 (DOAH Case No. 03-3671BID). According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the highest ranked bidder with 651.8 points. JSP was the second highest bidder with 642.6 points. White Foundation was the third highest bidder at 630.7 points, and MAD DADS was the fourth bidder at 442.8 points. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in its Circuit 5 proposal. The Department neglected to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points, bringing its total points to 741.8. The Department received two proposals from IDDS program providers in Circuit 6 (DOAH Case No. 03-3672BID). According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the highest ranked bidder with 649.0 points. JSP was the second highest bidder with 648.8 points. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in its Circuit 6 proposal. The Department neglected to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points, bringing its total points to 739.0. The Department received two proposals from IDDS program providers in Circuit 20 (DOAH Case No. 03-3673BID). According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the highest ranked bidder with 644.2 points. JSP was the second highest bidder with 620.6 points. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in its Circuit 20 proposal. The Department neglected to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points, bringing its total points to 734.2. MOTION TO DISMISS BAYS asserts that the Petitions for Hearing filed by JSP must be dismissed for failure to comply with Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), which requires that a protesting bidder post a bond or cash in an amount equal to one percent of the estimated contract amount by the time a formal written bid protest is filed. Item 8 of the RFP indicated that the bond or cash amount required was one percent of the total contract amount or $5,000, whichever was less. However, RFP Attachment "B," Section IX, indicates that it replaces RFP Item 8, and provides that the required bond or cash amount is one percent of the estimated contract amount. Pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), JSP had 72 hours from the announcement of the bid award to file a Notice of Protest and an additional ten days to file a Formal Written Protest. The notice of intended bid award was posted on August 25, 2003. Accordingly, the written protest and appropriate deposits were due by September 8, 2003. The Department's Notice of Intended Award referenced the bond requirement and stated that failure to post the bond would constitute a waiver of proceedings. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a cashier's check for $2,159.70 in relation to its protest of the award for Circuit 5. The contract amount was $647,910. One percent of the contract amount is $6,479.10. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a cashier's check for $3,414.52 in relation to its protest of the award for Circuit 6. The contract amount was $1,025,857.50. One percent of the contract amount is $10,258.57. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a cashier's check for $2,231.69 in relation to its protest of the award for Circuit 20. The contract amount was $669,507. One percent of the contract amount is $6,695.07. In response to JSP's insufficient cashier's checks, the Department, by letter of September 12, 2003, advised JSP of the underpayment and permitted JSP an additional ten days to provide additional funds sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute. JSP, apparently still relying on the superceded language in the RFP, forwarded only an amount sufficient to bring the deposited funds to $5,000 in each case. By letter dated September 25, 2003, the Department again advised JSP that the deposited funds were insufficient and provided yet another opportunity to JSP to deposit additional funds. On September 29, 2003, JSP forwarded additional funds to provide the appropriate deposits.
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 as follows: Dismissing the Petition for Hearing filed by MAD DADS of Greater Ocala, Inc., in Case No. 03-3670BID based on the withdrawal of the Petition for Hearing. Dismissing the Petitions for Hearing filed by JSP for failure to comply with Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), and for the other reasons set forth herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 16th day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Barclay, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian Berkowitz, Esquire Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, Room 312V 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Larry K. Brown, Executive Director MAD DADS of Greater Ocala, Inc. 210 Northwest 12th Avenue Post Office Box 3704 Ocala, Florida 34478-3704 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire The Nelson Law Firm, P.A. Post Office Box 6677 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 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
