The Issue Whether or not Petitioner, James P. Appleman, "willfully" violated Subsections 106.021(3), 106.07(5), and Section 106.1405, Florida Statutes, as alleged by Respondent, Florida Elections Commission, in its Order of Probable Cause; and whether or not Petitioner, James P. Appleman, "knowingly and willfully" violated Subsections 106.19(1)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes, as alleged by Respondent, Florida Elections Commission, in its Order of Probable Cause.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, documentary evidence, record of proceedings, and the facts agreed to by the parties in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the following Findings of Fact are made: In 2000, Petitioner was reelected to the office of State Attorney, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit. Prior to his reelection in 2000, Petitioner had been elected to the same office in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996. Petitioner, on February 1, 1999, signed a Statement of Candidate indicating that he had received, read, and understood Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. During the 2000 campaign, Petitioner made the following purchases using his personal funds in the form of cash, check or charge upon his personal credit card: a. Purchase 1: 7/12/99 Down payment/purchase of vehicle- $525.00 b. Purchase 2: 7/12/99 Purchase of vehicle/tax and title-$602.85 c. Purchase 3: 1/07/00 Bay Pointe Properties-$100.35 d. Purchase 4: 1/13/00 Delchamps Liquors-$58.50 e. Purchase 5: 1/22/00 Delchamps Liquors-$135.10 f. Purchase 6: 1/22/00 Cafe? Thirty A-$144.11 g. Purchase 7: 1/30/00 Pineapple Willy's-$17.45 h. Purchase 8: 5/05/00 Skirt/Jones of New York-$104.00- blouse/Jones of New York-$63.00 i. Purchase 9: 5/09/00 Tie/Dillards-$30.00-tie/Dillards- $40.00-misc. Big & Tall/Dillards- $8.75 j. Purchase 10: 5/23/00 Blazer/Polo Store-$199.99-short sleeve shirt/Polo Store-$39.99- short sleeve shirt/Polo Store- $39.99-short sleeve shirt/Polo Store-$39.99-shorts/Polo Store- $29.99 k. Purchase 11: 5/05/00 Casual bottoms/Brooks Brothers- $34.90-casual bottoms/Brooks Brothers-$34.90 casual bottoms/Brooks Brothers-$34.90 l. Purchase 12: 5/05/00 Shorts/Geoffrey Beene-$24.99- shorts/Geoffrey Beene-$24.99 m. Purchase 13: 5/05/00 Sport coat/Dillards-$195.00 n. Purchase 14: Telephone expense-$23.49 o. Purchase 15: 8/11/00 Tie down/Wal-Mart-$19.96-security chain/Wal-Mart-$19.26 p. Purchase 16: 8/11/00 Trailer hitch ball-$16.99 q. Purchase 17: 8/12/00 Event admission-$60.00 r. Purchase 18: 8/23/00 Liquor purchase/Delchamps-$37.41 s. Purchase 19: 8/30/00 Gas purchase/Shop a Snack-$20.00 t. Purchase 20: 8/30/00 Event admission-$40.00 u. Purchase 21: 8/30/00 Event admission/DEC-$15.00 v. Purchase 22: 8/26/00 Sign charge-$20.64 w. Purchase 23: 8/30/00 Auto insurance charge-$100.00 x. Purchase 24: 9/02/00 Gas purchase/Happy Stores-$34.00 y. Purchase 25: 9/02/00 Campaign staff/meal/food-$140.00 z. Purchase 26: 9/04/00 Ice purchase/Winn Dixie-$6.36 aa. Purchase 27: 9/05/00 Gas purchase/Swifty Store-$25.00 bb. Purchase 28: 9/06/00 Meal purchase/ St. Andrews Seafood House-$27.52 cc. Purchase 29: 9/08/00 Posthole digger-$42.90 dd. Purchase 30: 9/08/00 Lunch for sign crew-$20.14 None of these purchases were individually listed on Petitioner's Campaign Treasurer's Reports. Petitioner was reimbursed for each of the above- referenced expenditures by a check written on the campaign account, which was listed as an expenditure on Petitioner's Campaign Treasurer's Reports filed with the Division of Elections as follows: Date Name and Address of Person Receiving Reimbursement Purpose Amount 07-17-99 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 02-11-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 Reimb. Cmpgn. Vehicle Expenses Reimb. Cmpgn. Expenses $1,127.85 $830.81 06-10-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 08-07-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 Reimb. Cmpgn. Expenses Reimburse vehicle & Phone exp. $1,000.00 $400.00 08-30-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 09-08-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 Reimbursement/ Campaign Expense Reimbursement Camp. Expense $670.51 $295.92 On July 18, 2000, a campaign check for $140.99 was written to Winn Dixie. This check was reported on Petitioner's Campaign Treasurer's Report with the purpose listed as being "Campaign Social Supplies." The Winn Dixie purchase included the following items: A cat pan liner. 4 cans of cat food. A box of dryer sheets. A package of kitty litter. f. A jug of laundry detergent. The total cost of these items was $33.88. Petitioner signed all of his Campaign Treasurer's Reports, certifying as to their accuracy. The July 18, 2000, purchases at Winn Dixie were made by Mrs. Appleman, Petitioner's wife, and were a result of an inadvertent error. Immediately realizing that she had purchased personal items with campaign funds, she brought the matter to Petitioner's attention. Petitioner took possession of the Winn Dixie cash register receipt for the purchases; on the receipt he circled the inappropriate purchases with a pen, noted the total amount of inappropriate purchases on the receipt adding his initials, submitted the cash register receipt to his campaign treasurer, and several days later wrote a check reimbursing the campaign for the inappropriate purchases. During the campaign, Petitioner made 30 purchases listed in paragraph 3, supra, with personal funds, i.e., cash, personal check, or personal credit card, for which he provided receipts, and sought and received reimbursement from campaign funds by campaign check. These 30 purchases were not individually reported as expenditures on Campaign Treasurer's Reports during the reporting periods during which the purchases were made, but were reported as reimbursements as reflected in paragraph 4, supra. No evidence was presented that suggested that Purchases 3-7, Purchase 14, Purchases 17-22, or Purchases 24-30 listed in paragraph 3, supra, were not for campaign-related purposes. During the April 1 through June 30, 2000, campaign reporting period, Petitioner purchased 16 items of clothing (listed in paragraph 3, supra, as Purchases 8-13) for which he received reimbursement from campaign funds by campaign check. Petitioner and his wife testified that these items of clothing were used exclusively for campaign functions and purposes. Admittedly, each of the items of clothing could be used for non- campaign functions and purposes. However, the Campaign Treasurer's Reports reflect that in excess of $1,100 of "campaign shirts" were purchased during the campaign, supporting Petitioner's contention that he, his wife and campaign workers were all attired, while campaigning, in a color-coordinated "uniform of the day": red shirts, and tan/khaki trousers or walking shorts. This is further supported by photographs admitted into evidence. I find credible and accept the testimony of Petitioner and his wife that the items of clothing in the questioned purchases were used exclusively for campaign functions and purposes and not to "defray normal living expenses." During the August 12 through August 31, 2000, campaign reporting period, Petitioner purchased the following items for which he received reimbursement from campaign funds by campaign check: trailer hitch ball, trailer security chain, and sign tie-downs (listed in paragraph 3, supra, as Purchases 15 and 16). These three items were clearly used for campaign purposes and not to "defray normal living expenses." On August 30, 2001, Petitioner received a campaign check from the campaign treasurer reimbursing him for several campaign expenses he had paid. Among these campaign expenses, Petitioner sought reimbursement for $100 for "auto insurance" (listed in paragraph 3, supra, as Purchase 23). From the onset of his campaign, Petitioner had consistently either paid his automobile liability insurer, United Services Automobile Association, directly with a campaign check or sought reimbursement for payments he personally made for liability insurance on his personal vehicle or the "campaign Jeep" for automobile liability insurance cost attributable to the use of the motor vehicles in the campaign. Automobile liability insurance expense is a legitimate campaign expense and can reasonably be considered an actual transportation expense exempt from the statutory prohibition against payments made to "defray normal living expenses." On July 12, 1999, Petitioner purchased a 1997 Jeep to be used as a campaign vehicle (the down payment, tax and tag are listed in paragraph 3, supra, as Purchases 1 and 2); thereafter, loan payments to Tyndall Federal Credit Union and automobile liability insurance payments to United Services Automobile Association for the campaign vehicle were paid by the campaign treasury. On December 7, 1999, the 1997 Jeep was sold/traded to a third party for a 1999 Honda which was not used as a campaign vehicle. The Tyndall Federal Credit Union lien was transferred to the 1999 Honda. After December 7, 1999, the 1999 Honda was driven by Petitioner's adult stepdaughter. At the time of the transfer of the vehicles, Petitioner and his wife agreed that she would reimburse the campaign $800 which was determined to be the value lost by the campaign when the 1997 Jeep was traded. Petitioner later determined that he should reimburse the campaign an additional $525, the amount of the down payment paid when the 1997 Jeep was purchased in July 1999. On June 2, 2000, Petitioner's wife tendered a personal check drawn on her personal account to the campaign account for $800, which was reported under an entry date of June 5, 2000, on the Campaign Treasurer's Report for the period ending June 30, 2000, as a "REF" made by Petitioner. On March 14, 2001, Petitioner tendered a personal check to the campaign account for $617. This included $525 for the 1999 Jeep down payment reimbursement and an automobile liability insurance refund. Prior to the June 5, 2000, "REF" entry on the Campaign Treasurer's Report, there had been no report reflecting the sale of the campaign vehicle. The sale of the 1999 Jeep should have been reported on the Campaign Treasurer's Report for the period ending December 31, 1999; it was not. Petitioner certified that he had examined the subject Campaign Treasurer's Report and that it was "true, correct and complete" when, in fact, it was not as it did not reflect the sale of the campaign vehicle or the failure of Petitioner to pay the campaign treasury either $800 or $1,325, the amount Petitioner ultimately determined the campaign treasury should have been reimbursed as reflected by his late reimbursements.