Findings Of Fact In July, 1992, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) published notice soliciting proposals from interested attorneys to provide intrastate and interstate child support legal services HRS District VI. The services were to be provided from October 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. (Exhibit #4). Within relevant deadlines, protests to the written specifications of the solicitation were filed by Petitioner, Donald W. Belveal, and others. HRS determined that material disputes of fact existed and the protests were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) where the cases were consolidated and set for final hearing. (Exhibit #5) Hearing Officer, Veronica Donnelly, conducted the hearing and issued a recommended order on December 22, 1993, recommending that the specifications be rejected as flawed and that they be extensively revised. (Exhibit #5). Exceptions were filed, and upon a suggestion of mootness HRS entered a final order on March 17, 1993, dismissing the proceedings and finding further: No Final Order has been issued in this cause which granted any affirmative relief to Petitioners. Therefore, they are not a prevailing party, and are not entitled to attorney fees. The request for a determination of attorney fees is DENIED. The request to dismiss the department's exceptions to the Recommended Order is DENIED. (Exhibit #6) Donald Belveal appealed this final order to the Second District Court of Appeal. The full opinion of the court in Donald W. Belveal v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, case no. 93-01121, dated February 25, 1994, provides: The law firm of Donald Belveal appeals a final agency order entered by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) which dismisses administrative proceedings and denied Belveal's motion for attorney's fees and costs under section 57.111(4), Florida Statutes (1991) on the ground that Belveal was not a prevailing party. We reverse. Belveal and other lawyers formally protested a bid solicitation package prepared by HRS to procure legal services for its child support program in Hillsborough County. The Department of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) held a formal hearing after which the hearing officer entered a recommended order that the package be revised, citing numerous improprieties. HRS filed excep- tions to the order. In addition, to prevent a lapse in services during the protest proceedings, HRS extended the existing contract for legal services to cover the remainder of the bid proposal period. Arguing that the extension nullified the bid solicitation and rendered the administrative contest moot, Belveal and the others filed a motion to dismiss the exceptions. They also asked that the case be remanded to DOAH for an award of attorney's fees and costs under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, section 57.111(4), Florida Statutes (1991). The deputy secretary for human services of HRS entered a "final order" which concluded that Belveal's motion to dismiss/suggestion of mootness was tantamount to a request that the proceedings be discontinued. The department dismissed the proceedings, denied the request to dismiss HRS's exceptions, and denied the request for attorney's fees stating, "[n]o final order has been issued in this cause which granted any affirmative relief to Petitioners. Therefore, they are not a prevailing party, and are not entitled to attorney fees." HRS exceeded its authority in entering this order. First, the dismissal of the action exceeded the scope of the motion to dismiss the exceptions. Second, the determination of whether Belveal was a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees and costs was solely within the jurisdiction of the DOAH hearing officer. See Dep't. of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. S. G., 613 So. 2d 1380, 1384 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Because HRS denied the motion to dismiss the exceptions yet never ruled on the hearing officer's recommended order, we remand the case to HRS for further proceedings in accordance with section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Reversed; remanded. In addition, the appellate court issued its order granting fees in the appeal, "...provided that appellant is ultimately the prevailing party in the proceeding below." (Exhibit #2) HRS entered its corrected final order on June 22, 1994, finding the case to be moot with the exception of the attorney's fees issue, acknowledging that the agency is without jurisdiction to determine who is the prevailing party and entitled to fees, and dismissing the case. (Exhibit #4) It is undisputed that Donald Belveal is a small business party. (Respondent's proposed final order, paragraph 8). Donald Belveal claims total fees of $21,292.25, incurred in the administrative proceeding, which fees are based on 121.67 hours at an hourly rate of $175. He claims additional fees for the appeal. (Exhibit #3) As stipulated, the claimed fees are reasonable, but the award may not exceed $15,000. (Respondent's proposed final order, paragraph 9.)
The Issue The issues in this bid protest proceeding are whether the bid of Professional Leasing & Development Corporation on state project, job number 48020-3543, was properly rejected for failure to prequalify to bid on the project; and whether the Department properly rejected the bid failure to: meet disadvantaged business enterprise ("DBE") requirements in soliciting minority subcontractors to work on the project, or make a good faith effort to meet the DBE goals set for this project?
Findings Of Fact Professional Leasing & Development Corporation ("Professional") filed a bid on state project, job number 4802 0-3543, which was opened on January 22, 1986 for work on an intersection in Escambia County. The only other bidder was Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., which the Department declared the lowest responsible bidder, and which declined to participate in these proceedings after notice. The parties stipulated at the hearing that the bids submitted by both bidders were in due form and were submitted in a timely fashion. The parties also stipulated that the Department posted its bid tabulation on March 3, 1986, designating Chadbourne as the lowest responsible bidder, and a timely protest was filed by Professional following that posting. This job is the first Department of Transportation job on which Professional has submitted a bid. It had not prequalified to bid on the job. Warnings appear on pages one and seven of the bid blank that if the bid amount is greater than $150,000, the contractor must be prequalified. The bid blank clearly states in large print on page 7 that if the contractor is not prequalified and the bid is in excess of $150,000, the bid will be rejected. The bid package submitted by Professional was for a total contract amount of $149,973.68. This amount contained errors in the prices for certain items in the bid. These resulted from Professional's errors in the extension of the unit price for items 300 1 3, tack coat; 5331 2, type s asphaltic concrete; and 5337 1 5, asphaltic concrete friction course. The errors are small, aggregating $76.32. The total amount of the bid, as corrected by the unit prices given by Professional in its bid blank, is $150,050. The bid was rejected by the Department for failure to prequalify. When preparing its bid, Professional made efforts to meet the DBE goal set by the Department of Transportation of 8 percent of the contract amount. It sought bids from two minority businesses for striping, and for guardrail and paved ditches,the second of which was a bid from a women's business enterprise which is not considered in meeting the DBE goal. Additional efforts might have been made to obtain DBE subcontract bids by the other principal in the corporation, William Stubstad, but the testimony at the final hearing did not indicate what those efforts may have been. Neither are they reflected in the bid documents. On the DBE/WBE utilization form number 1 submitted with the bid, Professional listed eight potential subcontractors; the striping subcontractor had been certified by the Department of Transportation as a DBE. Written by hand at the bottom of the form was the statement "no other local DBEs in area." Professional's bid reflected only a 3.2 percent utilization of DBE subcontractors, while the goal set by the Department was 8 percent of the contract amount. Based on this submittal, the Department found inadequate documentation of a good faith effort to meet the DBE goal and rejected the bid. Many other subcontractors are certified as DBEs by the Department for work such as signs, guardrails, landscaping and paved ditches. Professional's bid documents give no evidence that these other firms had been solicited to submit bids.
Recommendation It is recommended that the protest of Professional Leasing and Development Corporation be rejected, and the contract be awarded to Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of April 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1986. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0788BID The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985) on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner: No proposed findings of fact were submitted. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent: Covered in Findings of Fact 1 and 5. First sentence is covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 5; the remainder of the proposed finding is covered in Conclusion of Law 1. Generally covered in Finding of Fact 4. The portion of the proposal dealing with Standard Specifi- cation 2-1, 1986 Edition, is rejected because that section was not placed in evidence at the hearing, nor was leave requested to file that specification after the hearing. Covered in Finding of Fact 5. Covered generally in Conclusions of Law 2 and 3. Covered in Conclusion of Law 6. Rejected on the grounds that Section 2-5.3.2 of the Supplemental Special Provision of the Bid Specifications was not proven at the final hearing, nor was leave requested to file them as an exhibit after the hearing. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. The portion of proposal 10 found on page 4 is covered in Finding of Fact 7; the remainder is rejected as cumulative. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected because there is no evidence in the record concerning the consistency with which the Department requires full compliance with DBE goals, and because no issue was raised in this proceeding by Professional with respect to inconsistency in Department policy, making the finding irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Pridgen President Professional Leasing & Development Corp. 25 East Nine Mile Road Pensacola, Florida 32514 Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. 4375 McCoy Drive Pensacola, Florida 32503
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Raul Romaguera, is a small business party within the meaning of Subsection 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1985). When the underlying action herein occurred, he was licensed as a medical doctor by respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners (Board). On October 27, 1986, respondent filed an administrative complaint against Dr. Romaguera alleging that he had violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1985), by committing gross malpractice or failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The alleged violation related to Dr. Romaguera's inspection and diagnosis of a patient's tissue in December, 1980 while supervising a pathology department at a Lake Worth hospital. After an evidentiary hearing was conducted on March 24 and 25, 1987, a Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned on May 12, 1987, finding that the charge was unsubstantiated and recommending that the complaint be dismissed. The Recommended Order was adopted by the Board in its entirety by Final Order dated June 19, 1987. A timely petition for attorney's fees and costs was thereafter filed by petitioner on August 18, 1987. The parties have stipulated that, as a result of the Board's Final Order, Dr. Romaguera is a prevailing small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (1985). They have also stipulated that, in order to defend against the agency's action, Dr. Romaguera incurred at least $15,000 in attorney's fees and costs. There is no evidence as to what information, oral or written, the probable cause panel had before it when voting to initiate this action. The agency does stipulate that, at some point in the probable cause phase of the proceeding, the panel requested more information on the matter before taking a vote. This is corroborated by an agency memorandum dated April 8, 1986 and introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 1. At the final hearing on the merits of the administrative complaint, the agency presented a number of expert witnesses who concurred in the Board's assessment that Dr. Romaguera had failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment required of a reasonably prudent similar practicing physician in the Lake Worth area. Doctor Romaguera also presented the testimony of an expert who disagreed with this assessment. Hence, the validity of the charges turned on the credibility and weight to be given the various experts by the undersigned.
