98-005623BID Rattler Construction Contractors, Inc. vs. Department Of Corrections
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, March 4, 1999.


View Dockets  
Summary: Failure by challenger to file required items in Request for Proposal rendered its proposal non-responsive; all bids non-responsive.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8RATTLER CONSTRUCTION )

11CONTRACTORS, INC., )

14)

15Petitioner, )

17)

18vs. ) Case No. 98-5623BID

23)

24DEPARMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

28)

29Respondent, )

31)

32and )

34)

35A. D. MORGAN CORPORATION, )

40)

41Intervenor. )

43______________________________)

44RECOMMENDED ORDER

46Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

57on January 21 and February 2, 1999, in Tallahassee, Florida,

67before Donald R. Alexander, the assigned Administrative Law Judge

76of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

82APPEARANCES

83For Petitioner: H. Richar d Bisbee, Esquire

90Theresa M. Bender, Esquire

94Post Office Box 11068

98Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068

101For Respondent: Scott E. Clodfelter, Esquire

107Department of Corrections

110Obed Dorceus, Esquire

1132601 Blair Stone Road

117Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

120For Intervenor: Mark K. Logan, Esquire

126403 East Park Avenue

130Tallahassee, Florida 32301

133STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

137The issue is whether the Department of Corrections' decision

146to select Intervenor as construction manager on Project No. VO-

15604-CM was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary,

164or capricious, as alleged by Petitioner.

170PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

172This matter began on November 20, 1998, when Respondent,

181Department of Corrections, advised Petitioner, Rattler

187Construction Contractors, Inc., that it had selected Intervenor,

195A. D. Morgan Corporation, as the construction manager on Project

205No. VO-04-CM. That project involved the expansion and renovation

214of the Florida Correctional Institution in Lowell, Florida. On

223December 2, 1998, Petitioner filed a notice of its intention to

234protest the award. A Formal Written Protest was then filed by

245Petitioner on December 14, 1998.

250The matter was referred by Respondent to the Division of

260Administrative Hearings on December 24, 1998, with a request that

270an Administrative Law Judge be assigned to conduct a formal

280hearing.

281By Notice of Hearing dated December 29, 1998, a final

291hearing was scheduled on January 14, 1999, in Tallahassee,

300Florida. At Petitioner's request, the matter was continued to

309January 21, 1999, at the same location. A continued hearing was

320held on February 2, 1999. On January 13, 1999, Intervenor,

330A. D. Morgan Corporation, was granted leave to intervene. On

340January 21, 1999, Petitioner's unopposed Motion for Leave to File

350Amended Formal Written Protest was granted.

356At final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

364James R. Ervin, an agency architect; Raymond L. Bryant, Sr.,

374certification manager of the Minority Business Advocacy and

382Assistance Office; Edward H. Terry, Jr., an agency architect;

391Steven Watson, an agency architect supervisor; Frederick Carroll,

399III, a certified public accountant and accepted as an expert in

410accounting matters and financial statement preparation; Robert E.

418Selman, an agency architect supervisor; Robert E. Staney, deputy

427assistant secretary for administration; and Calvin J. Barber,

435Petitioner's president. Also, it offered Petitioner’s

441Exhibits 1-18. All exhibits were received in evidence.

449Intervenor presented the testimony of Deette Preacher, a

457certified public accountant and accepted as an expert in public

467accounting; John Kalaf, Intervenor's vice-president of

473operations; and Rebecca Smith, Intervenor's president and owner.

481Also, it offered Intervenor's Exhibits 1-6. All exhibits were

490received in evidence. Finally, the undersigned granted

497Petitioner's Motion for Official Recognition of Chapter 38A-20,

505Florida Administrative Code, and certain "Standards for

512Accounting and Review Services," "Statements of Auditing," and

"520Generally Accepted Auditing Standards" issued by the American

528Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The accounting items,

536however, were never filed by Petitioner, as requested by the

546undersigned at hearing, and thus they have not been considered.

