02-002967BID Correctional Services Corporation vs. Department Of Juvenile Justice
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, October 29, 2002.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner failed to show that intended contract awards to Ramsay were arbitrary or capricious, contrary to competition, or clearly erroneous, or that contract awards were contrary to Department`s governing statutes or applicable rules.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8CORRECTIONAL SERVICES )

11CORPORATION, )

13)

14Petitioner, )

16)

17vs. ) Case Nos. 02 - 2966BID

24) 02 - 2967BID

28DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, )

33)

34Respondent, )

36)

37and )

39)

40RAMSAY YOUTH SERVICES, INC., )

45)

46Intervenor. )

48____________________________________)

49RECOMMENDED ORDER

51Upon due notice, William R. Cave, an Administrative Law

60Judge for the Division of Administrative Hearings, held a

69formal hearing in this matter on August 29 - 30, 2002, in

81Tallahassee, Florida.

83APPEARANCES

84For Petitioner: R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire

90Law Offices of R. Terry Rigsby, P.A.

97215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505

103Tallahassee, Florida 32301

106James C. Hauser, Esquire

110Wa rren C. Husband, Esquire

115Metz, Hauser, and Husband, P.A.

120Post Office Box 10909

124Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 2909

129For Respondent: Brian Berkowitz, Esquire

134Scott Wr ight, Esquire

138Kimberly Cobb, Esquire

141Department of Juvenile Justice

1452737 Centerville Road

148Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3100

153For Intervenor: Gary V. Perko, Esquire

159Gary P. Sams, Esquire

163Matthew L. Hicks, Esquire

167Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith

172123 South Calhoun Street

176Post Office Box 6526

180Tallahassee, Florida 32314

183STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

187Are the intended contract awards by the Department of

196Juvenile Justice (Department) to Intervenor, Ramsay Youth

203Services, Inc. (Ramsay) under Request for Proposal (RFP)

211Numbers J5G01 and J5G02 contra ry to the Department's governing

221statutes, applicable rules or policies, or the specifications

229of the RFPs?

232PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

234On July 8, 2002, Correctional Services Corporation, (CSC)

242filed Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petitions)

249chall enging the Department's notice of intent to award

258contracts to Ramsay pursuant to RFP Nos. J5G01 and J5G02. The

269Department then forwarded the Petitions to the Division of

278Administrative Hearings (Division) for the assignment of an

286Administrative Law Judge and for the conduct of a formal

296hearing.

297By an Order of Consolidation dated July 30, 2002, Case

307Nos. 02 - 2966BID and 02 - 2967BID were consolidated. By an Order

320Granting Intervention dated July 30, 2002, Ramsay's Unopposed

328Petition to Intervene was granted. The consolidated cases

336were scheduled for hearing on August 23, 2002.

344By stipulation of all parties, the consolidated

351proceeding was continued and rescheduled for final hearing on

360August 29 - 30, 2002, with the understanding that any time

371constraints impos ed under Section 120.57(3)(e), Florida

378Statutes (2001), were waived.

382By Order dated August 27, 2002, Petitioner's Motion for

391Summary Order was denied.

395On August 28, 2002, the parties filed a Joint Prehearing

405Stipulation.

406At the hearing, CSC presented the t estimony of Marvin

416Floyd, Paul Donnelly, Larry Ochalek, Jacqueline Foster and

424David Scharoun. CSC's Exhibits 1 through 6 were admitted in

434evidence. CSC's attempt to have the depositions of Marvin

443Floyd and Larry Ochalek admitted in evidence was rejected.

452CSC then made a proffer of the depositions of Marvin Floyd and

464Larry Ochalek. Ramsay presented the testimony of Jorge Rico.

473Ramsay's Exhibits 7 through 10 were admitted in evidence. The

483Department presented the testimony of Mary Mills, but did not

493pre sent any documentary evidence. The Department presented

501the deposition of Mary Mills for impeachment purposes. Joint

510Exhibits 1 through 18 were admitted in evidence.

518A Transcript of this proceeding was filed with the

527Division on September 17, 2002. As agreed at the close of the

539hearing, the parties timely filed their Proposed Recommended

547Orders on October 4, 2002.

552FINDINGS OF FACT

555Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

563adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of

572fact are made:

575Background

5761. On March 29, 2002, the Department issued RFP No.

586J5G01 for the operation of a 350 - bed residential commitment

597program for high - risk males in Polk City, Florida (Polk

608Program).

