The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of the contract for Request for Proposals (RFP) No. P2029 to Henry and Rilla White Youth Foundation, Inc. (White Foundation) is contrary to the specifications of the RFP.
Findings Of Fact DJJ issued RFP No. P2029 on April 17, 2007. The RFP solicited proposals for a “240-available slot Community-based Intervention Services program for boys and girls for Volusia, Flagler and Putnam 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 $1,504,968, and prospective providers were required to propose a price at or below that amount. EYA and White Foundation submitted timely, responsive proposals in response to the RFP. White Foundation’s proposal offered a slightly lower price than EYA’s proposal.1 On June 18, 2007, DJJ posted notice of its intent to award the contract to White Foundation. Thereafter, EYA timely filed a notice of intent to protest and a formal written protest challenging the proposed award of the contract to White Foundation. The RFP provided 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 White Foundation, the prospective provider operated DJJ-contracted non-residential programs in Florida. The proposal could receive up to 240 points for Attachment C, with a maximum of 40 points for Part III. The RFP states that the proposal that receives the highest overall score will be awarded the contract. White Foundation’s proposal received a total of 785.98 points, which was the highest overall score. White Foundation’s score included 40 points for Part III of Attachment C. EYA’s proposal received a total of 752.03 points, which was the second-highest overall score. EYA received zero points for Part III of Attachment C. EYA contends that White Foundation should not have received any points for Part III, which would have resulted in White Foundation’s overall score being 745.98 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 Rehabilitation Accreditation Commission (CARF). 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 the Council on Accreditation (COA), but its non-residential juvenile justice programs are not accredited by COA , CARF, or any other organization. White Foundation listed four programs in its response to Part III of Attachment C: a conditional release program in Nassau County; a conditional release program in Duval County; a conditional release program in Clay County; and an Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services program in Circuit 2. The documentation provided by White Foundation to show that the listed programs are accredited was an undated certificate from CARF and a one-page “Survey Accreditation Detail” dated June 28, 2006. The CARF certificate states that “a three-year accreditation is awarded to the [White Foundation] for the following identified services: case management/services coordination: family services (children and adolescents)" and for “out-of-home treatment: family services (children and adolescents).” The seal on the certificate includes an expiration date of August 2007. The CARF certificate does not mention any of the programs listed by White Foundation in response to Part III of Attachment C. It only certifies that that White Foundation is accredited as an organization for certain services. The Survey Accreditation Detail document makes reference to survey number 32190; company number 200190; an accreditation decision of “three-year accreditation”; an accreditation expiration date of August 31, 2007; and Correction Services of Florida, LLC as the “company submitting intent.” The document lists six “companies with programs,” including the four programs listed by White Foundation in its response to Part III of Attachment C. The bottom of the Survey Accreditation Document includes the notation “page 1 of 2.” The second page of the document is not included in the portion of White Foundation’s response to the RFP that was received into evidence, nor is it included in the exhibit attached to the deposition of Paul Hatcher, the DJJ employee who evaluated the responses to the RFP with respect to Attachment C. Mr. Hatcher testified that he interpreted the Survey Accreditation Detail document to be “a summary of the prospective provider’s programs that received accreditation based on the CARF award letter.” That interpretation, while not implausible, is not adequately supported by the evidence of record. First, there is nothing on the Survey Accreditation Detail document to demonstrate that it was prepared by CARF, and Mr. Hatcher acknowledged that he did not know who prepared the document. Second, it cannot be determined from the Survey Accreditation Detail document whether the “three-year accreditation” referred to in the document relates to all of the “companies with programs” listed on the document, or just to Correction Services of Florida, LLC, which is identified as the “company submitting intent.” Indeed, each of the listed “companies with programs” has a different six-digit number in parenthesis following its name and only the number following Correction Services of Florida, LLC, matches the “company number” referenced at the top of the Survey Accreditation Detail document. Third, the record does not reflect the relationship, if any, between White Foundation and Correction Services of Florida, LLC. Indeed, Mr. Hatcher testified that he did not know anything about Correction Services of Florida, LLC, except that it appeared to have the same address as White Foundation. The CARF certificate and the Survey Accreditation Detail document do not on their face reflect whether the listed programs are non-residential programs (as compared to residential programs) or whether they are juvenile justice programs (as compared to juvenile programs that do not involve the juvenile justice system). However, Mr. Hatcher testified that all of the services identified on the CARF certificate correspond to non-residential facilities and that he was familiar with the listed programs and knew that they were juvenile justice programs. It cannot be determined from the CARF certificate and Survey Accreditation Detail document whether the four programs listed by White Foundation in its response to Part III of Attachment C are accredited. Indeed, Mr. Hatcher candidly acknowledged as much in his testimony.2 If DJJ had scored White Foundation’s proposal in accordance with the specifications of the RFP, the proposal would have received zero points for Part III of Attachment C, which would have resulted in EYA’s proposal receiving the highest overall score.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that DJJ issue a final order rescinding the proposed award of RFP No. P2029 to White Foundation. 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 Whether Respondent's Notice Of Intent To Award RFP-DOT-91/92-1005 to OHM Remediation Services Corporation is fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal, or dishonest.
Findings Of Fact By RFP-DOT-91/92-1005, the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), Respondent, sought bid responses to provide equipment and services on an as needed basis to assess and/or clean up contaminants in rights-of-way to be acquired for road construction projects. Principal contaminants envisioned were those resulting from abandoned and leaking petroleum tanks or other business whose waste disposal threatened ground water in the area with contamination. The Requests For Proposals (RFP) provided for technical proposals and price proposals to be submitted for evaluation. The technical evaluation is the process of reviewing the proposer's Executive Summary Management Plan and Technical Plans for understanding the project. The price evaluation is the process of examining a prospective price without evaluation of the separate cost elements and proposed profit of the potential provider (Exhibit 3). The only issue here is the price proposal. In evaluating the Price Proposals, the RFP (Exhibit 3, Section 1.16.2) provided: The Department will determine a "typical project" prior to receipt of proposals. The District Procurement Office will compute costs for the "typical project" based on fees submitted by each proposer. All responsive bid proposals will be scored in relation to the lowest computed cost for the "typical project" using the following formula: (Lowest "Typical Project" cost - by subject "Typical Project" cost) x 40 = Awarded points for price proposal. The "typical project" was prepared by Raymond Nottingham, District I Contamination Coordinator, prior to the proposals being received and opened. Although the exact content of the typical project was not included in the RFP, bidders were informed of the typical type of project they could expect to encounter under the contract during the prebid meeting and in the RFP. The price evaluation was done by matching up the prices offered by the bidders in their price proposals to the items and tasks listed in the DOT's typical project to come up with the bidders typical project cost. This is the first RFP for remediation services offered by DOT District I. In preparing this RFP, the administrative section of the statewide RFP earlier consummated by the department was utilized; however, for more specific pricing bids the price part of the RFP was largely adopted from a similar RFP prepared by DOT District VI in Miami, Florida. As a result of mixing the two RFPs, a slight possibility existed that some proposers would follow the more general descriptions allowed in the earlier statewide RFP rather than the more specific provisions of the District VI RFP. However, a careful reading of the instant RFP would have eliminated any such confusion. Section 1.17.3 of the RFP provided in pertinent part: The Price Proposal information is to be submitted in a separate sealed package marked "Price Proposal Number RFP-DOT- 91/92-1005.