03-003671BID Juvenile Services Program, Inc. vs. Department Of Juvenile Justice
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, January 16, 2004.


View Dockets  
Summary: Failure to make proper deposit at time of filing bid protest requires dismissal of petition. Evidence fails to establish the Respondent`s evaluation of proposals was erroneous or unreasonable.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8MAD DADS OF GREATER OCALA, )

14INC., )

16)

17Petitioner, )

19)

20vs. ) Case No. 03 - 36 70BID

28)

29DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, )

34)

35Respondent, )

37)

38and )

40)

41BAY AREA YOUTH SERVICES, INC., )

47)

48Intervenor. )

50_______________________________ )

52JUVENILE S ERVICES PROGRAM, )

57INC., )

59)

60Petitioner, )

62)

63vs. ) Case Nos. 03 - 3671BID

70) 03 - 3672BID

74DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, ) 03 - 3673BID

82)

83Respondent, )

85)

86and )

88)

89BAY AREA YOUTH SERVICES, INC., )

95)

96Intervenor. )

98)

99RECOMMENDED ORDER

101On November 13, 2003, an administrative hearing in this

110cause was held in Tallahassee, Florida, before William F.

119Quattlebaum, Administrative Law J udge, Division of

126Administrative Hearings. Immediately prior to the hearing, the

134Petitioner in Case No. 03 - 3670BID withdrew its challenge to the

146award of the bid and made no appearance at the hearing.

157Appearances in Case Nos. 03 - 3671BID, 03 - 3672BID, and 03 - 3673BID

171are as follows:

174APPEARANCES

175For Petitioner: Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire

181The Nelson Law Firm, P.A.

186Post Office Box 6677

190Tallahassee, Florida 32314

193For Respondent: Brian Berkowitz, Esquire

198Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire

202Department of Juvenile Justice

206Knight Building, Room 312V

2102737 Centerview Drive

213Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3100

218For Intervenor: James M. Barclay, Esquire

224Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster

228& Russell, P.A.

231215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815

237Tallahassee, Florida 32301

240STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

244The issue in these cases is whether the Department of

254Juvenile Justice's (Department) proposed award of certain

261contracts to Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. (BAYS), based on

271evaluations of proposals submitted in response to a Request for

281Proposals is clearly erroneous, contrary to com petition,

289arbitrary, or capricious.

292PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

294The Department seeks to contract with providers of

302Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services (IDDS) in twenty

309judicial circuits. On September 8, 2003, Juvenile Services

317Program, Inc. (JSP), filed Petitions for Formal Hearings

325challenging the proposed award of contracts in Circuits 5, 6,

335and 20. The Petitions were forwarded to the Division of

345Administrative Hearings, which consolidated the cases, and

352scheduled and noticed the proceeding. BAYS fil ed a Petition to

363Intervene in the consolidated cases that was granted without

372opposition.

373Immediately prior to the hearing, the Petitioner in Case

382No. 03 - 3670BID withdrew the bid protest and made no appearance

394at the hearing.

397On November 12, 2003, BAYS filed a Motion to Dismiss

407asserting that the cases should be dismissed based on the

417alleged failure of JSP to timely post a bond in the correct

429amount. At the commencement of the hearing on November 13,

439ruling on the Motion was reserved, and the parties were invited

450to respond to the Motion as part of the post - hearing submittals.

463As set forth herein, the Motion to Dismiss is granted.

473At the hearing, JSP presented the testimony of five

482witnesses. BAYS presented the testimony of one witness. Joint

491Ex hibits numbered 1, 3 through 6, 8, and 10 through 20 were

504admitted into evidence.

507The one - volume Transcript of the hearing was filed on

518December 3, 2003. By agreement of the parties, the deposition

528testimony of six additional witnesses was filed by JSP on

538December 9, 2003. The Department, BAYS, and JSP filed Proposed

548Recommended Orders on December 12, 2003.

554FINDINGS OF FACT

5571. On July 2, 2003, the Department issued Request for

567Proposal (RFP) No. V6P01 for operation of IDDS programs in

577Judicial Circui ts 1 through 20. The Department issued a single

588RFP and anticipated entering into 20 separate contracts, one for

598each circuit. Each contract was for a three - year period with

610the possibility of a renewal for an additional three - year

621period.

6222. The RFP was prepared based on a "contract initiation

632memo" generated within the Department and upon which the scope

642of services set forth in the RFP was based. The Department

653assigned one contract administrator to handle the procurement

661process.

6623. An addendum dated July 18, 2003, was issued to the RFP.

674As amended by the addendum, the RFP required submission of

684information in a tabbed format of three volumes. Volume I was

695the technical proposal. Volume II was the financial proposal.

704Volume III addressed pas t performance by the vendor. The

714addendum also allowed providers to submit some information in

723electronic format.

7254. The addendum requested, but did not require, that it be

736signed and returned with the submission. BAYS did not return a

747signed copy of the addendum in its proposal. Failure to sign

758and return the addendum was not fatal to the consideration of a

770proposal.