6092. On April 5, 2002, the Department issued RFP No. J5G 02

621for the operation of a 74 - bed, multi - level residential

633commitment program in Homeland, Florida (Bartow Program).

6403. CSC is the incumbent provider for both the Polk and

651Bartow Programs.

6534. On or about April 25, 2002, two proposals were

663submitted in res ponse to the RFP for the Polk Program, one

675from CSC and one from Ramsay.

6815. On or about May 3, 2002, four separate proposals were

692submitted by CSC, Ramsay, Sescuricor New Century (Securicor),

700and Lighthouse Care Center (Lighthouse) in response to the RF P

711for the Bartow Program.

7156. On June 25, 2002, the Department posted separate

724notices of its intent to award contracts for the Polk and

735Bartow Programs to Ramsay.

7397. The Notice of Intended Contract Award for the Polk

749Program (RFP No. J5G01) lists Ramsa y as the highest - ranked

761bidder with 655.3 average points, and CSC as the second - ranked

773bidder with 537 average points.

7788. The Notice of Intended Contract Award for the Bartow

788Program (RFP No. J5G02) lists Ramsay as the highest - ranked

799bidder with 590.3 po ints, followed by Securicor with 542.7

809average points, CSC with 535.7 points, and Lighthouse with

818233.3 points.

8209. All parties stipulated to the Department's scoring of

829the past performance portion of both CSC proposals.

83710. With the exception of Item C - 3.7, all parties

848stipulated to the Department's scoring of the past performance

857portion of both Ramsay proposals. With regard to Item C - 3.7,

869the parties stipulated the Department's scoring for Ramsay

877should have reflected 60 additional points because Rams ay's

886Manatee Adolescent Treatment Services program (Department's

892Contract No. F7027) met or exceeded the approved Performance

901Based Budgeting performance measure for recidivism for the

909past two years.

91211. In light of the corrections for Item C - 3.7, Ramsay 's

925total average score for the Polk Program should have been

935715.3 (i.e., 655.3), compared to CSC's score of 537.

944Likewise, for the Bartow Program, Ramsay's total average score

953should have been 650.3 (i.e., 590.3 60), compared to CSC's

963score of 535. 7.

967The Process

96912. Since at least the end of 2001, the Department has

980utilized two procurement methods: one provides for the

988scoring of costs; the other does not because the RFP specifies

999a fixed maximum contract price. When the fixed price method

1009is us ed and costs are not scored the Department conducts a so -

1023called "negotiation phase" after issuing notice of intent to

1032award the contract.

103513. During the so - called "negotiation phase," the

1044Department and offeror determine such things as the unfilled

1053bed r ate and maintenance rate, but the Department does not

1064negotiate material terms of the technical proposal or allow

1073the selected offeror to modify its proposal. The Department

1082does not allow the selected offeror to increase the cost or

1093price included in its proposal. However, if an error is

1103discovered in the selected offeror's budget, the budget can be

1113adjusted to redistribute expenses from one line item to

1122another, so long as the proposed services are provided and the

1133proposed cost or price is not exceeded .

114114. If the Department is unable to complete execution of

1151the contract because the selected offeror is unable to provide

1161the program services within the contract set forth in its

1171proposal, the Department moves on to negotiate with the next

1181offeror.

118215. Use of the "fixed price" procurement method has

1191enabled the Department to reduce procurement process from 180

1200to less than 120 days on average, and often as low as 60 days.

1214Speeding up the procurement process helps to ensure that

1223services will continue to be provided and that legislatively

1232appropriated funds do not go unused and, as a result, become

1243subject to forfeiture. This is important because the State

1252has a "waiting list" of committed youth who require program

1262services. The "fixed price" method als o allows the Department

1272to place its principal emphasis on the quality of programs

1282offered.

128316. In this case, the RFPs for both programs contemplate

1293fixed priced contracts. Each RFP specifies a maximum contract

1302dollar amount that the Department will awar d for each

1312contract. The dollar amount is a "fatal criterion," meaning

1321that any proposal with a cost exceeding that amount would be

1332rejected.

133317. Both RFPs required each offer to submit a technical

1343proposal (Volume I) setting forth an introductory statem ent

1352and specific sections describing the offeror's management

1359capability, the offeror's past performance, and the program

1367services being offered.