(sic) The Price Proposal information shall be submitted on the forms provided in the Request for Proposal or on Proposers' own forms provided the Department format is followed. The Department reserves the right to reject any proposal that is not submitted in this format. The format included in the RFP was broken down into the following classifications: Labor Classification, Heavy Equipment, Mobile Equipment, Water Equipment, Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment, Drilling, Field Analytical Equipment, Treatment Equipment, and Other. The format further indicated one fee for each item listed under the classification at an hourly rate and overtime hourly rate. The proposal submitted by Petitioner included prices for equipment offered under the following classifications: Trucks and Trailers, Personal Protective Equipment, On-Site Recovery and Treatment, Sampling and Testing Equipment, Construction and Excavation Equipment, Miscellaneous Equipment, Rental Equipment, and Expendables. The proposal submitted by Petitioner contained no price for an air stripper or crane. It lists three prices for three sizes of carbon cells, three prices for three sizes of submersible pumps, three prices for three sizes of pools, two prices for drums, three prices for pool liners, separate prices for hood and suit of protective clothing, and three prices for boots. Petitioner was the only proposer of the 17 submitting proposals that failed to submit a price for an air stripper and crane. Several proposers omitted prices for items on which the other proposers submitted a price. In attempting to keep all bidders in the process by not declaring their bid nonresponsive while being fair to all other proposers, the Department adopted different procedures for different items. Generally, when a proposers omitted a price for a particular piece of equipment, the Department inserted the highest price received from other proposers for that piece of equipment in the proposal in calculating the total bid. On other occasions where the proposer submitted more than one price and did not select the price himself, the Department averaged the prices submitted and used that figure to calculate the price for that item. Where there was obviously a lot of confusion and a wide disparity in the proposals as in establishing well point systems and quality control blanks, the Department omitted those items in calculating the prices. In totaling the bids received, only the daily rate offered was used because the RFP specified only a daily rate, and all proposers did not submit weekly and monthly rates. Part of the confusion stemmed from other parts of the RFP which did indicate that weekly and monthly rates were desired. However, since the other section did not require the submission of weekly and hourly rates, the Department in evaluating the bids did not use those rates in determining the bid price. Petitioner contends that the air stripper and crane to be used on a project can vary widely, and it is not practicable to submit a proposal for a fixed price for such an item. However, it is significant that Petitioner was the only proposer that failed to submit a price for these items. Intervenor utilized the bid forms provided with the RFP and, although Intervenor in its supplementary material listed varying prices for different sizes of the same item or different materials, it entered one price, usually the lowest, on the bid form for calculating its bid. Petitioner contends that had Respondent brought forth the lowest price for items Petitioner submitted several prices on, and disallowed the prices on air strippers and cranes, then Petitioner's bid would have been lower than the Intervenor's bid. However, in the final ranking of proposers, Petitioner stood fifth. No evidence was presented that had Petitioner's contentions been granted and applied to all proposers that Petitioner's proposal would have been lower than the other bidders whose proposals were initially deemed superior to Petitioner's proposal. By failing to follow the format contained in the RFP Petitioner's proposal was not responsive.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing Westinghouse Remediation Services, Inc. protest to the award of RFP-DOT-91/92-1005 and OHM Remediation Services Corporation. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX Proposed findings submitted by Respondent and Intervenor are accepted. Those not included in Hearing Officer's findings were deemed to be unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted except as noted below. Those not noted below or included in Hearing Officer's findings were deemed to be unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 8. Rejected that Petitioner's price proposal followed FDOT format. 22. Rejected. 28. Rejected. Additional reasons for rejection was the wide fluctuation in prices indicating the bidders did not understand the scope of the item. 37. Rejected. Although an inappropriate substitution was selected, the price for the item was below the maximum price offered for a crane. Accordingly, Petitioner benefited from the decision to substitute an item rather than use the highest price offered. 39. While it is true that OHM and Petitioner were the only bidder submitting weekly and monthly rates the reason for FDOT using only daily rates. See HO #13. 43. Rejected. 45. Rejected. See HO #13. 47. Rejected. Table 1. Rejected. This evidence was not submitted at the hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Neal Smith, District Manager Westinghouse Remediation Services, Inc. 675 Park North Boulevard Building F, Suite 100 Clarkston, GA 30021 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Vasilis C. Katsafanas, Esquire Post Office Box 1873 Orlando, FL 32802 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 562 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue Whether City of Belleair Beach Treasurer Robert K. Hebden was an independent contractor or an employee of the city.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner City of Belleair Beach (City) is a participating local agency of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) and is subject to the laws applicable to the FRS. The City began participating in the FRS through the adoption of City Ordinance 99 in 1973. The Respondent Division of Retirement (Division) is the state agency charged by statute with the administration of the FRS. On a date unspecified, the Division's Management Review Section audited the City as required by statute. Based on the audit, the Division concluded that Mr. Hebden was not an independent contractor, but was a part time employee of the City. The Division communicated this information to the City by letter of May 27, 1992. The Division's Enrollment Section, responsible for enrolling employees in the FRS, conducted an analysis of the materials obtained by the Management Review Section, and concurred in the initial employment status determination. By letter of October 11, 1993, the Director of the State Division of Retirement notified the City that the Division had determined Mr. Hebden to be have been an employee in a regularly established position for purposes of the FRS from July 1979 through February 1991, and that FRS contributions were due for that period. On October 15, 1993, Mr. Hebden signed an FRS application for service retirement. The application was filed with the FRS. Mr. Hebden completed the application on the suggestion of the Enrollment Section Administrator. Mr. Hebden considers himself to have worked for the City as an independent contractor and would not have filed an FRS application without the request by the enrollment administrator. In concluding that Mr. Hebden was an employee, the Division reviewed all materials furnished by the City. Such materials included copies of contracts, billing statements and IRS forms. At all times, the Division has been amenable to reviewing any additional documents submitted by the City. Beginning in 1972, and continuing to February of 1991, Robert K. Hebden provided various services to the City. Beginning in July 1979, Mr. Hebden served as the City Treasurer. The position of Belleair Beach City Treasurer is established by city ordinance. The position description for the City Treasurer sets forth duties as follows: The treasurer works on a daily basis primarily under the mayor's supervision but is ultimately