01-001443BID Children`s Home Society Of Florida vs. Department Of Children And Family Services
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, July 25, 2001.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner`s response to ITN failed to include a mandatory requirement and was thus non-responsive. Petitioner`s protest to the ITN should be dismissed.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY )

12OF FLORIDA , )

15)

16Petitioner , )

18)

19vs. ) Case Nos. 01-1443BID

24) 01-1444BID

26DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN )

30AND FAMILY SERVICES , )

34)

35Respondent , )

37)

38and )

40)

41THE DEVEREUX FOUNDATION, INC. , )

46)

47Intervenor. )

49_________________________________)

50RECOMMENDED ORDER

52A hearing was he ld pursuant to notice, on May 16, 2001, by

65Barbara J. Staros, assigned Administrative Law Judge of the

74Division of Administrative Hearings, in Tallahassee, Florida.

81APPEARANCES

82For Petitioner : Peter Antonacci, Esquire

88Michael E. Riley, Esquire

92Gray, Harris, & Robinson, P.A.

97301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600

103Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3189

106For Respondent : John R. Perry, Esquire

113Department of Children

116and Family Services

1192639 North Monroe Street, Suite 525A

125Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949

128For Intervenor : Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire

135David C. Ashburn, Esquire

139Sonya C. Penley, Esquire

143Greenberg, Traurig, P.A.

146Post Office Drawer 1838

150Tallahassee, Florida 32302

153STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

157Whether the decision of the Department of Children and

166Family Services to reject the proposals submitted by the

175Children's Home Society in response to ITN No. 01-FSD2A/01 and

185ITN No. 01-FSD2B/01 as non-responsive was contrary to the

194Agency's governing statutes, the Agency's rules or policies, or

203the specifications of the ITNs?

208PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

210On or about February 1, 2001, the Department of Children and

221Family Services (DCF) issued ITN No. 01-FSD2A/01 and No. 01-

231FSD2B/01 for the delivery of foster care licensure, retention and

241recruitment contracts in DCF's Districts 2A and 2B. Petitioner,

250Children's Home Society (CHS), responded to both ITNs.

258On March 6, 2001, DCF informed CHS by letter that its

269responses to the ITNs were determined to be non-responsive.

278On March 9, 2001, CHS filed a Notice of Protest of DCF's

290decision determining that CHS' responses to the ITNs were non-

300responsive.

301On March 14, 2001, DCF posted the results of its evaluations

312of the ITN responses submitted by two other proposers or

322applicants, one of which was the Devereux Foundation, Inc.

331On March 19, 2001, CHS filed two Formal Written Protests

341requesting a formal administrative hearing and protesting DCF's

349decision that CHS's responses to the ITNs were determined to be

360non-responsive and ineligible for further evaluation. CHS also

368filed a Motion for Consolidation of the two protests. The

378Devereux Foundation Inc. (Devereux) filed a Petition to Intervene

387in the Formal Written Protest involving ITN No. 01-FSD2B/01.

396Devereux alleged that CHS was ineligible to respond to the ITNs

407as a matter of law and should have been disqualified from the

419competitive procurement process.

422CHS's Formal Written Protests were forwarded to the Division

431of Administrative Hearings on or about April 16, 2001.

440Devereux's Motion to Intervene in case No. 01-1444BID was

449granted. CHS’s Motion for Consolidation was granted

456consolidating Case Nos. 01-1443BID and 01-1444BID and a formal

465hearing was scheduled for May 16, 2001.

472Devereux filed a Motion for Summary Recommended Order of

481dismissal, which was denied.

485The parties filed a Prehearing Stipulation. At hearing, the

494parties stipulated to the admission of Joint Exhibits 1 through

5049. Petitioner presented the testimony of John Haines, William

513Frieder and Dr. John Awad. Petitioner proffered the testimony of

523Professor Jeffrey Davis. Petitioner offered Exhibits 1-5.