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order finding that Petitioner, James P. Appleman, violated Subsection 106.07(5), Florida Statutes, on one occasion and Subsection 106.19(1)(c), Florida Statutes, on one occasion and assess a civil penalty of $1,000 for the violation of Subsection 106.07(5), Florida Statutes, and a civil penalty of $2,400 for violation of Subsection 106.19(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and dismissing the remaining alleged violations of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, against him as asserted in the Order of Probable Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David F. Chester, Esquire Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Mark Herron, Esquire Messer, Caparello and Self, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission The Collins Building, Suite 224 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Rushing, Clerk Florida Elections Commission The Collins Building, Suite 224 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Conclusions Mr. Klein had a duty to operate the van he was driving on the day of the accident with reasonable care. See ss. 316.183(1), 316.1925(1), F.S. Mr. Klein breached that duty when he was distracted by a cellular phone call at or around the time of the accident or otherwise not paying full attention to the road at the time of the accident. Mr. Klein’s negligent operation of the van was a proximate cause of the accident that resulted in Angelica’s death. Mr. Klein was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Therefore, the County is responsible for Mr. Klein’s negligence. Angelica violated s. 316.130(10) and/or (11), F.S., when she attempted to run across SR 436 in the middle of the block rather than at a cross-walk and, as a result, Angelica’s own negligence contributed to her death. The percentage of fault allocated to Angelica by the jury -- 39 percent -- is reasonable under the circumstances. Ms. Wagner’s failure to supervise Angelica on the night of the accident was, in my view, irresponsible and unreasonable. Ms. Wagner knew or should have known that Angelica might cross SR 436 based upon prior instances of her crossing the road without permission. Furthermore, it is irresponsible and unreasonable for Ms. Wagner to allow an 11-year-old child to be unsupervised and to stay out on her own until 9:00 p.m., which was after dark. Ms. Wagner’s negligent supervision of Angelica contributed to her death because if she had been supervised she would not have gone across SR 436 in the first place. Thus, notwithstanding the jury verdict on this issue, I find that a portion of the fault for Angelica’s death should be apportioned to Ms. Wagner and, in my view, a figure of 10 percent is reasonable. In summary, I conclude that liability for Angelica’s death should be apportioned as follows: 51 percent to the County; 39 percent to Angelica; and 10 percent to Ms. Wagner. As to the damages, I find the amounts awarded by the jury -- $8,000 in funeral expenses and $1.4 million in non-economic damages -- to be reasonable. The amount of the claim bill should be reduced to reflect a set-off of the $8,000 received by Ms. Wagner from another source (i.e., Angelica’s uncle) to pay the funeral expenses and to reflect the allocation of a portion of the fault to Ms. Wagner. As adjusted, the claim bill should be for $652,080, which is calculated as follows: $1,408,000 (verdict) x 51% (County’s revised share of liability) = $718,080 + $42,000 (taxable costs) - $100,000 (partial satisfaction by County) - $8,000 (set-off for funeral expenses paid by uncle). ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LOBBYIST’S FEES: The claimant’s attorney provided an affidavit stating that that attorney’s fees will be capped at 25 percent in accordance with s. 768.28(8), F.S. The attorney’s fees will be $163,020 if the bill is approved at the amount recommended. The lobbyist’s fees are in excess of the 25 percent attorney’s fee, and according to the contract between the claimant’s attorney and the lobbying firm, the lobbyist’s fees will be an additional 5 percent of the final claim. Thus, the lobbyist’s fees will be approximately $32,604 if the bill is approved at the amount recommended. The bill, as filed, provides that payment of attorney’s fees, costs, and lobbyist’s fees are limited to 25 percent of the final claim. If that language remains in the bill and the claim is paid in the amount recommended, the claimant will receive $489,060 and the balance of $163,020 will go towards attorney’s fees, costs, and lobbyist’s fees. If that language was not in the bill, the claimant would receive only $456,456. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: This is the second year that this claim has been presented to the Legislature. Last year’s bill, SB 62 (2007), was not referred to committee. RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that Senate Bill 26 (2008) be reported FAVORABLY, as amended. Respectfully submitted, T. Kent Wetherell Senate Special Master cc: Senator Gary Siplin Faye Blanton, Secretary of the Senate House Committee on Constitution and Civil Law Counsel of Record
Findings Of Fact On September 12, 1985, the LCSB issued a Request for Proposals ("PEP") for a telephone system to serve its Administrative Complex and Lively Area Vocational-Technical Center Main Campus ("the proposed telephone system"). Subsequently, several addenda and supplemental materials were forwarded to all participating vendors of handwritten portion. The PEP scheduled a vendor's conference for September 19, 1985. It required any "discrepancies, errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the specifications or addenda (if any)" to be reported to the LCSB no later than September 25, 1985. Similarly, the PEP required vendors to "submit written requests for clarification of terminology, if necessary, no later than September 25, 1985." Responses to the PEP were required by the time set for opening the vendors' proposals at 10:00 a.m. on October 4, 1985. The compressed time frames were imposed in an effort to be able to complete the PEP process, award the contract and have a telephone system installed by the first week of January 1986. This target date for installation was established because, although budgetary and other problems delayed the start of the PEP process, the LCSB had decided by September 1985 to change its telephone listings in the December 1985 to December 1986 edition of the Official Telephone Directory For Tallahassee, Florida, in anticipation of a new telephone system. Pursuant to a requirement of the PEP, ten letters of intent to submit proposals were received on or before September 19, 1985, including letters of intent from Petitioner, Telecom Plus of Florida, Inc. ("Telecom Plus"), and Intervenor, Centel Business Systems ("Centel"). Telecom Plus, Centel, and three other vendors submitted proposals on or before the deadline of October 4, 1985. By letters dated October 10, 1985, the LCSB Director of Purchasing notified the five proposing vendors that the Superintendent intended to recommend to the LCSB that the contract be awarded to Centel based on the bid tabulation prepared by the LCSB telecommunications consultants. Attached to those letters was a copy of the evaluation summary (bid tabulation). The letter was written on LCSB stationery on behalf of the LCSB and, under Rule 6g x 37-6.09, Rules of the LCSB, had the effect of announcing the intention of the LCSB to award the contract to Centel. The proposed telephone system will serve two locations, the LCSB Administration Complex and the Lively Area Vocational-Technical Center Main Campus. These two locations are separated by a distance of approximately 4,500 feet. The PEP required the proposed telephone system to provide telephone service to each location, as well as to interconnect the two locations. The cable(s) for the interconnection between the two locations will be housed in a 4,500-foot long, four-inch PVC conduit to be installed as part of the proposed telephone system. To satisfy the needs of the LCSB, the proposed telephone system could be in one of several configurations. At least one Electronic Private Automatic Branch Exchange (EPABX, commonly referred to as a "switch") is necessary to provide for intra- and inter-facility communications and to connect the Administration Complex and Lively Area Vocational-Technical Center Main Campus to the outside world. The PEP indicated that the possible configurations for the proposed telephone system included: (1) a single switch at the Administration Complex with cables extending at least 4,500 feet to each telephone instrument at the Lively location; (2) a single switch at the Administration Complex with remote peripheral equipment ("RPE," means a portion of the single switch which is remotely located) located at the Lively location and connected to the switch by 4,500-foot long cables, and (3) two switches, one at the Administration Complex and one at the Lively location, interconnected by 4,500-foot long cables. Telecom Plus filed a protest after the posting of the bid tabulations on or about October 16, 1985. 2/ In its letter of protest, as further explicated in the Prehearing Stipulation, Telecom Plus raised three basic issues. First, Telecom Plus complained that the RFP specifications were ambiguous and not well enough defined, resulting in comparisons between vendors' systems which were not "apples to apples." Second, Telecom Plus claimed that Centel's Call Accounting System, a required subcomponent of the proposed telephone system, fails to meet the FFP's specifications. Finally, Telecom Plus challenged the subjectivity of the point awards in the equipment evaluation, claiming that the point awards for equipment did not accurately reflect the proposals of Telecom Plus and Centel. The LCSB used a request for proposals to solicit vendors' suggestions on how its proposed telephone system needs could best be met because, in the opinion of the LCSB telecommunications consultants, an invitation to bid setting forth precise specifications for equipment in a given configuration would have eliminated all competition among vendors. While the telephone systems proposed by Telecom Plus and Centel differed in the mechanisms used to meet the LCSB needs, the systems were capable of comparison in an evaluation of whether and the extent to which they met the LCSB needs. Each of the alleged ambiguities raised in the Telecom Plus letter of protest were apparent on the face of the FFP. Telecom Plus did not avail itself of several opportunities to have any such perceived ambiguities in the RFP specifications cleared up. On September 19, 1985, the LCSB conducted a vendors' conference to answer vendor questions concerning the PEP and to clarify the vendors' understanding of the PEP. Representatives of Telecom Plus and Centel, as well as several other vendors, attended the vendors' conference. Notes from the vendors' conference setting forth questions raised and the LCSB's answers were distributed as supplemental material to all PEP specifications. In addition to the clarifications made as a result of the vendors' conference, the PEP included an invitation to vendors to submit written requests for clarification of terminology, if necessary, by no later than September 25, 1985. No such written requests were received by LCSB. The PEP also provided that any discrepancies, errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the specifications, errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the specifications or addenda should be reported in writing to the LCSB by no later than September 25, 1985. No such written notification was received by the LCSB. Despite complaints in its protest that these time frames were inadequate, Telecom Plus acknowledged the time frames in its response to the PEP and neither made objection nor took exception to them. On the merits, the PEP clearly and accurately communicated that no system architecture was "preferred" over another. The LCSB wanted the vendor's to propose their solutions to the peculiar communications problems faced by the LCSB. Neither single switch, double switch nor switch with remote peripheral equipment (RPE) configuration was to be excluded from consideration. Regarding the system features, the PEP required electronic multi-line key sets "providing for combinations of five or more lines and/or programmable feature access buttons." Although it may have been wiser to specify the maximum number of lines and feature access buttons, there is nothing ambiguous about the PEP. It requires a minimum of five lines or feature access buttons. Telecom Plus asserted that the Call Accounting System proposed by Centel did not comply with the RFP specifications in that the Call Accounting System proposed by Centel only provides 40,000 call records. The LCSB indicated in the notes from the vendors' conference that a 60,000 capacity in number of calls recorded was "desired"; no 60,000 capacity was specified in the EFP itself. Even if the desired target of 60,000 call records contained in the vendors' conference notes was considered a specification of the RFP, vendors had the option of adding or deleting items from the system requirements in their proposal as long as the additions or deletions are clearly indicated. Centel clearly indicated that its proposed SUMMA IV Call Accounting System would provide only 40,000 call records, complying with the addition/deletion provision of the RFP. 3/ In recognition of the fewer call records provided by Centel's Call Accounting System, the LCSB telecommunications consultants awarded Centel seven fewer points than possible. Telecom Plus, on the other hand, received all of the available points for its Call Accounting System that exceeded the desired target of 60,000 call records. The RFP described the criteria to be used by the LCSB in evaluating proposals. A maximum of 1,000 points