01-003847BID Personal Enrichment Through Medical Services, Inc. vs. Department Of Juvenile Justice Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, November 29, 2001.

Summary: Recommend dismissal of bid protest where Petitioner failed to demonstrate that awardee deviated from mandatory bid specifications, or that deviations in scoring among evaluators amounted to more than honest and reasonable difference of opinion.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PERSONAL ENRICHMENT THROUGH )

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 01 - 3847BID

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, )

)

Respondent, )

)

and )

)

FLORIDA YOUTH ACADEMY, INC., )

)

Intervenor. )

_____ ____________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative

Hearings, by its designated Administrative Law Judge,

Lawrence P. Stevenson, held a formal hearing in this case on

October 25, 2001, in Tallahassee, Flo rida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire

The Nelson Law Firm, P.A.

251 East Harrison Street

Suite 300

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent: Richard M. Coln, Esquire

Department of Juvenile Justice

2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3100

For Intervenor: Mark S. Levine, Esquire

Levine and Stivers

245 East Virginia Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent's proposed decision to award a contract

to Florida Youth Academy, Inc., pursuant to Request for

Proposals No. F4G01, is contr ary to Respondent's governing

statutes, rules, or policies or the proposal specifications.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On June 19, 2001, Respondent, Department of Juvenile

Justice (the "Department"), issued a Request for Proposals

("RFP") for a moderate risk r esidential program in Pinellas

County for 30 female offenders. Petitioner, Personal Enrichment

Through Mental Health Services, Inc. ("PEMHS"), and Florida

Youth Academy, Inc. ("FYA") submitted proposals. On July 24,

2001, the Department opened the propos als and commenced the

evaluation process. On August 31, 2001, the Department posted

its scoring tabulations and recommended the contract be awarded

to FYA. On September 14, 2001, PEMHS filed a formal written

protest of the recommended award.

The case wa s forwarded to the Division of Administrative

Hearings for assignment to an administrative law judge on

October 1, 2001. On October 19, 2001, PEMHS filed a motion for

leave to amend its formal written protest, which motion was

granted by order dated Octob er 23, 2001, without objection. On

October 22, 2001, FYA filed a petition for leave to intervene,

which was granted by order dated October 23, 2001.

As amended, the formal written protest raised four issues:

that FYA did not submit the required Form PUR 7 033 with its

proposal and that the Department improperly waived that

requirement; that the evaluation committee gave FYA points for a

cooperative agreement and for organizational components that

were not included in FYA's proposal; that one evaluator, Mary

Mills, improperly changed her scores; and that FYA's proposal

included false information regarding its experience in similar

projects. A fifth issue, dealing with improper weighting of

Certified Minority Business Enterprise ("CMBE") points, was

settled b y stipulation prior to the hearing.

At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

Genanne Wilson, Mary Mills, Nicholas Lefrancois, and Craig

Chown, all employees of the Department, and of Patricia Daly, an

employee of PEMHS. Petitioner als o submitted the deposition

testimony of Jennifer Gallman of the Department, as well as the

deposition testimony of Genanne Wilson, Mary Mills, and Craig

Chown. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 25 were admitted without

objection. Neither the Department nor the Intervenor presented

any testimony or offered any exhibits.

The parties agreed to file their proposed recommended

orders ten days after the Transcript was filed. The Transcript

was filed on November 8, 2001. The parties timely filed their

Proposed R ecommended Orders, which have been considered in

rendering this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On June 19, 2001, the Department issued and advertised

RFP No. F4G01 for the design, implementation, and operation of a

moderate risk residential prog ram with a daily capacity of

30 youthful female offenders who have been committed to the

Department after having been assessed and classified as a medium

risk to public safety. This was an on - going program, and PEMHS

was the incumbent contractor.

2. PEM HS and FYA submitted proposals, which were opened on

July 24, 2001. Three qualified agency employees, Mary Mills,

Nicholas Lefrancois, and Jennifer Gallman, were given the

assignment of evaluating the proposals in accordance with the

requirements of the R FP and an evaluation score sheet providing

evaluation and scoring criteria. The evaluators worked

separately and returned their completed score sheets to Genanne

Wilson, the contract administrator who developed the RFP.

Ms. Wilson tabulated the scores.