7715. The RFP set forth only two criteria for which

781noncompliance would be deemed "fatal" to a proposal. Failure to

791comply with a fata l criterion would have resulted in automatic

802elimination of a provider's response; otherwise, all responses

810submitted were evaluated.

8136. The proposals were opened on July 31, 2003. The

823contract administrator and staff reviewed the bids to ascertain

832whe ther required items were included, and noted the proposed

842costs on bid tabulation sheets.

8477. The first fatal criterion was failing to submit a

857properly executed "Attachment A" form to a submission.

865Attachment A is a bidder acknowledgment form. Both BAYS and JSP

876included a completed Attachment A in the responses at issue in

887this proceeding.

8898. The second fatal criterion was exceeding the Maximum

898Contract Dollar Amount. RFP Attachment B, Section XIII,

906provides in relevant part as follows:

912The Maximum Co ntract Dollar Amount will be

920the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount

926multiplied by the number of years in the

934initial term of the Contract . . . .

943EXCEEDING THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT DOLLAR

949AMOUNT IS A FATAL CRITERION. ANY PROPOSAL

956WITH A COST EXCEED ING THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM

964CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT WILL BE REJECTED.

9709. The information reviewed as to each provider's cost

979proposal was set forth in Volume II, Tab 1, which included RFP

991Attachment J. RFP Attachment J is a cost sheet where providers

1002were r equired to set forth proposal costs identified as the

"1013Maximum Payment" under their proposal.

101810. Attachment K to the RFP identifies the counties served

1028in each circuit, number of available slots in each circuit, and

1039the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar A mount for each circuit. JSP

1050appears to have simply copied information from Attachment K onto

1060Attachment J.

106211. The Department's contract administrator was the sole

1070person assigned to review Volume II of the responses. Volume II

1081included the cost propo sal, the supplier evaluation report

1090(SER), and the certified minority business enterprise (CMBE)

1098subcontracting utilization plan.

110112. Neither BAYS nor JSP exceeded the Annual Maximum

1110Contract Dollar Amount applicable to any circuit at issue in

1120this proce eding. Both BAYS and JSP identified a Maximum Payment

1131equal to the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount as their

1141proposal cost. Both BAYS and JSP received scores of 100 points

1152for cost proposals in all responses at issue in this proceeding.

116313. JSP ass erts that the instructions as to identification

1173of the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount were confusing and

1183that its actual cost proposal was less than that set forth as

1195the "Maximum Payment" on Attachment J.

120114. JSP asserts that it actually listed its cost proposal

1211at the section identified on Attachment J as "renewal term

1221dollar amount proposed." JSP asserts that the Department should

1230have reviewed supporting budget information set forth in

1238Attachment H to the RFP to determine JSP's cost proposal, and

1249that the Department should have determined that JSP's actual

1258cost proposal was less than that of BAYS.

126615. The Department did not review the budget information

1275in Attachment H, but based its cost evaluation of the proposals

1286on the total figures set forth on Attachment J. Nothing in the

1298RFP suggests that underlying information as to cost proposals

1307would be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence fails to establish

1317that the Department's reliance on the information set forth on

1327Attachment J was unreasona ble or erroneous. The evidence fails

1337to establish that the Department's scoring of the cost proposals

1347was contrary to the RFP. The evidence fails to establish that

1358JSP is entitled to have its cost proposal re - scored.

136916. One of the requirements of the R FP was submission of a

"1382Supplier Evaluation Report" (SER) from Dunn & Bradstreet. The

1391submission of the SER was worth 90 points. Dunn & Bradstreet

1402transmitted most of the SERs directly to the Department, and the

1413Department properly credited the providers for whom such reports

1422were transmitted.

142417. The Department's contract administrator failed to

1431examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive

1442credit for the SER included within its proposal. The failure to

1453credit BAYS for the SERs was cl early erroneous. BAYS is

1464entitled to additional credit as set forth herein.

147218. The RFP sought utilization of a CMBE in a provider's

1483proposal. BAYS proposal included utilization of The Nelco

1491Company, an employee leasing operation. The Nelco Company i s a

1502properly credentialed CMBE.

150519. Under the BAYS/Nelco arrangement, BAYS would retain

1513responsibility for identification and recruitment of potential

1520employees. BAYS performs the background screening and makes

1528final employment decisions. BAYS retains t he right to fire,

1538transfer, and demote employees. The Nelco Company would process

1547payroll and handle other fiscal human resource tasks including

1556insurance matters. The Nelco Company invoices BAYS on a per

1566payroll basis, and BAYS pays based on the Nelco i nvoice.

157720. JSP asserts that under the facts of this case, the

1588participation of The Nelco Company fails to comply with the

1598RFP's requirement for CMBE utilization. BAYS proposals also

1606included utilization of other CMBEs. There is no credible

1615evidence tha t BAYS utilization of The Nelco Company or of the

1627other CMBEs included within the BAYS proposals fails to comply

1637with the RFP's requirement for CMBE utilization.

164421. The Department assigned the responsibility for service

1652proposal evaluation to employees located within each circuit.

1660The contract administrator and staff distributed appropriate

1667portions of Volume I of each proposal to the evaluators.