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation’s decision to reject all bids for Financial Project No. 209278-1-52-01 (J. Turner Butler Blvd.) a major interchange in Duval County, Florida, was exercised illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly or fraudulently.
Findings Of Fact On April 1, 2004, the Department of Transportation advertised its Bid Solicitation Notice (BSN), for the JTB Project. H. W. Lochner, Inc. (Lochner) designed the JTB Project. Petitioner, Superior Construction, and Archer Western Contractors, LTD, submitted bids on May 26, 2004. Petitioner had the apparent low bid, and Superior had the second apparent low bid. On or about May 27, 2004, Robert Burleson, President of the Florida Transportation Builders Association (“FTBA”), contacted the State Construction Engineer, Ananth Prasad, P.E., and alerted him to potential issues regarding MOT phasing. (T. p. 876, lines 18-24; p. 880, lines 14, 15). Richard Ayers, of Superior Construction, called the Jacksonville Urban Office of the Department of Transportation, District 2, alerting the District to the concerns regarding the maintenance of traffic issues. Ayers had reviewed the bid and plans generally to assess its bid in light of the Petitioner's bid, and had discovered in the process MOT issues that he believed would add substantially to the costs and time required to construct the project. As a result of these calls, Robert Hansgen, P.E., District 2 Resident Engineer, was directed by someone within the Department to review the MOT plans. On June 1, 2004, Mr. Hansgen forwarded to Henry Haggerty and Al Moyle a memorandum outlining seven areas of MOT concern relating to the "constructability" and safety of the JTB project. On June 1, 2004, Hansgen's memorandum was forwarded to Mohammed Majboor, P.E., Design Consultant Engineer for the Department, who forwarded the memo to Lochner. Lochner reviewed its plans in light of the Hansgen memorandum and forwarded its response on June 3, 2004, to Hansgen, who reviewed the responses and added his comments. He e-mailed Henry Haggarty seven concerns he had with the MOT plans. On June 2, 2004, Allen Moyle, Jacksonville Construction Engineer, received Hansgen's and Lochner's responses regarding the MOT plans and determined that the project plans needed revisions because of safety issues. Moyle concluded that all the bids needed to be rejected in light of the MOT revisions. He transmitted a request to Cathy Thomas at the Department's headquarters to arrange a meeting with Lochner to commence revision of the plans at the earliest possible date. On June 8, 2004, Hansgen briefed the District 2 Secretary, Schroeder, and other District 2 staff members on the issues regarding maintenance of traffic issues based on his memo, a marked-up copy of the MOT sheets, and pictures. Rejection of all bids was discussed at this meeting. Mr. Hansgen testified at the formal hearing concerning his findings and his actions with the aid of the original memorandum and Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2. Mr. Hansgen's concerns were about safety issues and included the reduction of traffic lane widths in areas to 11 feet where barrier walls would be erected on both the inside and outside medians where traffic would be traveling at 55 miles per hour. Another concern was the length of these lanes that would be restricted by concrete barriers. These barriers prevented easy access of emergency vehicles in these areas, which presented a significant hazard at this interchange, which accesses a major hospital complex. Mr. Hansgen’s also identified an inconsistency regarding where the contractor could work in an area close to the barrier wall; a portion of the roadway where a cross slope or tilting of the traveling lane created dangerous vehicle control issues; and plans to widen a portion of the roadway while vehicles traveled on the same portion of roadway which would require further narrowing of lanes. Because the State of Florida has one of the highest fatality records in the nation in work zones, the Department is very concerned about this issue. After the meeting on June 2, 2004, the Jacksonville Urban Office for District 2 recommended rejection to DOT in Tallahassee of all bids based on the need to “clarify uncertainties within the phasing of the maintenance of traffic (MOT) plans.” The recommendation of District 2 was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee, which is comprised of six voting members. On June 9, 2004, the Technical Review Committee recommended rejection of all bids on the JTB Project to the Contract Awards Committee based upon MOT safety issues. The Contracts Award Committee, composed of three voting members, met on June 15, 2004, to consider the recommendations regarding the JTB Project of the Technical Review Committee and District 2. The Contracts Award Committee concurred with the recommendations of the Technical Review Committee and District 2 and rejected all bids based upon MOT safety issues. The Department posted its notice of intent to reject all bids on June 17, 2004. The Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest the Department’s rejection of all bids with a Formal Written Protest, filed on July 1, 2004, including an appropriate protest bond. The Department’s engineers met with engineers from H.W. Lochner, Inc., to discuss the issues of concern raised in the Hansgen memorandum. The Department commissioned Lochner to revise the plans to enhance the safety features for MOT, and certain other enhancements. Lochner and the Department entered into Supplement Agreement #13 that included both the requested enhancements and the changes to accommodate the concerns referenced in the Hansgen Memorandum. Richard Kelly testified regarding “animus,” and “dislike” displayed by employees of the Department. He pointed to past decisions and actions of Department employees as proof of “dislike” and “animus." These included a Letter of Concern to the Petitioner, on April 16, 2004, from the Department outlining five areas the Department had identified as important in making a determination on the pre-qualification of the Petitioner for bidding on Department contracts for the 2004-2005 fiscal year. Also mentioned were disputed issues between the Department and the Petitioner arising during construction of the I-95/I295 Interchange Project, including Jacksonville ordinances on noise ordinance, and trees and deficiency letters from the Department to AMEC Civil. In addition, the disqualification of Morse Diesel, LLC, as the Petitioner was formerly named, from bidding on construction contracts with the State of Florida, and in 2002, the revocation of the pre-qualification of the Petitioner to bid on DOT projects were described. Ananth Prasad, P.E., who was identified by the Petitioner's witnesses as a primary source to opposition to the Petitioner, testified that he did not hold the position of State Construction Engineer in 2000, and was not involved in the decision to deny pre-qualification of Morse Diesel. Mr. Prasad also was not involved with the initial decision to revoke the pre-qualification of AMEC in 2002. Mr. Prasad does not personally hold a position on the Technical Review Committee. Mr. Prasad did not vote on the decision to recommend rejection of all bids on the JTB project. The decision to reject all bids for the JTB Project was made by the Contracts Award Committee based on recommendations from the Technical Review Committee, and District 2. The Department’s Contracts Award Committee exercised its statutory authority to reject all bids based on concerns regarding the MOT phasing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Formal Written Protest concerning the bid rejection for the project in this litigation. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 28th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: F. Alan Cummings, Esquire S. Elysha Luken, Esquire Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 Mike Piscitelli, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 305 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1130 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Calvin C. Johnson, Esquire C. Denise Johnson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Myers, Agency Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Conval-Care, Inc., is entitled to the payment of attorney fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, from the Agency for Health Care Administration, the successor in interest to the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated November 4, 1991, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), notified Conval-Care, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Conval-Care"), that it intended to impose an administrative fine on Conval-Care pursuant to Section 409.913(9)(c), Florida Statutes. Conval-Care contested the proposed fine and requested a formal administrative hearing, including a request that it be awarded attorney fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The matter was designated case number 92-0126 and was assigned to the Honorable Judge Robert T. Benton, then Hearing Officer Benton. On June 30, 1993, following a formal hearing held on March 24, 1993, Hearing Officer Benton entered a Recommended Order recommending dismissal of the sanctions letter of November 4, 1991. The findings of fact made by Hearing Officer Benton, in Conval-Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 92-0126, are hereby adopted to the extent relevant to this proceeding. On September 19, 1993, the Department entered a Final Order. The Department accepted and incorporated into its Final Order the findings of fact made by Hearing Officer Benton. The Department, however, rejected Hearing Officer Benton's conclusions of law to the extent that he not had concluded that Conval-Care lacked authority to reject the demand for its records which was the subject of the proceedings. The Department concluded that, in light of the fact that Conval-Care had acted on the advice of counsel, it would reduce the fine from $25,000.00 to $5,000.00. The Department's decision was appealed by Conval-Care. On December 16, 1994, the District Court of Appeal, First District, filed an opinion reversing the Department's Final Order. Mandate from the First District was entered January 3, 1995. On February 14, 1995, Conval-Care filed a Petition for Attorneys Fees and Costs in this case. Conval-Care requested an award of $15,000.00 as a small business party pursuant to the provisions of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Attached to the Petition were the Final Order entered by the Department, the Recommended Order, the First District's Opinion and Mandate, an Attorney's Affidavit stating the nature, extent and monetary value of the services rendered and costs incurred in the proceedings, the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Conval-Care in 1991 and the Department's November 4, 1991 sanctions letter. On March 2, 1995, the Agency for Health Care Administration, the successor in interest of the Department (hereinafter referred to as "AHCA"), filed a Response in Opposition to Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs. 10 In its Response, AHCA admitted