accountable to the city council. Compiles operating and capital expense estimates for annual budget. Forecasts problem areas of income and expense and proposes possible solutions. Maintains general accounting system and appropriate operating cash balances. Submits to council a monthly detailed statement of revenue and disbursements in contrast with annual budget. Prepares for submission to council a detailed financial statement as of the end of each fiscal year. Invests surplus General Government Funds in conjunction with the Mayor or Deputy Mayor and recommends investment of Sewer Trust Funds in conjunction with the approved Trustee. Provides for payment of bonds and interest and maintains files for cancelled coupons and bonds. Maintains capital assets inventory including acquisition and disposition. Between July 1, 1979 and February 12, 1991, Mr. Hebden was the Belleair Beach City Treasurer. He performed the duties of the position description and such additional duties as were assigned at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. In February 1983, Mr. Hebden and the City entered into a written contract regarding his service as Treasurer. The initial contract was retroactive to October 1, 1982. Prior to this point, Mr. Hebden acted as City Treasurer under an oral agreement with the City officials. The February 2, 1983 contract identifies Mr. Hebden as "the Contractor." The contract is for the one year period of October 1, 1982 to September 30, 1983 and provides as follows: The Contractor will be allowed twelve (12) days of paid sick leave and at times mutually agreeable fifteen (15) days of vacation without adjustment to the monthly fee. Absence in excess of this amount will be adjusted on a prorata basis. The work week will be 8:30 A. M. to 12:30 P. M. daily, Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays recognized by the City. In addition, attendance will be required at Council meetings, work sessions and committee meetings, as may be determined by the Mayor. Services will be reimbursed on a monthly basis at the rate of SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS ($700.00) per month, plus an allowance of SEVENTY DOLLARS ($70.00) for expenses upon receipt of a statement. This agreement may be extended beyond the original term of One (1) year upon such terms and conditions as the parties shall mutually agree between them. Beginning with the subsequent agreement dated July 14, 1983, all contracts identify Mr. Hebden as "the City Treasurer" rather than "the Contractor." The July 14, 1983 contract provides as follows: That Robert K. Hebden shall serve the City of Belleair Beach as the City Treasurer, appointed by the City Council. The services of the City Treasurer shall be performed between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. daily, Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays recognized by the City. In addition, attendance will be required at Council meetings, work sessions and committee meetings, as may be determined by the Mayor. The duties of the City Treasurer shall include but not be limited to: -compilation of current and capital expense estimates for the annual budget -maintenance of a general accounting system -submission to the city council of a monthly detailed statement of revenue and disbursements in contrast with the annual budget -preparation for submission to council of a detailed financial statement as to the end of each fiscal year A RETAINER fee shall be paid by the City of Belleair Beach to the City Treasurer for the above service which shall be EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS AND NO/100 ($830.00) per month. THIS AGREEMENT shall be reviewed annually by the Personnel Committee of the City Council, the Mayor and the City Treasurer. THIS AGREEMENT shall expire on September 30 of each year unless renewed by Council prior to that time. THIS AGREEMENT shall be cancelled by either party upon a thirty (30) day notice of intent to do so. The September 10, 1984 contract for the one year period to September 30, 1985 is identical to the agreement of July 14, 1983 except that the retainer fee was increased to $900.00 monthly. The July 15, 1985 contract for the one year period to September 30, 1986 is similar to the agreement of September 10, 1984. The retainer fee was increased to $1100.00 monthly and paid leave was again included. The agreement provides as follows: ....In addition, the City Treasurer shall receive three work-weeks vacation annually (allowing for a base figure of 3 work-weeks for the current fiscal year) and twelve work-days sick leave annually (allowing for twelve work-days for the current fiscal year). THIS AGREEMENT shall be reviewed annually by the Personnel Committee of the City Council, the Mayor and the City Treasurer. THIS AGREEMENT shall commence October 1, 1985, and shall expire on September 30 of each year unless renewed by Council prior to that time. THIS AGREEMENT shall be cancelled by either party upon a thirty (30) day notice of intent to do so. The September 23, 1986 contract for the one year period to September 30, 1987 is substantially similar to the preceding contract, however, an amendment was made to the paid leave provisions. The agreement provides as follows: That Robert K. Hebden shall serve the City of Belleair Beach as the City Treasurer, appointed by the City Council. The services of the City Treasurer shall be performed between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. daily, Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays recognized by the City. In addition, attendance will be required at Council meetings, work sessions and committee meetings, as may be determined by the Council or Mayor. The duties of the City Treasurer shall include but not be limited to: compilation of current and capital expense estimates for the annual budget maintenance of a general accounting system submission to the city council of a monthly detailed statement of revenue and disbursements in contrast with the annual budget preparation for submission to council of a detailed financial statement as to the end of each fiscal year A RETAINER fee shall be paid by the City of Belleair Beach to the City Treasurer for the above service which shall be ELEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS AND NO/100 ($1100.00) per month. In addition, the City Treasurer shall receive three work-weeks vacation annually and twelve work-days sick leave annually. Annual leave, which will only be applied against working days, and shall be taken in not less than four (4) hour increments, may accrue to a maximum of fifteen (15) days. Annual leave in excess of fifteen (15) days will be forfeited on the following anniversary date after the year in which earned. The August 3, 1987 contract for the one year period of October 1, 1987 to September 30, 1988 is substantially similar to the preceding contract except that the work hours were amended to 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and monthly payment was increased to $1300.00. The September 12, 1988 contract for the one year period of October 1, 1988 to September 30, 1989 is substantially similar to the preceding contract except that monthly payment was increased to $1350.00. In 1989, some Council members questioned Mr. Hebden's performance and considered termination of his contract. The September 25, 1989 contract for the one year period of October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1990 is substantially similar to the preceding contract except that the agreement provides "for a six months performance evaluation." Apparently, the concerned Council members were satisfied with the review and the contract was again renewed. The September 10, 1990 contract reflected Mr. Hebden's intention to leave his position. The contract provides as follows: That Robert K. Hebden shall serve the City of Belleair Beach as the City Treasurer, appointed by the City Council. The services of the City Treasurer shall be performed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. daily, Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays recognized by the City. In addition, attendance will be required at Council meetings, work sessions and committee meetings, as may be determined by the Council or Mayor. The duties of the City Treasurer shall include but not be limited to: compilation of current and capital expense estimates for the annual budget maintenance of a general accounting system submission to the city council of a monthly detailed statement of revenue and disbursements in contrast with the annual budget preparation for submission to council of a detailed financial statement as to the end of each fiscal year * A RETAINER fee shall be paid by the City of Belleair Beach to the City Treasurer for the above service which shall be [[THIRTEEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS AND NO/100 ($1350.00)]] <<FOURTEEN HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS AND NO/100 ($1450.00)>> per month. In addition, the City Treasurer shall receive [[three work-weeks vacation annually and twelve]] <<three>> work-days sick leave [[annually. Annual leave, which will only be applied against working days, and shall be taken in not less than four (4) hour increments, may accrue to a maximum of fifteen (15) days. Annual leave in excess of fifteen (15) days will be forfeited on the following anniversary date after the year in which earned.]] <<Annual leave earned through September 30, 1990 and not taken will be paid on completion of this contract.