18-000484BID Northside Property Ii, Ltd vs. Florida Housing Finance Corporation
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, April 19, 2018.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that Florida Housing's intended award of funding to Intervenor was erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious. Florida Housing was authorized to waive an error as a "Minor Irregularity."

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8HTG OSPREY POINTE, LLC,

12Petitioner,

13vs. Case No. 18 - 0479BID

19FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE

22CORPORATION,

23Respondent,

24and

25SP LAKE, LLC,

28Intervenor.

29_______________________________/

30N ORTHSIDE PROPERTY II, LTD,

35Petitioner,

36vs. Case No. 18 - 0484BID

42FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE

45CORPORATION,

46Respondent,

47and

48SIERRA BAY APARTMENTS, LTD.,

52Intervenor.

53_______________________________/

54LIBERTY SQUARE PHASE TWO, LLC,

59Pe titioner,

61vs. Case No. 18 - 0485BID

67FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE

70CORPORATION,

71Respondent,

72and

73WOODLAND GROVE APARTMENTS, LLC,

77Intervenor.

78_______________________________/

79RECOMMENDED ORDER

81The final hearing in this matter was conducted be fore

91J. Bruce Culpepper, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

101Administrative Hearings, pursuant to sections 120.569, and

108120.57(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (2017), 1/ on February 28,

1182018, in Tallahassee, Florida.

122APPEARANCES

123For Petitioner HTG Ospr ey Pointe, LLC ( Ð Osprey Pointe Ñ):

135Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire

139Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC

143Suite 304

1451725 Capital Circle Northeast

149Tallahassee, Florida 32308

152For Petitioner Northside Property II, LTD (ÐNorthside IIÑ):

160Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire

164Radey Law Firm, P.A.

168Suite 200

170301 South Bronough Street

174Tallahassee, Florida 32301

177For Petitioner Liberty Square Phase Two, LLC (ÐLiberty SquareÑ):

186Alvin D. Lodish, Esquire

190Duane Morris LLP

193200 South Biscayne Boulevard

197Miami, Florida 33131

200Mic hael P. Donaldson, Esquire

205Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

210215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500

216Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee,

221Florida 32302 - 0190

225For Respondent Florida Housing Finance Corporation (ÐFlorida

232HousingÑ):

233Betty Zachem, Esquire

236Florida Ho using Finance Corporation

241Suite 5000

243227 North Bronough Street

247Tallahassee, Florida 32301

250For Intervenor SP Lake, LLC (ÐSP LakeÑ):

257Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire

262Holland and Knight, LLP

266Suite 600

268315 South Calhoun Street

272Tallahassee, Florida 32301

275For Intervenor Sierra Bay Apartments, LTD (ÐSierra BayÑ):

283Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., Esquire

288Ausley McMullen

290Post Office Box 391

294Tallahassee, Florida 32301

297For Intervenors Woodland Grove Apartments, LLC (ÐWoodland

304GroveÑ) ; and Harbour Springs, LLC (ÐHarb our SpringsÑ):

312Thomas Porter Crapps, Esquire

316Meenan, P.A.

318Suite 410

320300 South Duval Street

324Tallahassee, Florida 32301

327STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

331The issue to be determine d in this bid protest matter is

343whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporatio n Ós ,

351intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017 -

361108 , entitled ÐSAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing

369Developments To Be Used In Conjunction With Tax - Exempt Bond

380Financing And Non - Competitive Housing CreditsÑ was clearly

389errone ous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.

397PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

399This matter involves a protest to a Notice of Intent to

410Award issued by Respondent Florida Housing. On August 31, 2017,

420Florida Housing, through Request for Applications 2017 - 10 8

430(ÐRFA 2017 - 108Ñ), solicited applications for an allocation of

440State Apartment Incentive Loan program funds, Multifamily

447Mortgage Revenue Bonds, and non - competitive housing credit

456financing for affordable housing.

460On December 8, 2017, Florida Housing pos ted notice of its

471intent to award funding to 16 applicants. The applicants

480selected for funding included Intervenors SP Lake, Sierra Bay ,

489Woodland Grove, and Harbour Springs.

494Florida Housing also determined that Petitioners Osprey

501Pointe , Northside II a nd Liberty Square were eligible for

511consideration under RFA 2017 - 108. However, Florida Housing did

521not select these entities for funding. All three Petitioners

530timely filed formal written protests with Florida Housing. 2/

539On January 29, 2018, Florida Ho using referred the protests

549in this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings

558(ÐDOAHÑ) for assignment to an Administrative Law Judge (ÐALJÑ)

567to conduct a chapter 120 evidentiary hearing. 3/

575The final hearing was held on February 28, 2018. 4/ Joint

586Exhibits 1 through 14 were admitted into evidence. Included in

596the Joint Exhibits is the deposition testimony of Alberto Milo

606(a principal of Petitioner Liberty Square) (Joint Exhibit 13)

615and the deposition testimony of Heather Green (the Florida

624Housing employee who scored the ÐProximityÑ component for

632RFA 2017 - 108) (Joint Exhibit 14). Liberty Square Ó s Exhibit 1

645was admitted into evidence. Florida Housing Ó s Exhibits 1 and 2

657were admitted into evidence. Florida Housing and Woodland Grove

666presented the testimony of Marisa Button (the Director of

675Multifamily Allocations for Florida Housing).

680A one - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed at

692DOAH on March 7, 2018. At the close of the hearing, the parties

705were advised of a ten - day timeframe after receipt of the hearing

718transcript to file post - hearing submittals. Liberty Square

727subsequently requested an additional two days to file its post -

738hearing submittal, which was granted. 5/ All parties filed

747Proposed Recommended Orders which were duly consid ered in

756preparing this Recommended Order.

760FINDING S OF FACT

7641. Florida Housing is a public corporation created

772pursuant to section 420.504 , Florida Statutes . Its purpose is

782to provide and promote public welfare by administering the

791governmental function o f financing affordable housing in

799Florida.

8002. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit

809agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of

819the Internal Revenue Code. As such, Florida Housing is

828authorized to establish procedures to distribute low income

836housing tax credits and to exercise all powers necessary to

846administer the allocation of these credits. § 420.5099, Fla.

855Stat. For purposes of this administrative proceeding, Florida

863Housing is considered an agency of the State o f Florida.

8743. To promote affordable housing in Florida, Florida

882Housing offers a variety of programs to distribute housing

891credits. (Housing credits, also known as tax credits, are a

901dollar - for - dollar offset of federal income tax liability.) One

913of thes e programs is the State Apartment Incentive Loan program

924(ÐSAILÑ) , which provides low - interest loans on a competitive

934basis to affordable housing developers. SAIL funds are

942available each year to support the construction or substantial

951rehabilitation of m ultifamily units affordable to very low -

961income individuals and families. See § 420.5087, Fla. Stat.