all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 6 and 8 through 9 of the Petition. AHCA denied the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Petition. Paragraph 7 of the Petition alleged the following: 7. The action of DHRS, in filing the admini- strative complaint against CCI, was not sub- stantially justified because there was no reasonable basis in law or fact to support the issuance of its letter seeking to impose an administrative fine upon CCI. Attached to the Response was an Affidavit from John M. Whiddon in support of its position that its actions were substantially justified. The Affidavit does not add any alleged credible justification not presented to Hearing Officer Benton or the First District Court of Appeal. AHCA did not assert in it Response the following: that the costs and attorney's fees claimed in Conval-Care's affidavit were unreasonable; that Conval-Care is not a prevailing small business party; that circumstances exist that would make an award unjust; or that AHCA was a nominal party only. AHCA also did not "either admit to the reasonableness of the fees and costs claimed or file a counter affidavit [specifying each item of costs and fee in dispute] along with its response." Finally, AHCA did not request an evidentiary hearing in its Response. The only issue which AHCA asserted in its Response was at issue in this proceeding is whether AHCA's actions were substantially justified. On April 6, 1995, an Order to Provide Information was entered. Although the parties had not requested an evidentiary hearing, the undersigned entered the Order soliciting input from the parties before the undersigned decided whether a hearing was necessary on the one issue raised by the Department. In the Order, the parties were given an opportunity to provide input concerning the procedures they believed should be followed to resolve this matter. The parties were specifically requested to answer certain specified questions, including the following: 1. Do the parties believe that an [sic] hearing is necessary to resolve any factual disputes and/or for purposes of oral argument before a decision is rendered? * * * 5. Do the parties agree that the documents attached to the Petition and the Response should be considered in rendering a decision in this case? . . ." Conval-Care filed a response to the April 6, 1995 Order indicating that there was no need for a hearing. Conval-Care asserted that a hearing would be improper unless Conval-Care consents to one. Conval-Care also asserted that all of the documents attached to petition should be considered. AHCA filed a response to the April 6, 1995 Order indicating that "[t]he Respondent feels a hearing in this matter is essential." AHCA did not provide any explanation of why it believed a hearing was necessary or any discussion of whether a hearing was authorized under the applicable statutes and rules. AHCA also indicated in its response that it "agrees that the documents attached to the Petition and Response should be considered in this case " On May 19, 1995, an Order Concerning Final Order was entered. Based upon a review of the pleadings and the lack of explanation from either party to justify an evidentiary hearing, it was concluded that no evidentiary hearing was necessary. Therefore, the parties were informed in the May 19, 1995 Order that a hearing would not be held in this case. The parties were also informed that they could file proposed final orders on or before May 30, 1995. Conval-Care filed a proposed order. AHCA did not. Neither Conval-Care nor AHCA timely requested an evidentiary hearing in this case. Both parties agreed that the documentation filed with Conval- Care's Petition and AHCA's Response could be relied upon in reaching a decision in this case. Based upon AHCA's failure to contest most of the relevant issues in this proceeding, the only issue which requires a decision if whether the Department's actions against Conval-Care were substantially justified. The documents, including the Mr. Whiddon's Affidavit filed by AHCA with its Response, sufficiently explain why the Department took the actions it took against Conval-Care which led to this proceeding. No evidentiary hearing was, therefore, necessary. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department's actions in this matter were substantially justified. The Department could have sought the information it wanted by pursuing available discovery. Counsel for Conval-Care even remained the Department of the availability of discovery. The Department, however, rather than pursuing the information which it indicated it needed, elected to pursue a punitive action against Conval-Care rather than obtaining the information through discovery. The Department's reason for pursuing punitive actions against Conval-Care was not convincing to Hearing Officer Benton. Despite this fact, the Department entered a Final Order upholding its actions and imposing a fine of $5,000.00 for refusing to provide it with information which it could have obtained through other means. The First District Court reversed the Department's Final Order opining that the Department "lacked a legitimate investigatory purpose for demanding the records" which gave rise to its action against Conval-Care. Finally, the entire record in this case failed to indicate that there was any basis in law or fact to substantially justify the actions of the Department.
The Issue Whether Petitioners are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact The following facts are taken verbatim from the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation (JPS): On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Vipul Patel's Petition for Variance from or Waiver of Rule 64B16-26.2031, F.A.C. (hereinafter Petition for Variance). On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Se Young Yoon's Petition for Variance. On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Miriam L. Hernandez's Petition for Variance. On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Mirley Aleman- Alejo's Petition for Variance. On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied John H. Neamatalla's Petition for Variance. On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Md. A. Samad Mridha's Petition for Variance. On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Valliammai Natarajan's Petition for Variance. For convenience sake, the foregoing-named Petitioners are referred to as "Group 1." Petitioners' "Group 2" are identified in paragraphs 38 through 41 of the JPS: On or about June 10, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Saurin Modi's Petition for Variance. On or about June 10, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Deepakkumar Shah's Petition for Variance. On or about June 10, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Ravichandran Sokkan's Petition for Variance. On or about June 10, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Mijeong Chang's Petition for Variance. Respondent issued orders denying the Petitions for Variance for Group 1 Petitioners on or about May 9, 2008. Respondent issued orders denying the Petitions for Variance for Group 2 Petitioners on or about July 3, 2008. Subsequent to the entry of the orders denying their variances, each of Group 1 Petitioners retained counsel and filed petitions to challenge the denial of their variances. Subsequent to the entry of the orders denying their variances, each of Group 2 Petitioners retained counsel and filed petitions to challenge the denial of their variances. All petitions were filed within 21 days of the entry of the orders that denied the variance. Respondent did not dispute the timeliness of the petitions, but took no action on the petitions. Instead, on or about August 21, 2008, Respondent reconsidered the petitions for variance, and granted all of the Petitioners' requests. Respondent did not take action on the requests to challenge the original variance denials, did not refer the cases for formal proceedings, and did not re-visit Petitioners' claims until August 21, 2008. On or about September 5, 2008, Respondent entered orders granting Petitioners' variances. Group 1 Petitioners waited approximately five months to obtain approval of their variances. In the meanwhile, they had retained counsel and filed petitions to challenge the denials. Group 2 Petitioners waited approximately three months for their variances to be approved. They, too, retained counsel to protect their rights. In October 2008, Petitioners filed Petitions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respondent. Respondent did not grant, deny, or refer those petitions to DOAH. On or about November 24, 2008, Petitioners filed a Verified Writ of Mandamus, in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Seminole County, Florida, requesting that the court require Respondent to either grant or deny the petitions for attorneys' fees and costs. On or about December 2, 2008, Petitioners served on Rebecca Poston, executive director of the Board of Pharmacy, a summons with petition for writ of mandamus. On or about February 16, 2009, Petitioners filed a Motion for Entry of Clerk's Default for Failure of Respondent to file a Response to the writ. The case was transferred to the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. On or about June 4, 2010, the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida, issued an Order to Show Cause on Respondent. Ultimately, the court denied the writ and dismissed the Order to Show Cause. Petitioners then filed Petitions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs with DOAH and the cases were consolidated for hearing. The parties agreed to bifurcate the issues and resolve the issue of whether Petitioners are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs, before addressing the remaining question of the amount of fees and costs, if appropriate to award them. Petitioners were the prevailing parties in the underlying matter, since the variances were granted. On August 1, 2008, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Development for Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. On August 1, 2008, A Notice of Proposed Rule for rule 64B16-26.2031 was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. On August 13, 2008, approximately eight days before the variances were approved, Respondent decided to amend rule 64B16-26.2031. Implicit in this amendment, is the concession that the former version of the rule exceeded Respondent's statutory authority. Respondent approved the amended rule 64B16-26.2031, on or about June 10, 2009. Petitioners maintain that Respondent acted with an improper purpose when it denied Petitioners' initial applications and subsequent petitions for variance. Petitioners assert that Respondent caused undue delay, by failing to timely grant or deny Petitioners' petitions to challenge the variance denials, and that Respondent's failure to grant, deny, or forward the petitions to DOAH, was an abuse of the agency's discretion. Further, Petitioners claim that Respondent should have acted on the petitions for attorneys' fees and costs, or referred them to DOAH. Respondent maintains it acted appropriately and in good faith, because its actions were substantially justified and in accordance with law.
