The Issue The issue in this bid protest matter is whether the decision of Respondent, Department of Transportation, to award the contract for the Centralized Customer Service System to Intervenor, Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., over Petitioner, Accenture, LLP, was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with planning, acquiring, leasing, constructing, maintaining, and operating toll facilities and cooperating with and assisting local governments in the development of a statewide transportation system. §§ 334.044(16)-(22), Fla. Stat. (2015).3/ The Department is authorized to enter contracts and agreements to help fulfill these duties. §§ 20.23(6) and 334.044(7), Fla. Stat. FTE is a legislatively created arm of the Department and is authorized to plan, develop, own, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, demolish, construct, improve, relocate, equip, repair, maintain, operate, and manage the Florida Turnpike System. FTE is authorized to cooperate, coordinate, partner, and contract with other entities, public and private, to accomplish these purposes. § 338.2216(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The Department has the express power to employ the procurement methods available to the Department of Management Services under chapter 287, Florida Statutes. § 338.2216(2), Fla. Stat. On November 1, 2013, the Department advertised the ITN, soliciting Proposals from vendors interested in participating in competitive negotiations for the award of a contract to provide a Customer Service System and associated Operations and Maintenance. The Department issued the ITN pursuant to section 287.057, Florida Statutes. The Department did not receive any challenges to the ITN specifications.4/ The Customer Service System is expected to process nearly all electronic toll transactions in Florida. It will be designed to replace not only the FTE's existing customer service center systems (or "back offices"), but the back office operations for the other three local tolling agencies in Florida as well. These local tolling agencies include the Central Florida Expressway (formerly known as the Orlando–Orange County Expressway Authority), the Miami–Dade Expressway Authority, and the Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority (collectively the "Local Authorities"). Under the terms of the ITN, the contract will include all systems and services connected with the customer service operations of toll roads and the payment of tolls to the FTE and Local Authorities including: processing and billing of transactions; identification of the registered owners of vehicles; operational and financial reconciliation; comprehensive system reporting; and website, mobile website, mobile app, and interactive voice response. The FTE, which oversees all Department tolling activities in the state, will execute and manage the Customer Service System contract. Through the ITN, the Department will enter a contract directly with the successful vendor. Thereafter, the Department will enter agreements with the Local Authorities to coordinate the joint use of the new tolling system. The initial contract term for the Customer Service System is seven years. Generally, the Department's ITN set forth a solicitation process consisting of two phases. Phase one involved: (a) the prequalification or short-listing of vendors to determine vendors' eligibility to submit Proposals; and (b) following Proposal submissions, the Department's evaluation and ranking of the vendors' Proposals. Phase two of the ITN is the negotiation phase which would culminate in the Department's award of the Customer Service System contract to the vendor that the Department determined would provide the "best value to the state." The ITN, section 2.26, NEGOTIATION PROCESS (as amended by Addendum 8), outlines the specific steps for the Department's solicitation and provides: Once Proposers have been ranked in accordance with Section 2.6.2 Proposal Evaluation, the Department will proceed with negotiations in accordance with the negotiation process described below. Proposers should be cognizant of the fact that the Department reserves the right to finalize negotiations at any time in the process that the Department determines that such election would be in the best interest of the State. Step 1: Follow the evaluation process and rank Proposals as outlined in Section 2.6 Evaluation Process. Step 2: The ranking will be posted, in accordance with the law (see Section 2.27), stating the Department's intent to negotiate and award a contract to the highest ranked Proposer that reaches an acceptable agreement with the Department. Step 3: Once the posting period has ended, the Negotiation Team will undertake negotiations with the first-ranked Proposer until an acceptable Contract is established, or it is determined an acceptable agreement cannot be achieved with such Proposer. If negotiations fail with the first-ranked Proposer, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked Proposer, and so on until there is an agreement on an acceptable Contract. The Department reserves the option to resume negotiations that were previously suspended. Negotiation sessions are not open to the public and all negotiation sessions will be recorded by the Department. Step 4: The Negotiation Team will write a short plain statement for the procurement file that explains the basis for Proposer selection and how the Proposer's deliverables and price will provide the best value to the state. Step 5: The Department will contract with the selected Proposer. Section 2.27.1 of the ITN, Ranking/Intended Award, provides that "[t]he Ranking/Intended Award will be made to the responsive and responsible Proposer that is determined to be capable of providing the best value and best meet the needs of the Department." Per ITN, sections 2.6 and 2.26, Step 1, the Department created a Technical Review Team and a Selection Committee which evaluated and ranked the Proposals in order of preference based on the vendors' technical approach and capabilities. The Selection Committee ranked Xerox first followed by Petitioner, then Cubic. The Selection Committee based its decision on Xerox's proven experience with other similar and large tolling projects, including some of the country's largest tolling systems. The Selection Committee further explained that, of the three vendors, only Xerox has fully operational tolling systems in the United States, bringing a "'comfort level' that did not exist with [Petitioner] and Cubic."5/ Thereafter, per ITN, section 2.26, Step 2, on April 10, 2014, the Department posted its ranking of vendors with Xerox first, Petitioner second, and Cubic third. The posting also announced the Department's intent to commence "sequential" negotiations. Under this process, the Department would start negotiations with Xerox as the first-ranked vendor. If negotiations with Xerox failed, the Department would then begin negotiations with Petitioner as the second-ranked vendor, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department negotiated an acceptable agreement. Phase one of the solicitation, which involved section 2.26, Steps 1 and 2 above, was the subject of a prior bid protest in DOAH Case No. 14-2322BID before ALJ Linzie F. Bogan (the "First Protest"). Following the Department's ranking of vendors and its notice of intent to initiate negotiations with Xerox on April 10, 2014, Petitioner and Cubic each filed formal bid protests. Following an administrative hearing, ALJ Bogan entered a Recommended Order recommending that Petitioner and Cubic's bid protests be dismissed. The Department issued a Final Order on October 6, 2014, adopting ALJ Bogan's Recommended Order in its entirety. As Petitioner and Cubic protested the Department's decision to enter negotiations with Xerox, and because of the automatic stay provision of section 120.57(3), the Department never commenced the negotiation phase (phase two) of the procurement as detailed in the ITN, section 2.26, Steps 3 and 4. However, once all litigation involving the First Protest concluded in January 2015, the Department continued with the solicitation process for the ITN.6/ The current bid protest proceeding relates only to phase two of the solicitation process, i.e., Steps 3, 4, and 5 above. Therefore, the undersigned specifically reviewed the negotiation phase of the Department's solicitation and the Department's ultimate decision to award the Customer Service System contract to Xerox. The Department initiated the negotiations phase for the ITN on February 9, 2015. The negotiations were conducted by a Negotiation Team appointed by Department Secretary, Jim Boxold, on February 9, 2015, in accordance with the requirements of section 287.057(16). Section 287.057(16)(a) provides that the agency head shall appoint "[a]t least three persons to evaluate Proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought." The Negotiation Team included: Sheree Merting, FTE's Contractual Services Administrator; Tim Garrett, the tolls program manager for HNTB Corporation ("HNTB"), which is a subcontractor for FTE; and John McCarey, of McCarey Consulting, a sub-consultant to FTE general engineering contractor, Atkins North America, Inc. Mr. Garrett was the project manager for the Customer Service System project. Mr. McCarey would serve as the chief negotiator. Ms. Merting is a Florida certified contract negotiator, a Florida certified contract manager, and a Florida certified contract purchasing manager. Ms. Merting has significant procurement experience with the FTE, including prior experience serving on a negotiation team. Mr. Garrett is employed by HNTB, an engineering consulting firm that provides tolling operations consultation to FTE. His full-time assignment for HNTB is as the tolls program manager for the FTE. Mr. Garrett has extensive knowledge of tolling systems and the software technology that the vendors presented in response to the ITN. Mr. Garrett was the project manager for the Customer Service System procurement