would be awarded to each proposal--300 points for equipment considerations, 300 points for vendor considerations and 400 points for financial considerations. The equipment considerations included the system's fulfillment of the minimum size, feature, capacity and performance characteristics contained in the RFP, as well as the availability and functionality of specified items, such as the availability of features, ease of systems operation, and projected longevity. The vendor considerations included the vendor's capability and qualifications to provided installs and maintain the system, which would involve an evaluation of the vendor's experience (particularly with other installations of comparable size and complexity), available manpower, financial stability, and proposed installation and maintenance plans. The financial considerations included initial and recurring costs of the system, which would involve an evaluation of the cost of lease or purchase, cost of maintenance, cost of future additions based upon an assumed annual average growths cost of insurance, cost of systems administration, and any other determinable costs associated with the acquisition, installations or operation of the proposed system. In evaluating proposals, some effort was made to relate points to a dollar value. Since Centel's proposal would cost a total of $1,164,528 over seven years and Telecom Plus' would cost a total of $1,223,281 over seven years, it was borne in mind that each point in the equipment or vendor categories would relate to roughly $4,000 in the financial category. In other words, if a proposal fell short of optimal in an equipment category, for example, the proposal would receive enough fewer points in the equipment category to correspond to the value in dollars by which the proposal was thereby reduced figured at roughly $4,000 per point. By submitting a proposal in response to the PEP, Telecom Plus signified that it understood and accepted the criteria upon which proposals were to be evaluated and the sole discretion of the LCSB evaluators to determine the bid rankings. 4/ Extensive testimony was received regarding the capabilities and features of both Telecom Plus' proposed NEAX 2400 telephone system and Centel's proposed SL-1N telephone system. In addition, the LCSB telecommunications consultants who performed the technical evaluation of the proposals detailed the relative merits of the two systems in their Evaluation Of Proposals dated October 11, 1985. In the Evaluation Of Proposals, points were awarded as follows: Centel Telecom Plus A. Equipment Proven Reliability (of 40) 40 35 System Architecture (of 40) 39 35 Reliability Considerations (of 40) 37 35 System Capacities (of 40) 32 40 System Features (of 35) 35 33 Instruments (of 35) 28 30 Data Considerations (of 35) 34 30 Call Accounting System (of 35) 28 35 TOTAL 273 273 B. Vendor 292 290 C. Financial 384 366 GRAND TOTAL 949 929 The points awarded in the equipment evaluation were justified with one minor exception. The LCSB consultants based their award of points in the "System Features" category on the assumption that the system proposed by Telecom Plus provided for 100 speed call assignments. Actually, that system provides 200 speed call assignments. Accordingly Telecom Plus should have been awarded an additional point. Since the Telecom Plus system received 20 points overall less than Centel's proposed system, the addition of one point to Telecom Plus' total point award would not change the outcome. Regarding proven reliability of the equipment proposed, Centel's proposed switch was first marketed by Northern Telecom in 1975. The switch was improved and modified over the years, and much of the SL-1N is "backward compatible" (i.e., uses components that could be used in prior versions of the switch) Telecom Plus' proposed NEAX 2400, in contrast, has been on the market only approximately 18 months. This gave Centel's proposal the advantage in this category. Regarding Systems Architecture, Centel's RPE proposal gave it the advantage in solving the peculiar need of the LCSB to provide an EPABX to serve two buildings at least 4500 feet apart (but especially in comparison with the Telecom Plus proposal). Regarding reliability considerations, Telecom Plus did not prove (either by documentation in its proposal or by evidence at the hearing) that its D Term telephone instruments will operate reliably at 4500 or more feet from its single telephone switch, as was proposed to provide telephone service for the Lively building. Telecom Plus did, however, delete from the manufacturer's literature included in its response to the RFP the manufacturer's recommendation that the D Term not be used more than 4500 feet from the switch. All these facts and circumstances result in an advantage to the Centel proposal. In the categories System Capacities, Instruments and Call Accounting System, Telecom Plus' proposal deserved and was given the advantage. Telecom Plus did not prove that its advantage should have been larger. In System Capacities, Telecom Plus' proposal received eight more points (worth roughly $32,000) for being "non-blocking" (i.e., all telephone instruments could be off- hook at the same time) although Centel's proposal met all specifications of the RFP. Centel's Call Accounting System is capable of less-than-desired 40,000 call records; Telecom Plus' has the desired 60,000 call record capacity and was given the maximum 35 points in this category. Telecom Plus did not prove that its Call Accounting System was worth more than seven points (roughly $28,000) more to the LCSB, especially since lack of capacity can be addressed by simply "dumping" call records twice as often. (See also footnote 3 above.) Regarding the financial category, Telecom Plus proved that the LCSB consultants erroneously used the pre-cutover price of $240 instead of the post- cutover price of $281 in figuring the cost of additional telephone sets anticipated to be needed during the first seven years of operation under the Centel proposal. This error deflated the total cost of the Centel proposal by approximately $3,000 over seven years. In light of the actual total cost of the Centel proposal, Centel should have received only 383 points in the financial category instead of 384 points, not enough of a difference to change the outcome of this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Leon County School Board enter a final order awarding a contract to Centel Business Systems to install the telephone communications system proposed in its response to the Request For Proposals in this case. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December 1985.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Rule 25-4.113(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, is a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact History of the Rule The Commission first adopted a rule setting out its policy on disconnection and refusal of service in August of 1955. In re: Adoption of rules and regulations governing telephone companies, Order No. 2195 (June 24, 1955) (O.R. E). (Prehearing stipulation p. 10) Rule 20 provided that: “Service may be denied to any subscriber or applicant for failure to comply with these rules, the telephone company’s tariff, municipal ordinances or state laws.” Id. Effective December 1, 1968, the Commission revised its disconnect rule to specifically provide that a company could disconnect telephone service for nonpayment. In re: Proposed revision of rules and regulations governing telephone companies, Order No. 4439 (October 17, 1968) (O.R. F). (Prehearing stipulation p. 10) Since adoption of Rule 310-4.66(1) in 1968, the Commission’s disconnect rule has been revised seven times: In re: Proposed revision of Chapter 2-4 relating to telephone companies and radio common carriers, Order No. 7132 (March 1, 1976) (O.R. G); In re: Amendment of Rules 25-4.113 and 25-10.74 - Relating to Refusal or Discontinuance of Service, Order No. 13787, 84 F.P.S.C. 10:208 (1984) (O.R. J); In re: Amendment of Rules 25-4.109 - Customer Deposits, 25-4.110 - Customer Billing, and 25-4.113 - Refusal or Discontinuance of Service, Order No. 16727, 86 F.P.S.C. 10:157 (1986) (O.R. K); In re: Amendment of Rule 25-4.113 - F.A.C., pertaining to Refusal or Discontinuance of Service by Company, Order No. 23721, 90 F.P.S.C. 11:75 (1990) (O.R. M); In re: Adoption of Rule 25-4.160, F.A.C., Operation of Telecommunications Relay Service and Amendment of Rules 25-4.113, F.A.C., Refusal or Discontinuance of Service by Company; 25- 4.150, F.A.C., The Administrator; 25-24.475, F.A.C., Company Operations; Rules Incorporated, Order No. PSC-92-0950-FOF-TP, 92 F.P.S.C. 9:208 (1992) (O.R. N); In re: Proposed Amendment of Rule 25-4.113, F.A.C., Prohibiting Refusal or Discontinuance of Service for Nonpayment of a Dishonored Check Service Charge Imposed by the Utility, Order No. PSC-92-1483-FOF-PU, 92 F.P.S.C. 12:543 (1992) (O.R. P); In re: Proposed Amendment to Rule 25- 4.113 F.A.C., Refusal or Discontinuance of Service by Company, Order No. PSC-95-0028-FOF-TL, 95 F.P.S.C. 1:50 (1995) (O.R. T). (Prehearing stipulation p.11) By Order No. 12765, issued December 9, 1983, the Commission expanded its disconnect policy to allow local exchange companies (LECs) that bill for interexchange carriers (IXCs) to disconnect local service for nonpayment of the long distance portion of the bill. In re: Intrastate telephone access charges for toll use of local exchange services, Order No. 12765, 83 F.P.S.C. 12:100, 125 (1983) (O.R. H). (Tr 118-119) The Commission believed that “by granting LECs disconnect authority bad debts for toll charges will be less than without this authority.” Order No. 12765 at 12:125. (Tr 120) In addition, the Commission found that if the IXCs encounter excessive bad debt expense, the IXCs may increase their toll charges to recoup expenses, which would cause Florida subscribers to pay higher toll rates. Order No. 12765 at 12:125. (Tr 120) The disconnect authority for nonpayment for IXC toll charges was limited only to LECs who performed billing and collection services for IXCs. Order No. 12765 at 12:125. (Tr 120) By Order No. 13429, issued June 18, 1984, the Commission ordered Florida’s LECs to file a uniform tariff that specified their billing and collection procedures and rates when billing for IXCs. In re: Intrastate telephone access charges for Toll Use of Local Exchange Services, Order No. 13429, 84 F.P.S.C. 6:221 (1984) (O.R. I). The LECs complied with this requirement. (Tr 126-127; Ex 30) Since the Commission first adopted its disconnect policy, the Legislature has never enacted legislation to invalidate the Commission’s policy. (Tr 155) Nor has the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee ever objected to any version of the Commission’s disconnect rule. (Tr 155-156) The Current Version of Rule 25-4.113(1)(f) Today, Rule 25-4.113(1) provides: the company may refuse or discontinue telephone service under the following conditions provided that, unless otherwise stated, the customer shall be given notice and allowed a reasonable time to comply with any rule or remedy any deficiency: * * * (f) For nonpayment of bills for telephone service, including the telecommunications access system surcharge referred to in Rule 25-4.160(3), provided that suspension or termination of service shall not be made without 5 working days’ written notice to the customer, except in extreme cases. The written notice shall be separate and apart from the regular monthly bill for service. A company shall not, however, refuse or discontinue service for nonpayment of a dishonored check service charge imposed by the company. No company shall discontinue service to any customer for the initial nonpayment of the current bill on a day the company’s business office is closed or on a day preceding a day the business office is closed. * * * (O.R. CC) LECs that bill for IXCs can still disconnect for nonpayment of toll calls. (Tr 122, 158) No company, however, can disconnect for nonpayment of unregulated services, such as customer premises services like inside wire maintenance and information services like voice mail. Rule 25-4.113(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code. (Tr 124-125, 130) In addition, the billing and collection tariffs are not uniform today