137018. Both RFP's required offerors to submit financial

1378data (Volume II) including, among other things, a total cost

1388or price for the program and an itemized budget. The total

1399costs submitted by Ramsay and CSC did not differ

1408significantly; the difference was less than one dollar for the

1418Polk Program and only two dollars for the Bartow Program.

142819. Both RFP's provi ded that zero points would be

1438assigned for costs or price, indicating that costs or price

1448would not be scored. Instead, the primary scoring criteria

1457are "program services" and "past performance." Together,

1464these criteria reflect 700 out of the 1000s tota l points

1475available.

147620. Nothing in the RFPs requires the Department to

1485evaluate budget details in conjunction with its review of the

1495technical proposals prior to the notice of intended award.

1504The Department uses the budget information primarily as a

1513base line to assist it in moving through the "negotiation

1523phase." It enables the Department to determine if specific

1532costs would not be incurred or not allowable. It enables the

1543Department to negotiate the unfilled bed rate, which allows

1552the Department to red uce the contract rate to account for

1563costs that would not be incurred for beds that are not

1574occupied. It also forces offerors to determine whether they

1583can provide the required services within the maximum price

1592before they submit proposals.

159621. Based on a Department document entitled "Briefing

1604for SSET Team Members and Advisors," CSC claims that the "RFP

1615Process" requires the Department to evaluate proposed costs

1623for realism, reasonableness, and completeness. The "Briefing"

1630document does state that "the contract administrator is

1638responsible for evaluating the cost proposals of each offeror

1647for completeness, reasonableness, and reality using the COST

1655[PRICE] PROPOSAL EVALUATING form. However, the "Briefing"

1662document is not a part of the RFP's and does not reflect

1674official Department policy. The "Briefing" document is merely

1682a guideline.

168422. In this case, the Contract Administrator, Marvin

1692Floyd, did not sign the "Briefing" document and did not score

1703or perform an extensive analysis of the specifics of th e

1714proposed budgets for realism, reasonableness, and

1720completeness. However, Marvin Floyd did review each cost

1728proposal to determine whether it included a total cost or

1738price and whether the budget information in Attachment H was

1748filled out. In that sense, Marvin Floyd did review the cost

1759proposal for completeness. Similarly, Marvin Floyd also

1766reviewed the proposed costs and price to determine whether it

1776exceeded maximum contract dollar amount, which the Department

1784had previously determined to be realisti c and reasonable. In

1794that sense, Marvin Floyd did review the costs or price for

1805realisms and reasonableness.

180823. CSC failed to demonstrate that the evaluation

1816process utilized by the Department provided a competitive

1824advantage to Ramsay. To the contrary , the same evaluation

1833process and guidelines were used for both CSC and Ramsay.

1843Ramsay's Proposed Budget

184624. Based on isolated statements made in Ramsay's

1854technical proposal and a review of Ramsay's budget, CSC's

1863senior Vice President, Paul Donnelly, opin ed that Ramsay's

1872proposal was somewhat "naïve" and a "virtual primer . . . for

1884a novice[.]" However, Donnelly opinions must be weighed in

1893light of the fact that CSC received "minimal performance" and

"1903noncompliance" ratings for both the Polk and Bartow Pr ograms

1913in the latest Department Quality Assurance reviews.

1920Furthermore, Donnelly himself testified in deposition that

1927Ramsay submitted an "impressive technical proposal." The

1934record demonstrated that Ramsay is an experienced provider

1942that currently opera tes nine programs for the Department,

1951including the Department's only contracted maximum - risk

1959program.

196025. CSC contends that the budget included in Volume II

1970of Ramsay's proposal for the Polk Program is not realistic,

1980reasonable, or complete because it di d not include specific

1990line items for certain direct expenses, including start - up

2000costs, overtime, employee expenses, and taxes, as well as

2009certain indirect expenses, such as insurance and corporate

2017overhead. CSC failed to demonstrate that the RFP

2025specifi cations or the Department policy requires such

2033budgetary detail. Moreover, Ramsay's Chief Operating Office,

2040Jorge Rico, explained that Ramsay's budget did address most of

2050the costs identified by CSC in other, more general line items.

206126. Whereas CSC's bu dget was more specific as to some

2072items, Ramsay's budget was more specific as to others. For

2082example, Ramsay included a specific line item for recruiting,

2091but CSC addressed this expense in the general category of

2101corporate overhead. Similarly, Ramsay inc luded specific line

2109items for nursing staff, whereas CSC addressed nursing staff

2118in the general category of medical services.