Conclusions For Petitioners: George F. Indest, III Justin C. Patrou The Health Law Firm 1101 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 For Respondent: Allison Dudley Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Partial Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent, Katherine Harris, violated the provisions of Section 106.08, Florida Statutes, by making payments of organizational dues from her campaign account prior to the 1998 election.
Findings Of Fact As to the Merits: At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Commission was the state agency responsible for the oversight of public elections in this state. Respondent was a candidate for public office whose activities were subject to scrutiny by the Commission. The Division of Elections (Division) was a branch of the office of the Secretary of State. Respondent initially notified the Division on June 8, 1997 that she was seeking re-election to the Florida Senate seat she then held. However, on November 19, 1997, she filed the appropriate forms with the Division to signify her candidacy for the office of Florida Secretary of State. At or near each filing, Respondent filed with the Division a "Statement of Candidate" in which she stated she had received, read, and understood the requirements of Section 106, Florida Statutes. From April 1997, through mid-March 1998, 21 separate checks were written by her campaign treasurer on Respondent's campaign account with the Barnett Bank for dues payments to organizations. This is the issue here. The organizations to which the checks were written are organizations established for the public good. The checks in issue are as follows: CH # DATE PAYEE AMT 0101 04/03/97 Charlotte County 9.00 Republican Club 0102 04/03/97 Peace River Federated 5.00 Republican Women 0103 04/03/97 Manasota Republican 11.00 Women's Club Fed. 0104 04/03/97 Venice-Nokomis Fed. 11.00 Women's Club 0105 04/03/97 Sarasota Bay Republican 5.00 Women's Club 0106 04/03/97 West Charlotte 5.00 Republican Club 0108 06/05/97 Bernice Furrow 25.00 0109 07/03/97 Venice Area C of C 50.00 0110 08/06/97 Charlotte County C of C 65.00 0111 08/11/97 Republican Women's Club 10.00 of Sarasota 0112 09/04/97 Sarasota Bay Republican 15.00 Women's Club 0114 10/29/97 Taxpayer's Association of Sarasota County 12.00 0120 11/30/97 Sarasota Republican Club 15.00 0162 02/11/98 Mid-County Republican 15.00 0163 02/11/98 Club Venice-Nokomis Federated 7.50 0164 02/11/98 Republican Club West County Republican 5.00 0165 02/11/98 Club Siesta Key Republican 6.00 0189 03/03/98 Club Sarasota County Young 30.00 0199 03/09/98 Republicans Republican Women's Club 10.00 of Sarasota 0204 03/16/98 Republican Women's Club 15.00 0206 03/16/98 of Lakeland Federate Manasota Republican 10.00 Women's Club Federate All of the checks except number 0108 were for dues to the organization shown, and totaled $325.00. Check number 0108, in the amount of $25.00, was made to Bernice Furrow, and the memo space on the instrument indicates it was issued in reimbursement of dues to the Peace River Forum. These checks were written at the direction of Respondent. Clifford M. King, the maker of the checks in question, is an attorney admitted to practice in Florida in 1988. He served as campaign treasurer for Respondent during her successful campaign for the Florida Senate in 1994, and was her attorney and campaign treasurer during her campaign for Secretary of State. His major areas of practice include business transactions, estate planning, and probate. He has not worked for any other candidate nor has he ever been employed by any other client to give advice on elections law. Nonetheless, he considered himself to be qualified to advise Respondent on the Florida Election Code during her campaigns. It is so found. To prepare for giving that advice, Mr. King reviewed the Florida Statutes pertinent to elections and the campaign handbook prepared and issued by the Division of Elections. However, he did not read any opinions issued by the Division or opinions of the Attorney General dealing with elections law. When issues arose with which he did not feel comfortable, he would seek the advice of the Division of Elections. Mr. King cannot recall whether it was Respondent or one of her campaign workers who asked him if it were permissible to spend campaign funds for dues, but he is sure the question was asked. In response, he advised that to do so was a permissible expenditure of the campaign. Mr. King recalls that this same issue arose during the 1994 campaign at which time, based on his research of the statutes and the Division's campaign handbook, and after consultation with individuals involved in other campaigns, he concluded that expenditures for dues were permissible and he so advised Respondent. Though Mr. King recalls having discussed with Respondent the issue of the permissibility of writing these checks, he did not advise her of the specific provisions of the elections statute in issue here. He was satisfied at the time he advised Respondent and wrote the checks in issue, that it was lawful and permissible to do so. The Division's investigator, Mr. Smith, contacted representatives of most, if not all of the organizations to whom the checks in issue were written. All checks except the one to Ms. Furrow, were in payment of membership dues paid by all members. Mr. Young could find no instance where a specific benefit accrued to Respondent as a result of her payment of dues which was not received by every other member of the organization, candidate for public office or not. It is so found. As to the Motion for fees: After the Order of Probable Cause involving Respondent was served on Respondent, she requested a formal hearing. This hearing was initially denied by the Commission on the grounds that Respondent had failed to identify issues of fact requiring formal hearing. However, this decision was subsequently reversed and the matter was referred for formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. While the discovery process was being carried out, it became known that Respondent had twice been advised by Mr. King, her attorney, that the donations/dues payments from campaign funds in issue were permissible expenditures. When this information became known to the Commission's counsel, counsel prepared a Motion to Dismiss the Order of Probable Cause and recommended that action to the Commission. The basis for the recommendation was a lack of evidence to demonstrate that Respondent's actions were willfully illegal. Notwithstanding its counsel's advice, the Commission determined to proceed with the action on the basis that a majority of the Commissioners considered Respondent's counsel/campaign treasurer, the individual who had given the advice to Respondent, a "straw man" whose testimony by deposition was for the sole purpose of exonerating Respondent. That conclusion is not supported by the evidence of record, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order dismissing its Order of Probable Cause in this matter. An award of attorney's fees and costs to Respondent is unwarranted and rejected. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis Hampton, Esquire David F. Chester, Esquire Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Richard E. Coates, Esquire Christopher B. Lunny, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Alderman, Bryant & Yon, P.A. 106 East College Avenue Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Steven K. Christensen, Clerk Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be awarded attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act (the Act), Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact These proceedings arise out of DOAH Case No. 01-2928, Department of Health, Board of Physical Therapy v. Raymond H. Cralle. There, a Recommended Order was entered on November 27, 2001, which recommended entry of a final order dismissing all charges against Petitioner. On February 8, 2002, Respondent filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings a final order of dismissal in that case. Petitioner, the prevailing small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, timely filed his request for fees and costs pursuant to the Act. Respondent does not dispute the reasonableness of the attorney's fees claimed in the total amount of $10,050.00, nor does it dispute that costs in the amount of $2,655.95 were incurred by Cralle in the underlying case. The entire record in this case, which includes a transcript of the probable cause hearing, considered in light of the entire record in Case No. 01-2928, establishes that the total amount of fees and costs claimed here were necessarily and reasonably incurred in the successful defense of the administrative charges. In opposition to Cralle's request for reimbursement pursuant to the provisions of the Act, Respondent argues that the case falls within an exception for proceedings which were "substantially justified" at the time the charges were brought. The crux of Respondent's argument is that "[the] Administrative Law Judge decided the case primarily on the basis that, in her belief, based on the demeanor of the complainant, [Respondent] was more credible than the complainant." Respondent's argument requires that material facts be ignored. In the underlying case, Respondent had the burden to prove the administrative charges by clear and convincing evidence. Yet its factual case was based exclusively upon the testimony of Helen Mesa (Mesa). Mesa's demeanor was just one of several things noted in the Recommended Order which cast doubt upon her credibility. At the time of the probable cause hearing, it was known, or at least knowable, that Mesa fit the profile of the stereotypical "disgruntled former employee." At least a half dozen witnesses could have been expected to corroborate Mesa's testimony, and at the probable cause stage of the proceedings, Respondent's own expert recommended that at least some of these individuals be found and interviewed. With this red flag flying, and Cralle's attorney protesting that Mesa's story should be corroborated in some fashion before the litigation process was set in motion, Respondent elected to proceed on a needlessly thin investigation.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' protest should be sustained?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the parties' factual stipulations, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Department is a state agency responsible for, among other things, administering the State of Florida's abandoned property program. SMSC is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, is an Iowa limited liability partnership licensed and registered to conduct business in the State of Florida. It has 70 offices nationwide (including offices in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida) from which it provides accounting and consulting services to its clients. Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., is a Florida professional association licensed and registered to conduct business in the State of Florida. Like McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, it provides accounting and consulting services, but does so on a smaller scale. (It has approximately ten employees working out of two offices.) Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., is registered with the State of Florida as a certified minority business enterprise (providing "accounting, auditing, review, compilation services, tax services, management advisory services, [and] data processing services."). On July 29, 1993, McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, and Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., by written agreement, formed a joint venture known as the "McGladrey & Garcia Joint Venture" "for the purpose of submitting bids to the Resolution Trust Corporation ('RTC') to perform various services for the RTC under one or more contracts to be issued by the RTC." The Request for Proposals On or about January 17, 1997, the Department issued and advertised a Request for Proposal, RFP No. BF11/96-97 (RFP), soliciting the submission of proposals "for the providing of services for the receipt and processing of unclaimed property" for the period from June 1, 1997, through May 31, 2000,2 and, "upon mutual agreement in writing," "up to three additional years." The RFP contained the following statement of "purpose:" The purpose of this RFP is to solicit proposals and cost data from organizations that are interested in providing the services to meet all or part of the statement of need above in a modern business environment and who shall perform some or all of the following services: Process annual reports in various formats from holders of unclaimed property pursuant to Chapters 43.19, 402.17, 705.103, 717, 732.1101, 733.816, and 744.534, Florida Statutes and the State's vendors involved in the auditing for unclaimed property; . . . Handle and remit funds, tangible property as necessary and securities received with the annual reports to the State; Process inquiries from holders and distribute information to holders of unclaimed property; Make one attempt to locate owners of unclaimed property and mail claim forms to the apparent owners; Process inquiries from the public and distribute information to the citizens throughout the United States on unclaimed property being held by the Department; Process claim forms received from apparent owners of unclaimed property; Process and issue payment on approved claims to the owners; Process the denial of claims and send the proper documentation to the State upon a request for a hearing by the claimant regarding the denial; Provide access to the public records in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes; . . . Provide a security plan which protects the information on the ADPB [Abandoned Property Database] from unauthorized access or change, and; Assist the Department with the advertising of unclaimed property pursuant to Chapter 717.118, Florida Statutes. Provide an accounting of funds, reports and claims to the Department's satisfaction. The further purpose of this RFP is to set forth the criteria and the process by which the Provider will be evaluated and the basis on which the selection is to be made. Section V.E) of the RFP set forth various "special conditions," including the following: 2. Mandatory Requirements The Department has determined that certain mandatory requirements must be included as part of any proposal. The use of the terms "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicates a mandatory condition. The words "should" or "may" in this RFP indicates desirable attributes or conditions but are permissive in nature. Deviation from or omission of such a desirable feature will not itself cause rejection of the proposal, but may result in fewer points awarded by an evaluator. In this proposal process alternative means of accomplishing mandatory requirements, with reasonable assurance of satisfactory results will be considered and may be accepted. Such alternatives should be clearly identified by the Respondent in any proposal. 5. Non-Valid Proposals, Non-Responsible Respondents Proposals not meeting all mandatory requirements of this RFP or that fail to provide all required information, documents or materials will be rejected as non-valid. Respondents whose proposals, past performance or current status do not reflect the capability, integrity or reliability to fully and in good faith perform the requirements of the RFP may be rejected as non-responsible. The Department reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP and which respondents are responsible. Legal Requirements Applicable provisions of all federal, state, county and local laws and administrative procedures, regulations, or rules shall govern the development, submittal and evaluation of all proposals received in response hereto and shall govern any and all claims and disputes which may arise between persons submitting a proposal hereto and the Department. Lack of knowledge of the law or applicable administrative procedures, regulations or rules by any Respondent shall not constitute a cognizable defense against their effect. 14. Assignment of Contract The Contract cannot be assigned or subcontracted except with the prior written approval of the Department. Monies which become due thereunder are not assignable except with the prior written approval of the Department, and the concurrence of the Comptroller of the State of Florida. In the event of such approval, the terms and conditions hereof shall apply to and bind the party or parties to whom the Contract is assigned as fully and completely as the Provider is thereunder bound and obligated. No assignment, if any, shall operate to release the Provider from its liability for the prompt and effective performance of its obligations under the Contract. Section VI. of the RFP addressed the subject of the "evaluation of proposals." Its prefatory paragraph read as follows: The contract will be awarded to the Respondent at the sole discretion of the Department, whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Department and the people of Florida. The Respondent must demonstrate through the proposal that that it possesses the expertise and capabilities to perform the services specified herein; has the staff that possesses the experience that closely aligns with the expertise needed by the Department; and that has the integrity, honesty and responsibleness to complete all requirements of the RFP. Section VI.A) was entitled "Award Notice" and provided as follows: Notice of intent to award contract as a result of this Request for Proposals shall be posted in Room 250D of the Fletcher Building, 101 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida on the date and time shown on the Calendar of Events. Issuance of this Request for Proposals does not oblige the State to select a Respondent or to award a contract. Section VI.B) was entitled "Legal Requirements for Proposals" and provided as follows: Applicable provisions of all Federal, State and County regulations shall govern development, submission and evaluation of all proposals received in response hereto and shall govern any and all claims and disputes that may arise between persons submitting a proposal hereto and the Department, by and through its employees or authorized representatives. Lack of knowledge by any Respondent shall not constitute a recognizable defense against the legal effect thereof. All corporations seeking to do business with the State shall at the time of submitting a proposal in response hereto, be registered with the Department of State in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 607, Florida Statutes. To be eligible for consideration, each corporation shall include as part of their required documentation, their corporate charter number, or if appropriate, have attached to their proposal a signed statement that said corporation is exempt from the requirements of Chapter 607, Florida Statutes. Similarly, partnerships seeking to submit a proposal shall have complied with the applicable provisions of Chapter 620, Florida Statutes. Section VI.C) was entitled "evaluation team" and provided as follows: The evaluation team will be established to assist the Department in selecting the best Provider for the services set forth in this RFP. The evaluation team will have a minimum of five members. At least two of the members will be from outside the Department. The team will be responsible for proposal evaluation including reference checks and other verifications as required. Section VI.D) was entitled "Evaluation Sheet" and provided as follows: The evaluation sheet to be used by each evaluator may be found in Appendix I. The evaluation sheet lists evaluation criteria and the specific indicators of criteria [that] will be used to assess the degree to which the Respondent's proposal meets the criteria identified in Section VII. Evaluation sheets will be weighted so that each response to the RFP can be numerically valued and the results compared. The "evaluation sheet . . . found in Appendix I" listed the following awards:" "evaluation criteria" and "possible [point] ITEM POSSIBLE AWARD 1) References 2 2) Experience of Principals 2 3) Financial Statements 1 TECHNICAL SUBMISSION Notification of Holders and Holder Seminar 2 Holder Information 2 Annual Reports 2 Penalties and Extensions 2 Holder Information and Inquiries 2 Receipt of Reports & Reconciliation 3 Record Retention of Reports 2 Contacting Apparent Owners 1 Handling Inquiries 2 Origination of Claims 1 Receipt of Claims 1 Initial Processing of Claims 2 Processing and Payment of Claims 3 Exceptions 1 Tracking 1 Records 2 Automation 4 Security Plan 3 Implementation Plan 2 Disaster Recovery Plan 2 Reports Processing Flow Chart and Narrative Procedures 3 Section VI.E) of the RFP described the "evaluation procedure" that the Department would follow in assessing proposals. It provided as follows: The evaluation process will take place in five phases: Phase I- Meeting of mandatory requirements Phase II- Technical evaluation of proposals Phase III- Oral Presentation Phase IV- Public Opening and Evaluation of Fee Schedules Phase V- Posting of Final Results Phase I Mandatory Documentation Worth 0 Points Total During Phase I of the evaluation process the Contract Manger will carefully evaluate all the proposals to ensure that all mandatory documents have been submitted. Failure of any organization or entity to submit all mandatory items will result in that proposal being withdrawn from further consideration. Upon completion of Phase I of the evaluation process each evaluation team member will be provided the proposals