970Additional sources of financial assistance include the

977Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond program (ÐMMRBÑ) and non -

986competitive housing credits.

9894. Florida Housing administers the competitive

995solicitation process to award low - income housing tax credits,

1005SAIL funds, nontaxable revenue bonds, and other funding by means

1015of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation.

1023Florida Housing initiates the c ompetitive application process by

1032issuing a Request for Applications. §§ 420.507( 48) and

1041420.5087(1), Fla. Stat. ; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 67 - 60.009(4).

10525. The Request for Application at issue in this matter is

1063RFA 2017 - 108 , entitled ÐSAIL Financing of Af fordable Multifamily

1074Housing Developments to B e U sed in Conjunction with Tax - Exempt

1087Bond Financing and Non - Competitive Housing Credits.Ñ Florida

1096Housing issued RFA 2017 - 108 on August 31, 2017. Applications

1107were due by October 12, 2017. 6/

11146. The purpos e of RFA 2017 - 108 is to distribute funding to

1128create affordable housing in the State of Florida. Through

1137RFA 2017 - 108, Florida Housing intends to award approximately

1147$87,000,000 for proposed developments serving elderly and family

1157demographic groups in s mall, medium, and large counties.

1166RFA 2017 - 108 allocates $46,279,600 to large

1176counties, $32,308,400 to medium counties,

1183and $8,732,000 to small counties.

11907. RFA 2017 - 108 established goals to fund:

1199a. Two Elderly, new construction

1204Applications located in Large Counties;

1209b. Three Family, new construction

1214Applications located in Large Counties;

1219c. One Elderly, new construction Application

1225located in a Medium County; and

1231d. Two Family, new construction Applications

1237located in Medium Counties.

12418. Th irty - eight developers submitted applications in

1250response to RFA 2017 - 108. Of these applicants, Florida Housing

1261found 28 eligible for funding, including all Petitioners and

1270Intervenors in this matter.

12749. Florida Housing received, processed, deemed eligibl e or

1283ineligible, scored, and ranked applications pursuant t o the

1292terms of RFA 2017 - 108 , Florida Admin istrative Code C hapters 67 -

130648 and 67 - 60 , and applicable federal regulations.

131510. RFA 2017 - 108 provided that applicants were scored based

1326on certain demo graphic and geographic funding tests. Florida

1335Housing sorted applications from the highest scoring to the

1344lowest. Only applications that met all the eligibility

1352requirements were eligible for funding and considered for

1360selection.

136111. Florida Housing c reated a Review Committee from

1370amongst its staff to review and score each application. On

1380November 15, 2017, the Review Committee announced its scores at

1390a public meeting and recommended which projects should be

1399awarded funding.

140112. On December 8, 2017, the Review Committee presented

1410its recommendations to Florida Housing Ó s Board of Directors for

1421final agency action. The Board of Directors subsequently

1429approved the Review Committee Ó s recommendations and announced

1438its intention to award funding to 16 appl icants.

144713. As a preliminary matter, prior to the final hearing,

1457Florida Housing agreed to the following reassessments in the

1466scoring and selection of the applications for funding under

1475RFA 2017 - 108:

1479a. SP Lake and Osprey Pointe : In the selection proce ss,

1491Florida Housing erroneously determined that SP Lake was eligible

1500to meet the funding goal for the ÐFamilyÑ demographic for the

1511Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. (SP Lake

1519specifically applied for funding for the ÐElderlyÑ demographic.)

1527Con sequently, Florida Housing should have selected Osprey Pointe

1536to meet the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal.

1545Osprey Pointe proposed to construct affordable housing in Pasco

1554County, Florida. Florida Housing represents that Osprey Pointe

1562is full y eligible for funding under RFA 2017 - 108. (While Osprey

1575Pointe replaces SP Lake in the funding selection for the

1585ÐFamilyÑ demographic, SP Lake remains eligible for funding for

1594the ÐElderlyÑ demographic.)

1597b. Sierra Bay and Northside II : In the scoring process,

1608Florida Housing erroneously awarded Sierra Bay proximity points

1616for Transit Services. Upon further review, Sierra Bay should

1625have received zero proximity points. Consequently, Sierra Bay Ó s

1635application is ineligible for funding under RFA 2017 - 108 . By

1647operation of the provisions of RFA 2017 - 108, Florida Housing

1658should have selected Northside II (the next highest ranked,

1667eligible applicant) for funding to meet the Elderly, Large

1676County, New Construction Goal. Florida Housing represents that

1684Norths ide II is fully eligible for funding under RF A 2017 - 108.

1698c. Harbour Springs : Florida Housing initially deemed

1706Harbour Springs eligible for funding under RFA 2017 - 108 and

1717selected it to meet the Family, Large County, New Construction

1727Goal. However, beca use Harbour Springs and Woodland Grove are

1737owned by the same entity and applied using the same development

1748site, under rule 67 - 48.004(1), Harbour Springs is ineligible for

1759funding. (Florida Housing Ó s selection of Woodland Grove for

1769funding for the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal, is

1779not affected by this determination.)

178414. The sole disputed issue of material fact concerns

1793Liberty Square Ó s challenge to Florida Housing Ó s selection of

1805Woodland Grove to meet the Family, Large County Goal.

181415. Li berty Square and Woodland Grove applied to serve the

1825same demographic population under RFA 2017 - 108. If Liberty

1835Square successfully challenges Woodland Grove Ó s application,

1843Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, will be selected

1853for funding to me et the Family, Large County Goal instead of

1865Woodland Grove. (At the hearing on December 8, 2017, Florida

1875Housing Ó s Board of Directors awarded Woodland Grove $7,600,000

1887in funding.)

188916. The focus of Liberty Square Ó s challenge is the

1900information Woodland G rove provided in response to RFA 2017 - 108,

1912Section Four, A.5.d., entitled ÐLatitude/Longitude Coordinates.Ñ

1918Liberty Square argues that Woodland Grove Ó s application is

1928ineligible because its Development Location Point, as well as

1937the locations of its Commu nity Services and Transit Services,

1947are inaccurate. Therefore, Woodland Grove should have received

1955zero ÐProximityÑ points which would have disqualified its

1963application for funding.

196617. RFA 2017 - 108, Section Four, A.5.d(1), states, in

1976pertinent part:

1978Al l Applicants must provide a Development

1985Location Point stated in decimal degrees,

1991rounded to at least the sixth decimal place.