556The transcript of hearing (three volumes) was filed on

565February 9, 1999. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of

575law were filed by Petitioner on February 19, 1999, and by

586Respondent and Intervenor on February 22, 1999. Those filings

595have been considered by the undersigned in the preparation of

605this Recommended Order.

608FINDINGS OF FACT

611Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of

621fact are determined:

624A. Background

6261. In September 1998, Respondent, Department of Corrections

634(Department), issued a Request for Qualifications and Evaluations

642Procedures (RFQ) to select a construction manager for Project

651No. VO-04-CM, which involved an $18 million expansion and

660renovation of the Florida Correctional Institution in Lowell,

668Florida. The RFQ was directed to qualified minority construction

677firms as a "minority set aside." The successful firm would serve

688as a general contractor for the job, guarantee the price, and

699assume responsibility for any cost overruns on the project.

7082. All firms were to submit their qualifications with the

718Department by 4:00 p.m., October 20, 1998. After a pre-proposal

728meeting held on October 6, 1998, but prior to October 15, 1998,

740Addendum No. 1 to the RFQ was issued and clarified that all

752proposals must be filed by October 15, rather than October 20,

763that each firm have a bonding capacity of $6,000,000.00 for each

776of the three phases of the project, and that each firm must

788submit its bonding and insurance costs.

7943. The RFQ required that each firm file a letter of

805interest detailing the firm's qualifications to meet the

813selection criteria; an experience questionnaire and contractor's

820financial statement; resumes of proposed staff and staff

828organizations; examples of project reporting manuals, schedules,

835past experience, and examples of similar projects completed by

844the firm; references from past clients; and a reproduction of the

855firm's current state contractor's license, corporation charter,

862and Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) certification.

8684. Under the selection process established by the

876Department pursuant to Rule 60D-5.0082, Florida Administrative

883Code, a five-member selection committee, including four from the

892Division of Design and Construction, would "review all properly

901submitted proposals, and determine the three (3) firms with the

911highest score using the selection criteria established for the

920project." These criteria included experience, financial,

926schedule and cost control, office staff, site staff, information

935system, and location. The highest ranked firm would then be

945selected to negotiate a contract for the services.

9535. On October 15, 1998, applications were filed by five

963construction firms: Petitioner, Rattler Construction Contractors,

969Inc. (Rattler or Petitioner); Intervenor, A. D. Morgan

977Corporation (Intervenor); Linda Newman Construction Company, Inc.

984(Newman); Ajax Construction Company, Inc. (Ajax); and Freeman and

993Freeman Construction Company (Freeman). After an evaluation was

1001conducted by the selection team, the applicants were assigned the

1011following scores: Intervenor (85.6), Newman (75.2), Petitioner

1018(66.2), and Freeman (20.8). Ajax was disqualified as being non-

1028responsive on the ground it was not certified as a MBE. At a

1041later point in the process, Freeman was disqualified for the same

1052reason. Accordingly, as the highest ranked applicant, Intervenor

1060was determined to be the most qualified firm, and the Department

1071issued a letter on November 20, 1998, advising all contractors of

1082its decision.

10846. Claiming that its submission was the only "compliant and

1094responsive bid received" by the Department, Petitioner filed its

1103protest on December 2, 1998. In its Formal Written Protest filed

1114on December 14, 1998, as later amended on January 19, 1999, and

1126then narrowed by the parties' prehearing statement, Petitioner

1134contended that Intervenor had failed to comply with two material

1144requirements: that it file audited financial statements and a

1153current MBE certification. It further alleged that the second

1162ranked applicant, Newman, had also failed to submit audited

1171financial statements. Finally, it claimed that one of the

1180members on the selection team was biased against Rattler.

1189Because of the foregoing irregularities, Petitioner asserts that

1197the Department's actions were "clearly erroneous, arbitrary,

1204capricious, and illegal" in proposing to select Intervenor as its

1214construction manager. As relief, Petitioner asks that Intervenor

1222and Newman be disqualified as non-responsive, and because Rattler

1231filed the "only complete and responsive bid," that the Department

1241select Petitioner as its construction manager. Each of the

1250alleged irregularities will be discussed below.