212527. CSC also faulted Ramsay for not including start - up

2136or "transition" costs in its budget for the Polk Program. But

2147had such a line item been included, it would have been

2158eliminated during the so - called "negotiation phase" because

2167the Department does not allow start - up costs for existing

2178programs. CSC's argument that Ramsay should have budgeted

2186these costs amounts to a claim that CSC should be given a

2198competitive advantage because, as the incumbent provider, CSC

2206would not incur transitional costs and, therefore, would have

2215no reason to budget them. Such an advantage would be contrary

2226to competitive principles by favoring the incu mbent provider

2235over other offerors.

223828. The primary indirect expense that CSC criticized

2246Ramsay for not including in its budget is corporate overhead.

2256As Rico explained, however, corporate overhead is a fixed cost

2266that will not increase with the addition of a new program.

2277Ramsay made a business decision to put whatever funds that

2287might be allocated as corporate overhead into the program

2296itself.

229729. CSC claims that Ramsay cannot provide the services

2306outlined in its proposal without incurring a loss. Ric o

2316acknowledged that Ramsay likely would incur losses for at

2325least the first year of the programs, as is common when a new

2338provider takes over an existing program. However, whether or

2347not a provider makes a profit on a program is not the

2359Department's conce rn and is not an award criterion. In fact,

2370when corporate overhead is allocated as CSC suggests Ramsay

2379should have in its budget, CSC itself incurred losses on both

2390Polk and Bartow Programs over the twelve - month period ending

2401July 2002.

240330. In its totali ty, the evidence indicates that the

2413budgets submitted by Ramsay and CSC differ due to differences

2423in management styles. Those differences do not render

2431Ramsay's budget unrealistic, unreasonable, or incomplete. The

2438differences in total costs proposed by C SC and Ramsay were

2449negligible. In any event, budgets are estimates, actual

2457expenses never match budget line items.

246331. The evidence does not support CSC's claim that

2472Ramsay will need to make material changes to its budget in

2483order to provide the program services at the cost or price set

2495forth in its proposal. Ramsay is committed to providing the

2505services described in its technical proposal at the cost set

2515forth in its cost proposal.

2520Staffing Ratio

252232. Based on a statement in Ramsay's technical proposal ,

2531CSC suggests that Ramsay would not meet the staffing ratios

2541required for the Polk Program. However, Ramsay's technical

2549proposal clearly states in bold lettering that Ramsay "will

2558meet staffing requirements documented in the RFP (1:8 days and

2568evening; 1: 12 nights)." Moreover, Ramsay's budget includes

2576enough positions and dollars to meet the required staffing

2585ratios. In fact, with regard to "youth workers," who provide

2595the core of the program staff, Ramsay's budget includes

2604considerably more positions (1 86 full time equivalent or

"2613FTEs"), than does CSC's budget (120.9 FTEs).

2621Instructions to Evaluators

262433. CSC failed to demonstrate that the Department failed

2633to provide its evaluators with specific and legally sufficient

2642instructions regarding the scoring of proposals. To the

2650contrary, the scoring sheets provided to the evaluators

2658contain specific and detailed instructions on how each scoring

2667criterion was to be evaluated. For example, in evaluating

"2676Programs Services," the scoring sheets advise the evalu ators

2685to assess "soundness of approach" and "compliance with

2693requirements" as follows:

2696C.4.1 SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH:

2700(Does the proposal reasonably and logically

2706identify the proposed approach to perform

2712the services as specified and required by

2719the RFP, A ttachment G, Exhibit 1, Scope of

2728Services?)

2730C.4.2 COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS:

2734(The degree to which the proposal complies

2741with the requirement specified and required

2747by the RFP, Attachment G, Exhibit 1, Scope

2755of Services)(Does the proposal comply with

2761all requirements for all service

2766components, as identified in Attachment G,

2772Exhibit 1, Scope of services, of the RFP?)

2781The evaluators were then required to provide a numeric score

2791ranging from 5 to zero. The scoring sheets provide specific

2801criteria for d etermining the appropriate numeric score. For

2810example, an "excellent" score of 5 would be appropriate if

"2820[t]he proposal exceeds all technical specifications and

2827requirements for all program components (and it) is

2835innovative, comprehensive, and complete i n every detail."

