14-001024BID At And T Corp. vs. Brevard County School Board
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, October 1, 2014.


View Dockets  
Summary: Vendors, although responsible and responsive to the RFP, not entitled to change pricing once proposal is submitted.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8AT AND T CORP.,

12Petitioner,

13vs. Case No. 14 - 1024BID

19BREVARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

23Respondent,

24and

25BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORK, LLC,

29Intervenor.

30_______________________________/

31R ECOMMENDED ORDER

34Pursuant to notice , this case was tried before

42J. D. Parrish, an Administrative Law Judge with the Division of

53Administrative Hearings (DOAH) , on July 10 and 11, 2014, in

63Viera, Florida.

65APPEARANCES

66For Petitioner: William K. Mosca, Esq uire

73Gabrielle A. Figueroa, Esquire

77Bevan, Mosca, Guiditta,

80and Zarillo, P.C.

83222 Mount Airy Road, Suite 200

89Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920

94For Respondent: Ha rold T. Bistline, Esquire

101Stromire, Bistline and Miniclier

1051 037 Pathfinder Way , Suite 150

111Rockledge, Florida 32955

114For Intervenor: Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esquire

120Frank Kruppenbacher, P. A.

1249064 Great Heron Circle

128Orlando, Florida 32836 - 5483

133Thomas P. Callan, Esquire

137Callan Law Firm, P.A.

141921 Bradshaw Terrace

144Orlando, Florida 32806

147Gigi Rollini, Esquire

1502618 Centennial Place

153Tallahassee, Florida 32308

156Frederick R. Dudley, Esquire

160Dudley, Sellers & Healy, P.L.

1653522 Tho masville Road

169Tallahassee, Florida 32309

172STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

176Whether the Brevard County School Board (Board) erred in

185issuing its preliminary decision to award a contract for proposal

195#14 - P - 081 - WH for internet provider wide area netwo rk services to

211Intervenor, Bright House Network, LLC (Bright House) .

219PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

221On or about December 23, 2013, the Board issued a request

232for proposal (RFP) designated as #14 - P - 081 - WH seeking vendors who

247could provide internet provider (IP) wide area network (WAN)

256services as described in the proposal documents. The RFP set

266forth a pre - proposal meeting to allow interested parties to ask

278questions and seek additional information if needed in order to

288accurately prepare a proposal.

292The deadline for the submittal of proposals was January 22,

3022014 , at 2:00 p.m. Petitioner, AT and T Corp. ( AT and T ), timely

317submitted a proposal for the contract award as did Bright House.

328Eventually , AT and T and Bright House were chosen as the two

340final candidates to be considered for the contract. In

349accordance with the RFP they were invited to make oral

359presentations. The selection committee was to then rank the

368companies to determine which would receive the contract. After

377the deliberations were completed , AT and T did not receive the

388award. Based upon the manner and timing of the oral

398presentations along with technical claims raised against the

406Bright House proposal, AT and T timely filed a challenge to the

418proposed award to Bright House.

423The Board referre d this case to DOAH on March 7, 2014. The

436Formal Written Protest (the protest) filed by Petitioner

444requested that the Board Ðcancel/rescind its proposed award to

453Bright House Network Enterprise Solutions and instead award this

462contract to AT and T , the on ly responsive bidder between the two

475finalists.Ñ PetitionerÓs protest alleged that Bright House

482should not be awarded the contract because : a. IntervenorÓs

492proposal was non - responsive to the RFP, and b. Intervenor

503obtained an unfair advantage in the eval uation process. Bright

513House has maintained its proposal substantially met all

521requirements of the RFP (this claim is accepted by the School

532Board) and that it did not receive an unfair advantage during the

544oral presentation portion of the evaluation (thi s claim is

554disputed by the School Board).

559During the discovery portion of the instant case , Respondent

568determined its initial decision to award the contract to Bright

578House was incorrect. Thereafter, the Board joined AT and T in

589its assertion that Brigh t House participated in the oral

599presentation with an unfair advantage and that by its conduct

609should not receive the award.

614The case was originally scheduled for hearing for March 31

624and April 1, 2014. Thereafter , the case was continued twice

634before it was transferred to the undersigned. The parties

643engaged in significant discovery that ultimately reduced the

651hearing time required for the case and limited the factual issues

662to be tried.

665At hearing , Petitioner presented testimony from Erik

672Lindborg, C raig Cowden, Gabino Nieto, and Kristine Rumping.

681Respondent presented the testimony of Cheryl Olson. Intervenor

689offered testimony from the following witnesses: William

696Henzmann, Brad Freathy, Carrie Smith, Jeffrey Cook, and Tom E.

706Lewis. The parties of fered exhibits as described in the

716transcript of the proceedings. All objections to exhibits,

724documents, depositions, testimony, or motions to strike were

732ruled upon at hearing and are accurately noted in the transcript.