530Petitioner's Exhibit 5 was admitted into evidence but

538Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4 were not admitted into evidence.

546Respondent presented the testimony of Terry DeCerchio and offered

555no exhibits into evidence. Petitioner requested official

562recognition of Chapter 99-168, Laws of Florida, and this request

572was granted. Intervenor presented no witnesses and offered one

581exhibit into evidence. Petitioner presented the testimony of

589Terry DeCerchio and Patricia Phillips in rebuttal.

596A Transcript of the hearing, consisting of one volume, was

606filed on June 4, 2001. On July 5, 2001, the parties timely filed

619Proposed Recommended Orders which have been considered in the

628preparation of this Recommended Order.

633FINDINGS OF FACT

6361. On or about February 1, 2001, DCF issued ITN No. 01-

648FSD2A/01, and No. 01-FSD2B/01 for the delivery of foster care

658licensure, retention and recruitment contracts in both District

6662A and District 2B of DCF.

6722. Each ITN included a form entitled "Appendix M Statement

682of Assurances" with the ITN number clearly printed at the top of

694the page as well as this identifying language, "FOSTER CARE

704LICENSURE, RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT SERVICES." Appendix M

711consists of 7 paragraphs of requirements and conditions.

7193. Section 6.4 of the ITNs reads as follows:

7286.4 RESPONSE TO INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE

734MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS

736The mandatory requirements are described as

742FATAL CRITERIA on the Invitation to Negotiate

749Rating Sheet. Failure to comply with all

756mandatory requirements will render an

761application non-responsive and ineligible for

766further evaluation.

7681. Was application received by the time and

776date specified in the Invitation to

782Negotiate?

7832. Was one (1) original and seven (7) copies

792of application supplied?

7953. Did the application include the signed

802State of Florida Invitation to Negotiate

808Contractual Services Acknowledgement

811Form, PUR 7105?

8144. Did the application include a title page

822(section 6.2)?

8245. Did the application include the singed

831Statement of No Involvement?

8356. Did the application include the signed

842Acceptance of Contract Terms and

847Conditions form?

8497. Did the application include a signed

856Statement of Assurances?

8598. Did the application include a line budget

867with narrative justification of the

872included items? ( emphasis in original)

8784. Section 6.13 of the ITNs is entitled, "HOW TO SUBMIT AN

890APPLICATION" and includes the following language:

8966.13 HOW TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION

902Faxed applications will not be accepted. All

909seven (7) copies of application packages must

916be delivered sealed and clearly marked on the

924outside of each of the packages: ' RESPONSE

932TO INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE' and contain the

939respondent's name and address. The applicant

945is free to use any means of delivery it

954wishes. The applicant is responsible for

960ensuring the Department receives all required

966material prior to the deadline, in the manner

974required , and at the place requested in this

982Invitation to Negotiate. Any untimely

987application will be rejected and returned

993unopened and unevaluated.

996* * *

999. . . A completed application consists of the

1008following:

10091) Cover Page (signed and dated PUR 7105

1017form indicating the total number of pages

1024in the application, included in this

1030document as Appendix B.)

10342) Completed Title Page and Table.

10403) Responses to each of the requirements of

1048Sections 6.3 to 6.8.

10524) Signed and dated Appendix M, Statement of

1060Assurances . ( emphasis supplied)

10655. CHS submitted proposals to both ITNs.

10726. The proposals submitted by CHS for both ITNs did not

1083include the Statement of Assurances found in Appendix M of ITN

1094Nos. 01-FSD2A/01 and 01-FSD2B/01. Instead, both proposals

1101contained a different Statement of Assurances which CHS had

1110previously used in a response to another ITN in a different

1121district of DCF. The statement of assurances which CHS attached

1131contained 11 paragraphs of requirements and conditions.

11387. By letters of March 6, 2001, the Department informed CHS

1149that CHS's proposals to the two ITNs did not meet the mandatory

1161requirements listed in the ITNs and that this failure to comply

1172with all mandatory requirements renders their proposals non-

1180responsive and ineligible for further evaluation.