199918. RFA 2017 - 108 set forth scoring considerations based on

2010latitude/longitude coordinates in Section Four, A.5.e, entitled

2017ÐPro ximity.Ñ Section Four, A.5.e, states, in pertinent part:

2026The Application may earn proximity points

2032based on the distance between the

2038Development Location Point and the Bus or

2045Rail Transit Service . . . and the Community

2054Services stated in Exhibit A. Prox imity

2061points will not be applied to the total

2069score. Proximity points will only be used

2076to determine whether the Applicant meets the

2083required minimum proximity eligibility

2087requirements and the Proximity Funding

2092Preference . . . .Ñ

2097In other words, the Deve lopment Location Point identified the

2107specific location of an applicant Ó s proposed housing site. 7/

2118Applicants earned Ðproximity pointsÑ based on the distance

2126between its Development Location Point and selected Transit and

2135Community Services. Florida Hous ing also used the Development

2144Location Point to determine whether an application satisfied the

2153Mandatory Distance Requirement under RFA 2017 - 108, Section Four

2163A.5.f. To be eligible for funding, all applications had to

2173qualify for the Mandatory Distance Re quirement.

218019. The response section to Section Four, A.5.d., is found

2190in Exhibit A, section 5, which required each applicant to submit

2201informat ion regarding the ÐLocation of p roposed Development.Ñ

2210Section 5 specifically requested:

2214a. County;

2216b. Add ress of Development Site;

2222c. Does the proposed Development consist of

2229Scattered Sites?;

2231d. Latitude and Longitude Coordinate;

2236e. Proximity;

2238f. Mandatory Distance Requirement; and

2243g. Limited Development Area.

224720. Section 5.d. (Latitude and L ongitude Coordinates) was

2256subdivided into:

2258(1) Development Location Point

2262Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to

2268at least the sixth decimal place

2274Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded

2279to at least the sixth decimal place

228621. In its application, Woodla nd Grove responded in

2295section 5.a - d as follows:

2301a. County: Miami - Dade

2306b. Address of Development Site: NE corner

2313of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami - Dade, FL

232433032 .

2326c. Does the proposed Development consist of

2333Scattered Sites? No.

2336d. Latitude an d Longitude Coordinate;

2342(1) Development Location Point

2346Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at

2353least the sixth decimal place: 25.518647

2359Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at

2366least the sixth decimal place: 80.418583

237222. In plotti ng geographi c coordinates, a Ð - Ñ (negative)

2384sign in front of the longitude indicates a location in the

2395western hemisphere ( i.e. , west of the Prime Meridian , which is

2406aligned with the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, England). A

2414longitude without a Ð - Ñ sign places the co ordinate in the

2427eastern hemisphere. (Similarly, a latitude with a negative

2435value is south of the equator. A latitude without a Ð - Ñ sign

2449refers to a coordinate in the northern hemisphere.)

245723. As shown above, the longitude coordinate Woodland

2465Grove list ed in section 5.d(1) did not include a Ð - Ñ sign.

2479Consequently, instead of providing a coordinate for a site in

2489Miami - Dade County, Florida, Woodland Grove entered a Development

2499Location Point located on the direct opposite side of the planet

2510(apparently, i n India).

251424. At the final hearing, Florida Housing (and Woodland

2523Grove) explained that, except for the lack of the Ð - Ñ sign, the

2537longitude Woodland Grove recorded would have fallen directly on

2546the address it listed as its development site in section 5.b. ,

2557i.e. , the Ð NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave , Miami - Dade,

2572FL 33032. Ñ

257525. In addition to the longitude in section 5.d., Woodland

2585Grove did not include a Ð - Ñ sign before the longitude

2597coordinates for its Transit Services in section 5.e(2)(b) or for

2607any of the three Community Services provided in section 5.e(3).

2617Again, without a Ð - Ñ sign, the longitude for each of these

2630services placed them in the eastern hemisphere (India) instead

2639of the western hemisphere (Miami - Dade County).

264726. In its protest, Liberty Square contends that, because

2656Woodland Grove Ó s application listed a Development Location Point

2666in India, Florida Housing should have awarded Woodland Grove

2675zero proximity points under Section Four, A.5.e. Consequently,

2683Woodland Grove Ó s applicatio n failed to meet minimum proximity

2694eligibility requirements and is ineligible for funding.

2701Therefore, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant,

2709should be awarded funding for the Family, Large County Goal,

2719under RFA 2017 - 108. 8/

272527. Liberty Square as serts that a correct Development

2734Location Point is critical because it serves as the beginning

2744point for assigning proximity scores. Waiving an errant

2752Development Location Point makes the proximity scoring

2759meaningless. Consequently, any such waiver by Fl orida Housing

2768is arbitrary, capricious, and contr ary to competition.

277628. At the final hearing, Woodland Grove claimed that it

2786inadvertently failed to include the Ð - Ñ sign before the

2797longitude points. To support its position, Woodland Grove

2805expressed tha t, on the face of its application, it was obviously

2817applying for funding for a project located in Miami - Dade County,

2829Florida, not India. In at least five places in its application,

2840Woodland Grove specified that its proposed development would be

2849located in Miami - Dade County.

285529. Moreover, several attachments to Woodland Grove Ó s

2864application specifically reference a development site in

2871Florida. Woodland Grove attached a purchase agreement for

2879property located in Miami - Dade County (Attachment 8). To

2889satisf y the Ability to Proceed requirements in RFA 2017 - 108,

2901Woodland Grove included several attachments which all list a

2910Miami - Dade address (Attachments 9 - 14). Further, Woodland Grove

2921submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution Î Loan

2930Form execut ed on behalf of the Mayor of Miami - Dade County, which

2944committed Miami - Dade County to contribute $1,000,000.00 to

2955Woodland Grove Ó s proposed Development (Attachment 15) . Finally,

2965to qualify for a basis boost under RFA 2017 - 108, Woodland Grove

2978presented a le tter from Miami - Dade County Ó s Department of

2991Regulatory and Economic Resources, which also referenced the

2999address of the proposed development in Miami - Dade County

3009(Attachment 16) .

301230. In light of this information, Woodland Grove argues

3021that its applicati on, taken as a whole, clearly communicated

3031that Woodland Grove intended to build affordable housing in

3040Miami - Dade County. Nowhere in its application, did Woodland

3050Grove reference a project in India other than the longitude

3060coordinates which failed to incl ude Ð - Ñ signs. Accordingly,

3071Florida Housing was legally authorized to waive Woodland Grove Ó s

3082mistake as a Ðharmless error.Ñ Thus, Florida Housing properly

3091selected the Woodland Grove Ó s development for funding to meet the

3103Family, Large County Goal .

310831. Florida Housing advocates for Woodland Grove Ó s

3117selection to meet the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017 -

3129108. Florida Housing considers the omission of the Ð - Ñ signs

3141before the longitude coordinates a ÐMinor IrregularityÑ under

3149rule 67 - 60.002(6). T herefore, Florida Housing properly acted

3159within its legal authority to waive, and then correct, Woodland

3169Grove Ó s faulty longitude coordinates when scoring its

3178application.