743The only unresolved motions pendi ng are those filed by Petitioner

754and Intervenor seeking attorneysÓ fees in connection with this

763case. Those motions are addressed herein.

769The T ranscript was filed with DOAH on July 29, 2014. All

781parties timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders that hav e been

791reviewed and considered in the drafting of this Recommended

800Order .

802FINDING S OF FACT

8061. The Board is a lawful entity of the State of Florida

818fully authorized to enter into contracts for the purchase of

828goods and services for the Brevard County Schoo l District.

8382. As part of its responsibility to acquire IP WAN services

849to its properties , the BoardÓs Office of Purchasing & Warehouse

859Services issued RFP #14 - P - 081 - WH on December 23, 2013.

8733. The RFP gave potential vendors the opportunity to attend

883a pre - proposal conference. Additionally, questions concerning

891any portion of the RFP could be directed in writing or by email

904to the BoardÓs designated employees. The deadline for submitting

913questions was seven days before the closing date. If questions

923were posed , the BoardÓ s staff afforded all vendors the

933opportunity to review questions and answers.

9394. The RFP terms and conditions were not challenged by any

950vendor.

9515. Five vendors timely submitted proposals for the RFP. Of

961those , AT and T and Brigh t House were deemed responsive and

973responsible and, as the highest ranked vendors, were invited to

983make oral presentations to the selection committee.

9906. AT and T was selected to present first at the oral

1002presentations on February 5, 2014. Its presentati on began at

10128:30 a.m. The Bright House presentation was scheduled to begin

1022at 10:00 a.m.

10257. Since both vendors were deemed responsive and

1033responsible , the criteria for evaluating the proposals was

1041designated by the RFP as follows:

10475.0 ORAL PRESENTATION EVALUATION CRITERIA

1052After evaluation of the proposals, the

1058evaluation committee may conduct interview s

1064or presentations from a short list of

1071vendors. If this is determined, your company

1078will be contacted for presentation to occur

1085on the date specified in Attachment ÐA.Ñ

1092Again, this is an optional presentation to be

1100determined by the evaluation committee.

1105The RespondentÓs response will be scored by

1112Committee member in accordance with the

1118following scale:

11200= Unsatisfactory: Not responsive to the

1126ques tion.

11281= Below Minimum Standards: Responsive to

1134the question but below acceptable standards.

11402= Marginal: Minimal acceptable performance

1145standards and responsive to the question.

11513= Satisfactory: Above minimum performance,

1156Effective and Responsive to the question.

11624= Exceeeds Expectations for effectiveness

1167and responsiveness to the question.

1172All presentations shall include at minimum:

11781. Ability, Capacity, and Skill of the

1185Proposer - (Weighted Value 25) The ability,

1192capacity, and skill of the f irm to be able to

1203provide the services here in addressed .

12102. Relevant Experience - (Weighted Value 25)

1217The experience of the respondent with Florida

1224School Boards and/or other political

1229subdivisions.

12303. Approach and Methodology - (Weighted Value

123710) The FirmÓs approach and methodology of

1244how the services herein addressed will be

1251provided.

12524. Best and Final Fee Schedule - (Weighted

1260Value 40) Completed Table 1.1 - Fee Schedule

1268and Attachment ÐBÑ Proposal Form and

1274Statement of Compliance. List any relevant

1280s ervices that are in addition to the duties

1289outlined in this solicitation and/or

1294revisions in the attached draft contract.

13008. The events that transpired at the oral presentations led

1310to the protest filed by AT and T . As previously noted , AT and T

1325was s cheduled to begin its presentation at 8:30 a.m. The

1336AT and T team arrived timely for the demonstration and noted that

1348members of the Bright House group were present in the room where

1360the presentations were to be made. AT and T sought assurances

1371that the Bright House presence would not adversely impact the

1381chances of AT and T to receive the contract. It never occurred

1393to the BoardÓs selection committee members that Bright House

1402might receive an unfair advantage by being able to view the

1413AT and T demonst ration before their presentation would be

1423offered.

14249. As the presentations were Ðopen to the public,Ñ Bright

1435House was allowed to remain in the room and reluctantly AT and T

1448proceeded with its demonstration and explanation of its proposal,

1457the equipment it planned to use, and its best and final fee

1469schedule. During the oral presentation , AT and T acknowledged

1478that their Ðbest and final fee scheduleÑ was different from the

1489numbers previously listed in their proposal. In the time between

1499the original pro posal submittal and the oral presentation,

1508AT and T had whittled its pricing down to its Ðbest and final

1521offer.Ñ

152210. When Bright House heard the final fee schedule AT and T

1534was proposing had changed in the interim, Bright House quickly

1544did a spreadsheet to reduce its prices below those proposed by

1555AT and T . It is undisputed that in the time between the two

1569presentations Bright House modified its oral presentation to

1577include information drafted in response to the AT and T oral

1588presentation.

158911. AT and T did not know the pricing Bright House had

1601included in its initial submission. Bright House did not know

1611the pricing AT and T had included in its initial submission.