>> [[THIS AGREEMENT shall provide for a six months performance evaluation.]] [[THIS AGREEMENT shall be reviewed annually by the personnel committee of the City Council, the Mayor and the City Treasurer.]] THIS AGREEMENT shall commence October 1, 1985, and shall expire on <<December 31, 1990>> [[September 30 of each year unless renewed by Council prior to that time.]] THIS AGREEMENT shall be cancelled by either party upon a thirty (30) day notice of intent to do so. * Note: In the above quotation, language which has been added is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. All the contracts identified herein were between the City and Mr. Hebden personally. Mr. Hebden signed the contracts. Except as otherwise stated herein, the terms of the contracts were negotiated between Mr. Hebden and the City. Mr. Hebden performed all the responsibilities of the contract personally. For a brief period, he was assisted by a man identified as "Mr. Denman," a person employed by the City. He hired no assistants. Mr. Hebden performed his responsibilities according to practices and procedures he created. He was not provided instructions by the City on how to perform his tasks. The City provided no training to Mr. Hebden. Prior to terminating his tenure as City Treasurer, Mr. Hebden trained his successor in the practices and procedures Mr. Hebden had developed. At all times during Mr. Hebden's employment with the City, he worked the hours specified by the contracts in his office at City Hall. Mr. Hebden testified that he could not recall how his office hours had been determined. The space was provided by the City. The responsibilities of Mr. Hebden's position required utilization of city records, and it was therefore appropriate for such tasks to be performed in an office at City Hall. All furnishings for the office and materials used in performing his tasks were provided by the City. During the period between July 1979 and February 1991, Mr. Hebden submitted to the City statements for payment. Generally, the statements were submitted on a monthly basis. Mr. Hebden had no risk of profit or loss based on any actions of the City. He had no personal investment in the City. Mr. Hebden was paid according to the terms of the contract. He did not receive additional remuneration for his appearance at or participation in Council meetings, work sessions or committee meetings as directed by the Council or Mayor. In the first written contract, Mr. Hebden received a payment for "expenses" in addition to the monthly remuneration. Additionally, Mr. Hebden was reimbursed for personal expenses related to City business use of his car and his boat. Although only one formal performance evaluation was completed during his service, the contracts provide for annual review, except for the final contract which terminated Mr. Hebden's service to the City. Upon said termination, Mr. Hebden was paid for the accrued annual leave. Under the terms of the contract, Mr. Hebden's services could be terminated without penalty upon thirty days notice by either party. Mr. Hebden did not advertise his services to the general public, because he was not interested in taking on additional work, however, for a time, he provided accounting consulting services to the Indian Rocks Fire Control District and was compensated for his work. He also provided volunteer services to the Church of the Isles. During the period relevant to this proceeding Mr. Hebden held no business or occupational licenses. For the years 1979 through 1982, the City reported Mr. Hebden's compensation to the Internal Revenue Service Form by using IRS Form 1099-NEC, the form used to report "Nonemployee Compensation." For the years 1983 through 1991, the City reported Mr. Hebden's compensation to the Internal Revenue Service Form by using IRS Form 1099-MISC, the form used to report "Miscellaneous Compensation." The City did not provide health or life insurance coverage to Mr. Hebden. The City did not pay federal social security or withholding taxes for Mr. Hebden. The City did not provide or pay workers compensation benefits or unemployment benefits for Mr. Hebden. The City did not pay retirement contributions to the FRS for Mr. Hebden.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order determining that as City Treasurer of the City of Belleair Beach from July 1979 through February 1991, Robert K. Hebden was an employee of the City, and as such was a compulsory member of the Florida Retirement System for which contributions from the City are due. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 93-6518 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Mr. Hebden submitted invoices for payment as early as July, 1979. 11. Rejected, not supported by greater weight of the evidence. Because Mr. Hebden developed his own procedures for performing the duties of the City Treasurer, and trained his successor in performing the tasks of City Treasurer, it is not possible to conclude that Mr. Hebden's services were "not essential to the success or continuation of the City's operation." Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, contrary to greater weight of evidence. Mr. Hebden testified on direct examination that he could not recall who chose the work hours set forth by contract. All contracts specify the hours to be worked. As to leave time, the first contract provided that such leave could be used only "at times mutually agreeable...." Subsequent contracts required annual leave to be used in four hour increments. Rejected, contrary to greater weight of evidence. Mr. Hebden testified that some auto and boat expenses had been reimbursed. First contract and invoices for payment through September 30, 1982 include payment of sums for "expenses." Rejected, contrary to greater weight of evidence. The contracts specify standard hours of employment and require attendance at meetings as directed by the Mayor and Council. The Respondent's assertion that Mr. Hebden "could make a profit or suffer a loss" is unsupported by credible evidence. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 5. Rejected, as to employment status of Mr. Hebden's predecessor or successor as City Treasurer, irrelevant. 28, 30. Rejected, as to employment status of Mr. Hebden's successor as City Treasurer, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 William H. Lindner, Secretary Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Thomas J Trask, Esquire Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt & Trask 595 Main Street Dunedin, Florida 34698 Jodi B. Jennings, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
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
Findings Of Fact The findings below are based on the undisputed facts set forth in Petitioner's Protest and supplements thereto, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, and representations by the parties during the motion hearing. On October 7, 2009, Respondent electronically posted its final ranking of firms which had submitted proposals to provide mechanical engineering services for six HVAC projects for Respondent in 2010. Respondent's electronic posting of the final ranking of firms included the following language: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), shall constitute a waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." On October 12, 2009, Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest the final rankings. On October 22, 2009, Petitioner filed its Protest. Although Petitioner's Protest was timely filed, Petitioner initially did not file a bond or other security. The Protest alleges that Petitioner was not required to file a bond, because Respondent did not include in its final ranking notice that a failure to post a bond would constitute a waiver of proceedings under Subsection 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Protest alleges that Respondent: (1) failed to provide Petitioner with notice of the estimated contract amounts within 72 hours, exclusive of Saturdays and Sundays and state holidays, of the filing of a notice of protest as required by Subsection 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) because Respondent had not provided that notice, Petitioner was unable to calculate the amount of the bond required and was, therefore, relieved of the obligation to file a bond. On October 30, 2009, Respondent, through counsel, wrote to Petitioner. In this correspondence, Respondent informed Petitioner that Section 287.042, Florida Statutes, did not apply to Respondent because it was not an "agency" for purposes of that law. Respondent further informed Petitioner that Section 255.0516, Florida Statutes, allowed Respondent to require