317932. In support of its position, Florida Housing presented

3188the testimony of Marisa B utton, Florida Housing Ó s current

3199Director of Multifamily Allocations. In her job, Ms. Button

3208oversees the Request for Applications process; although, she did

3217not personally participate in the review, scoring, or selection

3226decisions for RFA 2017 - 108.

323233. Ms. Button initially explained the process by which

3241Florida Housing selected the 16 developments for funding under

3250RFA 2017 - 108. Ms. Button conveyed that Florida Housing created

3261a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score the

3271applications. Florida Housing selected Review Committee

3277participants based on the staff member Ó s experience,

3286preferences, and workload. Florida Housing also assigned a

3294backup reviewer to sepa rately score each application.

330234. The Review Committee members independently evalu ated

3310and scored their assigned portions of the applications based on

3320various mandatory and scored items. Thereafter, the scorer and

3329backup reviewer met to reconcile their scores. If any concerns

3339or questions arose regarding an applicant Ó s responses, the

3349scorer and backup reviewer discussed them with Florida Housing Ó s

3360supervisory and legal staff. The scorer then made the final

3370determi nation as to each application.

337635. Ms. Button further explained that applicants

3383occasionally make errors in their applica tions. However, not

3392all errors render an application ineligible. Florida Housing is

3401authorized to waive ÐMinor Irregularities.Ñ As delineated in

3409RFA 2017 - 108, Section Three, A.2.C., Florida Housing may waive

3420ÐMinor IrregularitiesÑ when the errors do not provide a

3429competitive advantage or adversely impact the interests of

3437Florida Housing or the public. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67 -

344960.002(6) and 67 - 60.008.

345436. Such was the case regarding Woodland Grove Ó s

3464application. Heather Green, the Florida Housing st aff member

3473who scored the ÐProximityÑ portion of RFA 2017 - 108, waived the

3485inaccurate longitude coordinates as ÐMinor Irregularities.Ñ

3491Ms. Green then reviewed Woodland Grove Ó s application as if the

3503proposed development was located in Miami - Dade County, Fl orida.

351437. Florida Housing assigned Ms. Green, a Multifamily

3522Loans Manager, as the lead scorer for the ÐProximityÑ portion of

3533RFA 2017 - 108 , which included the Development Location Point

3543listed in Exhibit A, section 5.d. Ms. Green has worked for

3554Florida Housing since 2003 and has scored proximity points for

3564Request for Applications for over ten years. At the final

3574hearing, Florida Housing offered the deposition testimony of

3582Ms. Green.

358438. In her deposition, Ms. Green testified that she is

3594fully aware that, to be located in the western hemisphere ( i.e. ,

3606Miami - Dade County), a longitude coordinate should be marked with

3617a negative sign or a ÐW.Ñ Despite this, Ms. Green felt that the

3630longitude coordinates Woodland Grove used without negative

3637signs, partic ularly its Development Location Point, were clearly

3646typos or unintentional mistakes. Therefore, Ms. Green waived

3654the lack of a negative sign in front o f the longitude

3666coordinates in s ection 5.d. and s ection 5.e. as ÐMinor

3677Irregularities.Ñ Ms. Green under stood that she was authorized

3686to waive ÐMinor IrregularitiesÑ by rule under the Florida

3695Administrative Code.

369739. Ms. Green felt comfortable waiving the inaccurate

3705longitude coordinates because everywhere else in Woodland

3712Grove Ó s application specifically showed that its proposed

3721housing development was located in Miami - Dade County, not India.

3732Accordingly, when scoring Woodland Grove Ó s application,

3740Ms. Green corrected the longitude entries by including a

3749negative sign when she plotted the coordinates with her mapping

3759software. Ms. Green then determined that, when a Ð - Ñ was

3771inserted before the longitude, the coordinate lined up with the

3781address Woodland Grove listed for the Development Location

3789Point. Therefore, Woodland Grove received proximity points an d

3798was eligible for funding under RFA 2017 - 108. ( See RFA 2017 - 108,

3813Section Five.A.1.) However, Ms. Green acknowledged that if she

3822had scored the application just as it was presented, Woodland

3832Grove would not have met the required q ualifications for

3842eligib ility.

384440. Ms. Button relayed that Florida Housing fully accepted

3853Ms. Green Ó s decision to waive the missing negative signs in

3865Woodland Grove Ó s response to s ection 5.d. and 5.e. as ÐMinor

3878Irregularities.Ñ Ms. Button opined that Woodland Grove Ó s

3887failure t o place a Ð - Ñ mark before the longitude was clearly an

3902unintentional mistake.

390441. Ms. Button further commented that Florida Housing did

3913not believe that scoring Woodland Grove Ó s development as if

3924located in the western hemisphere (instead of India), pro vided

3934Woodland Grove a competitive advantage. Because it was evident on

3944the face of the application that Woodland Grove desired to develop

3955a housing site in Miami - Dade County, Ms. Green Ó s decision to

3969overlook the missing Ð - Ñ sign did not award Woodland Gr ove

3982additional points or grant Woodland Grove an advantage over other

3992applicants. Neither did it adversely impact the interests of

4001Florida Housing or the public. However, Ms. Button also conceded

4011that if Ms. Green had scored the application without addin g the

4023Ð - Ñ sign, Woodland Grove would have received zero proximity

4034points. This result would have rendered Woodland Grove Ó s

4044appli cation ineligible for funding.

404942. Ms. Button also pointed out that Ms. Green waived the

4060omission of Ð - Ñ signs in two other applications as ÐMinor

4072Irregularities.Ñ Both Springhill Apartments, LLC, and Harbour

4079Springs failed to include negative signs in front of their

4089longitude coordinates. As with Woodland Grove, Ms. Green

4097considered the development sites in those application s as if

4107they were located in Miami - Dade County ( i.e. , in the western

4120hemisphere).

412143. Ms. Green also waived a mistake in the Avery Commons

4132application as a ÐMinor Irregularity.Ñ The longitude coordinate

4140for the Avery Commons Development Location Point (section

41485.d(1)) was blank. However, Ms. Green determined that Avery

4157Commons had placed the longitude in the blank reserved for

4167Scattered Sites coordinates (section 5.d(2)). When scoring

4174Avery Commons Ó application, Ms. Green considered the coordinate

4183in the appropriate section. According to Ms. Button, Florida

4192Housing felt that this variation did not provide Avery Commons a

4203competitive advantage. Nor did it adversely impact the

4211interests of Florida Housing or the public.