3. On August 31, 2001, the Department posted the

tabulations for the RFP, recommending the contract be awarded to

FYA. FYA received 328 points, and PEMHS received 288 points.

FYA's score was corrected to 303 points when it was discovered

that Ms. Wilson had applied an incorrect weighting factor to the

points awarded FYA for CMBE participation. The correction did

not affect the outcome of the process.

4. PEMHS filed a formal written protest on September 14,

2001, and an amended formal written protest on October 19, 2001.

5. Section L of the RFP set forth the proposal award

criteria. Subsection L.1 described the RFP's sole "Fatal Item"

as follows:

Fatal Item A proposal with a "no" response

to the following question shall be rejected

without further con sideration. Did the

Offeror submit an original, signed State of

Florida, Request for Proposal, Contractual

Services Acknowledgment Form (PUR 7033)?

_____ Yes _____ No

If the above item is marked "NO" the

evaluation of this proposal will STOP!

6. Th e referenced Form PUR 7033 is prescribed by the

Department of Management Services, Division of Purchasing, for

inclusion in all agency RFPs. Rule 60A - 1.002(7)(c), Florida

Administrative Code. The form lists 17 separate General

Conditions applicable to al l contracts, provides potential

vendors with information as to posting of proposal tabulations,

and, most importantly, provides space for a manual signature by

an authorized representative of the prospective vendor, stating

the vendor's assent to the follo wing statement:

I certify that this Proposal is made without

prior understanding, agreement, or

connection with any corporation, firm, or

person submitting a Proposal for the same

services, supplies or equipment and is in

all respects fair and without coll usion or

fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions

of this Proposal and certify that I am

authorized to sign this Proposal for the

Proposer and that the Proposer is in

compliance with all requirements of the

Request for Proposal, including but not

limited to, certification requirements. In

submitting a Proposal to an agency for the

State of Florida, the Proposer offers and

agrees that if the Proposal is accepted, the

Proposer will convey, sell, assign or

transfer to the State of Florida, all

rights, title and interest in and to all

causes of action it may now or hereafter

acquire under the Antitrust Laws of the

United States and the State of Florida for

the price fixing relating to the particular

commodities or services purchased or

acquired by the State o f Florida. At the

State's discretion, such assignment shall be

made and become effective at the time the

purchasing agency tenders final payment to

the Proposer.

7. The vendor's manual signature on Form PUR 7033 binds

the vendor to the terms of its prop osal, should it prevail at

the end of the evaluation process.

8. The RFP was made available to vendors via download from

the Department's Internet web page. The web page allowed the

downloading of the Form PUR 7033, but also allowed the

downloading of a form similar but not identical to Form

PUR 7033. This second form included the language quoted above

binding the vendor to its proposal and the space for the manual

signature assenting to those terms, but did not include the

17 General Conditions found on the Form PUR 7033.

9. The proposal submitted by FYA employed the second form,

not the Form PUR 7033. It included the manual signature of

Dr. Devyani Desai, the president and chief executive officer of

FYA, indisputably a person authorized to bind FYA to its

proposal. PEMHS' protest contends that, given the strict

language of the "Fatal Item" RFP term, FYA's proposal should

have been rejected out of hand for failure to include the

mandatory Form PUR 7033.

10. Genanne Wilson, the contract administrato r, was the

person charged with deciding whether the FYA proposal should be

rejected. She consulted a Department attorney, who advised her

that the second form was acceptable and met the criterion for

submission of a Form PUR 7033.

11. Based on that adv ice, Ms. Wilson distributed the FYA

proposal to the three evaluators for scoring. The evaluators'

score sheets contained a space calling for them to confirm the

presence of the Form PUR 7033, but the testimony at the hearing

established that the evaluator s relied on Ms. Wilson for that

information. Mr. Lefrancois testified that he assumed he would

not have received the proposals for evaluation at all had they

not contained the Form PUR 7033.

12. The seventeen General Conditions set forth on Form PUR

7033 are commonly referred to as the "boilerplate" language

included in any contract issued pursuant to an RFP. They

include the terms of submission and opening of proposals, bid

protest procedures, terms of invoicing and payment, conflict of

interest notices , public records requirements, and contractual

restrictions regarding assignment, default, advertising,

liability, and cancellation.