and, together with Ms. Merting, oversaw the ITN procurement process from its inception. Mr. Garrett was familiar with the technical aspects of the ITN and was aware of the technology required to transfer the current back office system to the Customer Service System. Mr. McCarey has an extensive background in the transportation and tolling business and has participated in numerous contract negotiations for tolling system contracts. Mr. McCarey formerly worked for Lockheed Corporation for approximately 25 years, serving for a time as its chief operations officer who oversaw its transportation and tolling lines of business. Thereafter, he worked for five years for Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. ("ACS"), serving at one point as the chief financial officer for ACS's State and Local Solutions Group, which managed its tolling business. Mr. McCarey departed ACS in 2006. Xerox acquired ACS two years after Mr. McCarey left. The Negotiation Team's task, as stated in the ITN, section 2.26, Step 3, was to undertake negotiations with the first-ranked Proposer (Xerox) until it established an acceptable contract. If the Negotiation Team did not reach an acceptable agreement with the first-ranked Proposer, the Negotiation Team was to begin negotiations with the second-ranked Proposer (Petitioner), and so on until it achieved an acceptable contract. Once the Negotiation Team agreed with a Proposer on an acceptable contract, per the ITN, section 2.26, Step 4, it was to make a recommendation to the Department explaining how that Proposer would be the "best value to the state." The Negotiation Team was not to reevaluate the vendor Proposals or rankings previously conducted by the Technical Review Team and Selection Committee. Rather, the Negotiation Team was tasked to negotiate a contract with the first-ranked Proposer as listed on the Selection Committee's ranking and continue the process of determining the "best value to the state." The Negotiation Team members were aware that the Technical Review Team and Selection Committee considered the ITN, section 2.5.2, "Best Value Selection" criteria when they evaluated and ranked Proposals. The ITN, section 2.5.2 provides: The Department intends to contract with the responsive and responsible short-listed Proposer whose Proposal is determined to provide the best value to the Department. "Best value," as defined in Section 287.012(4), F.S., means the highest overall value to the state, based on objective factors that include but are not limited to: Company history Project experience and qualifications Proposed Project approach to the technical requirements Proposed approach to the Project plan and implementation Proposed approach to System Maintenance Proposed approach to Operations and performance Price Because the Technical Review Team and the Selection Committee had already evaluated each Proposal under the ITN selection criteria, the Negotiation Team did not revisit each technical issue listed in the ITN, section 2.5.2. The Negotiation Team's purpose was to negotiate with the vendor the Selection Committee ranked first. Nevertheless, the Negotiation Team members attended the vendors' oral presentations during the rankings phase of the procurement. They also reviewed the Technical Review Team's written evaluation summaries, as well as the vendors' Proposals. The Negotiation Team also considered Xerox's prior relevant experience in similar projects as required by section 287.057(1)(c)3. The ITN, section 2.24.2, Technical Proposal Section 9, required vendors, in their technical Proposals, to identify any exceptions and assumptions. "Exceptions" pertained to any and all exceptions Proposers had to the ITN terms and conditions. "Assumptions" related to any assumptions vendors' relied upon to develop their proposed contract price. Section 2.24.2, Technical Proposal Section 9, explained that the Department was not obligated to accept any vendors' exceptions and that the Department would consider any exceptions during the evaluation process at the Department's sole discretion. Section 2.24.2, Technical Proposal Section 9, provides: Technical Proposal Section 9: Exceptions and Assumptions If Proposers take exception to Contract terms and conditions, such exceptions must be specified, detailed and submitted under this Proposal section in a separate, signed certification. The Department is under no obligation to accept the exceptions to the stated Contract terms and conditions. Proposers shall not identify any exceptions in the Price Proposal. All exceptions should be noted in the certification provided for in Proposal Section 9. Proposers shall not include any assumptions in their Price Proposals. Any assumptions should be identified and documented in this Section 9 of the Proposal. Any assumptions included in the Price Proposals will not be considered by the Department as a part of the Proposal and will not be evaluated or included in any Contract between the Department and the Proposer, should the Proposer be selected to perform