a bond in the amount of two percent of the lowest accepted bid or $25,000. Respondent also notified Petitioner that because it was protesting all six project awards, all awards must be included in the calculation of the bond amount required. Finally, Petitioner was allowed ten days within which to post a bond. On November 3, 2009, Petitioner submitted to Respondent a cashier's check in the amount of $3,143.70 and noted that the check was intended to serve as security for the Protest "as required by F.S. 287.042(2)(c)." In the letter which accompanied the check, Petitioner also noted that: (1) the amount of the check was determined by calculating one percent of the largest proposed contract award amount of $314,370.00; and (2) Petitioner was providing that amount "under duress," because Respondent had "just published the contract award amounts." The relief requested by Petitioner in the Protest is that: (1) it be awarded one of the six HVAC projects comprising the final ranking; and/or (2) alternatively, all six awards be rescinded and "start the entire process over." The final ranking which Petitioner protests included six separate projects, each of which had a separate construction budget. Those projects and their respective construction budgets are as follows: Northwest--$1,144,000; Tampa Palms--$2,649,081; Yates--$2,770,828; Ferrell--$2,550,758; Stewart--$2,805,437; and Erwin--$4,191,603. The proposed fees for each project were as follows: $97,240 (Northwest); $211,926 (Tampa Palms); $221,666 (Yates); $204,061 (Ferrell); $224,435 (Stewart); and $314,370 (Erwin).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Hillsborough County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Protest filed by Petitioner, RHC and Associates, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 2010.
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 Whether the proposed award of Request for Proposal No. P2021 to Psychotherapeutic Services of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter "Psychotherapeutic Services"), is contrary to Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice's (hereinafter "Department"), governing statutes, rules or policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 2007, the Department issued RFP P2021 to solicit proposals for a Department Detention Screening Unit in the Circuit 17 Juvenile Assessment Center. The contract for RFP P2021 was for an initial three-year period, with the possibility of renewal for an additional three-year period. Two prospective providers, Petitioner, Juvenile Services Program, and Psychotherapeutic Services submitted responses to RFP P2021. Sarah Smith (hereinafter "Ms. Smith"), acting as the Department's contract administrator, evaluated the proposals for compliance with the mandatory requirements of RFP P2021. Based on Ms. Smith's review of the proposals and her determination that the proposals met the mandatory requirements of the RFP, the Department accepted both Petitioner's proposal and Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal as responsive to the RFP. The RFP consisted of the following three proposals, all of which were evaluated and scored by the appropriate evaluators: (1) the Technical Proposal, which comprises two sub-parts, Management Capabilities and Program Services; (2) the Financial Proposal, which comprises two sub-parts, Price and Financial Capabilities; and (3) the Past Performance Proposal. The maximum allotted points for each of the proposals were as follows: 160 b. Program Services 400 100 b. Financial Capabilities 100 3. Past Performance (Part I) 200 Technical Proposal Management Capabilities Financial Proposal Price The Technical Proposals were reviewed, evaluated, and scored by three evaluators, Loretta Bright, Lucille Rapale and Terria Flakes. Each evaluator scored each proposal separately and independently without consulting and conferring with the other evaluators. All three evaluators were Department employees who were trained and randomly selected to evaluate the proposals. The scores of the three evaluators who evaluated the Technical Proposal were averaged. Based on those averages, Petitioner was awarded 117.33 points for the Management Capabilities sub-part and 278.33 points for the Program Services sub-part. Psychotherapeutic Services was awarded 108.80 for the Management Capabilities subpart and 276.67 for the Program Services subpart of the Technical Proposal. The Financial Proposal was evaluated by Ms. Smith, an operations and management consultant in the Department's Contract Administration Office, Bureau of Contracts. Based on her evaluation of the Financial Proposals, Ms. Smith awarded 200 points each to Petitioner and Psychotherapeutic Services. The Past Performance Proposals of the RFP were evaluated and scored by Paul Hatcher, a senior management analyst with the Department. Based on Mr. Hatcher's review and evaluation of this section, he awarded 173.75 points to Petitioner and 192.50 points to Psychotherapeutic Services. After calculating the total points awarded for the three proposals/sections of the RFP, Psychotherapeutic Services, with a total score of 777.97, was ranked as the highest scored proposal. Petitioner, with a total score of 769.42, was ranked second. On April 3, 2007, the Department posted the notice of its intended decision to award the contract for RFP P2021 to Psychotherapeutic Services. This decision was based on Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal having a higher point total than Petitioner's proposal. General Instructions for Completing RFP P2021 RFP P2021 is comprised of a one-page transmittal letter and several attachments and exhibits, some of which are in the 47-page printed RFP P2021, and others which, according to the RFP, are available electronically. Relevant to this proceeding are terms contained in the transmittal letter and in Attachments A, B, C, D, G and J. Several provisions in RFP P2021, including the transmittal letter and Attachments A and B, give general instructions for preparation of the proposal. The transmittal letter provides that "prospective providers shall fully comply with the instructions on how to respond to the RFP." Attachment A, General Instructions to Respondents, provides that "respondents to the solicitation are encouraged to carefully review all the materials contained herein and prepare responses accordingly." Attachment B, Section XVIII, "General Instructions for the Preparation and Submission of Proposals," provides in relevant part the following: The instructions for this RFP have been designed to help ensure that all proposals are reviewed and evaluated in a consistent manner, as well as to minimize costs and response time. INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN VARIANCE WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS MAY NOT BE REVIEWED OR EVALUATED. * * * Failure of the prospective Provider to provide any of the information required in either Volume 1 (the Technical Proposal), Volume 2 (the Financial Proposal), or Volume 3 (Past Performance) portions of the RFP proposal shall result in no points being awarded for that element of the evaluation. Attachment B also provides the general instructions for the Technical Proposal, the Financial Proposal and the Past Performance Proposal of RFP P2021. Those instructions are described and discussed below. Notwithstanding the general instructions for completing the RFP, Attachment A, paragraph 15, gives the Department the right to waive any minor irregularities. According to that provision, "[t]he Department reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Department determines that doing so will serve the State's best interests." The RFP deems certain requirements as mandatory. Attachment B, Section V, sets forth those requirements and the consequences for a prospective provider's failing to comply with those requirements. Attachment B, Section V, provides in pertinent part the following: Mandatory Requirements The following requirements must be met by the prospective Provider to be considered responsive to this RFP. Although there are other criteria set forth in this RFP, these are the only requirements deemed by the Department to be mandatory. Failure to meet these requirements will result in a proposal not being evaluated and [being] rejected as non-responsive. [Emphasis supplied.] It is MANDATORY that the prospective Provider submit its proposal within the time frame specified in the Calendar of Events (Attachment B, Section IV.) It is MANDATORY that the prospective Provider draft and submit a fully completed, originally signed Transmittal Letter that contains all the information required by Section XVIII. A. It is MANDATORY that the prospective Provider submit a complete and signed Attachment J that proposes an annual contract dollar amount at or below the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP. Any proposal without a completed and signed Attachment J or with a proposed annual contract dollar amount exceeding the annual maximum contract dollar amount will be rejected. Attachment D, "Evaluation Criteria," sets