1622Both vendors should have known that the highest ranked vendor

1632following the oral prese ntations would likely be awarded the

1642contract. As the weighted value for pricing was the heaviest

1652weighted criteria, Bright House obtained an unfair advantage by

1661changing its proposal after hearing and seeing the fee schedule

1671proposed by AT and T .

167712. Af ter the oral presentations , the selection committee

1686reviewed the proposals and selected Bright House for the intended

1696award. Once the Board discovered that Bright House changed its

1706presentation and fee schedule in response to the AT and T

1717proposal, it ann ounced its intention to rescind the proposed

1727award to Bright House and to give the contract to AT and T .

174113. Bright House maintains that because AT and T was

1751allowed to change its pricing from the sealed proposal, it, too,

1762was justified in changing its fee schedule. Bright House

1771believes that the sealed proposal price was the pricing the Board

1782was required to consider. Bright House claims that it did not

1793act unethically in changing its oral presentation materials since

1802it only did what AT and T was all owed to do (change its pricing).

181714. The Board now requires sealed documents from all

1826vendors making oral presentations so that no vendor may change

1836its proposal in response to an earlier presentation. It did not

1847occur to Board staff that a vendor woul d ever make such changes.

186015. In Florida , there are three competitive solicitation

1868processes that are used for the procurement of goods and

1878services. They are distinct under the law. An invitation to bid

1889(ITB) is used when the agency is able to define t he product or

1903service needed and when the acquisition is price - driven and

1914evaluated based upon the lowest responsive bid.

192116. The second process for the procurement of goods and

1931services is the request for proposals (RFP). This process

1940affords more flexi bility in that while the agency can define and

1952specify what it needs in terms of goods and services the price -

1965driven pro cess is not practicable as other considerations need to

1976be reviewed.

197817. And finally, the third process for the procurement of

1988goods or services is called invitation to negotiate (ITN). This

1998method is more time consuming and is designed to allow the agency

2010to negotiate in order to receive the best value.

201918. In this case , the Board attempted to fo llow a hybrid of

2032the RFP and ITN pro cesses. By allowing the vendors to fine - tune

2046their pricing between the submission of the original proposal and

2056the oral presentation , the Board sought to obtain the vendorÓs

2066lowest and best price.

207019. The letter dated January 30, 2014, from Board emplo yee ,

2081Cheryl Olson , to Bright House and AT and T reiterated the oral

2093presentation evaluation criteria. The letter further provided,

2100Ðshould you have any questions regarding the presentations,

2108please do not hesitate to contact Wil Henzmann, the Purchasing

2118A gent responsible for this projectÑ and gave his contact

2128information. Neither vendor contacted Mr. Henzmann regarding the

2136oral presentation evaluation criteria.

214020. The issue of this case resulted because Bright House

2150did not know that Ðbest and final f ee scheduleÑ as stated in the

2164oral presentation evaluation criteria (as interpreted by the

2172Board) allowed AT and T to do what it did: lower its fee

2185schedule to the lowest it could for the work proposed.

219521. The Board determined that both the Bright Hou se and

2206AT and T proposals materially met the terms and conditions of the

2218RFP. That determination was correct based upon the weight of the

2229credible evidence presented in this case. Both proposals

2237demonstrate the vendors were Ðresponsive and responsibleÑ as

2245described in the RFP.

224922. It is further determined that AT and T timely filed its

2261protest in this cause and submitted the appropriate bond as

2271required by law and section 3.45 of the RFP.

228023. No vendor timely challenged the terms Ðbest and final

2290fee sc heduleÑ as stated in section 5.0 of the RFP.

230124. Allowing Bright House to change its presentation in

2310response to the AT and T presentation gave it an advantage not

2322extended to AT and T .

232825. The selection committee did not authorize the changes

2337Bright H ouse made to its oral presentation in response to

2348AT and T Ós presentation.

235326. Bright House did not readily admit it had made changes

2364to its presentation after viewing and hearing the AT and T

2375presentation.

237627. Bright House does not acknowledge it took unfair

2385advantage by changing its proposal in response to the AT and T

2397oral presentation.

239928. None of the pricing schedules were made public until

2409the oral presentations on February 5, 2014.

241629. Section 3.10 of the RFP provides:

2423The School Board reserves the right to award

2431the contract to the respondent(s) that the

2438School Board deems to offer the best overall

2446proposal(s). The School Board is therefore

2452not bound to accept a proposal on the basis

2461of lowest price. In addition, the School

2468Board at its sole d iscretion, reserves the

2476right to cancel this RFP, to reject any and

2485all proposals, to waive any and all

2492informalities, if it is deemed to be in the

2501best interest of the School Board to do so.