11868. The Department made the determination that CHS's

1194proposals were non-responsive in both districts under the same

1203legal and factual analysis.

12079. Dr. John Awad, the District Administrator, made this

1216decision on behalf of the Department after consulting staff and

1226legal counsel.

122810. The decision of the Department to determine CHS's

1237applications to be non-responsive and ineligible for further

1245evaluation resulted in five eligible applicants in District 2A,

1254and two applicants in District 2B.

126011. CHS's failure to include Appendix M, which was a

1270mandatory requirement of the ITNs, and mistakenly including a

1279Statement of Assurances from a different ITN, constitutes a major

1289irregularity. The failure to sign and include this document,

1298which was clearly and expressly required in Section 6.4 of the

1309ITNs, is sufficient to support DCF's position to consider CHS's

1319proposals to be non-responsive and ineligible for further

1327evaluation.

132812. In further support of DCF's decision that CHS's

1337proposals were non-responsive, there are significant differences

1344between the Statement of Assurances contained in Appendix M

1353and the Statement of Assurances which was submitted by CHS.

1363The Statement of Assurances that was submitted by CHS expressly

1373referenced services to be provided in Volusia and Flagler

1382Counties which are not within the geographical boundaries of

1391DCF's District Two.

139413. Additionally, the Statement of Assurances supplied by

1402CHS guarantees the provision of a plan by December 1, 2000,

1413regarding how it will meet accreditation standards. Appendix M

1422has no such provision.

142614. Finally, Appendix M requires the applicant to assure

1435that the applicant has the ability to provide directly, or

1445through contract, all services described in "this Invitation to

1454Negotiate and resulting contract" which are specified as foster

1463care licensure, retention, and recruitment services. The

1470Statement of Assurances which was submitted by CHS assured that

1480it would provide "foster care and related services." This

1489assurance constitutes a different scope of services than

1497contemplated in the ITNs at issue here.

150415. The ITNs define foster care recruitment as, "[t ]he

1514process of finding foster parent resources for waiting children,

1523using either formal media-based campaigns, or informal procedures

1531recognized as effective by the selected applicant agency."

1539Foster care retention is defined in the ITNs as, "[t ]he act of

1552maintaining a base of licensed family foster homes."

156016. "Related services" as defined in Section

1567409.1671(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), means "family

1573preservation, independent living, emergency shelter, residential

1579group care, therapeutic foster care, intensive residential

1586treatment, foster care supervision, case management,

1592postplacement supervision, permanent foster care, and family

1599reunification."

160017. Moreover, the phrase "foster care and related services"

1609is not defined in the ITNs at issue here and it cannot be

1622inferred that this general phrase encompasses the specific

1630services in the ITNs to which a proposer or an applicant must

1642assure that it will provide.

164718. CHS’s failure to sign and include Appendix M, the

1657Statement of Assurances attached to the ITNs at issue, resulted

1667in a failure to meet the mandatory requirement in Section 6.4 of

1679the ITNs. CHS’s use of a form associated with a different

1690invitation to negotiate which specified a different scope of

1699services for a different geographic area than contemplated by the

1709ITNs at issue does not satisfy the mandatory requirement in

1719Section 6.4.

172119. Appendix N, which explains the scoring criteria and

1730procedure of the ITNs further referenced the Statement of

1739Assurances as one of the "FATAL CRITERIA" and emphasized in bold

1750type that, if not met, the response could not be considered

1761further.

176220. CHS’s failure to meet this mandatory requirement

1770constitutes a material deviation from the ITNs.

1777Needs Assessment

177921. Prior to the development of the ITNs at issue here, DCF

1791asked CHS to provide a needs assessment and plan related to the

1803need for services relating to foster care licensure, relicensure,

1812recruitment, training and retention in District Two, Subdistrict

18202B. Intervenor Devereux asserts that CHS should have been

1829declared ineligible to submit proposals to the ITNs because of

1839this needs assessment in which it participated.