to evaluate. Phase IIA. Technical Evaluation Worth 50 Points Total During Phase II of the evaluation process the evaluators will rate selected criteria from each proposal in regard to the RFP. Each area specified on the evaluation sheet will be given a subjective score based on how well the proposal answers the minimum specifications, on the innovativeness and clarity of the response and on any extra benefit to the State where responses exceed minimum specifications. After each evaluator has independently completed his evaluation sheet (see Appendix I) [t]he total assigned points for each proposal will be averaged across all five evaluators. B. Minority Business Participation Worth 10 Points Total If twenty-four percent or more of the Contract value- 10 points. If less than 24 percent, proposed percentage divided by twenty-four, times []103 No participation by Certified Minority Business Enterprises (CMBEs), no points The Department of Banking and Finance wishes to encourage award of the Contract, or subcontracting of portions of the Contract to, or purchase of good[s] and services from, State of Florida CMBEs. Each Respondent must state whether or not Respondent is a CMBE, and if not, what percentage of the total Contract price will be spent with CMBE firms who will be supplying them. The CMBE participation claimed in the technical proposal must be substantiated in the price proposal, or points assigned for the unsubstantiated CMBE participation will be withdrawn. NOTE: Not all minority business enterprises are presently certified by the State. However, only certified CMBEs will be considered in evaluating this portion of a Respondent's proposal. The Issuing Officer has a directory of CMBEs which is available for review upon request. Respondents may also obtain information of CMBEs by contacting: Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office 107 Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Telephone (904) 487-0915 The Contract Manager will average the points for each respondent upon completion of Phase II. Phase III Oral Presentations Worth 10 Points Total An oral presentation is required in accordance with the Calendar of Events. Respondents must address/discuss advantages/strengths of its proposal including but not limited to any of the following areas: Vendor Qualifications (Project experience/project team qualifications) Scope of Solution (Equipment/Software/Installation/Maintenance/ Training/Project Management and Liaison) The presentation will be allowed a maximum of four hours per Respondent and will be given to the assembled evaluation team who shall independently award points for the presentation. Presentations will be given in Room 547 of the Fletcher Building, Tallahassee, Florida. Points will be averaged across the evaluation team members. Phase IV Worth 30 Points Total The Fee Schedule must be submitted in a separate and sealed envelope and must be labeled "Request for Proposal for the Providing of Services for the Receipt and Processing of Unclaimed Property, RFP BF11/96-97." When Phases II and III have been completed and the scores averaged, the Purchasing Agent in accordance with the Calendar of Events will open the Fee Schedules. The Purchasing Agent will evaluate the fee schedules. The lowest cost proposal will be awarded a maximum of 30 points based on lowest overall cost (Block G on the Fee Schedule (Schedule J)). The instructions for filling out the form are as follows: The Abandoned Property Program has three easily measured outputs. The Department proposes to pay the Provider based on these three measurable outputs. Production under the contract may exceed anticipated levels in one output area but not in another. For that reason, Respondents are requested to estimate cost for each area of effort that is separately depicted on the Fee Schedule. The planned number of units for each area; 16,000 reports, 320,000 inquiries made by telephone, and 160,000 claims processed are the anticipated levels of effort for Fiscal Year 1997-98. The projected cost per unit in each area must include items that are ancillary or support functions associated with that portion of process. For example: The inquiries cost will be a per unit cost based on 320,000 transactions. For the inquiries section of the effort the measurable transaction will be defined as an incoming phone call on the 1-888/1-800 line. Ancillary or support services that must also be provided in the inquiries portion of the process would include, but not be limited to, such things as answering e-mail or surface mail inquiries, maintaining an Internet site, the amortized cost of the equipment placed in the public access spaces in Tallahassee, and the proportional cost of equipment, supplies and maintenance. The cost of inquiries support services will have to be figured into the gross cost of maintaining the inquiries section and then divided by 320,000 to arrive at a per unit cost. The gross cost of operating the inquiries unit must be entered into block D of the Fee Schedule. The per unit cost must be entered into block C. This procedure must be repeated for each of the three sections. The Provider will invoice the Department and be paid based upon performance of units performed in each area and the cost per unit. Costs under the contract may overrun the target amount in Block B or D or F but in no case shall the Provider without prior and specific written permission from the Department's Contract Manager exceed the block G amount. It is the responsibility of the Provider to keep the Contract Manager apprised of the status of the payments and to alert the Contract Manager as early as possible to the possibility that block B, D or F amounts may be exceeded. Add blocks B, D and F to get the total cost of the contract. Enter this figure in block G. Comparison between Respondent[]s will take place at the bottom line (Block G) Enter the annual cost of the equipment in the public records room (four workstations) and the proportional cost of the T-1 line into block H. The cost of the equipment and line identified in block H is for Departmental use only. The cost must included as an ancillary cost in block D. The purpose of this particular cost breakdown is to document contractor performance against measures of success. If activity in one area of the contract is significantly out of tolerance in comparison to expectation and it is evident that available funding will degrade performance, the Department may request increased spending authority based on performance to date. The Lowest Cost (LC) proposal block G divided by the Proposal being Considered (PC) block G cost will be multiplied by 30 to determine point value comparison. LC/PC x 30 = points for fee schedule In the event the result is not an integer, the values below .50 will be rounded down to the nearest integer. Values of .50 and above will be rounded up. The points awarded from the fee schedule evaluation will be added to the averaged scores of the evaluation team and used to determine the selection of a Provider. In the event of a tie the contract will be awarded in accordance with Section 60A-1.011, Florida Administrative Code (see Appendix K) The instructions for filling out the form are as follows: Example: Respondent A bids $3.0 M (block G) and Respondent B bids $4.0 M (block G) Respondent A gets: $3M/$3M x 30 = 30 points Respondent B gets: $3M/$4M x 30 = 23 points Phase V Posting Upon completion of Phase IV the intent to award will be posted at Room 250D of the Fletcher Building, 101 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Section VII. of the RFP listed the "documents required in submitting proposal." It provided as follows: For purposes of uniformity among proposals, documents must be arranged in this order. Original Form- PUR 7033 State of Florida- Request for Proposal Contractual Services Acknowledgment Designated Spokesperson for RFP The Respondent must designate, in writing, the official of the organization authorized to sign all applicable documents in this RFP. Proof of Legal Entity Respondent must provide evidence that the organization is a legal entity. Incorporated Respondents must provide either a copy of the corporation[']s[] most recent annual report on file with the appropriate state agency, or, if incorporated within the last 12 months, a copy of the corporation[']s[] Articles of Incorporation and Charter Number assigned by the appropriate agency. Businesses that are not incorporated must provide a copy of their business or occupational license. Partnerships must submit documentation of compliance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 620, Florida Statutes. The proposal must include a sworn and signed statement that the Respondent will comply with all the terms and conditions of the RFP and applicable addenda. Conflict of Interest This contract is subject of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes regarding conflict of interest. The proposal must include a signed statement that the Respondent has no conflict of interest. The Respondent must disclose the name of any State employee who owns directly or indirectly, an interest of five percent (5%) or more in the Respondent's firm or any of its subsidiaries. This shall be an ongoing requirement for the life of the contract and failure to comply will subject the contract to cancellation. Designated work site within Florida. The Respondent shall include the geographic location of the site where the processing of reports and claims will take place. The Respondent must include a minimum of three references on the integrity and honesty and responsibility of the firm and their experience in processing data, handling inquiries and processing claims for payment. Include satisfaction with services provided, and the ability of the contractor to adapt and adjust to changing requirements in an innovative and positive manner. The Respondent must include a chart of the organization, indicating how the Respondent's staff will fit into the total organization. The Respondent must include a resume/vita for each principal of the business who will perform professional services for the proposed project. Financial Statements- The Respondent must provide evidence of sufficient financial resources and stability to provide the short term financing needed by the State of Florida. At a minimum this evidence must include financial statements audited by a certified public accountant that includes balance sheets and income statements for the Respondent's two most recent fiscal years. These documents should break out subsidiary data if the Respondent is part of a larger entity. Technical submission in response to Section II Scope of Services of the RFP, organized in response to each subheading in Section II. Security plan Implementation plan in accordance with Appendix E Disaster recovery plan Reports and receipts processing flow chart