2510The School Board also reserves the right to

2518make multiple award s, based upon experience

2525and qualifications if it is deemed to be in

2534the School BoardÓs best interest. The

2540District reserves the right to further

2546negotiate any proposal, including price, with

2552the highest rated respondent. If an

2558agreement cannot be reache d with the highest

2566rated respondent, the District reserves the

2572right to negotiate and recommend award to the

2580next highest respondent or subsequent

2585respondents until an agreement is reached.

2591[Emphasis added.]

259330. Section 3.29 of the RFP provided:

2600It is t he School BoardÓs intent to award a

2610contract(s) to the respondent(s) deemed most

2616advantageous to the School Board in

2622accordance with the evaluation criteria

2627specified elsewhere in this RFP. The School

2634Board reserves the right however, to conduct

2641post - clos ing discussions with any respondent

2649who has a realistic possibility of contract

2656award including, but not limited to: request

2663for additional information, competitive

2667negotiations, and best and final offers .

2674[Emphasis added.]

2676CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

267931. The D ivision of Administrative Hearings has

2687jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

2697proceeding . § § 120.57(1) and (3), Fla. Stat. (2013).

270732. Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes , provides , in part:

2715(3) ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO

2720P ROTESTS TO CONTRACT SOLICITATION OR AWARD. Ï

2728Agencies subject to this chapter shall use

2735the uniform rules of procedure, which provide

2742procedures for the resolution of protests

2748arising from the contract solicitation or

2754award process. Such rules shall at leas t

2762provide that:

2764* * *

2767(f) In a protest to an invitation to bid or

2777request for proposals procurement, no

2782submissions made after the bid or proposal

2789opening which amend or supplement the bid or

2797proposal shall be considered. In a protest

2804to an inv itation to negotiate procurement, no

2812submissions made after the agency announces

2818its intent to award a contract, reject all

2826replies, or withdraw the solicitation which

2832amend or supplement the reply shall be

2839considered. Unless otherwise provided by

2844statute , the burden of proof shall rest with

2852the party protesting the proposed agency

2858action. In a competitive - procurement

2864protest, other than a rejection of all bids,

2872proposals, or replies, the administrative law

2878judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding to

2886dete rmine whether the agencyÓs proposed

2892action is contrary to the agencyÓs governing

2899statutes, the agencyÓs rules or policies, or

2906the solicitation specifications. The

2910standard of proof for such proceedings shall

2917be whether the proposed agency action was

2924clear ly erroneous, contrary to competition,

2930arbitrary, or capricious. In any bid - protest

2938proceeding contesting an intended agency

2943action to reject all bids, proposals, or

2950replies, the standard of review by an

2957administrative law judge shall be whether the

2964agenc yÓs intended action is illegal,

2970arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.

2974[Emphasis added.]

297633. An agency action will be found to be Ðclearly

2986erroneousÑ if the agencyÓs interpretation conflicts with the

2994plain and ordinary intent of the law. Colbert v. Dep Ó t of

3007Health , 890 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2004). Colbert provides

3019that in such a case, Ðjudicial deference need not be givenÑ to

3031the agencyÓs interpretation. In this regard, the Board has

3040maintained that it is the trend among school districts to allow

3051the two - step pricing described by the RFP. Such argument

3062conflicts with the plain and unambiguous language of the law.

307234. An act is Ðcontrary to competitionÑ if it unreasonably

3082interferes with the objectives of competitive bidding, which are:

3091[T]o protect the public against collusive

3097contracts; to secure fair competition upon

3103equal terms to all bidders; to remove not

3111only collusion but temptation for collusion

3117and opportunity for gain at public expense;

3124to close all avenues to favoritism and fraud

3132in its va rious forms; to secure the best

3141values for the county at the lowest possible

3149expense; and to afford equal advantage to all

3157desiring to do business with the county,

3164affording an opportunity for an exact

3170comparison of bids.

3173Wester v. Belote , 103 Fla. 976, 9 81, 138 So. 721, 723 - 724 (Fla.

31881931). In this case , Bright House took an unfair advantage of

3199the situation and enjoyed a competitive edge not afforded

3208AT and T .

321235. Acts unsupported by logic or the necessary facts are

3222arbitrary. Similarly, decisions a re capricious if adopted

3230without thought or reason, or if irrational. See Hadi v. Liberty

3241Behavioral Health Corp. , 927 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2006).

325336. In this case , the Board announced its decision to

3263change its award mid - protest. After learni ng that Bright House

3275changed its presentation and pricing in response to the AT and T

3287oral presentation, the Board determined that unfair advantage had

3296resulted. The Board has not, however, addressed the fundamental

3305issue related to the procurement proces s of this case: that the

3317RFP cannot be read to allow submittals that would amend or

3328supplement the proposals already opened. See § 120.57(3)(f),

3336Fla. Stat. Although information clarifying a submittal or

3344answering questions posed by staff may be permitte d after the

3355proposals were opened, an RFP cannot allow proposers to amend

3365their proposals after they have been opened. The BoardÓs attempt

3375to employ a hybrid process of RFP and ITN is not allowed by law.