the Work. Failure to take exception in the manner set forth above shall be deemed a waiver of any objection. Exceptions may be considered during the Proposal evaluation process at the sole discretion of the Department. As allowed by the ITN, section 2.24.2, all vendors included a detailed listing of exceptions and assumptions in their Proposals. The Department intended to address the exceptions and assumptions during the negotiation phase of the procurement process. From the Negotiation Team's perspective, if the Negotiation Team resolved Xerox's exceptions and assumptions favorably to the Department, received acceptable answers to any questions regarding Xerox's Proposal, and obtained a price reduction, then the Negotiation Team would have achieved a contract that represented the "best value to the state." To accomplish its task, Mr. Garrett developed a comprehensive list of topics to guide the negotiations. From a practical standpoint, Mr. Garrett's list became the agenda for the Negotiation Team's first negotiation meeting with Xerox. The list addressed all of the exceptions and assumptions Xerox included in its Proposal, as well as the Negotiation Team's questions about Xerox's Proposal. On February 10, 2015, the Negotiation Team initiated negotiations with Xerox as the first-ranked Proposer. The negotiation sessions, some lasting multiple days, occurred in February, March, April, and May of 2015, and entailed approximately 80 hours of meetings. These meetings included face-to-face engagements between the Negotiation Team and Xerox, as well as internal strategy meetings between the Negotiation Team members where Xerox was not present. Negotiation meetings also were periodically attended by various personnel from the Local Authorities and HNTB who provided input to the Negotiation Team throughout the process. During these meetings, the Negotiation Team discussed negotiation points and reviewed information gathered from Xerox. During the negotiation meetings with Xerox, the Negotiation Team addressed each exception and assumption Xerox submitted with its Proposal. The Negotiation Team rejected most of Xerox's exceptions. However, the Negotiation Team did agree to certain exceptions that it believed would benefit the Department or improve the Customer Service System. These benefits included (1) the tolling system's potential inter- operability with other states' tolling systems, (2) a clause requiring at least 120 days' notice to exercise the contract renewal option, (3) the Department's access to Xerox's software source code to increase the Department's ability to operate and modify the system should Xerox cease to serve as the contracted vendor, and (4) limiting the use of interactive voice response ("IVR") technology to only customer service and not for user account set-up due to the frequency of errors associated with IVR usage. No evidence shows that the exceptions and assumptions the Negotiation Team accepted were detrimental to the Department. Neither did any evidence indicate that the exceptions the Negotiation Team approved would negatively impact the operational performance of the tolling system or increase the cost or risk to the Department. The Negotiation Team and Xerox also reviewed "in excruciating detail" every Department question about Xerox's Proposal. At the final hearing, Mr. McCarey recounted that the Negotiation Team wanted to ensure that "the record was clear as to what Xerox was actually going to provide as a result of their Proposal." By the conclusion of its negotiations, the Negotiation Team had thoroughly negotiated the exceptions and assumptions with Xerox and clarified all questions it had about Xerox's Proposal. In addition to favorably resolving all issues related to Xerox's exceptions and assumptions, the Negotiation Team obtained a significant price reduction from Xerox. At the Negotiation Team's insistence, Xerox agreed to reduce the price of its Proposal by over $20 million (roughly 3.5 percent). The Negotiation Team considered this price reduction a "big deal." The Department did not make any concessions to Xerox in negotiating the exceptions or assumptions. The Department was going to pay less for the Customer Service System contract and receive the same services from Xerox. Also during the negotiations, the Negotiation Team scrutinized Xerox's performance on two of its existing customer service system contracts. The first contract was Xerox's back office system for the SunRail commuter rail system operating in the Department's District 5 in the Orlando area. Prior to negotiations, Negotiation Team members became aware that the Xerox SunRail system was experiencing problems. Therefore, to address any concerns that these issues might manifest in Xerox's performance on the Customer Service System contract, the Negotiation Team required the Xerox personnel responsible for the SunRail system to attend the first negotiation session. The Negotiation Team directed Xerox to provide an overview of the SunRail difficulties and discuss how