and narrative procedures. Depict separation of duties. Claims processing and payment flow chart and narrative procedures. Depict separation of duties. Proof of insurability to $1,000,000.00 per employee theft or malfeasance. Drug Free Workplace Certification Preference for Offerors with Drug-free Workplace Program: Pursuant to Section 287.087, Florida Statutes, preference must be given to offerors which certify having a drug-free workplace whenever two or more proposals which are equal with respect to price, quality, and service are received. Offerors must sign and return Appendix L with the proposal to qualify for this preference. Completed Fee Schedule- Sealed in a separate envelope marked "Fee Schedule for RFP BF11/96-97" Addendum Acknowledgment Forms Appendix L to the RFP (reference to which was made in Section VII.R.) read as follows: IDENTICAL TIE PROPOSALS- Pursuant to Section 287.087, Florida Statutes, preference shall be given to businesses with drug-free workplace programs. Whenever two or more proposals which are equal with respect to price, quality, and service are received by the State for the procurement of commodities and contractual services, a proposal received from a business that certifies it has implemented a drug-free workplace program shall be given preference in the award process. Established procedures for processing tie proposals will be followed if none of the offerors have a drug-free workplace program. In order to have a drug- free workplace program, a business shall: Publish a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the workplace and specifying actions that will be taken against employees for violations of such prohibitions. Inform employees about the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace, the business's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace, any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs, and the penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations. Give each employee engaged in providing the commodities or contractual services that are under proposal a copy of the statement specified in paragraph 1. In the statement specified in paragraph 1., notify the employees that, as a condition of working on the commodities and contractual services that are under proposal, the employee will abide by the terms of the statement and will notify the employer of any conviction of, or plea of guilty or nolo contendre to, any violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, or of any controlled substance law of the United States or any state, for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction. Impose a sanction on, or require the satisfactory participation in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program if such is available in the employee's community, by any employee who is so convicted. Make a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of this program. In order to qualify for this tie proposal preference, this certification must be completed and submitted with the proposal. As the person authorized to sign the statement, I certify that the offeror complies fully with the above requirements. Offerors's Name: Signature Name- Typed or Printed Date Bidders' Conference A bidders' conference was conducted by the Department on February 4, 1997. Among those in attendance at the conference were representatives of SMSC and State Street Bank & Trust Company (State Street).4 Neither McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, nor Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., sent a representative to the conference. The following discussion concerning the subject of subcontracting took place at the conference: Q: Page 30, Part V, Section 14: Does this section prohibit any subcontracting, or only subcontracting for those tasks specifically addressed by the RFP? Only those specifically addressed with Department approval. Q: Bill Gavin [one of State Street's representatives at the conference]- If Provider is considering sub-contracting during the relationship of the proposed bid, what does the Provider do for approval? Peter DeVries [bureau chief of the Department's Bureau of Abandoned Property]- Spell out the parts of the contract that are anticipated to be subcontracted. This is to protect us from someone who is not a corporate entity coming in and saying that he can do the whole job and we find out he is not doing anything. He is using subcontractors and trying to manage them as a shell corporation. It should be part of the proposal. SMSC's Proposal SMSC submitted one of the two proposals the Department received in response to the RFP.5 SMSC's proposal contained the following statement concerning "minority business participation:" SMSC is not a Florida Certified Minority Business Enterprise (CMBE). However, SMSC intends to subcontract with Interim Personnel of North Florida, Inc., a CMBE. They are already performing on an existing contract with SMSC in our Panama City Servicing Center. Their certification is shown below. The participation of Interim Personnel is reflected in the completed fee schedule in Section 20. They will provide at least 10 percent of the contract value. They will provide employees who will be located in our Panama City Servicing Center. Additionally, some $500,000 in equipment purchasing will be offered to minority firms and procured from them if their prices are equal or less than our standard prices. We expect this to equal 3% of the contract award over the life of the contract. The completed Fee Schedule (Appendix J) that SMSC submitted as part of its proposal reflected (in Block G) a "total annual cost" of $4,800,000.00 and (in Blocks J and K) "total annual CMBE purchases" of $980,000.00, amounting to 20.42% of the "total annual cost." The Other Proposal The cover page of the other proposal that the Department received in response to the RFP, which hereinafter will be referred to as the "MGS Proposal," indicated that it was "[p]resented by McGladrey & Garcia, Joint Venture [and] State Street Bank & Trust Company."6 Printed at the bottom of various pages of the MGS Proposal were "McGladrey and Garcia, Joint Venture/State Street Bank & Trust Company." The MGS Proposal contained an introductory letter signed by Mark Jones of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, J. Edward Del Rio of Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., and William Gavin of State Street, which read, in part as follows: McGladrey & Garcia, JV, with its subcontractor, State Street Bank & Trust, is pleased to present its response to RFP BF11/96-97: Services for the Receipt and Processing of Unclaimed Property. The McGladrey/State Street team is exceptionally well qualified to assume responsibility for administering the State of Florida's Abandoned Property program. Our team brings the following experience and resources to this contract: . . . Experience of the Team: McGladrey & Garcia JV is a joint venture between McGladrey & Pullen LLP, and Garcia & Ortiz, PA. . . McGladrey & Pullen is the nation's 7th largest accounting and consulting firm. . . . Garcia & Ortiz is one of the largest independent accounting and consulting firms in the State of Florida. . . . State Street Bank & Trust is one of the leading servicers of financial assets in the world. . . . Section A. of the MGS Proposal contained a completed Original Form PUR 7033. Typed in under "vendor name" on the form were "McGladrey & Pullen, LLP[,] Garcia & Ortiz, P.A. and State S[t]reet Bank." The form included the following certification, which was signed by Mark Jones in his capacity as "[p]artner:" I certify that this proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation, firm, or person submitting a proposal for the same contractual services, and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this proposal for the proposer and that the proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal, including but not limited to, certification requirements. In submitting a proposal to an agency of the State of Florida, the proposer offers and agrees that if the proposal is accepted, the proposer will convey, sell, transfer to the State of Florida all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may now or hereafter acquire under the Anti-trust laws of the United States and the State of Florida for price fixing relating to the particular commodities or services purchased or acquired by the State of Florida. At the State's discretion, such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the purchasing agency tenders final payment to the proposer. Section B. of the MGS Proposal contained the following statement: Designated Spokesperson for RFP Mark A. Jones, a Partner of McGladrey & Pullen is authorized to negotiate and sign all applicable documents in the RFP, and any contractual documents that are party to this contract between the State of Florida and McGladrey & Pullen, LLP and Garcia & Ortiz, P.A.7 In Section C. of the MGS Proposal (dealing with "proof of legal entity"), reference was made to "the members of our team, including McGladrey & Pullen, Garcia & Ortiz, and State Street Bank." No mention was made of the McGladrey & Garcia Joint Venture, nor was any proof of the joint venture's existence as a legal entity included (along with the documentation that was provided relating to McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Garcia & Ortiz, P.A. and State Street), in this section of the proposal. The following witnessed, but unsworn, statement, signed by Mark Jones (and the witness), constituted Section D. of the MGS Proposal: Compliance With Terms and Conditions of RFP I, Mark A. Jones, Partner of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, acknowledge and agree that we will comply with all terms and conditions of the RFP and applicable addenda. Section E. of the MGS Proposal consisted of an unsigned statement regarding "conflict of interest," which read, in part, as follows: Conflict of Interest Conflicts We understand that this contract is being awarded subject to the provisions of Chapter 112, Florida [S]tatutes. We affirmatively state that no officer, director, employee or agency of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP; Garcia & Ortiz, PA; or State Street Bank is also an officer or an employee of the Department, the State of Florida, or any of its agencies. We affirmatively state that no state officer or any employee owns, directly or indirect[ly], an interest of five percent (5%) or more of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP; Garcia & Ortiz, PA; or State Street Bank. We affirmatively state that neither McGladrey & Pullen, LLP; Garcia & Ortiz, PA; or State Street Bank paid, or will pay, any compensation to any employee, agent, lobbyist, previous employee of the Department or any other person who has registered or is required to register under Section 