338937. The plain and ordinary reading of the s tatute

3399prohibited AT and T and Bright House from changing the pricing

3410schedules at the oral presentation. Neither vendor should have

3419been allowed to do so.

342438. In this case , the evaluation committee did not use the

3435correct pricing to determine whic h vendor should be afforded the

3446weighted value (40 per the RFP document). More critical,

3455however, is the prospect of negotiating with one vendor and,

3465should that not work out to the BoardÓs satisfaction, the

3475intention to negotiate with the other. The acq uisition process

3485used by the Board does not contemplate that type of negotiation.

349639. It is concluded that the intended award to Bright House

3507must be withdrawn based upon the inappropriate actions of the

3517vendor in changing its pricing in direct res ponse to the AT and T

3531oral presentation. It is contrary to fair and competitive

3540processes to allow a vendor to modify its presentation after

3550view ing another vendorÓs pricing. It is further concluded that

3560allowing AT and T to modify its pricing was contra ry to the law

3574governing the RFP process.

357840. Finally, as to the partiesÓ requests for attorneysÓ

3587fees, it is determined that neither Bright House nor AT and T

3599complied with the strict letter of the rules governing this

3609proceeding. Neither afforded the in formation sought during

3617discovery in a timely, full, and complete manner. With regard to

3628Bright House it is determined that the failure to disclose its

3639Ðexpert witnessÑ in a timely manner was of no consequence or

3650prejudice to AT and T as the testimony was largely discounted and

3662deemed unpersuasive. It is concluded no party is entitled to

3672recover attorneysÓ fees based upon the record of this case.

3682RECOMMENDATION

3683Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3693Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Scho ol Board of Brevard County,

3705Florida, enter a Final Order rejecting all proposals for this

3715RFP.

3716DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October , 2014 , in

3726Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3730S

3731J. D. PARRISH

3734Administrative Law Judge

3737Division of Administrative Hearings

3741The DeSoto Building

37441230 Apalachee Parkway

3747Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3752(850) 488 - 9675

3756Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

3762www.doah.state.fl.us

3763Filed with the Clerk of the

3769Division of Administrative Hearings

3773this 1st day of October , 2014 .

3780COPIES FURNISHED:

3782Harold T. Bistline, Esquire

3786Stromire, Bistline and Miniclier

37901037 Pathfinder Way , Suite 150

3795Rockledge, Florida 32955

3798(eServed)

3799Scott A. Markowitz, Esquire

3803Demahy, Labrador, Drake,

3806Victor and Cabeza

38096400 North Andrews Avenue

3813Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309

3817(eServed)

3818Gabrielle A. Figueroa, Esquire

3822Bevan, Mosca, Giuditta ,

3825and Zarillo, P.C.

3828222 Mount Airy Road , Suite 200

3834Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920

3839Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esquire

3843Frank Kruppenbacher, P.A.

38469064 Great Heron Circle

3850Orlando, Florida 32836 - 5483

3855(eServed)

3856William K. Mosca, Esquire

3860Bevan, Mosca, Giuditta ,

3863and Zarillo, P.C.

3866222 Mount Airy Road , Suite 200

3872Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920

3877(eServed)

3878Frederick R. Dudley, Esquire

3882Dudley, Sellers and H ealy, P.L.

38883522 Thomasville Road , Suite 301

3893Tallahassee, Florida 32309

3896(eServed)

3897Gigi Rollini, Esquire

3900Messer Caparello, P.A.

39032618 Centennial Place

3906Tallahassee, Florida 32308

3909(eServed)

3910Brian Binggeli, Superintendent

3913Brevard County School Board

39172700 Ju dge Fran Jamieson Way

3923Viera, Florida 32740 - 6601

3928Pam Stewart, Commissioner

3931Department of Education

3934Turlington Building, Suite 1514

3938325 West Gaines Street

3942Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

3947(eServed)

3948Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel

3953Department of Educat ion

3957Turlington Building, Suite 1244

3961325 West Gaines Street

3965Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

3970(eServed)

3971NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3977All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