Xerox was addressing those issues. During the course of the negotiations, the Negotiation Team determined that Xerox's SunRail "transit" system was significantly different from its proposed FTE "tolling" system. The Negotiation Team learned that the SunRail system's account management and back office operations materially differed from the back office system Xerox planned to implement for the Customer Service System contract. SunRail is a transactional or card-based system. SunRail customers (commuters) purchase tickets ("fare media") from ticket vending machines for use on a transit (train) transportation system. The SunRail back office processes money stored by commuters on fare media. By contrast, the Customer Service System contract involves a "tolling" system for motor vehicles. In a tolling system, customers use electronic transponders, such as a SunPass or E-Pass transponder, mounted in or on their vehicle as they drive through a tolling plaza. The Customer Service System would also include a video transaction component where a photo or video might be taken of a vehicle license plate as it passes through the tolling plaza. The license plate information is processed by the back office to determine whether the driver's prepaid account may be charged for the transaction. If no customer account is associated with the vehicle tag, the driver is sent an invoice. The Negotiation Team discovered that the SunRail back office customer service problems primarily involved the operation of SunRail ticket vending machines. Ticket vending machines would not be used in the Customer Service System motor vehicle tolling operations. The Negotiation Team further ascertained that the Xerox business unit that would run the Customer Service System tolling system is a separate, independent business unit from the Xerox division that operates the SunRail transit system. The two business units would employ different personnel, different management teams, different reporting processes, and different technology. Moreover, the Negotiation Team determined that the technology Xerox used to operate the SunRail transit system is "very new" technology. Conversely, the account management product Xerox intends to use for the Customer Service System contract is its VECTOR 4G tolling technology. The VECTOR 4G system is a well-established product in the toll collection industry. The VECTOR 4G system is used by multiple state agencies and in some of the largest toll collection systems in the United States, including New York, New Jersey, California, and Texas. Fundamentally, the VECTOR 4G back office system tracks customer prepaid accounts from which money is withdrawn and replenished for transactions being processed. Xerox's longstanding operation of VECTOR 4G-based systems, as well as its status as one of the largest providers of back office electronic tolling systems in the United States, became a key factor in the Negotiation Team's ultimate determination that Xerox's Proposal provides the "best value to the state." Nonetheless, to alleviate any Department concerns and provide additional incentive for Xerox to perform as expected on the Customer Service System contract, the Negotiation Team took advantage of the negotiation process to strengthen the Department's position on the SunRail contract. The Negotiation Team demanded Xerox agree to a "cross-default" provision that would allow the Department to default Xerox and terminate the Customer Service System contract if Xerox defaulted on its responsibilities on the SunRail contract. The Negotiation Team believed the cross-default provision would pressure Xerox to ensure that it performed its duties under the smaller SunRail contract, as well as provide added protection on the Customer Service System contract. Although initially resistant, Xerox ultimately agreed to the addition of a cross-default provision to the Customer Service System contract. The second Xerox contract the Negotiation Team reviewed was a similar tolling system Xerox currently operates for the Texas Department of Transportation ("TxDOT"). The Negotiation Team followed up on reports it received regarding problems TxDOT was experiencing with its Xerox tolling system. The Negotiation Team learned that the TxDOT issues primarily concerned data migration from prior tolling system accounts. These issues, however, did not arise from Xerox's system. They primarily resulted from TxDOT's specific instruction to Xerox to collect outstanding tolling fees and fines that were two years old and had never been processed or invoiced by the previous vendor. In addition, the Negotiation Team learned that the issues with the TxDOT databases resulted from the use of duplicate accounts and database sources that were much larger than what Xerox would experience with the FTE. Following its review, the Negotiation Team was satisfied with Xerox's approach to data migration for the FTE and was not concerned that Xerox's issues with TxDOT would impact Xerox's management and operation of the Customer Service