forth the evaluation criteria and the scoring methods for proposal. Attachment D also provides that failure to meet the mandatory requirements "that are specified in Attachment B, Section V," will result in the proposal not being evaluated and being rejected as non-responsive. The Financial Proposal Attachment B, Section XVIII, D.1., provides in pertinent part the following: The prospective Provider shall provide a price for the program by returning a completed and signed Attachment J-Price Sheet. The price evaluated is the "proposed Annual Contract Amount." The price must include all services, material and labor necessary to complete the Scope of Services (Exhibit 1) as described in this RFP and the prospective Provider's proposal. A renewal price shall also be entered on Attachment J. It is MANDATORY that the prospective Provider submit a completed and signed Attachment J that proposes an annual contract amount at or below the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP. Any proposal without a completed and signed Attachment J or with a proposed dollar amount exceeding the annual maximum contract dollar amount will be rejected. RFP P2021 established the "annual maximum contract dollar amount" as $473,594.16 and the "maximum contract dollar amount" as $1,420,782.48 (three times the annual maximum contract amount). Attachment J had three lines on which the prospective provider was to list: (1) the "proposed annual dollar amount"; (2) the "proposed annual dollar amount for each renewal year"; and (3) the "renewal dollar amount proposed."1/ Attachment J also included directions for completing the form and a line for the prospective provider's signature. A pre-printed statement above the signature line indicated that "[b]y submission and signature of this form, the prospective provider agrees to all the terms and conditions of this RFP and commits to the prices stated." In lieu of submitting the Amendment J form that was attached to the RFP, Psychotherapeutic Services submitted its re-created version of Attachment J. The Department recognized that the page titled Attachment J in Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal was re-created by Psychotherapeutic Services. However, the re-created version of Attachment J and submission of that document does not in itself constitute a non-responsive response. In the Department's view, the significant factor is whether the relevant and required information indicated as mandatory in the RFP is provided on the re-created version of the form. By consistent practice, the Department routinely accepts re-created forms and/or attachments in responses from prospective providers for the convenience of respondents. In accordance with this practice, the Department accepted the re-created Attachment J submitted by Psychotherapeutic Services. On the re-created version of Attachment J, Psychotherapeutic Services did not include: (1) the instructions for completion of the form; and (2) the language that by signing and submitting the form, Psychotherapeutic Services agrees to all the terms and conditions of the RFP and commits to the prices stated. However, Psychotherapeutic Services included on the re-created Attachment J all the relevant and required information as indicated by the mandatory requirements in the RFP. The mandatory requirements related to the Financial Proposal are that the provider "submit a completed and signed Attachment J that proposes an annual contract dollar amount that is at or below the maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP. See paragraphs 21 and 23 above. The mandatory requirements for the Financial Proposal do not require the "renewal terms" to be included in the re-created version of Attachment J, but require that the proposed annual contract amount be at or below the annual maximum contract amount. Similarly, there is no mandatory requirement that omission of the "renewal terms" must result in a finding that the proposal is non-responsive. At most, if such language were required and not provided, no points should be awarded for that section. Here, the evaluation criteria for the Financial Proposal does not include or require consideration of the "renewal terms" on Attachment J.2/ See Attachment A, paragraph 9(i) and (j); Attachment B, Section XIV; and Attachment G, Part IV, C. The re-created version of Attachment J, as completed by Psychotherapeutic Services, is as follows: ATTACHMENT J - PRICE SHEET JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER SERVICES PROPOSED ANNUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT: $473,593.47 PROPOSED ANNUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH RENEWAL YEAR: $473,593.47 *PROPOSED ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT $1,420,780.41[3/] DOLLAR AMOUNT for all Services in thie [sic] RFP multimplied [sic] by the number of initial years (3) of the contract + [sic] $1,420,782.48 *THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT WILL BE MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER O FYEARS [sic] IN THE INITIAL TERM OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SCORING THE PRICE SECTION OF THIS PROPOSAL. THE PRICE STATED ON THIS SHEET (ATTACHMENT J) WILL BE USED FOR DETERMINIATION [sic] OF POINTS AWARDED TO EACH PROSPECTIVE PROVIDER. TERMS OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR SHALL BE PRO-RATED. RENEWAL TERM DOLLAR AMOUNT PROPOSED: $473,594.16[4/] Psychotherapeutic Services' proposed annual contract dollar amount of $473,593.47 is below the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP, $473,594.16. Therefore, it met the mandatory requirement for the price category of the Financial Proposal. Ms. Smith testified credibly that the Department's focus, as reflected in the evaluation criteria, is to ensure that the proposed annual contract dollar amount does not exceed the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP. Ms. Smith evaluated and scored that Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal in accordance with the provisions of the RFP. Based on her evaluation, Ms. Smith properly awarded Psychotherapeutic Services the maximum 200 points for its Financial Proposal. Of those points, 100 points were for the "price" category. Ms. Smith also awarded Petitioner's Financial Proposal the maximum 200 points for its Financial Proposal, including 100 points for the "price" category. Petitioner was awarded 100 points for the "price" category, even though its proposed annual contract amount was higher than that of Psychotherapeutic Services. Ms. Smith determined that this was appropriate because the difference in the price proposed by Petitioner and Psychotherapeutic Services was less than ten percent. Psychotherapeutic Services submitted a signed and completed Attachment J that included a proposed annual contract dollar amount, $473,593.47, which was below the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP, $473,594.16. Having met the mandatory provisions of the RFP, related to Attachment J, the Department appropriately did not reject the Psychotherapeutic Services, but instead properly evaluated that proposal. The Technical Proposal The Technical Proposal required prospective providers to prove that they were registered to do business in Florida. The general instructions for preparation of the Technical Proposal of the RFP are set forth in Attachment B, Section XVIII, C.2., which provides in relevant part: a. Management Capability * * * 3) This section shall provide proof that the prospective Provider is registered to do business in Florida evidenced by Articles of Incorporation or Fictitious Name Registration or Business License and, if applicable, a copy of the most recent Certification of Good Standing. (This information may be obtained from the Secretary of State's Office) . . . . Psychotherapeutic Services did not submit as part of its proposal Articles of Incorporation, Fictitious Name Registration, or Business License to prove that it is licensed to do business in the State of Florida. However, Psychotherapeutic Services submitted an untitled document that appeared to be a certificate from the State of Florida, Department of State, which had the electronic signature of the Secretary of State and was dated May 13, 2006. Petitioner submitted its Articles of Incorporation, as well as the untitled document from the Department of State. (The latter document was the same type of certificate Psychotherapeutic Services submitted with its proposal.) That referenced untitled document stated in relevant part the following: I [Secretary of State] certify from the records of this office that PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, authorized to transact business in the State of Florida, qualified on December 4, 1996. * * * I further certify that said corporation has paid all fees due this office through December 31, 2006, that its most recent annual report was filed on May 10, 2006, and its status is active. I further certify that said corporation has not filed a Certificate of Withdrawal. The document was identified at hearing by Petitioner's executive director as a Certificate of Good Standing. However, there was nothing on the document to indicate what the document was. The Technical Proposals were rated on a scale of zero to five, based on criteria established in the RFP. The rating system for the Technical Proposal was as follows: Score Evaluation Description 5 The proposal exceeds all technical specifications and requirements for the component specified. The approach is innovative, comprehensive, and complete in every detail. 