39871 0 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

3999to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

4010will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2017
Proceedings: Mandate
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2017
Proceedings: Third Mandate filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/14/2017
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellee's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is denied.
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2017
Proceedings: Mandate
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2017
Proceedings: Mandate filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/27/2017
Proceedings: Appellant School Board of Brevard County's Response in Opposition to Appellee's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/26/2017
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Notices of Voluntary Dismissal are accepted and the appeals are dismissed.
PDF:
Date: 01/26/2017
Proceedings: Appellee/Cross-Appellant Bright House Networks, LLC's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Cross-Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/25/2017
Proceedings: Appellee Bright House Networks' Motion to Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/24/2017
Proceedings: Opinion
PDF:
Date: 01/24/2017
Proceedings: Opinion filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2017
Proceedings: Appellee's Response to Court Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/19/2017
Proceedings: Appellant AT&T's Response in Opposition to Appellee's Motion for Leave filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2017
Proceedings: Appellant AT&T's Response in Opposition to Appellee's Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2017
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellees/Cross-Appellants shall file whether the cross-appeal shall proceed.
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2017
Proceedings: Appellant, School Board of Brevard County's Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2017
Proceedings: Appellee Bright House Networks' Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2017
Proceedings: Appellee Bright House Networks' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/09/2017
Proceedings: Appellant AT&T's Response to Appellee's Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/06/2017
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant shall file a Response to Appellee's Motion to Dismiss within 10 days of Order.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2017
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Appellee Bright House Networks' Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2017
Proceedings: Appellee Bright House Networks' Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2017
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: case number 5D15-549 has been disposed of with finality, case number 5D14-3946 may now proceed.
PDF:
Date: 01/03/2017
Proceedings: Mandate filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/14/2016
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant's Motion for Clairfication is granted in part.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2016
Proceedings: Brevard County School Board's Response to Brighthouse Networks Motion for Clarification filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/06/2016
Proceedings: Appellant Bright House Networks' Motion for Clarification of Order Granting Appellant's Attorneys' Fees filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2016
Proceedings: Opinion
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2016
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant's Motion for Attorney's Fees is granted.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2016
Proceedings: Opinion filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2016
Proceedings: Opinion filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/24/2016
Proceedings: Appelles' Joint Notice of Citation to the Record filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/19/2016
Proceedings: Appellees' Joint Notice of Citation to the Record filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/11/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Oral Argument filed. (Amended - Time Change)
PDF:
Date: 09/02/2016
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: parties advised stayed cases will not travel with Case Number 5D15-549.
PDF:
Date: 08/05/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Oral Argument filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2016
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellee's Motion for Extension of Time is granted.
PDF:
Date: 07/19/2016
Proceedings: Appellee AT&T's Response in Opposition to Appellant's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2016
Proceedings: AT&T's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2016
Proceedings: Appellee Brevard County School Board's Response to Bright House Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2016
Proceedings: Appellant Bright House Networks' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/06/2016
Proceedings: Reply Brief of Appellant Bright House Networks, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/03/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Agreed Extension of Time to Serve Consolidated Reply Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2016
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant's Unopposed Motiion for Enlargement of Time to File Reply Brief is granted.
PDF:
Date: 04/08/2016
Proceedings: Appellant Bright House Networks' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Pages in Reply Brief to File a Single Reply Brief to Both Answer Briefs filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/01/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Agreed Extension of Time to Serve Reply Brief to AT&T Corp's Answer Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2016
Proceedings: Amended Answer Brief of Appellee Brevard County School Board filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2016
Proceedings: Appellee AT&T's Joinder in the School Board's Response to Bright House's Motion to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/08/2016
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellees' Motion to Take Judicial Notice is denied.
PDF:
Date: 03/07/2016
Proceedings: Appellee AT&T's Joinder in the School Board's Response to Bright House's Motion to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/07/2016
Proceedings: Appellee's Response in Opposition to Motion to Strike Portions of Appellee, School Board's Answer Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2016
Proceedings: Appellant's Response in Opposition to Appellee School Board's Motion to Take Judicial Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2016
Proceedings: Appellant's Motion to Strike Portions of Appellee School Board's Answer Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2016
Proceedings: Appellee AT&T's Joinder in Appellant's Request for Oral Argument filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2016
Proceedings: Answer Brief of Appellee AT&T Corp., filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2016
Proceedings: Appellee AT&T's Joinder in the School Board's Motion to Take Judicial Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2016
Proceedings: Appellee School Board's Motion to Take Judicial Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2016
Proceedings: Appellee Brevard County School Board's Request for Oral Argument filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2016
Proceedings: Answer Brief of Appellee, Brevard County School Board filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2016
Proceedings: Agreed Notice of Extension of Time to Serve Appellee, Brevard County School Board's, Answer Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2016
Proceedings: Agreed Notice of Extension of Time to Serve Appellee AT&T's Answer Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/18/2015
Proceedings: Initial Brief of Appellant Bright House Networks, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/18/2015
Proceedings: Appellant's Motion for Oral Argument filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2015
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Initial Brief is granted.
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2015
Proceedings: Motion tor Extension of Time to Serve Initial Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/09/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Agreed Extension of Time to Serve Initial Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2015
Proceedings: Second Amended Supplemental Record filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/21/2015