421844. Finally, Ms. Button explain ed that the application

4227Florida Housing used for RFA 2017 - 108 was a relatively new

4239format. In previous Request For Applications, Florida Housing

4247required applicants to submit a Surveyor Certification Form. On

4256the (now obsolete) Surveyor Certification For m, Florida Housing

4265prefilled in a n ÐNÑ in front of all the latitude coordinates and

4278a ÐWÑ in front of all the longitude coordinates. However, the

4289application used in RFA 2017 - 108 did not place a n ÐNÑ or ÐWÑ

4304before the Development Location Point coordinate s.

431145. Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing,

4321Liberty Square did not establish, by a preponderance of the

4331evidence, that Florida Housing Ó s decision to award funding to

4342Woodland Grove for the Family, Large County Goal, under

4351RFA 2017 - 108 w as clearly erroneous, contrary to competition,

4362arbitrary, or capricious. Florida Housing was within its legal

4371authority to waive, then correct, the missing Ð - Ñ sign in

4383Woodland Grove Ó s application as ÐMinor Irregularity.Ñ

439146. Therefore, the undersigned concludes, as a matter of

4400law, that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that

4411Florida Housing Ó s proposed action to select Woodland Grove for

4422funding was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or

4431policies, or the provisions of RFA 2017 - 108.

4440CONC LUSIONS OF LAW

4444For want of a Ð - Ñ sign;

4452Is the Application lost?

445647. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the

4466parties of this competitive procurement protest pursuant to

4474sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 120.57(3), Florida Statutes.

4481See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 67 - 60.009(2).

449048. Liberty Square challenges Florida Housing Ó s selection

4499of Woodland Grove to meet the Family, Large County Goal, under

4510RFA 2017 - 108. Pursuant to section 120.57(3)(f), the burden of

4521proof in this matter rests with Liber ty Square as the party

4533protesting the proposed agency action. State Contracting &

4541Eng Ó g Corp. v. Dep Ó t of Transp. , 709 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st

4558DCA 1998). Section 120.57(3)(f) further provides that in a

4567competitive - procurement protest:

4571[T]he administrat ive law judge shall conduct

4578a de novo proceeding to determine whether

4585the agency Ó s proposed action is contrary to

4594the agency Ó s governing statutes, the

4601agency Ó s rules or policies, or the

4609solicitation specifications. The standard

4613of proof for such proceedin gs shall be

4621whether the proposed agency action was

4627clearly erroneous, contrary to competition,

4632arbitrary, or capricious.

463549. The phrase Ð de novo proceeding Ñ describes a form of

4647intra - agency review. The purpose of the ALJ Ó s review is to

4661Ð evaluate the act ion taken by the agency. Ñ J.D. v. Fla. Dep Ó t

4677of Child. & Fams. , 114 So. 3d 1127, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013);

4690and State Contracting , 709 So. 2d at 609. A de novo proceeding

4702Ð simply means that there was an evidentiary hearing . . . for

4715administrative review purposes Ñ and does not mean that the ALJ

4726Ð sits as a substitute for the [agency] and makes a determination

4738whether to award the bid de novo . Ñ J.D. , 114 So. 3d at 1133;

4753Intercontinental Props., Inc. v. Dep Ó t of Health & Rehab.

4764Servs . , 606 So. 2d 380, 386 (F la. 3d DCA 1992). Ð The judge may

4780receive evidence, as with any formal hearing under section

4789120.57(1), but the object of the proceeding is to evaluate the

4800action taken by the agency. Ñ State Contracting , 709 So. 2d at

4812609.

481350. Accordingly, Liberty Square , as the party protesting

4821Florida Housing Ó s intended award, must prove, by a preponderance

4832of the evidence, that Florida Housing Ó s proposed action is

4843either: (a) contrary to its governing statutes ; (b) contrary to

4853its rules or policies ; or (c) contrary to the specifications of

4864RFA 2017 - 108. The standard of proof Liberty Square must meet to

4877establish that the award to Woodland Grove violates this

4886statutory standard of conduct is whether Florida Housing Ó s

4896decision was: (a) clearly erroneous, (b) contrary t o

4905competition ; or (c) arbitrary or capricious. §§ 120.57(3) (f)

4914and 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat .

491951. The Ð clearly erroneous Ñ standard has been defined to

4930mean Ð the interpretation will be upheld if the agency Ó s

4942construction falls within the permissible range o f

4950interpretations. Ñ Colbert v. Dep Ó t of Health , 890 So. 2d 1165,

49631166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); see also Holland v. Gross , 89 So. 2d

4976255, 258 (Fla. 1956)(when a finding of fact by the trial court

4988Ð is without support of any substantial evidence, is clearly

4998agai nst the weight of the evidence or . . . the trial court has

5013misapplied the law to the established facts, then the decision

5023is Ò clearly erroneous. Ó Ñ ). However, if Ð the agency Ó s

5037interpretation conflicts with the plain and ordinary intent of

5046the law, judicia l deference need not be given to it. Ñ

5058Colbert , 809 So. 2d at 1166 .

506552. An agency action is Ð contrary to competition Ñ if it

5077unreasonably interferes with the purpose of competitive

5084procurement. As described in Wester v. Belote , 138 So. 721, 722

5095(Fla. 1931 ):

5098The object and purpose [of the bidding

5105process] . . . is to protect the public

5114against collusive contracts; to secure fair

5120competition upon equal terms to all bidders;

5127to remove not only collusion but temptation

5134for collusion and opportunity for gain at

5141public expense; to close all avenues to

5148favoritism and fraud in its various forms;

5155to secure the best values . . . at the

5165lowest possible expense; and to afford an

5172equal advantage to all desiring to do

5179business . . . , by affording an opportunity

5187for an e xact comparison of bids.

5194In other words, the Ð contrary to competition Ñ test forbids

5205agency actions that: (a) create the appearance and opportunity

5214for favoritism ; (b) reduce public confidence that contracts are

5223awarded equitably and economically ; (c) cau se the procurement

5232process to be genuinely unfair or unreasonably exclusive ; or

5241(d) are abuses, i.e. , dishonest, fraudulent, illegal, or

5249unethical. See § 287.001, Fla. Stat. ; and Harry Pepper &

5259Assoc., Inc. v. City of Cape Coral , 352 So. 2d 1190, 1192 (F la.

52732d DCA 1977) .

527753. Finally, section 120.57(3)(f) requires an agency

5284action be set aside if it is Ð arbitrary, or capricious. Ñ An

5297Ð arbitrary Ñ decision is one that is Ð not supported by facts or

5311logic, or is despotic. Ñ Agrico Chemical Co. v. Dep Ó t of E nvtl.