1256B. Did the Department Err in Awarding Intervenor the Contract ?

1266a. Audited Financial Statements

12708. The RFQ, as amended, required that each minority

1279contractor file, no later than October 15, 1998, an application

1289and a "Contractor's Financial Statement as referenced in Chapter

129860D-05 [sic], Florida Administrative Code." More specific

1305instructions as to this latter requirement were found on page 5

1316of 21 of the Request for Qualification and Experience

1325Questionnaire, which accompanied the RFQ. That document

1332contained general and specific instructions. There, each

1339applicant was directed to file a Financial Statement, which was

1349described as follows:

1352B. Financial Statement. This statement will

1358be an audited report with comments, and not

1366older than one (1) year. If the most current

1375report has not yet been audited, the previous

1383audited report with comment shall accompany

1389the most recent financial statement.

1394The RFQ described the foregoing requirement as one of the

"1404REQUIRED SUBMITTALS."

14069. In response to this provision, an employee of Intervenor

1416retyped its audited financial statements to conform with the

1425format contained in the RFQ. In doing so, rather than copying

1436the entire set of statements, she inadvertently copied only three

1446pages, including a cover sheet. The first page was entitled "The

1457A.D. Morgan Corporation Financial Statements, December 31, 1997

1465and 1996," and it reflected that the statements were prepared by

1476Valiente, Hernandez & Co., P.A. (Valiente), a certified public

1485accounting (CPA) firm. Testimony at hearing established that

1493Valiente had in fact prepared audited financial statements for

1502Intervenor for those two years.

150710. Attached to the cover sheet were Balance Sheets for the

1518years ending December 31, 1996 and December 31, 1997. Absent,

1528however, were the opinion letter by the CPA firm, notes to

1539financial statements, income statement, and statement of cash

1547flow. All of these items normally accompany audited financial

1556statements.

155711. Even though Intervenor had audited financial statements

1565prepared by a CPA firm, and the three pages submitted with its

1577proposal were drawn from those statements, it is undisputed that

1587the incomplete statements submitted by Intervenor were not

"1595audited financial statements" as that term is commonly

1603understood by accounting professionals.

160712. In the case of Newman, it submitted financial

1616statements that had been reviewed, but not audited, by a CPA

1627firm. In a review, there is no testing; no observation of

1638inventory; no requirement for independent verification of cash

1646balances or investment balances; no requirement for an attorney's

1655letter; and no requirement that the accountants review the

1664corporate minutes and other matters. In short, reviewed

1672financial statements are not audited financial statements as that

1681term is defined by accounting professionals.

168713. The Department did not view this requirement as being a

1698material requirement, and thus it determined that Intervenor's

1706and Newman's failure to file audited financial statements was a

1716minor irregularity. This is because the Department measures the

1725financial capability of a firm by looking collectively at its

1735financial statements, bonding capacity, insurance costs, bonding

1742costs, account receivables, and assets and liabilities. In other

1751words, the Department wants sufficient information to verify that

1760a contractor has the financial ability to undertake and complete

1770the job.

177214. In making the above verification, the Department viewed

1781a contractor's ability to secure a bond as one of the most

1793important indicators of financial stability since bonding

1800companies typically make a thorough analysis of a firm's

1809financial capability before issuing a bond on a particular

1818project. This was consistent with the instructions in paragraph

1827B on page 6 of 21 of the RFQ, which stated that, in addition to

1842the financial statement, the "financial capability" of a firm

"1851should also include the bonding capacity of the firm." In the

1862case of Intervenor, it was able to secure a bond capacity in

1874excess of $20 million for single projects and in excess of $40

1886million for aggregate projects.

189015. When viewing all of the financial indicators submitted

1899by Intervenor, the selection team was satisfied that Intervenor

1908clearly had the necessary resources, working capital, and

1916financial stability to perform the project.