System contract. Ultimately, after considering all the problems Xerox experienced managing the SunRail and TxDOT contracts, the Negotiation Team concluded that any performance issues on the SunRail and TxDOT systems would not negatively impact or occur with the Customer Service System contract. Thereafter, the Negotiation Team concluded that Xerox could successfully implement and perform the toll collection system it proposed in response to the ITN. At the conclusion of negotiations with Xerox, the Negotiation Team members were confident that Xerox could deliver the toll collection system it proposed. All three Negotiation Team members agreed that the two sides had resolved all outstanding exceptions and assumptions, as well as questions regarding Xerox's Proposal. Further, the Negotiation Team reconciled to their satisfaction any lingering concerns about the SunRail and TxDOT tolling contracts. The Negotiation Team members were also very pleased with Xerox's $20 million contract price reduction.7/ Accordingly, the Negotiation Team believed that it had achieved an acceptable agreement with Xerox that was beneficial to the Department and consistent with the ITN. Therefore, the Negotiation Team made a final determination that Xerox provided the "best value to the state" and should be awarded the Customer Service System contract. In accordance with the ITN's "sequential" negotiation process detailed in ITN, section 2.26, step 3, the Negotiation Team only negotiated with Xerox, the first-ranked vendor. Once the Negotiation Team believed that it had established an acceptable contract with Xerox, it never initiated negotiations with Petitioner, the second-ranked vendor. Consequently, Petitioner was never provided the opportunity that Xerox received during the negotiation process to address any issues related to its exceptions and assumptions, answer any questions about its Proposal, or reduce its Proposal price. Upon negotiating an acceptable contract with Xerox, Mr. McCarey, with input from the other Negotiation Team members, prepared a written recommendation memorandum (the "Recommendation Memorandum") setting forth the Negotiation Team's recommendation for the Department to award the Customer Service System contact to Xerox. The Recommendation Memorandum, entitled "Recommendation of Negotiation Team to Diane Scaccetti, Executive Director of the FTE," included background information on the negotiation, a summary of the negotiation, a review of the Negotiation Team's objectives and strategy, and the basis for its recommendation of Xerox. The Recommendation Memorandum cited to several key factors, including Xerox's prior relevant experience in operating high-volume toll service centers, as well as the approximately $20 million contract price reduction. Mr. McCarey summed up the Recommendation Memorandum by writing: Recommendation As a result of the actions of the Technical Review committee, the selection committee, and the negotiations as noted previously, as well as, all of the recorded meetings, the negotiating team believes it is in the best interest of the state to contract with Xerox for the [Customer Service System] contract, as providing the best value resulting from the ITN process. Xerox's experience in operating high volume toll service centers and the negotiating team's negotiated price reduction, were key factors in arriving at the negotiating team's recommendation. Mr. McCarey concluded the Recommendation Memorandum with one additional recommendation that the Department establish a "peer review contract." Mr. McCarey wrote that: the team would also like to see the Turnpike engage an outside party, knowledgeable in large systems development and possessing toll industry experience to do a peer review of the Proposal, contract, schedule, etc to ensure the Turnpike has identified all risks, and recommend any improvements that may improve the success of the project moving forward. Recognizing that this ITN procurement involved the largest back office system in the United States for tolling, the Negotiation Team believed that it would be prudent for the Department to consider obtaining additional oversight to ensure that no issues or risks were overlooked during the procurement process. The ITN did not require a peer review contract. The Negotiation Team considered this recommendation independent and separate from its official recommendation to award the contract to Xerox as the "best value." The peer review recommendation was not based on the Negotiation Team's concern over whether Xerox could perform the Customer Service System contract. The Negotiation Team felt the Department could choose to implement, or not implement, a peer review as it so determined. On June 2, 2015, the Department scheduled a public meeting to announce its notice of intent to award the Customer Service System contract. At that meeting, Mr. McCarey read the Recommendation Memorandum aloud to Ms. Scaccetti, who was present for the meeting. Ms. Scaccetti, in her capacity as FTE Executive Director, was