13. All of the substantive areas of the General Conditions

were set forth in substance, if not precisely the same form,

within the RFP itself.

14. While pressing its claim that the literal language of

the RFP should apply to disqualify FYA's proposal, PEMHS offered

no evidence that FYA gained any competitive advantage by

submitting the alternative form that it downloaded from the

Department's own web site. No party contended that the

submission of the alternative form would release FYA from any of

the General Conditions.

15. The Department has modified Form PUR 7033 to include

blank signature spaces to be signed in the event the bidder

enters into a contract with the Department. PEMHS argued that

FYA's failure to include the modified Form PUR 7033 meant that

FYA and the Department would be unable to finalize the contract

by signature. PEMHS offered no statutory or rule citation that

would require the contract to be executed on the modified Form

PUR 7033, or that would prohibit the Department from drafting a

separate document for the parties to sign in execution of their

contract. Greg Chown, the Department's director o f contracts,

testified that the lack of a signature page in the bid documents

would not prevent the Department from subsequently entering into

a contract with a successful bidder.

16. In summary, FYA filled out and submitted a form

provided by the Departm ent. The form bound FYA to its proposal

just as the Form PUR 7033 bound PEMHS to its proposal. FYA

gained no competitive advantage by submitting the alternative

form. The RFP labeled submission of the Form PUR 7033 a "Fatal

Item," but the clear intent o f this requirement was to ensure a

firm commitment by the vendor, not to trap an unwary bidder who

inadvertently downloaded the alternative form from the

Department's own web page. The alternative form signed by FYA's

president complied with the substance of the "Fatal Item"

requirement.

17. In view of all the evidence, FYA's failure to submit a

Form PUR 7033 was at most a minor irregularity, properly waived

by the Department in the interest of preserving competition in a

situation in which only two pro posals were received.

18. Section K.3.3 of the RFP provided that the bidder must

present "a letter of intent to enter into local interagency

agreements required in program objectives: submit cooperative

agreement(s) or contract(s) with local school distri cts

describing the manner in which education services shall be

provided in performance of this contract." PEMHS contended that

one evaluator, Mr. Lefrancois, awarded FYA a "satisfactory"

score of three points for this item despite the fact that FYA

did no t submit the required cooperative agreement or contract. 1

19. In response to Section K.3.3, FYA submitted a letter

from Frank Potjunas, the supervisor of dropout prevention

services for Pinellas County Schools. The letter, addressed to

FYA's president, s tated:

It has come to my attention that you are

applying to the Department of Juvenile

Justice to provide a 30 bed residential

program for moderate risk girls at your

Largo facility.

As a Pinellas County School administrator

and a member of Florida Youth Academy's

Advisory Council, I have spent many days at

your program. I have worked closely with

the FYA administration and staff and I am

aware of the services and care you provide

to at - risk youth.

I support your application, and if I can be

of any furth er help please let me know.

20. PEMHS contended that the above letter did not

constitute either a letter of intent or an actual contract as

contemplated by Section K.3.3 of the RFP, and that

Mr. Lefrancois therefore erred in awarding FYA three points fo r

this item. PEMHS also pointed out that evaluator Mary Mills

agreed that the FYA response was inadequate and that she awarded

FYA only two points for this item.

21. The third evaluator, Jennifer Gallman, also awarded

FYA three points for this item. She testified that a

cooperative agreement signed by all parties would be an ideal

submission, but that only the incumbent bidder can realistically

be expected to have such an agreement in place. A bidder who

does not enjoy the advantage of incumbency should demonstrate

that it has made contacts within the community and enlisted

support for its prospective program. Ms. Gallman was satisfied

that the letter quoted above satisfied Section K.3.3 when read

in conjunction with its accompanying text in the FYA pro posal:

Florida Youth Academy intends to modify

existing cooperative agreement [sic] with

the Pinellas County School Board to provide

onsite dropout prevention programming for

these additional beds. There will be one

classroom for every 19 youth. A letter of

intent from Pinellas County School System is

included in this submittal.

22. In summary, the issue raised by PEMHS regarding

Section K.3.3 amounts to no more than a minor difference of

opinion among the evaluators. Two of the evaluators found FYA 's

response "adequate" and awarded three points. One of the

evaluators found FYA's response "poor" and awarded two points.