192216. The Department has not strictly enforced the

1930requirement that audited financial statements be filed with a

1939proposal, and there is no record evidence that a vendor has ever

1951been disqualified on this ground. Even so, the filing of audited

1962financial statements is a "required submittal" by the RFQ's own

1972terms, and the failure to do so renders Intervenor's and Newman's

1983submissions as non-responsive.

1986b. MBE Certification

198917. Intervenor has been a certified MBE since 1991. In its

2000proposal, Intervenor submitted a copy of its MBE certification

2009for the year ending September 24, 1998. To independently verify

2019this representation, a member of the selection committee then

2028contacted the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office

2036(MBAAO) of the Department of Labor and Employment Security, which

2046issues certifications, to confirm that Intervenor was certified

2054on a current basis. In response to that inquiry, the member

2065received a list of all current MBE certified contractors.

2074Intervenor was on that list.

207918. Petitioner points out, however, that the certification

2087submitted with Intervenor's proposal expired on September 24,

20951998, or before the application was filed, and thus the

2105Department waived a material requirement. Relevant to this

2113contention are the following facts.

211819. On September 11, 1998, or before its current

2127certification had expired, Intervenor filed an affidavit for

2135recertification with the MBAAO. Because of "computer glitches"

2143and six office moves "in a very short time period," the MBAAO was

2156unable to process all recertification applications before the

2164date on which some certifications expired. However, it

2172considered all businesses as being certified until a decision was

2182made on all pending recertification applications. In

2189Intervenor's case, the MBAAO granted its application for

2197recertification on November 6, 1998, and issued Intervenor a new

2207certification for the one-year period from September 24, 1998, to

2217September 24, 1999.

222020. Given the foregoing circumstances, it is found that

2229Intervenor had a current MBE certification when it filed its

2239application, and the Department did not waive a material

2248requirement in accepting Intervenor's certification which

2254reflected an expiration date of September 24, 1998.

2262c. Bias by a Selection Team Member

226921. James R. Ervin, a Department architect, was a member of

2280the selection team. Ervin had served as project administrator on

2290an earlier Department project in Wakulla County on which George

2300Register, III, and his father, George Register, Jr., were

2309involved.

231022. Because of two complaints filed against him by the

2320younger Register, Ervin was taken off the Wakulla County project

2330while the Department's Inspector-General conducted an

2336investigation.

233723. George Register, III, is listed on Petitioner's

2345application as one of its consulting engineers. Ervin discovered

2354this mid-way through the evaluation process, and he initially

2363considered recusing himself from the team. After mulling over

2372the matter, he decided that he could fairly evaluate Petitioner's

2382proposal.

238324. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, there is no

2391credible evidence that Ervin was biased against Petitioner during

2400the evaluation process, or that he gave higher scores to

2410Intervenor and Newman because of Register's complaints. Indeed,

2418his scores were comparable to those of the other four evaluators.

2429Even if Ervin's scores were discarded, the scores of the other

2440four evaluators would still result in the same order of ranking.

2451Therefore, the evidence does not support a finding that Ervin's

2461participation on the selection committee was improper, as alleged

2470in the Amended Formal Written Protest.

247625. The remaining allegation that certain members of the

2485selection committee exhibited favoritism towards Intervenor and

2492Newman, and bias against Petitioner, is without merit and has

2502been rejected.

2504C. Defects in Petitioner's Proposal

250926. Addendum No. 1 to the RFQ added Items 62 and 63, which

2522required that each contractor provide its bonding and insurance

2531costs. This "important information" was added to Addendum No. 1

2541at the specific request of the Department of Management Services

2551(DMS), from whom many of the RFQ's provisions were drawn. As

2562noted earlier, these items are two of the six items that the

2574Department considers in determining the overall financial

2581capability of a firm. In the Department's view, they are no less

2593significant than the other items, including the financial

2601statements.

260227. Intervenor's proposal included these costs.

2608Petitioner, however, did not provide such costs in its proposal.

2618In fact, Petitioner's representative was not aware of this

2627requirement until after his proposal had been filed.

263528. Like the audited financial statements, the Department

2643considered the failure to file this information to be a minor

2654irregularity, and it waived Rattler's and Newman's omission.