2843Other Issues

284534. CSC failed to prove its allegations that the

2854Departments' scorers evaluated and scored the proposals

2861inconsistently or incorrectly or that the Department deviated

2869from the RFP criteria in evaluating and scoring the propo sals.

2880CSC also failed to demonstrate that the Department's reduction

2889in the number of beds for the Bartow Program from 74 to 50

2902beds after issuance of the RFP provided an unfair advantage to

2913Ramsay or was otherwise contrary to competition.

2920CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

292335. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

2930jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

2940proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes.

294736. Pursuant to Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida

2953Statutes, CSC, as the party prot esting the Department's

2962proposed contract award, has the burden of proof. Subsection

2971120.57(3)(f) Florida Statutes, provides:

2975(f) In a competitive - procurement

2981protest, no submissions made after the bid

2988or proposal opening amending or

2993supplementing the bid or proposal shall be

3000considered. Unless otherwise provided by

3005statute, the burden of proof shall rest

3012with the party protesting the proposed

3018agency action. In a competitive -

3024procurement protest, other than a rejection

3030of all bids, the administrative l aw judged

3038shall conduct a de novo proceeding to

3045determine whether the agency's proposed

3050action is contrary to the agency's

3056governing statutes, the agency's rules or

3062policies, or the bid or proposal

3068specifications . The standard of proof for

3075such proceeding s shall be whether the

3082proposed agency action was

3086clearly erroneous, contrary to competition,

3091arbitrary, or capricious . (Emphasis

3096furnished.)

309737. In State Contracting and Engineering Corporation v.

3105Department of Transportation , 709 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st

3115DCA 1998), the court opined on the role of the Administrative

3126Law Judge in a bid protest proceeding and stated:

3135[T]he phase ' de novo hearing' is used to

3144describe a form of intra - agency review.

3152The judge may receive evidence, as with any

3160formal hear ing under section 120.57(1), but

3167the object of the proceeding is to evaluate

3175the action taken by the agency. See

3182Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. State

3187Department of Health and Rehabilitative

3192Services , 606 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3rd DCA

32001992) (interpreting the phase ' de novo

3207hearing' as it was used in bid protest

3215proceedings before the 1996 revision of the

3222Administrative Procedure Act.)

322538. CSC claims that the evaluation process was

"3233fundamentally flawed" because the Department failed to

3240follow the procu rement requirements of Section 287.057,

3248Florida Statutes. In support, CSC relies primarily on

3256Department of Lottery v. GTECH Corporation , 816 So. 2d 648

3266(Fla. 1st DCA 2001), where the court held that the agency

3277could not use the RFP process for ranking pu rposes only and

3289then negotiate a contract with little or no concern for the

3300original proposal of the preferred offeror. However, the

3308GTECH court's holding was based on the agency's assertion

3317that, once it identified a preferred offeror, it was free to

3328neg otiate "without limitation" revised terms of the contract.

3337In this case, the Department makes no such assertion. To the

3348contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the Department will

3356not negotiate material terms of Ramsay's proposal or increase

3365Ramsay's pr oposed cost or price. Thus the record does not

3376support CSC's claim.

337939. CSC also claims that the Department's procurement

3387process violates Subsection 120.53(3)(f), Florida Statutes,

3393which provides; "in a competitive procurement protest, no

3401submissions m ade after the bid or proposal opening amending

3411or supplementing the bid or proposal shall be considered."

3420In essence, CSC claims that the Department will accept

3429submissions after the proposal opening during the so - called

"3439negotiation phase." By its terms , however, Subsection

3446120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, refers to post - bid - opening

3456submissions "in a competitive procurement protest," not after

3464the protest has been completed. Moreover, even if Subsection

3473120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, applied after the p rotest,

3481CSC's claims are speculative and premature at this time

3490because there is no evidence that Ramsay has made or will

3501make any such submissions.

350540. CSC has failed to demonstrate that any governing

3514statute, applicable rule or policy or the RFP specif ications

3524requires the Department to perform a detailed evaluation of

3533the cost proposals (Volume II) when it scores the technical

3543proposals (Volume I) prior to the notice of intended award.