Either opinion is rational and defensible.

23. Nothing in the FYA response to Section K.3.3 or in the

evaluators' scoring thereof merits a finding that the agency's

actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition,

arbitrary, capricious, or in contravention of the applicable

rules, statutes, or the requirements of the RFP.

24. Section K.4 of the RFP, entitled "Organizational

Capability," required the bidder to submit seven items:

1. An organization chart identifying

relationships between dedicated program

staff and corporate staff, along with a

narrative detailing the capacity of program

staff to accomplish program objectiv es.

2. A synopsis of corporate qualifications

indicating ability to manage and meet

performance objectives of the proposed

program, including copies of corporate

documents.

3. A plan to illustrate adequate internal

administrative review and monitoring

services to assure performance for the

program.

4. A resume for each professional staff

member to include name, position titles,

certifications and qualifications of those

providing service.

5. A staffing plan to include name,

position titles, and week ly hours allocated

to ensure quality service delivery.

6. Narrative description that outlines the

arrangements that will be in existence at

the time of contract award to rent, purchase

or otherwise acquire the needed facilities,

equipment or other resourc es required to

perform the contract.

7. Narrative outlining the Offeror's

ability to perform the contractual services

taking into consideration any existing

contracts with the Department, other state

agencies or any other agency in which the

Offeror has entered into a contractual

relationship. 2

25. PEMHS contended that FYA's proposal did not address

items 3 and 5 of Section K.4, but that two of the evaluators

nonetheless awarded FYA an "adequate" score of three points for

this section, while the third e valuator awarded a "poor" score

of two points. While FYA's proposal did not separately set out

the "plans" referenced in items 3 and 5, a fair reading of the

proposal as a whole could lead a rational evaluator to conclude

that FYA addressed the substance of those items. As with the

dispute over the scoring of Section K.3.3, this issue involves a

minor difference of opinion among the evaluators as to the

adequacy of FYA's response. Two of the evaluators, judging the

proposal in its entirety, determined th at FYA adequately

addressed the requirements of Section K.4. One evaluator

disagreed, finding the response "poor." Either opinion is

rational and defensible.

26. Nothing in the FYA response to Section K.4 or in the

evaluators' scoring thereof merits a f inding that the agency's

actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition,

arbitrary, capricious, or in contravention of the applicable

rules, statutes, or the requirements of the RFP.

27. PEMHS complained that evaluator Mary Mills changed her

scor e for two items in her evaluation of PEMHS' proposal. The

evidence established that in one instance, Ms. Mills lowered the

score from three points to two. In the other instance,

Ms. Mills raised the score from two points to three. The

evidence further established that Ms. Mills made these changes

on her own, prior to submitting her completed evaluation to

Ms. Wilson. In each instance, her completed review of the

entire PEMHS proposal caused Ms. Mills to reconsider the score

she had preliminarily award ed. PEMHS failed to establish that

Ms. Mills did anything inconsistent with the duties of a

conscientious evaluator.

28. Finally, PEMHS alleged that FYA submitted false

information concerning its past performance. Section K.4.1 of

the RFP set forth th e requirement for documentation of past

performance:

The Offeror shall submit documentation to

support the following :

1. An established history of program

implementation within the fiscal constraints

of any previous contracts.

2. Achieved measurable re sults in

educational achievements by participants.

3. Satisfactory or higher ratings in a

similar program Quality Assurance

Evaluation.

4. Involvement by the community in which

the program is located indicating the

community's support for the continuat ion of

the program, such as local boards,

volunteers, local financial or in - kind

support, and support by local governmental

organizations.

5. Any documentation to support the

program's recidivism rates for clients

served.

29. The corresponding section of the score sheet provided

a possible five points for each of the five aspects of past

performance listed in Section K.4, for a possible total of

25 points. Each of the evaluators awarded FYA an "adequate"

score of three points for each of the items, ex cept for the item

corresponding to "satisfactory or higher ratings in a similar

program Quality Assurance Evaluation." For this item,

Mr. Lefrancois and Ms. Gallman awarded FYA a "very good" score

of four points. Each of them noted that the superior rat ing on

this item was based on FYA's having operated other programs that

had achieved "deemed" status, the highest rating available under

Quality Assurance Evaluations conducted by the Department.