184622. On May 26, 2000, DCF awarded a purchase order to CHS to

1859conduct a needs assessment and develop a plan for recruitment and

1870retention of foster parents. Initially, the purchase order was

1879for $20,000.00. However, this purchase order was amended in

1889August 2000 by reducing the scope of the agreement and reducing

1900the amount to be paid to CHS to approximately $10,000.00. The

1912amended purchase order still called for CHS to develop a needs

1923assessment, but no longer called for the development of a plan.

1934CHS did not develop a plan as contemplated by the original

1945agreement nor was it paid for anything more than the needs

1956assessment.

195723. The original purchase order between DCF and CHS did not

1968reference procurement of a feasibility study. The weight of the

1978evidence does not support Intervenor’s assertion that the plan

1987contemplated by the original purchase order signed May 26, 2000,

1997necessarily would have constituted a feasibility study.

2004Moreover, the plan contemplated by the original purchase order

2013was never created and CHS was never compensated for anything

2023beyond the needs assessment.

202724. The needs assessment produced by CHS was attached to

2037the ITN for District 2B. Thus, all prospective applicants were

2047provided with the needs assessment.

205225. DCF held a prospective applicants conference on

2060February 16, 2001. At this conference, Intervenor asked whether

2069the provider who participated in the preparation of the needs

2079assessment would be ineligible to submit a proposal in response

2089to the ITNs. DCF replied that the provider who participated in

2100the preparation of the needs assessment is not excluded from

2110submitting a proposal and noted that the information that was

2120gathered and the results were included in the ITNs.

212926. CHS completed, signed, and attached to its proposal to

2139ITN#01-FSD2B/01 a Statement of No Involvement which assured that

2148neither CHS nor any member of that firm had been awarded a

2160contract by DCF on a noncompetitive basis to develop the ITN ;

2171perform a feasibility study concerning the scope of work

2180contained in this ITN; or develop a program similar to what is

2192contained in the ITN.

2196CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

219927. The Division of Administrat ive Hearings has

2207jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this case

2217pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 120.57(3), Florida

2225Statutes.

222628. The burden of proof on the issue of DCF’s proposed

2237agency action of determining that CHS’s proposal is non-

2246responsive resides with the Petitioner. See Section

2253120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes. The burden of proof on the issue

2263of whether CHS is ineligible to contract with DCF because of the

2275prior purchase order resides with Intervenor Devereux.

228229. The underlying findings of fact in this case are based

2293on a preponderance of the evidence. Section 120.57(1)(j),

2301Florida Statutes. The standard of proof is whether the proposed

2311agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition,

2319arbitrary, or capricious.

232230. The de novo proceeding in this case was conducted to

2333examine DCF’s proposed action in an attempt to determine whether

2343that action is contrary to the agency’s governing rules or

2353policies, or the ITN specifications. See Section 120.57(3)(f),

2361Florida Statutes, and State Contracting and Engineering

2368Corporation v. Department of Transportation , 709 So. 2d 607

2377(Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

238131. The language of Sections 6.4, 6.13, and Appendix N of

2392the ITNs is clear and unambiguous. Section 6.4 and Appendix N

2403identify the statement of assurances as a mandatory requirement

2412and one of the fatal criteria. Section 6.13 instructs all

2422proposers how to submit an application and enumerates four

2431elements necessary for an application to be complete. One of the

2442elements expressly references a signed-and-dated Appendix M,

2449Statement of Assurances.

245232. DCF’s determination that CHS’s proposal was non-

2460responsive was consistent with the clear, express language of the

2470ITNs which informed proposers of mandatory requirements and that

2479proposals found to be non-responsive would not be further

2488evaluated.

248933. CHS argues that it attached a Statement of Assurances,

2499albeit from the wrong ITN, and that its failure to attach the

2511correct statement of assurances constitutes a minor irregularity

2519that should have been waived by DCF.