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant's Motion for Leave to File Reply, is granted.
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2015
Proceedings: Appellant's Reply to Motion to Correct Supplemental Record and Clarify Initiala Brief Calculation filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2015
Proceedings: Appellant's Motion for Leave toFile Reply to Motion to Correct Supplemetal Record and Clarify Initial Brief Calculation filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2015
Proceedings: Appellee, Brevard County School Board's Response to Bright House Networks', Motion to Correct Supplemental Record and Clairfy Initial Brief Calculation filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2015
Proceedings: Supplemental Record on Appeal (Corrected Volume 15) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/13/2015
Proceedings: Appellant's Motion to Correct Supplemental Record and Clarify Initial Brief Calculation filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/07/2015
Proceedings: Supplemental Record on appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2015
Proceedings: Appellant's Notice of Filing Supplemental Directions to Agency Clerk filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/16/2015
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant's Motion to Supplement the Record and Set Initial Brief Schedule is granted.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2015
Proceedings: Appellee AT&T's Joinder in Brevard County School Board's Response to Appellant's Motion to Supplement the Record and Set Initial Brief Schedule filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2015
Proceedings: Appellee, Brevard County School Board's Response to Appellants' Motion to Supplement Record and Set Initial Brief Schedule filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2015
Proceedings: Appellant's Motion to Supplement the Record and Set Initial Brief Schedule filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/29/2015
Proceedings: AT&T's Response to Bright House's Motion filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/28/2015
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant's Motion is granted,
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2015
Proceedings: Appellee, Brevard County School Board's Response to Appellant's Motion to Require Agency Clerk to Serve Progress docket, Expedite Record Preparation and Service, and Set Briefing Schedule filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2015
Proceedings: AT&T's Response to Bright House's Motion filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2015
Proceedings: Appellant's Motion to Require Agency Clerk to Serve Progress Docket, Expedite Record Prepartion and Services, and Set Briefing Schedule filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2015
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Brevard County School Board's Motion for Leave to File Reply, is granted and the Reply is accepted.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2015
Proceedings: Appellee, Brevard County School Board's Reply to Bright House's Response to the Motions to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2015
Proceedings: Appellee AT&T's Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Bright House's Response to the Motions to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2015
Proceedings: Appellee, Brevard County School Board's Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Bright House's Response to the Motions to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2015
Proceedings: Appellant's Response in Opposition to Appellees' Motions to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2015
Proceedings: Appellee, Brevard County School Board's Motion to Strike Appellant Bright House's Directions to the Agency Clerk filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/11/2015
Proceedings: Appellee AT&T's Motion to Strike Appellant Bright House's Directions to the Agency Clerk filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/11/2015
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: the Verified Motion for Admission to Appear Pro Hac Vice is granted.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2015
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant's "Agreed Motion to Abate" is granted.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2015
Proceedings: Receipt of Filing Fee filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2015
Proceedings: Verified Motion for Admission to Appear Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.510 filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2015
Proceedings: Appellee's Docketing Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/04/2015
Proceedings: Appellant's Docketing Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/02/2015
Proceedings: Mediation Questionnaire filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/26/2015
Proceedings: Order Decling Referral to Mediation filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/20/2015
Proceedings: Agreed Motion to Abate filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/18/2015
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/18/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Final Agency Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/18/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance of Counsel and Designation of E-mail Addresses filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2015
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: appeal shall travel and share the Record on Appeal with Case Nos. 5D14-3944 and 5D14-3946.
PDF:
Date: 02/16/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appeal of Final Administrative Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/16/2015
Proceedings: Notice of New Case Under Consideration for Mediation filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/16/2015
Proceedings: Acknowledgment of New Case, Fifth DCA Case No. 5D15-549 filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/16/2015
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appeal shall proceed. Appellate filing deadlines shall commence as of the date of this order.
PDF:
Date: 01/23/2015
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: appeal and cross-appeal shall proceed.
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2015
Proceedings: Appellant, School Board of Brevard County's Report on Status of Proceedings Below filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2015
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2015
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2015
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2015
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2014
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: jurisdiction is relinquished for 90 days during which a final order may be obtained.
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2014
Proceedings: Agreed Motion to Toll Time filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2014
Proceedings: Filing Fee Receipt filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/17/2014
Proceedings: Bright House Network, LLC's Notice of Cross-appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2014
Proceedings: Appellant's Response to Order to Show Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2014
Proceedings: Appellant's Response to Order to Show Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/07/2014
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant shall show cause whey case should not be dismissed filed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
PDF:
Date: 11/07/2014
Proceedings: Filing Fee Receipt filed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2014
Proceedings: Appellant's Response to Order to Show Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/04/2014
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant shall show cause why appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction filed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2014
Proceedings: Filing Fee Receipt filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner's Conditional Notice of Administrative Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2014
Proceedings: Acknowledgment of New Case, Fifth DCA Case No. 5D14-3946 filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2014
Proceedings: Acknowledgment of New Case, Fifth DCA Case No. 5D14-3944 filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Administrative Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/13/2014
Proceedings: Intervenor Bright House Network, LLC's Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/09/2014