2662Because the Department considers these items to be as equally

2672important as audited financial statements, and because they were

2681so significant that the DMS specifically requested that they be

2691placed in the RFQ, the items are found to be material, and a

2704failure to file such information renders Petitioner's and

2712Newman's proposals as non-responsive.

2716CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

271929. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

2726jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto

2735pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998).

274330. In this proceeding, the burden is on the party

2753protesting the award of the contract to establish a ground for

2764invalidating the award. State Contracting and Engineering Corp.

2772v. Dep't of Trans. , 709 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

278531. Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998),

2792controls this proceeding. Paragraph (3)(f) provides in relevant

2800part as follows:

2803(f) In a competitive-procurement protest, no

2809submissions made after the bid or proposal

2816opening shall be considered. Unless otherwise

2822provided by statute, the burden of proof shall

2830rest upon the party protesting the proposed

2837agency action. In a competitive-procurement

2842protest, other than a rejection of all bids,

2850the administrative law judge shall conduct a

2857de novo proceeding to determine whether the

2864agency’s proposed action is contrary to the

2871agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s

2876rules or policies, or the . . . proposal

2885specifications. The standard of proof for

2891such proceedings shall be whether the proposed

2898agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary

2904to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.

290932. Because this case involves a request for qualifications

2918under Section 287.055, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), thereby

2926bringing Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, into play, the

2934undersigned is first obliged to determine, in a de novo setting,

2945whether the Department's action is "contrary to the agency's

2954governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the . . .

2966proposal specifications." Within that factual framework, it must

2974then be determined if the Department's action is ”clearly

2983erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious."

2990Therefore, the allegation by Petitioner that the Department's

2998action was "improper" or "illegal" need not be considered since

3008these grounds are relevant only when the agency has rejected all

3019bids/proposals.

302033. The more credible evidence established that a RFQ

3029specification imposed a requirement that Intervenor and Newman

3037file audited financial statements, that such a requirement was

3046material in nature, and that it could not be waived. Similarly,

3057another RFQ specification imposed the requirement that Petitioner

3065file its bonding and insurance costs, which information was

3074material, and could not be waived. By waiving these

3083requirements, which was contrary to the proposal's

3090specificiations, the Department's proposed action was clearly

3097erroneous, and it was arbitrary.

310234. In reaching these conclusions, the undersigned has

3110considered the contention by the Department and Intervenor that

3119the filing of financial statements was not a material

3128requirement, especially under the unique circumstances presented

3135here. As a practical matter, the lack of complete statements may

3146not have hindered the Department in determining the financial

3155capability of Intervenor. This is because Intervenor was an

3164experienced contractor who had previously worked on a number of

3174Department projects, and even with incomplete financial

3181statements, its financial ability to undertake and complete the

3190project was not in doubt. Intervenor's only fault was failing to

3201copy and submit all of the pertinent pages. But the requirement

3212is characterized in the RFQ as a "required submittal," a term the

3224undersigned interprets to mean that the filing is mandatory. To

3234hold otherwise would give the Department the discretion to accept

3244partial or unaudited statements in some cases, but to reject

3254others as being non-responsive. This type of discretion leaves

3263bidders in doubt, will likely engender future disputes such as

3273this one when the requirement is once again waived, and gives

3284those bidders who need not file audited statements an advantage

3294not enjoyed by others. Cf . Consultect, Inc. d/b/a Gen. American

3305Consultech, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Admin. , DOAH Case No.

331591-5950BID (Dep't of Admin., Nov. 25, 1992) (vendor's failure to

3325file audited financial statements found to be a material variance

3335from RFP).

333735. The undersigned has also considered, and rejected,

3345Petitioner's contention that the waiving of bonding and insurance

3354costs was a minor irregularity. Because of their importance,

3363these items were placed in the RFQ at the specific request of the

3376DMS. They are two of six items that the Department considers in

3388evaluating the financial capability of a firm, and it considers

3398them to be no less significant than the others. A firm not

3410filing those costs enjoys an advantage over other bidders. In

3420sum, the evidence supports a conclusion that they are a material

3431requirement, and they should not be waived.