355341. The "Briefing" document that CSC claims requires

3561such a detai led evaluation of the cost proposal is not an

3573official agency policy. Moreover, if anything, the "Briefing

3581document" suggests that the contract administrator -- not the

3590evaluators -- should evaluate the costs proposals for realism,

3599reasonableness, and complet eness. Under Section 287.057(14),

3606Florida Statutes, the contract administrator is responsible

3613for maintaining the contract file and financial information,

3621not for evaluating the substance of proposals. The limited

3630review performed by Floyd, the contract administrator in this

3639case, is consistent with the administrative role contemplated

3647in the statute.

365042. To the extent CSC now argues that the evaluators

3660should have reviewed the cost proposals, that argument has

3669been waived. The RFP clearly indicates th at the cost or

3680price information would not be scored. Subsection

3687120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes, provides:

3691With respect to a protest of the

3698specifications contained in an invitation

3703to bid or in a request for proposals, the

3712notice of protest shall be file d in writing

3721within 72 hours after the receipt of notice

3729of the project plans and specifications or

3736intended project plans and specifications

3741in an invitation to bid or request for

3749proposals, and the formal written protest

3755shall be filed within 10 days aft er the

3764date the notice of protest is filed.

3771Failure to file a notice of protest or

3779failure to file a formal written protest

3786shall constitute a waiver of proceeding

3792under this chapter. (Emphasis furnished.)

3797The policy underlying this requirement and the waiver

3805provision is obvious: If a would - be offeror takes issue with

3817the State's proposed method of procurement, it should

3825challenge that method at the inception, so that any legal or

3836other element of the State's request can be remedied in a

3847timely fashio n, rather than at the end of the process. A

3859late challenge to the method of procurement in which an

3869offeror has participated without objection cannot affect the

3877validity of the procurement process nor the ultimate award.

3886See Medimpact Healthcare Systems. , Inc v Department of

3894Management Services , Case Nos. 00 - 3553RU and 00 - 3900BID

3905(Final Order entered November 21, 2000); Humana Health Care

3914Plan v. Department of Administration and Gulfstream Health

3922Plan v, Department of Administration , Case Nos. 87 - 5526BID

3932and 87 - 5543BID (Final Order entered April 28 1998); Capitol

3943Group Health Services Of Florida, Inc. v. Department of

3952Administration , Case No 87 - 5387BID (Final Order entered

3961April 28, 1998.)

396443. For the same reason discussed in Conclusion of Law

3974No. 42 an d in the Order Denying Petitioner's Motion for

3985Summary Order dated August 27, 2002, CSC also waived any

3995protest of the Department's alleged failure to make a written

4005determination that use of competitive sealed bidding was not

4014practicable in accordance wit h Subsection 287.057(2), Florida

4022Statutes.

402344. CSC has failed to demonstrate that the intended

4032contract awards to Ramsay are arbitrary or capricious,

4040contrary to competition, or clearly erroneous. Likewise, CSC

4048has failed to demonstrate that the intende d contract awards

4058to Ramsay are contrary to the Department's governing

4066statutes, applicable rules, or policies, or the

4073specifications of the requests for proposals.

4079RECOMMENDATION

4080Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

4089of Law, it is

4093RECOM MENDED that the Department enter a final order

4102dismissing CSC's protests and awarding the contracts to Ramsay

4111pursuant to RFP Nos. J5G01 and J5G01 as originally proposed.

4121DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2002.

4130Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

4134___________________________________

4135WILLIAM R. CAVE

4138Administrative Law Judge

4141Division of Administrative Hearings

4145The DeSoto Building

41481230 Apalachee Parkway

4151Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

4156(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

4164Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6947

4170www.doah.state.f l.us

4172Filed with the Clerk of the

4178Division of Administrative Hearings

4182this 29th day of October, 2002.

4188COPIES FURNISHED :

4191Brian Berkowitz, Esquire

4194Department of Juvenile Justice

41982 737 Centerview Drive

4202Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3100

4207James C. Hauser, Esquire

4211Warren Husband, Esquire

4214Metz, Hauser and Husband, P.A.

4219Post Office Box 10909

4223Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 2909

4228Gary V. Perko, Esquire

4232Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith

4237123 South Cal houn Street

4242Post Office Box 6526

4246Tallahassee, Florida 32314

4249R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire

4253Law Offices of R. Terry Rigsby, P.A.