because LECs have individually lowered many of the rates they charge for billing and collection services. (Tr 128-129; Ex 31). Two Separate, Pertinent Service Contracts It is important for understanding the Commission’s rationale for its disconnect rule to recognize that two separate, pertinent service contracts are involved. (Tr 151-152) One is the billing and collection services contract between the LEC and the IXC. (Tr 126, 152) The other is the contract for service between the company providing telephone service and the subscriber. (Tr 152) As discussed above, LECs who perform billing and collection services for IXCs have a tariff on file with the Commission that sets out the terms, conditions, and rates upon which the LECs offer this service. (Tr 126 -129; Ex 31) Pertaining to the contract for telephone service, the Commission has specified by rule the terms and conditions upon which a company may refuse or disconnect service. (Tr 137) Each company has a tariff on file with the Commission that sets out the terms and conditions upon which it will refuse or disconnect service. (Tr 137; Ex 32) The Commission’s Dispute Policy If service is going to be disconnected for any authorized reason, separate notice must first be provided to the customer. Rule 25-4.113, Florida Administrative Code; In re: Complaint of Aristides Day Against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company regarding interruption of service, Order No. PSC-94-0716-FOF-TL, 94 F.P.S.C. 6:157 (1994) (O.R. R). If a customer has a pending complaint concerning disputed charges, Rule 25-22.032(10), Florida Administrative Code, prohibits disconnection for nonpayment of the disputed charges. (Tr 129) (O.R. FF) The customer, however, is expected to pay the charges not in dispute. In re: Complaint of Ron White against AT&T Communications and GTE Florida Incorporated regarding responsibility for disputed calling card charges, Order No. PSC-92-1321-FOF-TP, 92 F.P.S.C. 11:274 (1992) (O.R. O); In re: Complaint of Leon Plaskett against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company regarding unpaid long distance bills, Order No. PSC-94-0722-FOF-TL, 94 F.P.S.C. 6:177 (1994) (O.R. S). When a LEC contracts with an IXC to perform an IXC’s billing and collection functions, the Commission acts to resolve disputes over both intra and interstate toll calls. In re: Complaint against AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. and United Telephone Company of Florida by Health Management Systems, Inc., regarding interLATA PIC slamming, Order No. PSC- 97-0203-FOF-TP, 97- F.P.S.C. 2:477, 482 (1997) (O.R. AA). (Tr 55) Rationale for Rule 25-4.113(1)(f) The reasons the Commission gave in 1983 to allow companies to disconnect for nonpayment of toll are still viable today. (Tr 122, 158). If LECs could not disconnect for unpaid IXC bills, the IXCs uncollectible expenses would probably increase. (Tr 122-123, 138, 158) Moreover, if local service was not disconnected, a consumer could run up bad debts with different IXCs without ever paying for a toll call. (Tr 124, 135) This bad debt would have to be passed on to Florida consumers through increased rates to cover the uncollectible expenses. (Tr 122-123, 135, 158) Good paying customers should not have to pay for the fraud created by those who switch from carrier to carrier leaving behind unpaid toll charges. (Tr 124, 135) Additional reasons for the policy also exist because of the 1995 changes to Chapter 364, Florida Statutes (1995). If the Commission prohibited LECs from disconnecting local service for nonpayment of toll, LECs would be economically disadvantaged and alternative local exchange companies (ALECs) would be advantaged. (Tr 123, 147-148) This is because LECs could not disconnect local service for nonpayment of toll, but the ALECs could continue to disconnect due to the Commission’s limited jurisdiction and regulation over ALECs. (Tr 123, 147-148) Moreover, deposit requirements are affected by the disconnect policy. If LECs could not disconnect for nonpayment, deposit requirements would probably increase. (Tr 123-124, 195) Large deposits are a barrier to access to telecommunications services and would have an adverse effect on subscribership. (Tr 124) Finally, the Rule puts costs on the cost causer. (Tr 158) The Rule’s Impact on Universal Service The obligation to provide universal service is the obligation to offer access to basic telephone service at reasonable and affordable rates. Section 364.025(1), Florida Statutes (1995). (Tr 139, 167; Ex 29) As long as a customer pays the nondisputed portion of his bill, service will not be disconnected. (Tr 143) Therefore, Rule 25-4.113(1)(f) does not preclude a subscriber from obtaining basic local service, as long as he pays the undisputed portion of his telephone bill. (Tr 142-143) Basic service includes access to all locally available IXCs. Section 364.02(2), Florida Statutes (1995). (Tr 133-134) Any consumer who pays his bill can have access to any available carrier in the market where he resides. (Tr 133-134, 149) The Rule’s Impact on Competition Today the toll market is reasonably competitive. (Tr 144) In 1995, the Legislature authorized competition in the local market. However, very few providers are actually providing basic local service; therefore, market conditions have not substantially changed since Rule 25-4.113 was last amended. (Tr 144-145) The basic local market is still largely a monopoly despite the legislative changes at the state and federal level. (Tr 145; Ex 28) The Commission is charged with regulating telecommunications companies during the transition from monopoly to competitive services. Section 364.01(3), Florida Statutes (1995). (Tr 156, 197-198) To a certain extent, all rules and regulations restrict competition. (Tr 147) In this case, the benefits of the rule outweigh any negative impact the rule may have on competition, because the rule keeps uncollectible expenses lower than they would otherwise be and it also puts costs on the cost causer.
Findings Of Fact Under Section 26 of the United States Code Section 125, the federal government allows employers to establish programs that provide a federal income pre-tax benefit to employees. To maintain the pre-tax benefit, the employer is required to administer the program in compliance with applicable federal laws, rules and regulations. Employers participating in the 125 pre-tax program are required to implement a written plan (Cafeteria Plan) and take deductions from an employee’s earned income that are credited to the employee’s flexible spending account (FSA) for the purpose of paying medical and/or dependent care expenses. The State of Florida has developed such a plan. The FSA program is managed by Respondent, Department of Management Services. Petitioner, James D. Wells, Jr., has maintained a FSA daycare reimbursement account since 1994. During the 2005 plan year, Petitioner was an enrolled member of the Daycare Reimbursement program. In 2005, Petitioner contributed $3,000.00 to his account. The reimbursement filing deadline for Plan Year 2005 was April 17, 2006. The deadline for 2005 occurred because the normal deadline day of April 15th fell on a weekend. Therefore, the deadline was moved by rule to the first regular business day following April 15th. Petitioner obtained a receipt for eligible expenses for 2005 totaling $3800.00 from the Immanuel Baptist Church Daycare. On March 27, 2006, he took the receipt to his office. While at work, he filled out the appropriate reimbursement request form. Petitioner placed these documents in an envelope with the correct postage and address on it. He placed the envelope in his inter-office mail receptacle. Mail placed in the inter-office receptacle is picked up by an employee of Petitioner’s agency, taken to the agency mailroom, and there picked up by the U.S. Postal Service. The inter-office mail receptacle is neither owned nor controlled by the U.S. Postal Service. Consequently, personal mail is not postmarked until it is received at the U.S. Postal Service. There is no evidence that Petitioner’s envelope was received by the U.S. Postal Service or that it was postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service. The address on the People First reimbursement form reads: “People First Service Center, Flexible Spending Account, Post Office Box 1800, Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1800.” The address is a post office box of the U.S. Postal Service, owned by Fringe Benefits Management Company (FBMC). FBMC is a private entity that processes benefits for various private and public employees, including the State of Florida’s flexible spending accounts. FBMC does not have access to any information regarding a claimant’s dependents and does not verify the authenticity of the names of the dependents or whether the claimant has dependents. FBMC uses Post Office Box 1800 specifically for FSA reimbursement requests submitted by all employees of FBMS clients. The U.S. Postal Service separates all of the mail addressed to Post Office Box 1800 and places it in bins, which are picked up each day by FBMC mailroom employees. The mailroom employees deliver the mail to the claims area at FBMC. Mail processors open each piece of mail and enter the name and/or social security number of the claim and amount of requested reimbursement in the FBMC computer system. Each claim is labeled as pending in the system. For each batch of 50 reimbursement requests entered into the system, the mail processors print a list of the 50 claims and attach the associated paper work for each claim into a batch. Each batch of 50, the list and actual forms are then delivered to “adjudicators” who again input the name and/or social security number directly from the reimbursement form. The adjudicator also determines whether the attached documentation supports the amount of the claim. Once the adjudicator enters the 50 requests into the system, the adjudicator prints another list of names. If either the mail processor or adjudicator enters incorrect information into the computer system, the adjudicator will produce a list that does not match the mail processor’s list. At that point, the mail processor’s list and the adjudicator’s list are reconciled. During reconciliation, if the adjudicator discovers a claim form that does not appear in the pending computer file, the adjudicator will add the name to the pending file or personally deliver the request to the mail processor to enter into the pending file. If the identification data of the claimant entered by the adjudicator matches the information in the “pending file,” and if the backup documentation in support of the claim is adequate as to amount, FBMC authorizes payment; if not, the claim is denied. The claim information is then sent to Convergys to process the claim. Convergys is a private entity that administers the State of Florida human resources and personnel system. Convergys has subcontracted with FBMC to process the payments of FSA requests for reimbursement. Upon receipt of files from FBMC, Convergys responds to all reimbursement requests it receives from FBMC. It either processes payment for approved requests or provides written notification that the claim has not been approved for payment. In June 2006, Petitioner had not received any information regarding his claim and had not received the documents back from the post office. He called the agency and discovered that it did not have any record of his claim. He explained that he had mailed it prior to April 17, 2006. Both FBMC and Convergys searched their records for Petitioner’s claim. Convergys had no record of receiving Petitioner’s claim from FBMC. FBMC searched every “James Wells” in its database listed for each employer-client to whom reimbursements were paid for the 2005 Plan Year. No payment was processed for any other James Wells. FBMC also physically searched all claims from all employees of all its clients, beginning March 27, 2006, through April 22, 2006. Each claim was pulled and each sheet of paper attached to each claim was reviewed. Petitioner’s claim was not located. Given the mail and claim handling procedures used by FBMC in processing claims, it does not appear that Respondent received Petitioner’s claim by April 17, 2006. Therefore, Petitioner’s claim for reimbursement was not timely filed in 2005, and Petitioner is not entitled to reimbursement. The request for hearing should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent issue a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not timely file his reimbursement request, is not entitled to reimbursement and dismissing the request for hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda South, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John Brenneis, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 James D. Wells, Jr. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 47 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sonja P. Matthews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue Did the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) improperly deny funds to Maurice Parkes for the purchase of bottled water?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of administering the Medicaid Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Services Waiver Program (Medicaid Waiver Program), the Family care program, and the provisions of in-home subsidies. Petitioner is a developmentally disabled child who lives in his family's home and receives numerous services from the Department for his developmental disability, medical, and physical problems. The services presently being furnished to Petitioner are funded through the Medicaid Waiver Program. The bottled water at issue is not funded through the Medicaid Waiver Program and would have to be funded through General Revenue funds. General Revenue funds appropriated by the legislature for the fiscal year 2001-2002 to the Department have largely been moved to the Medicaid Waiver Program to obtain the benefit of federal matching funds, which are provided at the rate of 55 cents for each 45 cents of state funds. The use of General Revenue Funds to obtain matching federal funds for the Medicaid Waiver Program allows the Department to service some of those developmentally disabled clients that are presently eligible for the Medicaid Waiver Program but have not been receiving services due to lack of funding. There are no uncommitted funds in the General Revenue category of the Developmental Services' budget that could be used to fund the purchase of bottled water for Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to provide him with bottled water. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 9th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank H. Nagatani, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 100 Largo, Florida 33778-1630 Maurice Parkes c/o Erika Parkes 2229 Bonita Way, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent's intended award of Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) 13/14-01 was contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules or policies; contrary to the solicitation specifications; and was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Department is designated by section 409.2257, Florida Statutes (2014), as the Title IV-D agency for the State of Florida. As such, it is responsible for the administration of the Child Support Enforcement program that is required in all states by the Federal Social Security Act. See § 409.2577, Fla. Stat. As part of its duties under chapter 409, the Department is authorized to solicit proposals from, and to contract with, private contractors to develop, operate, and maintain a state disbursement unit (SDU). The SDU is responsible for processing, collecting and disbursing payments for most child support cases in Florida. The current contractor for the SDU is Xerox whose contract will expire on February 28, 2015. In general, Florida procurement law provides a continuum of competitive procurement processes running from invitations to bid, through requests for proposals, to invitations to negotiate. Invitations to bid are used where specifications can be stated with certainty with the primary issue being price. Invitations to negotiate, on the other end of the procurement spectrum, are used to purchase services when state agencies need to "determine the best method for achieving a specific goal or solving a particular problem." § 287.057(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014). In essence, an ITN contains the process a state agency follows in awarding a contract and the criteria to which a vendor should reply in order to be considered responsive to the ITN. Under an invitation to negotiate and even though a reply must be responsive to the invitation, specifications generally are more fluid and less mandatory. Price, while important, is negotiable. Indeed, an agency may "reply shop" the terms, including price, of one vendor's reply against a competitor's reply in seeking revisions to that vendor's reply. As such, contract price is a more fluid concept under an ITN and is not the primary consideration in an ITN. In this case, the Department was seeking a solution for processing, collecting and paying child support payments based on a negotiated per transaction rate resulting from such SDU services plus negotiated service costs associated with the operation of the SDU. In fact, contracting for a transaction- rate-based price was one of the prime considerations under this ITN because the Department felt it could gain significant contract savings by utilizing a transaction-rate-based pricing scheme in its negotiations. Towards that end, the Department issued Invitation to Negotiate 13/14-01 on August 27, 2013, soliciting service solutions for the operation of the SDU. Prior to receiving replies to the ITN, the Department issued seven addenda to the ITN, provided several replacement pages to the ITN and answered numerous vendor questions regarding the ITN. After the release of the ITN and the seven addenda, there was no protest filed pursuant to section 120.57, Florida Statutes, regarding the ITN's specifications. As such, any objection to those specifications was waived by Petitioner and Intervenor. In this case, the ITN required a vendor's reply to be in a particular format. Specifically, the ITN required that a vendor's reply consist of two components presented in two multiple-tabbed binders: the Administrative/Technical Reply (Technical Reply) and the Cost Data Reply (Cost Reply). Technical Replies were to contain non-cost information such as corporate capability, proposed solution technical components, quality assurance and monitoring, and a variety of attachments. Cost Replies were to contain a vendor's Transaction Rate, Baseline Compensation, Reimbursable Costs, and other cost-related information as specified by the ITN. Vendors were not permitted to disclose any cost information in the Technical Reply. Additionally, the ITN required that a 15-page "Requirements Response Location Form" be completed and provided by the vendor in its ITN reply. The form listed the section numbers of the essential criteria of the ITN and the pages of the ITN on which each criterion could be found. The form also contained blank spaces adjacent to each referenced criteria where the vendor was to list the sections and pages of the vendor's reply that responded to each of the referenced criteria in the requirements response form. Relevant to this case, Section 1 of ITN 13/14-01 contained general definitions of terms used in the ITN. Under Section 1, a "Responsive Reply" was defined as "[a] Reply submitted by a responsible Vendor that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation." A "Minor Irregularity" was defined as "[v]ariations of terms and conditions from the Invitation to Negotiate which do not affect the price of the Reply or give the Vendor an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other Vendors or do not adversely impact the interests of the State." Additionally, the Department reserved the right to waive minor irregularities in a vendor's reply. ITN Section 2.4 provided: "The FDOR intends to negotiate with one or more Vendors who are compliant with the mandatory compliance items identified throughout this document." ITN Section 2.5 addressed Desired vs. Mandatory Requirements and Actions: Within the ITN the use of "shall" or "must" indicates a mandatory requirement or mandatory action. The FDOR may consider failure to meet a mandatory requirement to be a material deficiency, in which case the FDOR may reject the Reply and not consider it further, or FDOR may have the option to score that requirement with a zero (0). (emphasis added). The use of "should" or "may" indicates a desired requirement. The FDOR will not reject a Reply just because it fails to meet a desired requirement and may result in a lower score for that requirement. Clearly under the ITN, the mandatory nature of a requirement did not result in the criteria also being material since the Department could consider failure to meet a mandatory requirement to be a material deficiency or allow the vendor to move to the evaluation phase with the materiality of such criteria to be addressed by the evaluators during scoring. ITN Section 3.1.9, titled "Material Requirements Compliance Review," addressed the ITN's pro-forma review for responsiveness and provided: Each Vendor shall submit a Reply that conforms in all material respects to this solicitation. Material requirements of the ITN are those set forth as mandatory or those that affect the competitiveness of Replies. All Replies will be reviewed to determine if they are responsive. The FDOR will conduct a Material Requirements Compliance Review of all Replies submitted in response to this ITN. This review does not assign scores, but is simply a pass/fail review. Replies that do not meet all material requirements of this ITN; fail any of the mandatory requirements in this ITN; fail to timely respond to Reply Qualification Requests (see Section 3.1.10); fail to provide the required/requested information, documents, or materials in the Reply and/or during the Reply Qualification Process; or include language that is conditional, or takes exception to terms, conditions and requirements, shall be rejected as non-responsive and not considered further. The FDOR reserves the right to determine whether a Reply meets the material requirements of the ITN. Additionally, Section 3.1.10 of the ITN provided that the Department was to initially review each reply "to determine a Vendor's compliance with the requirements of the ITN not directly related to the Technical Specifications and Cost Data of the ITN." (emphasis added). A checklist titled "Material Requirements Compliance Review" was used to determine the responsiveness of a reply. The checklist items are not at issue here. Importantly, per the ITN criteria, the material responsiveness review was a review of the form of a reply and not a review of the substance of the same. Indeed, deficient replies could be cured as part of the "Reply Qualification Process." After the responsiveness review, an Evaluation Committee chosen by the Department would score the Administrative/Technical Volume for each vendor in accordance with the evaluation criteria in the ITN. Towards that review, the vendor was required to complete and submit the "Requirements Response Location Form" as part of its reply. As indicated earlier, the response location form listed the section numbers of the essential criteria of the ITN and the pages of the ITN on which each criterion could be found. The form's criteria references matched the criteria references in the score sheets to be used by the individual evaluators to score a vendor's reply. Further, the evaluation committee used the location form to locate information within a vendor's reply. In evaluating replies, the committee members were not expected to hunt down information in a vendor's reply outside what was provided by a vendor on its response location form. Thus, the form is a very good indication of the materiality or importance of a particular ITN criteria since those criteria were the ones on which a vendor's reply was to be evaluated. Relevant to this case, Section 7.13.1.1 of the ITN required that a letter of commitment for a surety bond be submitted with a vendor's cost reply. There was no prescribed format or wording for this letter. Additionally, Section 12 of the ITN contained a table titled "Attachments and Submittals." According to Section 12, the table listed a variety