30. PEMHS alleged that the experience claimed by FYA in

its proposal is actually that of another company, Florida Health

Facilities, L.P., the assets of which FYA acquired in 2000.

PEMHS claims that it was misleading, if not actually false, for

FYA to claim credit for accomplishments achieved prior to 2000,

and t hat the evaluators' crediting FYA with those

accomplishments fatally undermined the integrity of the

procurement process.

31. Contrary to PEMHS' implication, FYA's proposal made no

effort to disguise the facts. It stated, in pertinent part:

Dr. Devyani N. Desai is the President & CEO

of Florida Youth Academy, Inc., which was

formed in September 2000 to acquire Florida

Health Facilities' business and property.

(p. 36)

* * *

Florida Youth Academy operates 132 beds at

the Largo facility, which has receiv ed

deemed status every year since 1998. It

also leases Wilson Youth Academy facility at

Land O'Lakes of 32 moderate risk beds. This

facility has also received deemed status

since 1999. Through the change of ownership

FYA has retained all the key managem ent

personnel. (p. 37)

* * *

As noted in the Organizational Capability

section of this proposal, FYA programs

formerly owned and operated by Florida

Health Facilities, L.P., has been [sic] a

proven provider of female and female [sic]

services for the St ate, and also the Circuit

6 service area. Along with general program

implementation, Florida Youth Academy has

also been successful in maintaining

financial stability and utilizing the per

diem dollars within the constraints of the

contract. The formaliz ed report of the

audit for year 2000 will be made available

upon request. Examples of FYA's ability to

provide quality program [sic] is outlined

below:

FYA currently operates four treatment

programs, with varying levels of care. The

programs consist of 96 High Risk,

18 Moderate Risk, 18 Low Risk and additional

32 Moderate Risk program [sic] located in

another county. Three of the four

residential commitment programs have

received excellent quality Assurance rating

with deemed status results for a cons ecutive

two - year period. (p. 37 - 38)

* * *

The facilities have received five year's

[sic] of Quality Assurance surveying. Each

year ongoing improvements have been evident

through increasing scores and achievement of

deemed status ratings. Since program

development, all levels of care have been

proven to be effective at implementing which

[sic] meet and exceed QA standards. In the

most recent survey of 2000, all the programs

achieved and/or maintained deemed status

reporting . . . . (p. 38)

* * *

The current programs at the facility of

Florida Youth Academy were previously owned

and operated by Florida Health Facilities,

L.P. The programs have been operated

consistently through change of ownership.

The recidivism rate at FYA is below average

for com parable programs. The most recent

experience is 28% and 30% for High Risk and

Moderate Risk programs respectively.

(p. 38)

32. PEMHS' implication that FYA submitted false

information is unfounded. As the quoted examples from its

proposal indicate, FYA directly stated that it had acquired the

assets of Florida Health Facilities in 2000, and emphasized that

it had made strong efforts to maintain continuity of personnel

and services during the transition. PEMHS offered no evidence

to document that FYA ha s failed to maintain the documented

quality of the "deemed" facilities it now owns. It was not

arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition for the

evaluators to accept FYA's representations as to the historical

and continuing quality of the programs it acquired, absent any

evidence to the contrary.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

33. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding. Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes.

34. Pursuant to Sect ion 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes,

the burden of proof rests with PEMHS as the party protesting the

Department's proposed contract award. Section 120.57(3)(f)

further provides:

In a competitive - procurement protest, other

than a rejection of all bids, the

administrative law judge shall conduct a de

novo proceeding to determine whether the

agency's proposed action is contrary to the

agency's governing statutes, the agency's

rules or policies, or the bid or proposal

specifications. The standard of proof for

such proceedings shall be whether the

proposed agency action was clearly

erroneous, contrary to competition,

arbitrary, or capricious. . . .

35. In State Contracting and Engineering Corporation v.

Department of Transportation , 709 So. 2d, 607, 609, (Fla . 1st

DCA 1998), the First District Court of Appeal opined on the role

of the administrative law judge in a bid protest proceeding and

stated:

[T]he phrase "de novo hearing" is used to

describe a form of intra - agency review. The

judge may receive evidence , as with any

formal hearing under section 120.57(1), but

the object of the proceeding is to evaluate

the action taken by the agency. See

Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. State

Department of Health and Rehabilitative

Services , 606 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)

(interpreting the phrase "de novo hearing"

as it was used in bid protest proceedings

before the 1996 revision of the

Administrative Procedure Act).