112.3215, Florida Statutes, in seeking to influence the actions of the Department in connection with this procurement. Litigation McGladrey & Pullen, LLP: . . . Garcia & Ortiz, PA: . . . State Street Bank: . . . The McGladrey and Garcia Joint Venture was not mentioned in this section of the MGS Proposal. Section F. of the MGS Proposal discussed a "designated work site within Florida." It read as follows: Designated Work Site Within Florida We propose to house our Unclaimed Property Processing operation in Tallahassee. We have identified seven suitable sites within a five mile radius of the Fletcher Building, and we will make our final selection upon notification of contract award. Although McGladrey & Pullen and its network affiliates have 10 offices in Florida that could house the Unclaimed Property Processing Function, the advantages of establishing our facility in Tallahassee are compelling. Our outsourcing experience has conclusively shown us that physical proximity is essential. Technology is wonderful, but nothing is an effective substitute for personal communication. We fully expect that during the transition period we will be meeting several times each week with the Department's oversight people, and there will routinely be the need to meet on short notice to resolve issues or special situations. Driving one or two hours to accomplish these meetings places an unnecessary roadblock to success. Further, we anticipate that the need for close, personal communication will continue throughout the term of the contract. The RFP refers to a number of future initiatives in technology, operations, and outreach. Close coordination between the Department and us is required; this will be greatly facilitated by placing our operation in Tallahassee. In addition, ongoing contract oversight and issues resolution (either holders or claimants) will be made much easier with a Tallahassee location. Finally, we will be seeking selected staff of the State's Unclaimed Property Bureau who will lose their jobs as a result of the outsourcing contract. We have successfully done this on other outsourcing contracts to the mutual benefit of us, the displaced employees, and client. Maintaining the operation in Tallahassee will greatly enhance our ability to attract good people to a career opportunity with our firm. In Section G. of the MGS Proposal, the qualifications of the "McGladrey/State Street team" were described. The McGladrey & Garcia Joint Venture, McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., and State Street were all mentioned in this section of the proposal. Individuals expected to play key roles in the delivery of services under the contract, if awarded, were identified in Section H. of the MGS Proposal. The resumes of these individuals, who included employees of the McGladrey & Garcia Joint Venture, McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., and State Street, were set forth in Section I. of the MGS Proposal. Section J. of the MGS Proposal contained unaudited financial statements for McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., and State Street Boston Corporation (identified in Section J. as "a division within State Street Bank & Trust Company.")8 In Section Q. of the MGS Proposal, written proof of the insurability of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., and State Street Boston Corporation was provided. Section R. of the MGS Proposal consisted of a completed, signed (by Mark Jones) and dated (February 25, 1997) "Certification of Drug-Free Workplace Program" (Appendix L). Typed in on the line where the "[o]fferor's [n]ame" was to be indicated were "McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Garcia & Ortiz, P.A. and State Street Bank." Section S. of the MGS Proposal contained a completed Fee Schedule (Appendix J), which reflected (in Block G) a "total annual cost" of $7,520,000.00. Attached to this completed Fee Schedule was the following written statement: The firm or Garcia & Ortiz, P.A. is a certified Minority Business Enterprise (CMBE), certified by the Florida Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance office. Attached is a copy of the certification. Forty percent of the contract value will be spent with Garcia & Ortiz, P.A. Evaluation of the SMSC and MGS Proposals Both SMSC's proposal and the MGS Proposal were deemed to be responsive to the RFP. Copies of the two proposals, along with copies of the RFP, were submitted to the evaluation team on March 3, 1997. Phase IIA. A team of five evaluators evaluated the two proposals submitted in response to the RFP for technical merit. SMSC's proposal received scores of 23, 48, 49, 50 and 47 from the evaluation team members for a point total of 217, which, when "[a]veraged across all five evaluators," in accordance with the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP, yields a score of 43.4 for Phase IIA. ("Technical Evaluation") of the "evaluation procedure." The MGS Proposal received scores of 50, 45, 50, 50 and 44 from the evaluation team members for a point total of 239, which, when "[a]veraged across all five evaluators," yields a score of 47.8. for Phase IIA. Although the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP made no provision for "rounding" the "averaged scores of the evaluation team," the Department, in determining the amount of points to be awarded for Phase IIA., "rounded down" the SMSC score (of 43.4) to 43 and "rounded up" the MGS score (of 47.8) to 48. Phase IIB. In calculating the number of points to award SMSC's proposal for Phase IIB. ("Minority Business Participation") of the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP, the Department used the "proposed percentage" of "Annual Contract to CMBE" (20.42) indicated in Block K of the completed Fee Schedule (Appendix J) that SMSC submitted as part of its proposal. The "proposed percentage" reflected participation by Interim Personnel of North Florida, Inc., ("10 percent of contract value," which, on an annual basis, would amount to $480,000.00) and, in addition, the "$500,000 in equipment purchasing" that SMSC represented in its proposal would "be offered to minority firms and procured from them if their prices [we]re equal or less than [SMSC's] standard prices." Dividing SMSC's "proposed percentage" by 24 and multiplying the result by 10 yields a score of 8.508, which the Department "rounded up" to 9, notwithstanding that Phase IIB. of the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP made no provision for "rounding." If SMSC had received "Minority Business Participation" credit only for Interim Personnel of North Florida, Inc.'s, proposed participation in the project (and not for the "$500,000 in equipment purchas[es]" it indicated it would make, under certain conditions, from "minority firms" (hereinafter referred to as the "Minority Equipment Purchases"), it would have received, in accordance with the provisions of Section VI.E) of the RFP, 4.16 points for Phase IIB. Because the MGS Proposal provided for "Minority Business Particiapation" in excess of 24% of the "contract value," it was awarded the maximum number of points (10) for Phase IIB. Phase III Oral presentations were made (to the evaluation team) in support of each of the two proposals submitted in response to the RFP. The oral presentation made in support of SMSC's proposal received scores of 6, 10, 9, 5 and 10 from the evaluation team members for a point total of 40, which, when "[a]veraged across the evaluation team members," in accordance with the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP, yields a score of 8 for Phase III. ("Oral Presentations ") of the "evaluation procedure." The oral presentation made in support of the MGS Proposal received scores of 10, 5, 8, 10 and 5 from the evaluation team members for a point total of 38, which, when "[a]veraged across the evaluation team members," yields a score of 7.6 for Phase III. Although the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP made no provision for "rounding" the "averaged scores of the evaluation team," the Department, in determining the amount of points to be awarded for Phase III, "rounded up" the MGS score (of 7.6) to 8. Phase IV Of the two proposals submitted in response to the RFP, SMSC's proposal was the "lowest cost (LC)." Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of Section VI.E) of the RFP, it was awarded the maximum number of points (30) for Phase IV of the "evaluation procedure." Dividing the amount in Block G on SMSC's completed Fee Schedule (Appendix J) by the amount in Block G on the completed Fee Schedule submitted as part of the MGS Proposal and multiplying the result by 30 yields a score of 19.148, which the Department "rounded down" to 19 in accordance with the provisions of Phase IV of the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP, which, unlike the provisions of Phases II and III, provide for "rounding" when "the result is not an integer" ("down," in the case of "values below .50," and "up," in the case of "[v]alues of .50 and above.") Total Points for Phases IIA., IIB., III and IV According to the Department's calculations9 (which were determined, in writing, by its Office of the General Counsel, to have been "in substantial compliance10 with the evaluation methodology set forth in the RFP"), SMSC's point total for Phases IIA., IIB., III and IV combined was 90, compared to 85 for the MGS proposal. Had the Department not used the "rounding" provisions of Phase IV to calculate the points awarded for Phases IIA., Phase IIB. and Phase III, and had it determined (as Petitioners allege it should have) that the only CMBE participation for which SMSC was entitled to receive "Minority Business Participation" credit was the proposed ("10 percent of the contract value") participation of Interim Personnel of North Florida, Inc., SMSC would have received 85.56 total points for Phases IIA., IIB., III and IV combined, compared to 84.40 for the MGS proposal. Notice of Intended Award On March 18, 1997, the Department posted a bid/proposal tabulation sheet indicating its intent to award SMSC a contract pursuant to the RFP. The bid/proposal tabulation sheet reflected that the combined point totals for SMSC's proposal and the MGS Proposal were 90 and 85 points, respectively. Petitioners' Protest On March 20, 1997, Petitioners filed their Notice of Protest with the Department. The notice was filed within 72 hours after posting of the bid/proposal tabulation sheet. On March 28, 1997, (which was within ten days after the filing of the notice), Petitioners filed their formal written protest challenging the intended award of the contract advertised in the RFP to SMSC.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioners' protest of the Department's decision to award the contract advertised in RFP No. BF11/96-97 to SMSC. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1997.