delegated the general authority from the Secretary of the Department to award and execute contracts issued by the Department. As explained in the Recommended Memorandum, the Negotiation Team recommended that the Department award the Customer Service System contract to Xerox as the best value proposer. After Mr. McCarey read the Recommendation Memorandum, Ms. Scaccetti asked each Negotiation Team member if they concurred with the recommendation. Each member confirmed that they did. With that, Ms. Scaccetti accepted the recommendation to award the Customer Service System contract to Xerox as the best value proposer to the state. Ms. Scaccetti was satisfied that the Negotiation Team had performed its job under the ITN, and she endorsed the Negotiation Team's recommendation that Xerox provided the "best value to the state." Ms. Scaccetti also accepted the Negotiation Team's additional recommendation for a separate peer review contract. The Negotiation Team's Recommendation Memorandum was made part of the Department's procurement file. On that same day, the Department publicly posted its notice of intent to award the Customer Service System contract to Xerox. Ms. Merting, as the procurement administrator, was responsible for maintaining the ITN procurement file. Promptly after the June 2, 2015, meeting, Ms. Merting began drafting a "short plain statement" to be placed in the solicitation and contract files prior to the execution of the Customer Service System contract as required by section 287.057(1)(c)(5) and ITN, section 2.26, Step 4. At the time of the final hearing, however, Ms. Merting's short plain statement remained in draft format. Ms. Merting ceased working on her statement after Petitioner filed its notice of intent to protest the Department's intended award to Xerox. Ms. Merting testified that her "short plain statement" would have tracked the language of the Negotiation Team's Recommendation Memorandum and would have explained the basis for selecting Xerox and how Xerox's deliverables and price will provide the best value for the state. Ms. Merting placed her draft statement in the ITN procurement file. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the greater weight of the evidence presented at the final hearing does not establish that the Department's action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore, the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that the Department's decision to award the Customer Service System contract to Xerox contravened the Department's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications that apply to this procurement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order upholding its determination to award the Customer Service System contract to Intervenor, Xerox, and denying the Petitioner's Petition for bid protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 2015.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the original and amended petitions for hearing were filed late and should be dismissed pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-110.106(3)(b). (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated. All references to rules are to those promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact On May 10, 1999, Sea Ray filed an application for an air construction permit with the Department. The application seeks a permit to construct a new fiberglass boat manufacturing facility in Merritt Island, Brevard County, Florida. On October 7, 1999, the Department issued an Intent to Issue Air Construction Permit (the "Notice of Intent"). On the same date, the Department mailed copies of the Notice of Intent, a Public Notice of Intent to Issue Air Construction Permit (the "Public Notice"), and a draft permit to interested persons including Sea Ray. On October 11, 1999, Petitioner telephoned the Department's Bureau of Air Regulation and requested a copy of correspondence between Sea Ray and the Department. Petitioner also requested that the Department place Petitioner on the list of interested persons. On October 11, 1999, the Department mailed Petitioner, by certified mail return receipt requested, copies of the Notice of Intent, the Public Notice, and the draft permit. Petitioner received the documents from the Department on October 14, 1999, and executed the return receipt on the same date. Both the Notice of Intent and the Public Notice included a notice of rights to substantially affected parties. In relevant part, the notice of rights stated: A person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed permitting . . . may petition for an administrative proceeding (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes. The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station #35, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-3000. . . . Petitions filed by any persons other than those entitled to written notice under Section 120.60(3) . . . must be filed within fourteen days of publication of the public notice or within fourteen days of