36. PEMHS claims that FYA's proposal should have been

rejected at the outset for failure to comp ly with Subsection L.1

of the RFP, the "Fatal Item" requirement. The evidence

established that FYA's proposal substantially complied with

Subsection L.1. PEMHS offered no rationale or evidence

establishing that FYA obtained a competitive advantage by

sub mitting the alternative form that it downloaded from the

Department's web page. The Department's acceptance of the

alternative form was consistent with the goal of ensuring a

competitive procurement process.

37. PEMHS claims that the evaluators erred in their

scoring of Sections K.3.3 and K.4. PEMHS offered no evidence to

demonstrate that the evaluators' actions were contrary to the

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

specifications of the RFP. There were minor disagreements in

the sc oring, but the evaluators' scoring decisions were rational

on both sides of the disagreement. PEMHS essentially urges this

tribunal to conduct its own evaluation of the proposals in order

to arrive at the "correct" score for the contested items. Such

an evaluation is outside the scope of the de novo review

authorized by Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes. See Moore

v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services , 596 So. 2d

759, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(rejecting hearing officer's de novo

evaluati on of bids, even with the agency's acquiescence).

38. PEMHS challenges the changes in scores made by

evaluator Mary Mills, but failed to offer any evidence that

these changes were anything other than the actions of a

conscientious evaluator re - thinking he r preliminary conclusions

after completing her review of the entire proposal.

39. Finally, PEMHS claims that FYA submitted false

information in its proposal, claiming credit for another

company's accomplishments. FYA's proposal fully disclosed that

it ac quired the assets of Florida Health Facilities, L.P., in

2000, and emphasized FYA's extensive efforts to maintain the

level of quality attained by its predecessor. PEMHS offered no

evidence to show that the representations made by FYA in its

proposal were false. Absent such a showing, it was within the

evaluators' discretion to accept those representations and to

score the proposal accordingly.

40. PEMHS has failed to establish that the Department's

intent to award the contract to FYA was contrary to the

Department's governing statutes, rules or policies or the RFP.

The Department's actions were not clearly erroneous, contrary to

competition, arbitrary, or capricious.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

R ECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding the

contract for a moderate risk residential program in Pinellas

County for 30 female offenders, pursuant to RFP No. F4G01, to

Florida Youth Academy, Inc., and dismissing the protest of

Personal Enrichment Through Medical Services, Inc.

DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2001, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32 399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 29th day of November, 2001.

ENDNOTES

1/ On each relevant item, the evaluators awarded a score

ranging from zero to five points. Zero was awarded where the

bidder did not ad dress a given program component. One point was

awarded for an "unsatisfactory" response containing errors or

omissions in major areas of a program component, failing to

demonstrate the bidder's ability to provide the service, or

demonstrating a lack of un derstanding of the technical

specifications. Two points were awarded for a "poor" response

that either failed to meet technical specifications or failed to

provide sufficient information to substantiate the bidder's

ability to provide the service. Three points were awarded for

an "adequate" response, one that met all technical

specifications. Four points were awarded for a "very good"

response, one that not only met the technical specifications but

was comprehensive and complete in every detail and conta ined

some innovative details for some of the program components.

Five points were awarded for an "excellent" response, one that

exceeded all technical specifications and was "innovative,

comprehensive, and complete in every detail."

2/ As set forth in t he RFP, the quoted language contained

several misplaced semicolons. These have been deleted without

notation in the text.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire

The Nelson Law Firm, P.A.

251 East Harrison Street

Suite 300

Tallahassee, Florida 323 01

Richard M. Coln, Esquire

Department of Juvenile Justice

2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3100

Mark S. Levine, Esquire

Levine and Stivers

245 East Virginia Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

William G. Bankhead, Secretary

Department o f Juvenile Justice

Knight Building

2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3100

Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel

Department of Juvenile Justice

Knight Building

2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3100

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

10 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions

to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the final order in this case.