343836. Because the three highest ranked firms are all non-

3448responsive, the Department's proposed award of the contract to

3457Intervenor should be withdrawn, and the Department should again

3466solicit requests for qualifications from interested minority

3473firms for Project No. VO-04-CM.

3478RECOMMENDATION

3479Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of

3489law, it is

3492RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final

3501order withdrawing its proposed action, rejecting all proposals as

3510being non-responsive, and advising that it will solicit new

3519proposals for Project No. VO-04-CM.

3524DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1999, in

3534Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3538___________________________________

3539DONALD R. ALEXANDER

3542Administrative Law Judge

3545Division of Administrative Hearings

3549The DeSoto Building

35521230 A palachee Parkway

3556Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3559(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

3563Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

3567www.doah.state.fl.us

3568Filed with the Clerk of the

3574Division of Administrative Hearings

3578this 4th day of March, 1999.

3584COPIES FURNISHED:

3586Michael W. Moore, Secretary

3590Department of Corrections

35932601 Blair Stone Road

3597Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

3600H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire

3604Theresa M. Bender, Esquire

3608Post Office Box 11068

3612Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068

3615Scott E. Clodfelter, Esquire

3619Obed Dorceus, Esquire

3622Department of Corrections

36252601 Blair Stone Road

3629Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

3632Mark K. Logan, Esquire

3636403 East Park Avenue

3640Tallahassee, Florida 32301

3643Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel

3648Department of Corrections

36512601 Blair Stone Road

3655Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

3658NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3664All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this

3675Recommended Order within fifteen days. Any exceptions to this

3684Recommended Order should be filed with the Department of

3693Corrections.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 04/06/1999
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 04/06/1999
Proceedings: Recommended Order
Date: 04/06/1999
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/04/1999
Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 01/21/99 & 02/02/99.
Date: 02/23/1999
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Exhibit 5 rec`d
Date: 02/22/1999
Proceedings: Intervenor, A. D. Morgan Corporation`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 02/22/1999
Proceedings: Department of Corrections` Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law rec`d
Date: 02/19/1999
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order; Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 02/09/1999
Proceedings: Volume 3 Transcript filed.
Date: 02/03/1999
Proceedings: 2 Volumes Transcript (Volume I and II are in one binder) filed.
Date: 02/02/1999
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 01/26/1999
Proceedings: Order sent out. (hearing set for 2/2/99; 9:00am; Tallahassee)
Date: 01/21/1999
Proceedings: Hearing Partially Held, continued to date not certain.
Date: 01/20/1999
Proceedings: Petitioner`s First Motion for Official Recognition rec`d
Date: 01/20/1999
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Page 3 of Amended Petition (filed via facsimile).
Date: 01/19/1999
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion to Amend Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding rec`d
Date: 01/19/1999
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Objection to Subpoena Duces Tecum and Second Request for Production of Documents, and Motion for Protective Order rec`d
Date: 01/19/1999
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Amended Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding Pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes rec`d
Date: 01/15/1999
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Request for Production of Documents rec`d
Date: 01/13/1999
Proceedings: Order sent out. (A. D. Morgan Corp. Granted Intervenor Status)
Date: 01/13/1999
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Request for Production of Documents filed.
Date: 01/12/1999
Proceedings: (A. D. Morgan Corporation) Petition to Intervene; Motion for Leave to File Petition to Intervene filed.
Date: 01/06/1999
Proceedings: Order sent out. (1/14/99 hearing reset for 1/21/99; 9:00am; Tallahassee)
Date: 01/05/1999
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance filed.
Date: 12/29/1998
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 1/14/99; 9:00am; Tallahassee)
Date: 12/24/1998
Proceedings: Agency Referral Letter; Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding Pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (w/exhibit A-D) filed.

Case Information

Judge:
D. R. ALEXANDER
Date Filed:
12/24/1998
Date Assignment:
12/28/1998
Last Docket Entry:
04/06/1999
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
BID
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (2):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):