receipt of this notice of intent, whichever occurs first. . . . The failure of any person to file a petition within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person's right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, or to intervene in this proceeding and participate as a party to it . . . . (emphasis supplied) Petitioner incorrectly concluded that the 14-day filing requirement did not begin to run when he received the Notice of Intent on October 14, 1999, but began to run on a future date when the Department published the Public Notice in the newspaper. In reaching that conclusion, Petitioner did not rely on any representations by any agent or employee of the Department or Sea Ray. Neither Respondent made any representations to Petitioner. On October 31, 1999, the Department published its Public Notice in The Florida Today. No substantive differences exist between the Public Notice published on October 31, 1999, and the Notice of Intent received by Petitioner on October 14, 1999. Petitioner had 14 days from October 14, 1999, or until October 28, 1999, to file his original petition for hearing. Petitioner filed his original petition on November 15, 1999. The original petition was filed 18 days late. On December 15, 1999, the Department dismissed the original petition on the grounds that the petition failed to provide the information required in Section 120.569(2)(c) and the rules incorporated therein. The dismissal was without prejudice as to the grounds for dismissal as required by Section 120.569(2)(c). The dismissal gave Petitioner 15 days from December 21, 1999, the date in the certificate of service, to file an amended petition curing the informational defects in the original petition. The dismissal gave Petitioner until January 5, 2000, to file an amended petition for hearing. Petitioner filed the amended petition one day late on January 6, 2000. Even if the original petition were deemed timely filed on November 15, 1999, the 14th day after publication of the Public Notice on October 31, 1999, the amended petition was not timely filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing the original and amended petitions as untimely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 4th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Clarence Rowe 418 Pennsylvania Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 Gary Hunter, Jr., Esquire Angela R. Morrison, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams and Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 123 South Calhoun Street (32301) Tallahassee, Florida 32314
The Issue The issue to be decided in this proceeding is whether the Reimbursement Dispute Dismissal issued by Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the “Department”), should be reversed due to equitable tolling or some other recognized excuse for untimely submission of the reimbursement dispute.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a business operating in Daytona Beach, Florida. The nature of Petitioner’s business was not made part of the record. In approximately June 2017, Petitioner submitted a claim to the Department, claiming payment for certain (undisclosed) services or expenditures. The Department issued an Explanation of Bill Review (“EOBR”) in response to Petitioner’s claim. The EOBR set forth the amount of reimbursement the Department would allow for Petitioner’s claim. The EOBR was received by Petitioner on July 10, 2017. Upon receipt of the EOBR, Petitioner had 45 days, i.e., until August 24, 2017, to challenge the Department’s determination of the reimbursement amount. Not satisfied that the amount allowed by the Department was correct, Petitioner challenged the determination by submitting a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute (the “Petition”) on DFS Form 3160-0023. The Petition was signed on August 8, 2017. However, Petitioner did not immediately submit the Petition on that date, despite being aware of the 45-day time limit for submitting such forms for relief. Petitioner did not mail the Petition until August 25, 2017, one day after the deadline for doing so. The Certified Mail Receipt for Petitioner’s mailing is clear and unambiguous, clearly showing the date. Petitioner did not present any evidence as to factors which might excuse the late filing of its Petition. The only reasons cited were that Petitioner was awaiting information from two claims management services, Sedgwick and Foresight, before submitting its Petition. Petitioner, through its witness at final hearing, admitted its error in failing to timely file the Petition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a Final Order upholding its Reimbursement Dispute Dismissal. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Taylor Anderson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Barbara T. Hernandez East Coast Surgery Center 1871 LPGA Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32117 (eServed) Thomas Nemecek, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