of documents "to be completed and included in Volume One: Administrative/Technical as indicated[.]" However, the table clearly listed documents that the ITN, in other sections, required to be in Volume Two, the Cost Data Reply. In fact, the table itself only indicated who should complete a document. It did not indicate whether a document was required, for responsiveness purposes, to be submitted with a reply. The "as indicated" language, referenced above, referred to other sections within the ITN to determine if such documents should be submitted and in what volume they should be submitted. Other than referral to other sections of the ITN, Section 12 did not require that any document listed in its table be attached to the ITN. Two of the documents listed in Section 12 of the ITN were "Incident Control Policy and Procedures" and "Change Management Policy and Procedures." In the column of the table titled "Attachment" these two documents were listed as "Vendor's Documents." However, unlike the other documents listed in the Section 12 table, these two documents had no attendant requirement in other sections of the ITN stating that the two documents should be provided or where in a vendor's reply the two documents should be placed. The Department's responses to October 24, 2014, vendor questions 18 and 19 regarding these documents were that the two documents referred to the vendor's corporate documents and that a copy of such documents were required to be submitted with a vendor's "proposal." Except for the Department's responses, there were no written addenda amendments to the ITN document making such submission mandatory or indicating in what section of the vendor's multi-tabbed response the documents should be included. Further, no addenda amendments were made to the response location form to cover these documents. Similarly, no addenda amendments were made to the evaluator's score sheets to cover or evaluate these documents. Thus, despite the use of the word "required" in the Department's response to questions 18 and 19 and in view of the lack of any amendments to the ITN in relation to these responses, the evidence demonstrated that submission of these two documents with a vendor's reply was only desired by the Department and was not mandatorily required under the ITN for purposes of responsiveness. Section 12 of the ITN also listed Attachment G, "Individual Contractor Security and Agreement Form." The form was to be "completed" by the vendor and subcontractors. As discussed above, inclusion in the Section 12 table did not indicate whether a document was required for responsiveness purposes to be submitted with a reply. Those criteria were found elsewhere in the ITN. Notably, the provision of the standard contract which would emerge from this ITN required the security form be executed by subcontractors within five days of signing the contract. More importantly, Section 6.6 of the ITN stated that Attachment G "should" be executed and submitted with a vendor's reply. As such, the document's attachment was not mandatorily required for responsiveness purposes, but was only desired by the Department at this point in the ITN process since the winning vendor and its subcontractor's must provide the document within five days of signing the contract. The ITN further provided in Section 10.3.2 that upon completion of the Administrative/Technical evaluation, the Cost Data Volume would be publicly opened and scored. Relevant to this case, the ITN addressed renewal cost and renewal of any future contract in Section 7.4 of the ITN. Section 7.4 stated, in pertinent part: RENEWALS The FDOR reserves the right to renew any Contract resulting from this ITN. Renewals shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the original Contract and subsequent amendments, . . . Vendors shall include the cost of any contemplated renewals in their Reply, . . . In substance the section tracked the language of section 287.057(13), Florida Statutes, making any renewal subject to the same terms and conditions, including price, as the original contract. The statute also requires that the "price" of any "services to be renewed" be provided in a vendor's reply. However, if a separate renewal price was not provided in a vendor's reply, any renewals would be at the price of the original contract since under the ITN the original price would be the renewal price for section 287.057(13) purposes. On the other hand, Section 7.4 of the ITN deviated from the statute's language and required that the "cost" of any "contemplated renewals" be included in the vendor's reply. Such cost information was not part of the criteria requirements listed for the ITN on the "Requirements Response Location Form" and was not part of the requirements to be evaluated by the evaluation committee. Question 39 posited by SMI on September 18, 2013, asked about the handling of renewal cost information in the vendor replies to the ITN. The Department's response to question 39 was that "renewal rate information" "should" "please" be provided in summary form in the cost volume of the vendor's reply to the ITN. Additionally, the Department's response stated that renewal cost information was not to be "scored" as part of the transaction rate. Clearly, the Department in its response viewed this "rate information" as related to the transaction rate, which was one of several costs used to calculate total compensation under the ITN. The Department's explanation or interpretation of Section 7.4 has a reasonable basis since renewal of the contract was statutorily restricted to the same terms and conditions of the original contract, making such renewal cost information immaterial. Additionally, the renewal information was not part of the scoring criteria that permitted a vendor to move through the negotiation process under the ITN and was not required in order for a vendor to be responsive to the ITN. In essence, the Department's response made the provision of renewal cost information a non- essential criteria of the ITN. Non-compliance with such criteria can be waived by the Department as a minor irregularity.2/ ITN Section 10.3.2.1.4 provided: Only cost submitted in the prescribed format will be considered. Alternate cost models will not be considered for scoring purposes. Vendors selected for negotiations will be provided the opportunity to present alternate costing structures. "Alternate cost models" referred to models that did not use a transaction-based rate such as a fixed price model or did not use the format for calculating compensation required by the ITN. Part of the format for vendor cost replies included Attachments K (Transaction Rate Cost Form), L (Baseline Compensation Form), M (Reimbursable Cost Form), N (Unknown, Unanticipated, and Unspecified Tasks Cost Form), and O (Total Compensation Form). Additionally, after questions posed by the vendors, the Department supplied an estimate of the number of transactions it predicted might be processed by the SDU under the contract. The estimate provided by the Department was 69,425,110 transactions and was based in part on an assumed percentage increase in actual transactions that occurred under the current contract in 2012. Attachment K was the form used by a vendor to explain and report the per-transaction rate that the vendor would charge the Department for each transaction it processed through the SDU. The form required disclosure of the costs the vendor included in determining its transaction rate. The form was required to be signed by a representative who could bind the vendor. Relative to Attachment K under the ITN, neither the method used nor the costs included by a vendor to calculate its transaction rate was prescribed by the ITN criteria. There was no requirement that the Department's estimated number of transactions of 69,425,110 be used in calculating the vendor's transaction rate. The Department only supplied such estimates as information to the vendor. In fact, a vendor was free to use its own assumptions regarding the estimated number of transactions that might be processed through the SDU in its calculation of its transaction rate. The method of rate calculation did have to be explained. However, once calculated, the vendor's transaction rate was carried over to line "B" on Attachment L which, as discussed below, ultimately filtered through to a contract price and commensurate price of services that might be renewed in Attachment O. Attachment L was the form used to calculate the baseline compensation cost for the vendor. The initial form did not require that the Department's estimate of 69,425,110 transactions be used in the calculation of the baseline compensation cost. After questions from the vendors and internal discussions within the Department, Attachment L was revised to require that the Department's estimated number of transactions be used on that form. Notably, the Department did not revise Attachment K to require the use of the estimate when it revised Attachment L. The formula used to calculate Projected Baseline Compensation on Attachment L required the vendor to multiply its transaction rate from Attachment K by the Department's estimated transactions of 69,425,110. The requirement to use the Department's estimated number of transactions on Attachment L normalized the vendors' baseline compensation calculation so that an apples-to-apples comparison of baseline compensation could be made between vendors. Once calculated, the projected baseline compensation cost calculation was carried over to a line item in Attachment O, which form calculated the total projected SDU compensation, the cost factor used in awarding points to evaluate a vendor's reply. Attachment M was the form on which a vendor was to submit estimates of actual costs the vendor anticipated it would expend for performing the contract. Although not specified, presumably the costs listed by the vendor on Attachment M would be those not used in the vendor's Attachment K transaction rate calculation. Additionally, ITN specifications Sections 7.10.4.3 and 10.3.2.3 provided that all vendors "shall execute and submit Attachment M: Reimbursable Costs." The term "execute" simply means to complete. Within Attachment M, a list of several anticipated cost categories (facilities rent/lease, postage, e-disbursement, post office box fees, etc.) were provided by the Department. There were also several blank fields for additional cost categories contained on the form. The specifically-listed cost categories were those categories the Department, in its experience, anticipated a vendor might incur and for which it would reimburse a vendor. The use of the phrase "will reimburse" in relation to these anticipated cost categories did not make the reporting of such costs mandatory given the format of Attachment M and the instructions later provided on the form discussed below. Such anticipation only indicated interest by the Department in those expense categories but did not create a requirement that those specific expenses were required to be estimated by a vendor for purposes of responsiveness to the ITN in order to move forward in the evaluation and negotiation process.3/ Indeed, such costs or expenses were intentionally negotiable under the ITN. Following this list, a box to provide the amount of each reimbursable cost and ultimate total was provided at the end of Attachment M. Notably, except for two of the anticipated cost categories, the box did not include any of the anticipated costs listed earlier in Attachment M. The two cost categories that were listed in the reimbursable cost box were "Facilities Rent/Lease" and "CSR Salary Expenses." Both these cost categories had blank fields where the vendor was required to fill in an amount in the reimbursable cost box at the end of Attachment M. Additionally, the instructions for executing the box clearly stated that amounts for these two categories must be provided. As indicated, the other anticipated costs contained on Attachment M were not specifically listed in the reimbursable cost box. Only blanks, labeled as "(other)," where amounts for vendor "proposed" costs could be reported were contained within the box. Given the format of this form and the instructions at the top of the reimbursable cost box, amounts for anticipated cost categories listed in Attachment M, other