5326Reg. , 365 So. 2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied , 376

5339So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1979). A Ð capricious Ñ action is one which is

5353Ð taken without thought or reason or irrationally. Ñ Id.

536354. To determine whether an agency acted in an Ð arbitrary,

5374or ca pricious Ñ manner involves consideration of Ð whether the

5385agency: (1) has considered all relevant factors; (2) given

5394actual, good faith consideration to the factors; and (3) has

5404used reason rather than whim to progress from consideration of

5414these factors to its final decision. Ñ Adam Smith Enter. v.

5425Dep Ó t of Envtl. Reg. , 553 So. 2d 1260, 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

5440The standard has also been formulated by the court in Dravo

5451Basic Materials Co. v. Department of Transportation , 602 So. 2d

5461632, 632 n.3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), as follows: Ð If an

5473administrative decision is justifiable under any analysis that a

5482reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar

5492importance, it would seem that the decision is neither arbitrary

5502nor capricious. Ñ

550555. Turning to the protest at hand, t he central question

5516is whether Florida Housing was legally aut horized to waive the

5527missing Ð - Ñ sign in the Woodland Grove application as a ÐMinor

5540Irregularity.Ñ If Florida Housing Ó s scoring of Woodland Grove Ó s

5552application did not follow its governing statutes, rules,

5560policies, or the solicitation specifications ( i.e. , by making a

5570determination that is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition,

5578or arbitrary, or capricious), then its decision to select

5587Woodland Grove for funding must be s et aside.

559656. Section 420.5087(1) instructs Florida Housing to make

5604SAIL funds available through a competitive solicitation process

5612in a manner that meets the need and demand for very - low - income

5627housing throughout the state. Pursuant to its rulemaking

5635au thority under section 420.507(12), Florida Housing adopted

5643chapter 67 - 60 to administer the competitive solicitation process.

5653See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67 - 60.001(1).

566157. The governing rules authorize Florida Housing to waive

5670ÐMinor IrregularitiesÑ in an ap plication submitted in a

5679competitive solicitation for funding. As provided in rule 67 -

568960.008:

5690[Florida Housing] may waive Minor

5695Irregularities in an otherwise valid

5700Application. Mistakes clearly evident to

5705[Florida Housing] on the face of the

5712Application , such as computation and

5717typographical errors, may be corrected by

5723[Florida Housing]; however, [Florida

5727Housing] shall have no duty or obligation to

5735correct any such mistakes.

573958. ÐMinor IrregularityÑ is defined in rule 67 - 60.002(6)

5749as:

5750[A] variation in a term or condition of an

5759Application pursuant to this rule chapter

5765that does not provide a competitive advantage

5772or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants,

5779and does not adversely impact the interests

5786of [Florida Housing] or the public.

579259. According t o these rules, Ms. Green was authorized to

5803treat the longitude coordinates in Woodland Grove Ó s application

5813as ÐMinor IrregularitiesÑ if they constituted ÐvariationsÑ that,

58211) did not provide a competitive advantage over other applicants,

5831and 2) did not adv ersely impact the interests of Florida Housing

5843or the public. At that point, if Ms. Green did conclude that the

5856inaccurate coordinates were ÐMinor Irregularities,Ñ she was

5864permitted to both waive, and correct, the longitude points if she

5875determined that t hey were Ðmistakes clearly evident . . . on the

5888face of the Application, such as . . . typographical errors.Ñ 9/

590060. Based on the evidence of record, Liberty Square did not

5911prove that Ms. Green improperly considered the errant longitude

5920coordinates in Woo dland Grove Ó s application as ÐMinor

5930Irregularities.Ñ Initially, Liberty Square did not show that

5938Ms. Green Ó s award of proximity points to Woodland Grove gave it a

5952competitive advantage over other applicants. By synchronizing

5959the longitude coordinates wi th the Miami Dade County addresses in

5970its application, Ms. Green did not provide Woodland Grove the

5980opportunity to modify its proposed housing site or recalculate

5989location of nearby Transit or Community Services. Further,

5997Woodland Grove did not receive an y scoring advantage or benefit

6008by omitting the Ð - Ñ sign in its application or ÐmisrepresentingÑ

6020that its proposed development was located in India. Ms. Green

6030scored Woodland Grove Ó s application using the exact same

6040methodology and standards as all other a pplications for

6049development sites with addresses in Florida. Finally, Ms. Green

6058was consistent in that she treated three other applications that

6068failed to include a negative sign before a longitude coordinate

6078just the same as Woodland Grove Ó s application.

608761. Further, no evidence indicates that Ms. Green Ó s

6097decision to award Woodland Grove proximity points adversely

6105impacted the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Adding

6115a Ð - Ñ sign before the Development Location Point did not change

6128the actual location of Woodland Grove Ó s proposed development

6138(based on the street address) or modify any material

6147representations in its application. Neither did it interfere

6155with the goals or purposes of RFA 2017 - 108.

616562. Because the evidence establishes that Ms. Green was

6174justified in considering Woodland Grove Ó s inaccurate longitude

6183coordinates as ÐMinor Irregularities,Ñ the next question becomes

6192whether she was authorized to waiv e, then correct, the missing

6203Ð - Ñ signs. Rule 67 - 60.008 instructs that Florida Hous ing may

6217correct mistakes that are Ðclearly evident . . . on the face of

6230the Application, such as . . . typographical errors.Ñ

623963. The undersigned finds that Woodland Grove Ó s application

6249ÐclearlyÑ indicates, on its face, that it applied for funding for

6260a housing development located in Miami - Dade County, despite the

6271fact that the longitude coordinates in section 5.d and 5.e placed

6282the site in India. Florida Housing (and Woodland Grove) present

6292the more persuasive arg ument that the omission of a Ð - Ñ sign

6306b efore the longitude was an inadvertent error. Thereafter,

6315Ms. Green reasonably used her experience and the abundance of

6325information contained in Woodland Grove Ó s application to

6334ÐcorrectÑ the longitude coordinates and plot the develop ment in

6344Miami - Dade Co unty.

634964. Liberty Square asserts that Ms. Green could not

6358accurately determine Woodland Grove Ó s Development Location Point

6367because an errant longitude coordinate cannot be verified by

6376simply using a street address. RFA 2017 - 108 required both

6387addresses a nd coordinates for a distinct purpose. Therefore,

6396Woodland Grove Ó s failure to designate its longitude coordinates

6406in the western hemisphere was a material deviation that could not

6417be corrected.

641965. Liberty Square also presses the point that, with a

6429Dev elopment Location Point in India, Woodland Grove Ó s application

6440should have garnered zero proximity points. Therefore, had

6448Ms. Green not corrected the error, Woodland Grove would have been

6459ineligible for any funding under RFA 2017 - 108. Consequently,

6469waiv ing the missing negative sign is contrary to competition

6479because it made an otherwise ineligible application become

6487eligible.