4 The proposal meets all technical specifications and requirements for the component specified. The approach is comprehensive and complete in every detail. The proposal approach contains some innovative details for some of the components specified. 3 The proposal meets all technical specifications and requirement for the component specified. 2 The proposal does not meet all technical Specifications and requirements for the component specified, or it does not provide essential information to substantiate the provider's ability to provide the service. 1 The proposal contains errors and/or omissions in the area of the component specified. 0 The provider's proposal fails to demonstrate the ability to provide the service. The evaluation criteria for Criterion No. 2, which relates in part to prospective providers being registered to do business in the State of Florida, required the evaluators to rate the proposal on the following: Does the proposal reasonably, logically, and clearly identify an organizational structure with the capability to perform the services specified and required by the RFP? Petitioner contends that Psychotherapeutic Services failed to respond fully to the Technical Proposal by not submitting the Articles of Incorporation, Fictitious Name Registration, or Business License, whichever was applicable. By failing to submit any of the other named documents, Petitioner contends that Psychotherapeutic Services' Technical Proposal was non-responsive. The untitled documents submitted by both Petitioner and Psychotherapeutic Services, described in paragraph 42, appeared to be issued by the State of Florida. The evaluators' credible testimony was that they interpreted and considered the certificate from the Department of State as the Business License, and/or one of the other acceptable means of proof that the prospective providers were registered to do business in Florida, as required in the RFP. In light of their review and interpretation of the document from the Department of State, the evaluators awarded Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal and Petitioner's proposal the following scores for Evaluation Criterion No. 2: Psychotherapeutic Services Juvenile Service Program Evaluator Bright 4 4 Evaluator Flakes 3 4 Evaluator Rapale 3 3 Petitioner contends that because Psychotherapeutic Services did not submit its Articles of Incorporation, Fictitious Name Registration, or Business License as required by the RFP,5/ it should not have received scores of three or above for Criterion No. 2. The RFP required the prospective providers' proposals: to include a work plan for the collaboration and coordination of operations with other agencies providing services at the Circuit 17 Juvenile Assessment Center; and to specify procedures for collaboration and coordination with the local Department office in certain cases. Evaluation Criterion No. 3 provides as follows: Does the proposal reasonably, logically, and clearly identify the providers' intended interaction with local service resources as specified and required by the RFP? There is no dispute that both Psychotherapeutic Services' and Petitioner's proposals addressed the issues noted in paragraph 50 above. In addition to complying with those requirements, Petitioner submitted three letters of support to supplement its response to the requirement regarding the involvement of local agencies. As to Evaluation Criterion No. 3, Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal was awarded two scores of three and one score of four. Petitioner's proposal was awarded scores identical to those of Psychotherapeutic Services' scores. Petitioner argues that it should have been awarded more points and/or Psychotherapeutic Services should have been awarded fewer points for Evaluation Criterion No. 3, because it submitted three letters to indicate community support and no such letters were provided by Psychotherapeutic Services to support its bid proposal. The RFP neither prohibited, nor required, prospective providers from submitting letters to supplement their responses related to collaborating and coordinating with local agencies. Accordingly, no points were awarded or required to be awarded based on the submission of letters of support. The three evaluators' scores were based on their individual review and evaluation of the proposals submitted by Petitioner and by Psychotherapeutic Services. No proposal was scored against each other, but rather each proposal was scored separately and not compared to each other. Past Performance The general instructions for preparation of the Past Performance section of the RFP are provided in Attachment B, Section XVIII, E., which states in relevant part the following: 1. The purpose of this section is for the prospective provider to demonstrate its knowledge and experience in operating similar programs by providing information requested on the enclosed Attachment C, Part I, II, and/or III and all required supporting documentation. On the forms provided (Attachment C, Part I, II and/or III), the prospective Provider shall provide, if applicable, information regarding its past performance in the State of Florida, information regarding programs operated by the prospective Provider that have attained professional accreditation, and information regarding past performance in the United States outside of the State of Florida. The prospective Provider shall complete Attachment C and attach dated supporting documentation for Part II and/or III, if applicable. Failure to complete and return Attachment C for this RFP or supporting documentation, if applicable, shall result in a zero (0) score for Past Performance. All documentation provided for Parts II or III of Attachment C must include the start and end dates, be current dated and valid at least through the start date of the Contract that results from this RFP. The documentation must state that the program is a non-residential juvenile [program] and that is run by the prospective Provider. The Department is not responsible for research to clarify the prospective Provider's documentation. Prospective providers shall include the Attachment C, Part I, II and/or III for this RFP and the required supporting documents in Volume III. Failure to include these documents in Volume III shall result in zero (0) points being awarded for Past Performance. Further instructions on how to complete this section may be found in Attachment C. Attachment C provides in relevant part the following: If the prospective Provider has received Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Quality Assurance (QA) Reviews for its Non-Residential programs, that prospective Provider shall complete Parts I and III. Only scores from Parts I and III shall be considered for these prospective Providers. A prospective Provider who is operating or has operated Non-Residential program(s) in Florida must complete Part I of Attachment C. To complete Part I of Attachment C, the prospective Provider shall list all non-residential program information requested for each category. Failure to submit the attached Part I shall result in a score of zero (0) for this section. Part I of other RFP's will not be considered. All other prospective Providers shall complete Parts II and III. . . . The RFP required prospective providers to provide information regarding their past performance of juvenile justice non-residential programs on Attachment C, which consists of the following three parts: Part I, "Data Sheet: Past Performance on Non-Residential JAC [Juvenile Assessment Center] Programs; Part II, "Evaluation Questionnaire for Past Performance in the United States Outside of Florida"; and Part III, titled "Evaluation Questionnaire for Professional Accreditation in the United States." Psychotherapeutic Services was required to complete Attachment C, Part I, because it had experience operating a non-residential juvenile justice program in the State of Florida. However, because the programs Psychotherapeutic Services operated in Florida did not have professional accreditation, it was not required to complete Attachment C, Part III. Attachment C, Part I, required each respondent to provide the following information about non-residential programs it operates, or has operated, in the State of Florida: the program(s) that it had contracts to administer; the contract number(s); the program type; the beginning date of the contract; the ending date of the contract; the most recent quality assurance performance score of the program; and the most recent quality assurance compliance score of the program. For each category on Attachment C, Part I, there was