than the two required cost categories in the box, were not required to be proposed by the vendor in completing Attachment M and, as indicated earlier, such amounts were not required in order for a reply to be responsive to the ITN. As with the other forms, the total from the reimbursable cost box was carried over to a line item in Attachment O. Attachment O was the form used to calculate the total projected SDU compensation that constituted the vendor's proposed contract price. The proposed price was also the price for services which may be renewed since, unless the vendor proposed a different renewal price, this was the original price proposed as a term of the initial contract. Section 10.3.2 sets forth the formula for scoring the Cost Data Volume of a vendor. The formula was: Total Available Cost Points x Amount of Lowest Response Cost/Vendor's Reply Cost (emphasis in original). The ITN further stated: "Each Vendor's Cost Data points will be added to their Administrative/Technical score to obtain the Vendor's Total Reply Score. The Vendor's Total Reply Score will be used to determine which Vendors the FDOR will Negotiate with." Thus, the vendor with the lowest cost would receive the maximum points available for its Cost Data Volume with all other vendors receiving a portion of the total available Cost Data points proportionate to the difference between their proposed cost and that of the vendor with the lowest cost. Notably, lower cost points did not disqualify a vendor from selection for negotiation. Similarly, a lower Total Reply Score did not disqualify a vendor from selection for negotiation because the goal in an ITN procurement is to develop a range of vendor replies for negotiation. The ITN, in Section 11.3, provided broad discretion to the Department regarding the manner in which negotiations would be conducted, including obtaining revised offers from vendors. The section reserved to the Department the right to: negotiate with one or more, all, or none of the vendors; eliminate any vendor from consideration during negotiations as deemed to be in the best interest of the State; and conduct negotiations sequentially, concurrently, or not at all. Sections 3.1.19.1 and 11.5 of the ITN provided that at the "conclusion" of negotiations, the Department would post a Notice of Intended Agency Decision, as determined to be in the best interest of the State. However, this language must be read in conjunction with Section 11.4 of the ITN that authorized the Department's negotiation team to request a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) from one or more vendors with which the Department concluded negotiations. The section reserved to the Department the right to "request additional BAFO; reject submitted BAFO; and/or move to the next vendor" after a BAFO had been submitted and negotiations concluded. Additionally, Section 2.6.9 contemplates that discussions, i.e. negotiations, regarding the form and language of the final contract would continue after the Notice of Intent to Award was posted. Section 2.6.9 states: The FDOR anticipates initially addressing any contract terms and conditions or concerns during the Negotiation process and then continue discussions post award. Given this language, the Department, in its judgment and acting in the best interest of the state, may post an intended award prior to the complete conclusion of negotiations and finalization of the contract with a vendor. In this case, SMI and Xerox both timely submitted a reply to the ITN. Each reply contained a Volume I: Administrative/Technical; and a Volume II: Cost Data. Both vendors submitted a completed Requirements Location Response Form and had information contained in their reply relative to the references contained in that form. As indicated earlier, under the ITN's pro forma responsiveness review, the substance of each vendor's reply was not a determining factor in whether a vendor's reply was responsive to the ITN for purposes of being accepted and moving forward in the ITN process. John Kinneer was a purchasing analyst with the Department. He served as the procurement officer and as a negotiator with respect to the ITN. Mr. Kinneer reviewed the technical replies submitted by Xerox and SMI for pro-forma responsiveness to the ITN sufficient to move forward in the ITN process. In compliance with the ITN, he checked the Material Requirements form for both vendors and checked that each vendor had some information in its technical reply relative to the response form. Per the ITN, he did not check the substance of that information. In this case, the evidence demonstrated that both replies met the preliminary responsiveness requirements of the ITN and properly moved forward in the ITN process to the evaluation phase. The Department appointed an evaluation team of seven persons to evaluate and score the Technical Replies. The Committee consisted of Shannon Herold, Barbara Johnson, Connie Beach, Stan Eatman, Beth Doredant, Mark Huff, and Craig Curry. Under the ITN, the evaluation team was tasked with analyzing the substance of each reply and scoring them accordingly with any issues regarding the quality or responsiveness of a vendor's reply to be addressed in that evaluator's scoring. Each evaluator reviewed and independently scored each vendor's reply according to the criteria listed in the "Requirements Response Location Form." In this case, both replies contained a surety letter of commitment as required by Section 7.13.1.1 of the ITN. SMI's letter was from OneBeacon, the apparent bonding agent in the letter. Indeed, there was no evidence that OneBeacon was not a bonding company. The letter indicated that OneBeacon intended to provide a bond to SMI and that SMI qualified for such a bond in an amount sufficient to meet the requirements of the ITN. Xerox's letter of commitment was also from an apparent bonding company and stated only that the bonding company was "prepared to write the required performance bond" in an unspecified amount and "subject to standard underwriting conditions." While one may quibble about the language used in both Xerox's and SMI's letters, the evidence showed that both letters were not simply letters of reference from a bonding company but were letters of commitment from such companies and were intended as such by those bonding agents. Moreover, the language of both letters was acceptable to the Department as meeting the requirements of the ITN. As such, both Xerox and SMI were responsive to the surety commitment requirements of the ITN. Xerox's reply also attached a copy of its Corporate Change Control Policy and Procedures and a copy of its Corporate Incident Control Policy. These documents were developed by Xerox over several years of being in the business of providing SDU services. They were not developed in relation to this ITN and the evidence did not show that Xerox was disadvantaged either monetarily or otherwise by producing these documents for the ITN. On the other hand, SMI did not attach such documents. Instead, SMI summarized the substance of its policy and procedures in Tabs 3, 10 and 13 of its Technical Reply and included a copy of SMI's corporate Security Plan encompassing the incident and control policies of SMI. The quality of SMI's reply was evaluated by the evaluation committee members and scored according to the criteria relevant to the ITN. Further, the evidence demonstrated that failure to attach these two documents would not adversely affect any vendor or impair the procurement process since a vendor ultimately was required to agree to adopt the Department's incident control and change management policies and procedures. Moreover, as indicated earlier, the documents were not part of the responsiveness requirements under the ITN. Therefore, SMI's reply was responsive without the attachment of these two documents. However, assuming such documents were required, the evidence demonstrated that the lack of copies of specific documents titled in a certain way was a minor irregularity which the Department reasonably waived since SMI summarized the information relevant to these documents in its reply. Such waiver was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Additionally, Xerox submitted with its reply an executed Attachment G, Individual Contractor Security Agreement Form, for both itself and its proposed subcontractors. SMI submitted an executed Attachment G for itself but did not submit the attachment for its proposed subcontractors. The form was not submitted for SMI's proposed subcontractors because its subcontractors could not access the Department's online procurement library to determine what they would be agreeing to by signing the form. The inaccessibility of the procurement library was not the fault of SMI or its subcontractors but was due to the Department's failure to provide the policies referenced. Additionally, the Department's Standard Contract required Attachment G to be provided within five business days of contract execution. The evidence did not demonstrate that SMI's failure to include an executed Attachment G for its subcontractors constituted a material deviation from the ITN. Further, as indicated above, Attachment G was not a mandatory provision of the ITN for responsiveness purposes. As such, SMI's reply was responsive on this criterion. However, even assuming Attachment G was required under the ITN, the quality of SMI's reply was evaluated by the evaluation committee members under the relevant criteria. The evidence did not demonstrate that SMI obtained an unfair competitive advantage by not including this form in its reply since any subcontractor would have to submit the executed form after contract execution as required by the Department's Standard Contract. Additionally, the evidence did not demonstrate that the procurement process was undermined by the lack of a subcontractor Attachment G in SMI's reply. Therefore, the lack of such a document in SMI's reply was reasonably waived by the Department as a minor irregularity and such waiver was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evaluation team completed scoring of the vendor's technical replies around January 17, 2014. Xerox scored 969 points and SMI scored 943 points. The difference of 26 points was not shown by the evidence to be significant since both vendors were experienced and well qualified to perform the services required to operate the child support State Disbursement Unit. After the technical replies were evaluated and scored, the initial Cost Data replies of each vendor were opened and the total costs read aloud at a public meeting. The initial cost replies were reviewed by Mr. Kinneer to ensure the replies were mathematically accurate and that the cost forms were used. He did not review or consider the substance of the cost numbers included on those forms or the narratives in the cost replies. The substance of the cost replies was left for consideration by the negotiation team. Xerox's proposed total compensation for years 1 through 5 of the contract was $84,920,072.00. SMI's proposed total compensation for the same period was $47,996,387.00, approximately $36 million less than Xerox's proposed compensation. Neither vendor submitted a separate price for renewal of the SDU services contract. Therefore, for purposes of section 287.057(13), Florida Statutes, the "price" for the "services to be renewed" was the amount stated above for that vendor. Both Xerox and SMI were responsive for purposes of the statutory requirement of section 287.057(13). Xerox also submitted a brief summary of renewal cost in its introductory letter to its cost reply. In essence, Xerox did not anticipate any renewal cost associated with future renewal of the contract. SMI, also, did not anticipate any renewal cost associated with future renewal of the contract, but did not submit a statement to that effect. However, as discussed above, such cost information was not part of the criteria requirements listed for the ITN on the "Requirements Response Location Form" and was not part of the requirements to be scored by the Department for purposes of the cost reply. The evidence demonstrated that the information was immaterial to the Department in evaluating these replies. Further, the evidence did not demonstrate that failure to summarize such renewal cost information