648866. However, Florida Housing credibly testified that

6495Ms. Green was able to accurately determine, then plot, the

6505Woodland Grove d evelopment location based on the information

6514contained within the four corners of an application. Further, as

6524discussed above, Woodland Grove did not enjoy a competitive

6533advantage, either material, substantial, or otherwise, over

6540other applicants because of Ms. Green Ó s decision to ÐcorrectÑ

6551the development Ó s longitude coordinate to reflect the Miami - Dade

6563County address. See Trop abest Foods, Inc. v. State, Dep Ó t of

6576Gen. Servs. , 493 So. 2d 50, 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(Ðalthough a

6588bid containing a material var iance is unacceptable, not every

6598deviation from the invitation to bid is material. It is only

6609material if it gives the bidder a substantial advantage over the

6620other bidders and thereby restricts or stifles competition.Ñ);

6628and Harry Pepper , 352 So. 2d at 1 193 (ÐThe test for measuring

6641whether a deviation in a bid is sufficiently material to destroy

6652its competitive character is whether the variation affects the

6661amount of the bid by giving the bidder an advantage or benefit

6673not enjoyed by the other bidders.Ñ) .

668067. In sum, the evidence in the record demonstrates that

6690Ms. Green Ó s consideration of the longitude coordinates in

6700Woodland Grove Ó s application as ÐMinor IrregularitiesÑ fell

6709within a permissible interpretation and application of rule s 67 -

672060.002(6) and 6 7 - 60.008. No evidence indicates that Ms. Green

6732co rrected the missing Ð - Ñ signs because she colluded with or

6745favored Woodland Grove, or that she acted in a dishonest,

6755fraudulent, illegal, or unethical manner. Neither did her

6763decision cause the procurement to be Ðgenuinely unfair or

6772unreasonably exclusive.Ñ On the contrary, Ms. Green scored all

6781applications on identical terms and afforded an equal

6789opportunity for all applicants to earn proximately points. As

6798such, Florida Housing Ó s selection of Woodland G rove for funding

6810was not Ðcontrary to competition.Ñ Finally, Liberty Square did

6819not establish that Ms. Green Ó s decision was Ðarbitrary or

6830capricious.Ñ Ms. Greene rationally and reasonably used her

6838experience, as well as the numerous references in Woodlan d

6848Grove Ó s application, to plot the proposed development in Miami -

6860Dade County as opposed to India.

686668. Accordingly, the undersigned c oncludes that, for want

6875of a Ð - Ñ sign, Woodland Grove Ó s application is not lost. Liberty

6890Square did not meet its burden of proving, by a preponderance of

6902the evidence, that Ms. Green Ó s decision to waiv e, then correct,

6915the missing Ð - Ñ signs in Woodland Grove Ó s application as ÐMinor

6929IrregularitiesÑ was Ðclearly erroneous, contrary to competition,

6936or arbitrary, or capricious.Ñ Therefore, Liberty Square failed

6944to establish that Florida Housing Ó s selection of Woodland Grove

6955for funding is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or

6965policies, or RFA 2107 - 108 Ó s terms or provisions. Florida

6977Housing Ó s award of funding to Woodland G rove should not be set

6991aside.

6992RECOMMENDATION S

6994Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

7004Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation

7013enter a final order dismissing the protest by Liberty Square. It

7024is further recommende d that Florida Housing Finance Corporation

7033rescind the intended awards to Sierra Bay, SP Lake, and Harbour

7044Springs, and instead designate Northside II, Osprey Pointe, and

7053Pembroke Tower Apartments as the recipients of funding under

7062RFA 2017 - 108. 10/

7067DONE A ND ENTERED this 19th day of April , 2018 , in

7078Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

7082S

7083J. BRUCE CULPEPPER

7086Administrative Law Judge

7089Division of Administrative Hearings

7093The DeSoto Building

70961230 Apalachee Parkway

7099Tallahassee, Flor ida 32399 - 3060

7105(850) 488 - 9675

7109Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

7115www.doah.state.fl.us

7116Filed with the Clerk of the

7122Division of Administrative Hearings

7126this 19th day of April , 2018 .

7133ENDNOTE S

71351/ Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the Florida

7144Statutes and Florida Administrative Code are to the 2017

7153versions .

71552 / No protests were made to the specifications or terms of

7167RFA 2017 - 108.

71713 / Initially, all protests were consolidated at DOAH. Prior to

7182the final hearing, Florida Housing resolved protests involvi ng

7191Oasis at Renaissance Preserve I, LP (DOAH Case No. 18 - 0476BID);

7203SP West LLC and Southport Development, Inc., d/b/a Southport

7212Development Service, Inc. (DOAH Case No. 18 - 0483BID); as well as

7224HTP Anderson Terrace, LLC, and The Village Miami Phase II, LTD.

72354 / Prior to the final hearing, all parties agreed that, except

7247for the specific issues identified and discussed below, there

7256were no disputed issues of material fact requiring resolution at

7266an evidentiary hearing. Towards this en d, the parties submitte d

7277a Pre - h earing Stipulation agreeing to a number of facts regarding

7290Florida Housing Ó s review and scoring of RFA 2017 - 108. Unless

7303other wise set forth in the Findings o f Fact section, the

7315undersigned adopts t he stipulated facts in the Pre - h earing

7327Stipulati on into this Recommended Order.

73335 / By requesting a deadline for filing post - hearing submissions

7345beyond ten days after the final hearing, the 30 - day time period

7358for filing the Recommended Order was waived. See Fla. Admin.

7368Code R. 28 - 106.216.

73736 / RFA 201 7 - 108 was modified on September 13, 2017 ;

7386September 15, 2017 ; and October 3, 2017. The October 3, 2017,

7397modification extended the application due date to October 12,

74062017.

74077 / See Rule 67.48.002(33) , which defines ÐDevelopment Location

7416PointÑ to mean:

7419[A] single point selected by the Applicant on

7427the proposed Development site that is located

7434within 100 feet of a residential building

7441existing or to be constructed as part of the

7450proposed Development.

74528/ Liberty Square Ó s longitude coordinates in s ecti on 5 of its

7466application were all preceded by a negative sign.

74749/ Liberty Square does not dispute that Woodland Grove Ó s

7485application was Ðotherwise validÑ aside from the longitude

7493coordinates.

749410/ In the Pre - h earing Stipulation, all parties agreed to a

7507s pecific ranking and scoring scenario if SP Lake is not selected

7519for funding in the ÐFamilyÑ demographic, and both Sierra Bay and

7530Harbour Springs are ineligible for funding under RFA 2017 - 108.