252634. In situations in which a state agency seeks to procure

2537a provider of services and/or commodities through a competitive

2546process, the agency in question has the right to waive minor

2557irregularities in an otherwise valid bid or proposal or offer to

2568negotiate. Variations which are not minor cannot be waived.

2577Rule 60A-1.002(10), Florida Administrative Code.

258235. The ITNs defined a minor irregularity as a variation

2592from the ITN terms and conditions that does not affect the price

2604of the application, or give the prospective applicant an

2613advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other prospective applicants,

2622or does not adversely impact the interests of DCF. See also

2633Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral , 352 So. 2d

26461190, 1193 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977).

265236. A "responsive offeror" is a person who has submitted a

2663proposal which conforms in all material respects to an invitation

2673to bid or a request for proposals. Section 287.012(17), Florida

2683Statutes (2000).

268537. The term "responsive bid" means a bid which is

2695submitted on the correct forms and contains all required

2704information. Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. Department of

2711Health and Rehabilitative Services , 606 So. 2d 380, 381 (Fla. 3d

2722DCA 1992) . 1/

272638. The Statements of Assurances submitted by CHS were not

2736on the required form. Further, they did not contain the correct

2747information, and did not guarantee the ability to perform the

2757services set forth in the ITNs.

276339. DCF’s determination that CHS’s proposal was non-

2771responsive was consistent with the clear, express language of the

2781ITNs which informed proposers of mandatory requirements and that

2790proposals found to be non-responsive would not be further

2799evaluated. CHS failed to meet its burden to show that DCF’s

2810proposed action is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition,

2818arbitrary or capricious.

282140. An agency action is capricious if the agency takes the

2832action without thought or reason or irrationally. An agency

2841decision is arbitrary if it is not supported by facts or logic.

2853Agrico Chemical Co. v. State Department of Environmental

2861Regulation , 365 So. 2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

287141. CHS failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence

2882that DCF an acted arbitrarily or capriciously. DCF’s actions

2891were consistent with the plain meaning of the language contained

2901in the ITNs. Further, actions taken by DCF administration were

2911taken after careful consideration and were in no way arbitrary or

2922capricious.

292342. CHS also failed to meet its burden that DCF’s decision

2934was contrary to competition. DCF acted in a manner which secured

2945fair competition to all applicants by ensuring an exact

2954comparison of proposals. The CHS proposals were not entitled to

2964further review since they materially deviated from a mandatory

2973requirement of the ITN. To have conducted a comparison and

2983analysis of the incorrect Statement of Assurances submitted by

2992CHS would have given CHS a competitive advantage not afforded to

3003other proposers. See Harry Pepper & Associates v. City of Cape

3014Coral , supra .

301743. Section 287.057(16), Florida Statutes, provides that no

3025person who receives a contract non-competitively to perform a

3034feasibility study or the potential implementation of a subsequent

3043contract, or participated in the drafting of an invitation to bid

3054or request for proposal, or developed a program for future

3064implementation shall be eligible to contract with the agency for

3074any other contracts dealing with that specific subject matter.

308344. Intervenor has not met its burden of proving that DCF

3094should have disqualified CHS from the ITN process. Intervenor

3103has not proven that DCF's determination that CHS was not

3113disqualified from participating in the ITN process was clearly

3122erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.

3129The evidence does not support Intervenor’s proposition that the

3138needs assessment constituted any kind of feasibility study or

3147that the plan contemplated by the original purchase order

3156necessarily would have constituted a feasibility study or that it

3166constituted any act which might reasonably be construed as

3175development of a program for future implementation of such a

3185contract. Further, there is no evidence that CHS was involved in

3196preparing the ITNs.

3199RECOMMENDATION

3200Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3210Law set forth herein, it is

3216RECOMMENDED:

3217That the Department of Children and Families enter a final

3227order dismissing the bid protest filed by Children’s Home

3236Society.