would adversely affect any vendor or impair the procurement process. Under this ITN and the facts of this case, the failure to provide such non-essential cost information constituted a minor irregularity and was appropriately waived by the Department. The Department's action in that regard was not unreasonable and was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evidence showed that both vendors filled out Attachments K, L, M, N, and O. Relative to Attachment K, Transaction Rate, both vendors completed the form based on their unique assumptions regarding the appropriate transaction rate. Neither vendor used the Department's estimated transaction amount of 69,425,110 transactions. Xerox claimed that its assumptions took into consideration the Department's estimate and that such consideration was buried in its ultimate calculation. However, Xerox's mathematical explanation of its transaction rate calculation on its Attachment K does not reflect that it used the Department's estimate in its calculation. In general, the explanation of its transaction rate contained in its reply reflects that Xerox based its transaction rate on the current contract price minus the annualized costs contained in its Attachment M, divided by the actual number of transactions Xerox processed in 2012 and discounted by 12% to produce a transaction rate of 1.150 for the ITN. Clearly, Xerox did not use the Department's estimate in its calculation and, instead, based its transaction rate on the current contract price, a method the Department warned vendors against using. Similarly, SMI did not use the Department's estimated transaction number in its calculation of its transaction rate on Attachment K. SMI based its proposed rate of .497 on its own historical transaction volumes from other states. The estimated number of transactions used by SMI was 45,066,694 transactions. For unknown reasons, the detailed explanation of the amount of transactions used by SMI was placed on Attachment L. However, the explanation was not used on Attachment L and did not impact the calculation contained on Attachment L. Such misplacement was immaterial to the ITN and had no impact on the ultimate result in Attachment O. As such, the misplaced explanation did not render SMI's Attachment K non-responsive to the ITN and both Xerox and SMI were responsive to the ITN regarding Attachment K. Likewise, the misplaced explanation of SMI's transaction volume did not render SMI's Attachment L non- responsive to the ITN since it was immaterial to that Attachment. Further, the evidence demonstrated that both Xerox and SMI used the Department's estimated transaction volume on Attachment L as required by the ITN. Therefore, both Xerox and SMI were responsive to the ITN regarding Attachment L. Relative to Attachment M, Reimbursable Costs, both vendors supplied cost amounts for rent and CSR salaries as required by Attachment M. However, neither vendor supplied all of the cost amounts listed in Attachment M's list of anticipated costs. SMI did not supply amounts for postage associated with certain services, post office box fees, foreign bank fees, and hand-signed paper check stock costs. Xerox did not supply amounts associated with SDU mass mailings as listed in cost category two for postage-related items on Attachment M and did not submit an amount for telecommunications cost. As discussed earlier, except for two of the anticipated cost categories of rent and CSR salaries, the ITN did not require that amounts be supplied for those categories in order for a reply to be responsive to the ITN. Therefore, both Xerox and SMI were responsive to the ITN regarding Attachment M. Both Xerox and SMI submitted a responsive Attachment O which included line items from Attachments K through N. Attachment O formed the basis for awarding points based on the lowest cost. As indicated earlier, Xerox's proposed total compensation for years 1 through 5 of the contract was $84,920,072.00. SMI's proposed total compensation for the same period was $47,996,387.00. Under the ITN, the cost replies were scored according to the ITN specifications in Section 10.3.2 and the formula contained therein. SMI received a total of 660 points as the low cost reply. As the second lowest cost reply, Xerox received 376 points as a proportion of the total 660 points received by SMI. Both vendors' scores were added to their technical scores. SMI received a combined Total Reply score of 1603 points for its reply. Xerox received a combined Total Reply Score of 1346 points for its reply. As responsible and responsive vendors, both Xerox and SMI were selected to participate in the negotiation phase of the ITN, where, under the ITN, the criteria and terms of the ITN became negotiable. Further, the evidence did not demonstrate that either the evaluation scores or the Total Reply Scores impacted the ITN process beyond qualifying the vendors to participate in the negotiation process. The Department formed a Negotiation Team consisting of Thomas Mato, Clark Rogers, Nancy Luja, Max Smart, Steve Updike, John Kinneer, and Bo Scearce. Several meetings of the Negotiation Team were held during which the team evaluated Xerox's and SMI's replies, posed written questions to the vendors and discussed technical issues with technical experts. Face to face negotiating sessions between the team and the vendors were also held, as well as meetings to discuss technical issues with the parties. Additionally, two rounds of separate demonstrations of a vendor's proposed system and solution were given to the Negotiation Team by Xerox and SMI. The Negotiation Team only observed the demonstration of each vendor in the first such meeting. During the second demonstration by each vendor, the Negotiation Team observed the demonstration and asked questions of the vendor. Based on these demonstrations and meetings, the team elected to request revised replies from both vendors. At some point prior to submission of the revised offers and per the ITN, the team communicated to Xerox that, if it wished to stay competitive in the ITN process, it should bring its price closer to that of SMI. The team also communicated its desire to SMI that costs from the anticipated cost list on Attachment M that SMI had not included in its initial reply should be included on that form. With that information from the Negotiation Team, Xerox and SMI submitted revised cost replies. Xerox's Total Projected SDU Compensation dropped from $84,920,072.00 to $48,200,000.00. Its transaction rate was reduced from $1.150 to $.525. Its Attachment M cost estimate increased from $5,081,195.50 to $9,926,119.00. SMI's Total Projected SDU Compensation increased from $47,996,387.00 to $49,500,000.00. Importantly, its transaction rate remained the same at $.497. Its Attachment M cost decreased from $13,492,107.00 to $12,433,125.00. After reviewing the revised replies, the Negotiation Team elected to continue to conduct negotiations with SMI first. Such vendor selection was appropriate under the ITN since its transaction rate remained lower than Xerox's transaction rate and the team preferred SMI's solution for a variety of legitimate reasons to Xerox's solution. Additional negotiations were conducted with SMI, resulting in additional terms and conditions. After several such negotiation meetings, the evidence showed that the substantive part of the negotiations, including price and scope of work, had concluded with only final contractual language remaining. As such, the Negotiation Team requested a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) from SMI. On May 14, 2014, SMI submitted its BAFO. SMI's Total Projected SDU Compensation increased from $49,500,000.00 to $50,700,000.00. Its transaction rate dropped slightly to $.495 and its Attachment M cost increased from $12,433,125.00 to $13,740,152.09. The BAFO was acceptable to the negotiation team and would, along with SMI's technical reply, become part of the Department's standard contract under the ITN. The team reasonably concluded SMI's management team was superior, and its solution was more customer friendly, intuitive, efficient, and innovative. The Negotiation Team documented its reasons for selecting SMI in a memorandum to the procurement file. On May 19, 2014, the Department posted its Notice of Intended Award to SMI. The evidence did not demonstrate that the award violated section 287.057, Florida Statutes, since that section only requires that negotiations be "conducted" prior to an intended award of a contract. Notably, the award is only intended and is not final since the Department under Sections 3.1.19.2 and 7.3 is not required to enter into a contract if such a document cannot be finalized. Indeed, the statutory language of section 287.057(4) and the ITN in Section 2.6.9 permit continued negotiation and finalization of a contract after the Notice of Intended Award. In this case, the evidence demonstrated that the negotiations between the negotiation team and SMI resulted in a meeting of the minds regarding the services that SMI would be performing and the price for those services. Further, the evidence showed that the negotiations had concluded in all substantial respects prior to posting of the Notice of Intent to Award the contract to SMI. What remained for the Department and SMI to accomplish was the finalization of the contract assembly by inserting the BAFO, Technical Reply, and price into the contract language; insertion of a start date; and work on implementation issues such as invoices and background screening of employees. Given these facts, the evidence demonstrated that the point at which the Department elected to post its Notice of Intended Award was reasonable since the substantive parts of the negotiations were complete. Ultimately, the evidence in this case did not demonstrate that the ITN process followed by the Department was fundamentally flawed or gave an advantage to one vendor over another. Further, the actions of the Department in this procurement were not contrary to the Department's statutes; contrary to the Department's rules or policies; or contrary to a reasoned interpretation of the ITN specifications. Finally, the evidence did not demonstrate that the Department's actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Given these facts, the protest filed by Petitioner should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Florida Department of Revenue, enter a final order dismissing the protest of Petitioner, Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., and approving the award of the contract to Intervenor, Systems and Methods, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 18th day of February, 2015.
The Issue Does Respondent, Ynnor Distribution Group, Inc., owe Petitioner, William E. Gable, Jr., d/b/a Gable Enterprises, $13,430.02 for the sale of four shipments of watermelons?
Findings Of Fact On July 17, 2001, Mr. Gable sold Ynnor 42,330 pounds of watermelon for $3,128.19. (Exhibit 1) On July 17, 2001, Mr. Gable sold Ynnor 42,740 pounds of watermelon for $3,150.70. (Exhibit 2) On July 19, 2001, Mr. Gable sold Ynnor 46,283 pounds of watermelon for $4,165.47. (Exhibit 3) On July 24, 2001, Mr. Gable sold Ynnor 44,540 pounds of watermelon for $2,985.70. (Exhibit 4) The total amount Ynnor owed Mr. Gable was $13,430.02. (Exhibit 4) There was no payment on the account by Ynnor. Mr. Gable called the recipient of the watermelons. They were all received in good shape and payment for the watermelons was made by the recipient to Ynnor. Ynnor did not attend the hearing. No evidence was received on the amount Ynnor alleged as a counterclaim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter its final order finding that Respondent, Ynnor Distribution Group, Inc., owes Petitioner, William E. Gable, the amount of $13,430.02. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 27th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Alves Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 87 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Ronald S. Booth, Sr. Ynnor Distribution Group, Inc. Post Office Box 1202 Winter Haven, Florida 33882-1202 William E. Gable, Jr. Gable Enterprises 6511 Bradley Road Marianna, Florida 32448 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Stop 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