7541In light of this agreement, the undersigned recommends Florida

7550Housing select the following proposed developments for funding:

7558a. Two Elderly, Lar ge County, New Construction

7566Applications:

75671) Brisas del Rio Apartments, Application #2018 - 030BS

75762) Northside Transit Village II, Application #2018 -

7584047BS

7585b. Three Fam ily, Large County, New Construction

7593Applications:

75941) The Waves, Application #2018 - 039S

76012) Palmetto Pointe, Application #2018 - 024S

76083) Woodland Grove, Application #2018 - 044BS

7615c. One Elderly, Medium County, New Construction

7622Application:

76231) Providenc e Reserve Seniors, Application #2018 - 032BS

7632d. Two Family, Medium County, New Construction

7639Applications:

76401) Parrish Oaks, Application #2018 - 041BS

76472) Hibiscus Apartments, Application #2018 - 035BS

7654e. Small County Application:

76581) Springhill Apartments (currently known as Madison

7665Heights Apartments), Application #2018 - 026S

7671f. Medium County Applications:

76751) Osprey Pointe, Application #2018 - 050BS

76822) Lofts on Lemon, Application #2018 - 029BS

76903) Choctaw Village, Application #2018 - 019BS

76974) Venetian W alk II, Application #2018 - 017S

7706g. Large County Applications:

77101) Pembroke Tower Apartments, Application #2018 - 040BS

77182) Water Ó s Edge Apartments, Application #2018 - 025BS

77283) Citadelle Village, Application #2018 - 033BS

7735COPIES FURNISHED:

7737Hugh R. Brow n, General Counsel

7743Florida Housing Finance Corporation

7747Suite 5000

7749227 North Bronough Street

7753Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1329

7758(eServed)

7759Betty Zachem, Esquire

7762Florida Housing Finance Corporation

7766Suite 5000

7768227 North Bronough Street

7772Tallahassee, Florida 323 01

7776(eServed)

7777Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire

7781Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC

7785Suite 304

77871725 Capital Circle Northeast

7791Tallahassee, Florida 32308

7794(eServed)

7795Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire

7800Holland and Knight, LLP

7804Suite 600

7806315 South Calhoun Street

7810Tall ahassee, Florida 32301

7814(eServed)

7815Alvin D. Lodish, Esquire

7819Duane Morris LLP

7822200 South Biscayne Boulevard

7826Miami, Florida 33131

7829(eServed)

7830Kirsten H. Matthis, Esquire

7834Meenan P.A.

7836Suite 410

7838300 South Duval Street

7842Tallahassee, Florida 32301

7845Tiffany A. Rodd enberry, Esquire

7850Holland & Knight, LLP

7854Suite 600

7856315 South Calhoun Street

7860Tallahassee, Florida 32301

7863(eServed)

7864Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire

7868Radey Law Firm, P.A.

7872Suite 200

7874301 South Bronough Street

7878Tallahassee, Florida 32301

7881(eServed)

7882Michael P. Dona ldson, Esquire

7887Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

7892215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500

7898Post Office Drawer 190

7902Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0190

7907(eServed)

7908Thomas Porter Crapps, Esquire

7912Meenan, P.A.

7914Suite 410

7916300 South Duval Street

7920Tallahassee, Florida 32301

7923(e Served)

7925Michael J. Glazer, Esquire

7929Ausley and McMullen

7932123 South Calhoun Street

7936Post Office Box 391

7940Tallahassee, Florida 32302

7943(eServed)

7944Tim G. Schoenwalder, Esquire

7948Meenan, P.A.

7950Suite 410

7952300 South Duval Street

7956Tallahassee, Florida 32301

7959(eServed)

7960A nthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., Esquire

7966Ausley & McMullen

7969Post Office Box 391

7973Tallahassee, Florida 32302

7976(eServed)

7977Corporation Clerk

7979Florida Housing Finance Corporation

7983Suite 5000

7985227 North Bronough Street

7989Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1329

7994(eServed)

7995NOTICE OF R IGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

8002All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

80121 0 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

8024to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

8035will issue the Final Order in this cas e.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2018
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2018
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2018
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 04/19/2018
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 04/19/2018
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held February 28, 2018). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 04/19/2018
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2018
Proceedings: SPP Lake LLC's Notice of Joinder in Proposed Recommended Order of Florida Housing Finance Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Joinder in Proposed Recommended Order of Florida Housing Finance Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2018
Proceedings: Northside Property II, Ltd.'s Notice of Joinder in Proposed Recommended Order of Florida Housing Finance Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2018
Proceedings: (Proposed) Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2018
Proceedings: (Proposed) Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner Liberty Square Phase Two, LLC's Notice of Filing Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2018
Proceedings: (Proposed) Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 18-000485BID).
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2018
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders (filed in Case No. 18-000485BID).
Date: 03/07/2018
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 02/28/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2018
Proceedings: Order Severing Case and Closing DOAH Case No. 18-0483BID.
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2018
Proceedings: Woodland Grove's Amended Witness and Exhibit List in Joint Pretrial Stipulation (filed in Case No. 18-000485BID).
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2018
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2018
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in Case No.18-0483BID (filed in Case No. 18-000483BID).
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2018
Proceedings: Amended Order Severing Case and Closing DOAH Case No. 18-0476BID.
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2018
Proceedings: Order Severing Case and Closing DOAH Case No. 18-0476BID.
PDF:
Date: 02/20/2018
Proceedings: Woodland Grove Apartments, LLC Amended Notice of Deposition (filed in Case No. 18-000485BID).
PDF:
Date: 02/20/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum via Video Conference of Heather Green filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/16/2018
Proceedings: Woodland Grove Apartments, LLC Notice of Deposition (filed in Case No. 18-000485BID).
PDF:
Date: 02/16/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/15/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Kirsten Matthis; filed in Case No. 18-000485BID).
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Springhill Apartments', First Set of Interrogatories to SP West LLC and Southport Development, Inc. d/b/a Southport Development Services, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Alvin Lodish) (filed in Case No. 18-000485BID).
PDF:
Date: 02/09/2018
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 02/09/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for February 28 through March 2, 2018; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 02/07/2018
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 18-0476BID, 18-0479BID, 18-0483BID, 18-0484BID, and 18-0485BID).
Date: 02/02/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Status Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 02/02/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance and Intervention filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/01/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference (set for February 2, 2018; 3:00 p.m.).
PDF:
Date: 01/30/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Betty Zachem) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2018
Proceedings: Motion to Consolidate Cases filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2018
Proceedings: Notice to All Bidders on RFA 2017-108 filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2018
Proceedings: Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2018
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
J. BRUCE CULPEPPER
Date Filed:
01/29/2018
Date Assignment:
01/30/2018
Last Docket Entry:
01/10/2019
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
BID
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (8):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):