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding the Depositions of Will Henzmann, Gabino Nieto and Craig Cowden, to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held July 10 and 11, 2014). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2014
Proceedings: Intervenor's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner AT&T Corp.'s Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Brevard County School Board's Joinder in Petitioner, AT&T Corp.s, Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2014
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Parrish from William Mosca regarding an exhibit (exhibit not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 07/29/2014
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings Volumes I-III (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner AT&T Corp.'s Reply to Bright House Networks, LLC's Response in Opposition to AT&T's Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2014
Proceedings: Intervenor Bright House Network, LLC's Response in Opposition to AT&T's Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/15/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Filing AT&T Exhibits filed.
Date: 07/10/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2014
Proceedings: Intervenor Bright House Network, LLC's Motion for Attorneys' Fees Against Petitioner, AT&T Corp. filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner AT&T Corp.'s Response to Bright House Networks, LLC's Unresolved Discovery Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner AT&T Corps.'s Response to Intervenor Bright House Networks, LLC's Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2014
Proceedings: Intervenor Bright House Networks, LLC's Unresolved Discovery Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2014
Proceedings: Intervenor Bright House Network, LLC's Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2014
Proceedings: Intervenor Bright House Network, LLC's Response in Opposition to AT&T's Motion to Exclude Expert Witness filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2014
Proceedings: Exhibits to Bright House's Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/08/2014
Proceedings: Intervenor's Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/08/2014
Proceedings: AT&T Corp.'s Motion for Attoneys' Fees filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/08/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenor Bright Hosue Network, LLC's Supplemental Responses to AT&T's First Set of Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/08/2014
Proceedings: Intervenor's Notice of Filing Respondent's Admissions to Intervenor's First Set of Discovery filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/08/2014
Proceedings: (Petitioner's) Notice of Service of Additional Responses to Bright House Discovery Requests filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2014
Proceedings: Exhibits 1 and 2 to Motion to Bar Bright House Expert Witness filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Summary Recommended Order.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2014
Proceedings: (Petitioner's) Motion to Bar Bright House Expert Witness filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2014
Proceedings: AT&T's Response to Bright House Networks' Request for Expedited Hearing on Pending Motions filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2014
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation Between AT&T Corp. and the School Board of Brevard County filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenor Bright House Network, LLC's Supplemental Answers to AT&T's First Set of Interrogatories: Nos. 12, 13 & 14 (Relating to Expert Witnesses) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2014
Proceedings: (Intervenor's) Request for Expedited Hearing on Pending Motions and Notice fo Counsel Availability filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/03/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner AT&T Corp.'s Response to Intervenor Bright House Networks, LLC's Motion for Summary Recommended Order of Dismissal and Counter-motion for Summary Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/03/2014
Proceedings: Intervenor Bright House Networks, LLC's Response to AT&T's Counter Motion to Compel filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/02/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/02/2014
Proceedings: Intervenor Bright House Netwok, LLC's Motion for Summary Recommended Order of Dismissal filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/02/2014
Proceedings: Intervenor, Bright House Network, LLC's Motion for Summary Recommended Order of Dismissal filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories, Request to Produce and Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/25/2014
Proceedings: AT&T's Response to Bright House Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Request to Produce; and AT&T's Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories and Request to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/24/2014
Proceedings: (Intervenor's) Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Request to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2014
Proceedings: (Petitioner's) Notice of Service of Answers to First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/10/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/28/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Frederick Dudley) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Gigi Rollini) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Frederick Dudley) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for July 10 and 11, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Viera, FL).
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
Date: 04/16/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 04/04/2014
Proceedings: AT&T's Motion to Compel Discovery from Bright House filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for May 29 and 30, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Viera, FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/26/2014
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Varn from William Mosca requesting to postpone hearing until ealry May filed.
Date: 03/25/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Status Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 03/24/2014
Proceedings: Petitioners Letter to Judge Varn, ALJ Requesting Status Conference filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/24/2014
Proceedings: Order (granting Petitioner's verified motion for admission to appear pro hav vice).
PDF:
Date: 03/24/2014
Proceedings: Order (granting Petitioner's verified motion for admission to appear pro hav vice).
PDF:
Date: 03/20/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/20/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Petition to Intervene.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2014
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion to Intervene (filed by Bright House Network, LLC) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2014
Proceedings: Verified Motion for Admission to Appear Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Adminisitrative 2.510 (Gabrielle A. Figueroa) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2014
Proceedings: Verified Motion for Admission to Appear Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Adminisitrative 2.510 (William K. Mosca, Jr.) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Scott Markowitz) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Notice to Bidders filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2014
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for March 31 and April 1, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Viera, FL; amended as to hearing location).
Date: 03/11/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 03/11/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for March 31 and April 1, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Viera, FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/11/2014
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 03/07/2014
Proceedings: AT and T's (Proposed) Protest Exhibits Portfolio filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/07/2014
Proceedings: Formal Written Protest and Memorandum of Law filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/07/2014
Proceedings: Referral Letter filed.

Case Information

Judge:
J. D. PARRISH
Date Filed:
03/07/2014
Date Assignment:
05/28/2014
Last Docket Entry:
02/28/2017
Location:
Viera, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
BID
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (4):

Related Florida Statute(s) (2):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):