a corresponding footnote, which provided the rationale and/or explanation regarding the requested information. Relevant to this proceeding are the categories contract number, the most recent quality assurance (QA) performance score, the most recent QA compliance score, and the footnotes related thereto. The footnote that corresponds to the category "contract number" provides the following: "This information is only to aid the Department in identifying the program named." The footnote that corresponds to the category "most recent quality assurance performance score," provides the following: "Quality Assurance Performance score for current year. If not evaluated yet and the program was reviewed last year, use last year's score." The footnote that corresponds to the "most recent Quality Assurance compliance score" provides the following: "Quality Assurance compliance score. If not evaluated yet and the program was reviewed last year, use last year's score." Psychotherapeutic Services did not submit the Attachment C, Part I, form that was included in the RFP. Instead, Psychotherapeutic Services prepared a re-created version of that form which was completed and submitted as part of its proposal. Except for a notation explaining its responses to the categories related to QA performance and compliance scores, Psychotherapeutic Services' re-created version of Attachment C, Part I, was almost identical to the Department's Attachment C. On the re-created Attachment C, Part I, Psychotherapeutic Services listed the one non-residential program it was operating in Florida and provided responses to the specified categories as follows: Category Response Program Name Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services (IDDS) Contract Number R601 Program Type Probation/Community Service Contract Begin Date 9/15/2003 Contract End Date 9/14/2009 Most Recent QA Performance Score 90 percent or Above Most Recent QA Compliance Score 90 percent or Above Psychotherapeutic Services included a notation on the re-created Attachment C, Part I, to explain the responses of "90% or above" that were listed as the most recent QA performance score and the most recent compliance score. The notation stated, "To maintain 'deemed status' all scores must be 90 percent or above. We do not have an exact number score." Petitioner contends that Psychotherapeutic Services' Past Performance Proposal is non-responsive to the RFP. First, Petitioner contends that Psychotherapeutic Services failed to submit the required information on the Attachment C form that was attached to the RFP, but submitted its information on the re-created version of Attachment C. The Department acknowledged that Psychotherapeutic Services re-created Attachment C, Part I. However, as previously indicated, the Department does not penalize respondents for re-creating required forms for their convenience. Rather, the information required by the forms must be provided in the response to obtain the proper score or evaluation. In response to the category related to the contract number of the program it was currently operating, Psychotherapeutic Services incorrectly listed the contract number as R601. The correct contract number of the non-residential program Psychotherapeutic Services was currently administering is RK601. The Department acknowledged that there was a typographical error or mistake on the re-created Attachment C, Part I, in listing the contract number of the program operated by Psychotherapeutic Services. However, the Department determined that this error was not critical with regard to the information that was to be provided.6/ Attachment C requires a respondent to provide performance and compliance scores for its most recent QA review of any programs currently run by the prospective provider. Instead of providing an exact score for the QA reviews, Psychotherapeutic Services provided and inserted a score of "90% or above" as their most recent QA performance and compliance scores on its Attachment C, Part I form. By way of explanation, Psychotherapeutic Services included a notation that the score was based on its "special deemed status." In accordance with the RFP, Psychotherapeutic Services submitted a report from the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance as supporting documentation for information regarding its QA performance and compliance scores. The report confirmed Psychotherapeutic Services' responses regarding its most recent performance and compliance scores. The report from the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance reflected that Psychotherapeutic Services' program received QA scores in 2003, but had not received any scores since then. As a result of its QA scores in 2003, Psychotherapeutic Services received "deemed status" by the Department. Psychotherapeutic Services had not received QA scores during the current year or the year prior to responding to the RFP. Therefore, Psychotherapeutic Services retained its special "deemed status" every year since 2003. The supporting documentation explained that to retain "deemed status," a provider must obtain a score of 90 percent or above each year at program review. The Department will no longer be using "deemed status" in the future, but that decision does not affect a provider/program currently holding this status. Thus, the status and scores as reported by Psychotherapeutic Services on the re-created version of Attachment C were properly reported at the time the proposal was submitted, verified, and scored. It is the Department's practice to verify the scores provided by the prospective providers who complete Attachment C, Part I, by accessing the information on the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website. This website is not limited to use by the Department, but is also available for use by the general public. Prior to scoring Past Performance proposals, the evaluator, Mr. Hatcher always verifies the QA information provided by any prospective provider using the official Department QA reports on the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website. He does not and has never viewed this practice as research, but as verification. The QA scores listed on the Department's official reports are the scores used by Mr. Hatcher in scoring the Past Performance Proposals. Consistent with his usual practice, Mr. Hatcher verified the responses given in Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal by accessing the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website. Mr. Hatcher used the scores on the official report posted on that website to evaluate the Past Performance Proposals. The information on the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website confirmed that Psychotherapeutic Services' performance and compliance scores were 90 percent or above. Psychotherapeutic Services' performance score was 95 percent, and its compliance score was 100 percent. Mr. Hatcher also utilized the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance to verify the information provided by Petitioner and confirmed that Petitioner's most recent average QA performance and compliance scores were 82.5 percent and 100 percent, respectively. These were the QA scores Petitioner provided on Attachment C, Part I, of its proposal for the average of its most recent QA performance and compliance scores. The "90% or above" figure provided by Psychotherapeutic Services, while accurate, is not a specific numbered percent score that could be used in calculating Psychotherapeutic Services' overall score for its Past Performance Proposal. Therefore, the evaluator appropriately did not use those figures. Instead, he used Psychotherapeutic Services' QA performance and compliance figures, 95 percent and 100 percent, that were on the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website. To determine the score for the Past Performance Proposal, the evaluator had to apply the required formula. The formula required that the most recent average performance score be multiplied by 1.5 and the most recent average compliance score be multiplied by 0.5. The score for the Past Performance Proposal is the sum of those numbers. By applying the required formula, Psychotherapeutic Services was awarded 142.5 points for its performance score and 50 points for its compliance score. This resulted in Psychotherapeutic Services being appropriately awarded a total score of 192.50 points for its Past Performance Proposal. By applying the required formula, Petitioner was awarded 123.75 points for its performance score and 50 points for its compliance scores. This resulted in Petitioner's being appropriately awarded a total score of 173.75 points in the Past Performance Proposal. The evaluators for the Technical Proposal, the Financial Proposal and the Past Performance Proposal of RFP P2021 properly and adequately evaluated those proposals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice, issue a final order dismissing the Juvenile Services Program, Inc.'s, Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2007.
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