4260215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505

4266Tallahassee, Florida 32301

4269Gary P. Sams, Esquire

4273Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith

4278Post Office Box 6526

4282Tallahassee, Florida 32314

4285William G. Bankhead, Secretary

4289Department of Juvenile Justice

4293Knight Building

42952737 Centerview Drive

4298Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3100

4303Robert N. Sechern, General Counsel

4308Department of Juvenile Justice

4312Knight Building

43142737 Centerview Drive

4317Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3100

4322NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

4328All parties have the right to submit exceptions within 10 days

4339from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

4349this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

4359will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2002
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/16/2002
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order issued (hearing held August 29-30, 2002) CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2002
Proceedings: Joint Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Joint Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2002
Proceedings: CSC`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 09/17/2002
Proceedings: Transcript (2 Volumes) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/06/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Change of Address filed by R. Rigsby.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2002
Proceedings: Subpoena ad Testificandum, M. Mills, L. Ochalek filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2002
Proceedings: Amended Petition to Intervene by Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2002
Proceedings: Subpoena ad Testificandum, L. Ochalek, M. Floyd, J. Foster filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2002
Proceedings: (Joint) Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2002
Proceedings: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioner`s Motion for Leave to Amend Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing issued.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2002
Proceedings: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Leave to Amend Petitions to Intervene by Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. issued.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2002
Proceedings: Order Denying Petitioner`s Motion for Summary Order issued.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance With Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation Second Request for Production of Documents (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Hearing (filed by Intervenor via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Motion for Leave to Amend Petitions to Intervene by Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2002
Proceedings: Motion for Leave to Amend Petitions to Intervene by Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2002
Proceedings: Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2002
Proceedings: Ramsay Youth Services, Inc.`s Responses to Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation`s SecondRequest for Production of Documents (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2002
Proceedings: Intevenor`s Response in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Leave to Amend Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Second Request for Production of Documents to Respondent, Florida Department of Juvenile Justice filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice to Additional Authority in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Hearing (filed by Petitioner via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2002
Proceedings: Intervenor`s Response in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Summary Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Additional Authority in Support of Motion for Summary Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum, P. Donnelly, D. Scharoun filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Hearing (filed by Petitioner via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/16/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion for Summary Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/16/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation`s Second Request for Production of Documents From Intervenor Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion for Leave to Amend Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2002
Proceedings: Ramsay Youth Services, Inc.`s Responses to Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation`s First Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Services of Responses of Intervenor, Ramsay Youth Services to Interrogatories from Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum, L. Ochalek (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2002
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum, J. Rico, Corporate Representative for Ramsay Youth Services, Inc., M. Soto (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance With Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation, Inc.`s First Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum, M. Mills, W. Pilette, M. Floyd, Corporate Representive for Ramsay Youth Services, Inc., M. Soto (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2002
Proceedings: Defendant Department of Juvenile Justice`s Response to Correctional Service Corporation`s First Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance With Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation, Inc.`s First Request for Production of Documents (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance With Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation`s First Set of Interrogatories filed by Respondent.
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation`s Notice of Serving its First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation`s First Request for Production of Documents from Intervenor Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by Intevenor).
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum, T. Buckley, J. Foster, J. Gallaman, W. Pilette filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance of Co-Counsel (filed by Petitioner).
PDF:
Date: 08/05/2002
Proceedings: Joint Stipulation Regarding Rescheduling of Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/05/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Serving Answers to Intervenor`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/05/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Written Response and Objections to Intervenor`s First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/05/2002
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing issued (hearing set for August 29, August 30 and 6, 2002; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/02/2002
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance filed by Petitioner
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2002
Proceedings: Intervenor Ramsay Youth Services, Inc.`s First Set of Interrgatories to Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2002
Proceedings: Intervenor Ramsay Youth Services, Inc.`s Notice of Serving Its First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2002
Proceedings: Intervenor Ramsay Youth Services, Inc.`s First Request for Production of Documents From Petitioner Correctional Services Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2002
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for August 23, 2002; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2002
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation issued. (consolidated cases are: 02-002966BID, 02-002967BID)
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2002
Proceedings: Order Granting Intervention issued. (Ramsay Youth Services)
PDF:
Date: 07/29/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Propounding First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Florida Department of Juvenile Justice filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2002
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion to Consolidate filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2002
Proceedings: Unopposed Petition to Intervene by Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Intended Contract Award filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2002
Proceedings: Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2002
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
WILLIAM R. CAVE
Date Filed:
07/26/2002
Date Assignment:
07/29/2002
Last Docket Entry:
11/20/2002
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
BID
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):