3237DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2001, in

3247Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3251BARBARA J. STAROS

3254Administrative Law Judge

3257Division of Administrative Hearings

3261The DeSoto Building

32641230 Apalachee Parkway

3267Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3270(850) 488- 9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

3275Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

3279www.doah.state.fl.us

3280Filed with the Clerk of the

3286Division of Administrative Hearings

3290this 25th day of July, 2001.

3296ENDNOTE

32971. It is reasonable to extend this definition to a responsive

3308proposal in response to an Invitation to Negotiate.

3316COPIES FURNISHED:

3318Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire

3322David C. Ashburn, Esquire

3326Sonya C. Penley, Esquire

3330Greenberg, Traurig, P.A.

3333Post Office Drawer 1838

3337Tallahassee, Florida 32302

3340John R. Perry, Esquire

3344Department of Children

3347and Family Services

33502639 North Monroe Street, Suite 525A

3356Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949

3359Peter Antonacci, Esquire

3362Michael E. Riley, Esquire

3366Gray, Harris, & Robinson, P.A.

3371301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600

3377Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3189

3380Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk

3385Department of Children

3388and Family Services

33911317 Winewood Boulevard

3394Building 2, Room 204B

3398Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

3401Josie Tomayo, General Counsel

3405Department of Children

3408and Family Services

34111317 Winewood Boulevard

3414Building 2, Room 204

3418Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

3421NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3427All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

343710 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to

3449this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will

3460issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order issued (hearing held May 16, 2001) CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2001
Proceedings: Respondent`s Notice of Concurrence with Specified Averments of Intervenor filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/05/2001
Proceedings: The Devereux Foundation, Inc.`s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/05/2001
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 07/03/2001
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/05/2001
Proceedings: Letter to M. Riley and J. Perry from S. Penley (confirming deadline for Proposed Recommended Orders) filed via facsimile.
Date: 06/04/2001
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2001
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Staros from D. Perron (oath of J. Davis) filed.
Date: 05/16/2001
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2001
Proceedings: (Joint) Prehearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2001
Proceedings: Order on Intervenor`s Motion for Summary Recommended Order of Dismissal issued.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2001
Proceedings: CHS` Response in Opposition to Devereux`s Motion for Summary Recommend (sic) Order of Dismissal filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2001
Proceedings: Exhibits (to 01-1444BID Formal Written Protest filed on April 16, 2001) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2001
Proceedings: Exhibits (to 01-1443BID Formal Written Protest filed on April 16, 2001) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2001
Proceedings: The Devereux Foundation, Inc.`s First Request for Production of Documents to Childern`s Home Society of Florida (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2001
Proceedings: Motion for Summary Recommended Order of Dismissal (filed by Intervenor via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2001
Proceedings: Cross-Notice of Taking Deposition (A. Trejo) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (J. Haines and T. DeCerchio) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2001
Proceedings: Cross-Notice of Taking Deposition (J. Awad and P. Phillip) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2001
Proceedings: Cross-Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition (D. Cicco, J. Beamon, F. Provost, M. Trovillion, R. Frederick, W. Sacks and W. Frieder) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2001
Proceedings: Cross-Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition (V. Abrams and M. Brukhalter) filed by Intervenor via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2001
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for May 16, 2001; 9:30 p.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2001
Proceedings: Order Granting Intervention issued (The Devereux Foundation, Inc.).
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2001
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation issued. (consolidated cases are: 01-1443BID and 01-1444BID)
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2001
Proceedings: Formal Written Protest filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2001
Proceedings: CHS`s Motion for Consolidation filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2001
Proceedings: Notice (of Agency referral) filed.

Case Information

Judge:
BARBARA J. STAROS
Date Filed:
04/16/2001
Date Assignment:
04/16/2001
Last Docket Entry:
07/25/2001
Location:
Marianna, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Department of Children and Families
Suffix:
BID
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (4):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):