167722. The evidence establishes that the evaluators received

1685the documents and evaluated the materials purs uant to written

1695scoring instructions received from the Department. Some

1702reviewers had more experience than others, but there is no

1712evidence that a lack of experience resulted in an inappropriate

1722review being performed.

172523. In two cases, the evaluators worked apart from one

1735another. In one circuit, the evaluators processed the materials

1744in the same room, but did not discuss their reviews with each

1756other at any time. There is no evidence that evaluators were

1767directed to reach any specific result in the evaluative process.

177724. JSP asserts that there was bias on the part of one

1789evaluator who had knowledge of some unidentified incident

1797related to JSP. The evidence fails to establish the facts of

1808the incident and fails to establish that the incident, whate ver

1819it was, played any role in the evaluator's review of the JSP

1831proposal. JSP also asserts that another evaluator had contact

1840with JSP at some point prior to his evaluation of the RFP

1852responses. There is no evidence that the contact was negative

1862or was a factor either for or against JSP in the evaluation of

1875the RFP responses.

187825. The RFP required that each provider's proposal include

1887letters of intent from "local service resources" indicating a

1896willingness to work with the provider and a letter of sup port

1908from the State Attorney in the judicial circuit where the

1918provider's program would operate.

192226. The RFP indicates that Volume I of a provider's

1932response should contain five tabbed sections. The RFP provides

1941that "information submitted in variance with these instructions

1949may not be reviewed or evaluated." The RFP further provides

1959that failure to provide information "shall result in no points

1969being awarded for that element of the evaluation."

197727. JSP included letters of support in Tab 5 of Volume I .

1990BAYS included letters of support in a tabbed section identified

2000as Tab 6 of Volume I.

200628. JSP asserts that information included in Tab 6 of BAYS

2017proposals should not have been evaluated and that no points

2027should have been awarded based on the informa tion included

2037therein. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Based on

2047the language of the RFP, submission of information in a format

2058other than that prescribed is not fatal to a proposal. The

2069Department reserved the authority to waive such defect s and to

2080evaluate the material. Here, the Department waived the variance

2089as the RFP permitted, and reviewed the material submitted by

2099BAYS.

210029. JSP asserts that BAYS proposal breached client

2108confidentiality by inclusion of information regarding an

2115indi vidual who has allegedly received services through BAYS.

2124Records regarding assessment or treatment of juveniles through

2132the Department are deemed confidential pursuant Section 985.04,

2140Florida Statutes (2003). The evidence fails to establish that

2149an alleg ed violation of Section 985.04, Florida Statutes (2003),

2159requires rejection of the BAYS proposals. There is no evidence

2169that the information was released outside of the Department

2178prior to the bid protest forming the basis of this proceeding.

218930. The e vidence establishes that JSP misidentified the

2198name of its contract manager in its transmittal letter. The

2208evidence establishes that the misidentification was deemed

2215immaterial to the Department, which went on to evaluate the JSP

2226proposals.

222731. The r esults of the evaluations were returned to the

2238contract administrator, who tabulated and posted the results of

2247the process. On August 25, 2003, the Department posted a Notice

2258of Intent to Award contacts based on the proposals submitted in

2269response to the RFP.

227332. Insofar as is relevant to this proceeding, the

2282Department proposed to award the contracts for Circuits 5, 6,

2292and 20 to BAYS.

229633. The Department received four proposals from IDDS

2304program providers in Circuit 5 (DOAH Case No. 03 - 3671BID).

2315Accordi ng to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the

2327highest ranked bidder with 651.8 points. JSP was the second

2337highest bidder with 642.6 points. White Foundation was the

2346third highest bidder at 630.7 points, and MAD DADS was the

2357fourth bidder at 4 42.8 points.

236334. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in

2373its Circuit 5 proposal. The Department neglected to examine

2382BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for

2394its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 poin ts,

2405bringing its total points to 741.8.

241135. The Department received two proposals from IDDS

2419program providers in Circuit 6 (DOAH Case No. 03 - 3672BID).

2430According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the

2441highest ranked bidder with 649.0 poi nts. JSP was the second

2452highest bidder with 648.8 points.

245736. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in

2467its Circuit 6 proposal. The Department neglected to examine

2476BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for

2488its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points,

2498bringing its total points to 739.0.

250437. The Department received two proposals from IDDS

2512program providers in Circuit 20 (DOAH Case No. 03 - 3673BID).

2523According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the

2534highest ranked bidder with 644.2 points. JSP was the second

2544highest bidder with 620.6 points.

254938. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in

2559its Circuit 20 proposal. The Department neglected to examine

2568BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for

2580its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points,

2590bringing its total points to 734.2.

2596MOTION TO DISMISS

259939. BAYS asserts that the Petitions for Hearing filed by

2609JSP must be dismissed for failure to com ply with Section

2620287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), which requires that a

2628protesting bidder post a bond or cash in an amount equal to one

2641percent of the estimated contract amount by the time a formal

2652written bid protest is filed.

265740. Item 8 of th e RFP indicated that the bond or cash

2670amount required was one percent of the total contract amount or

2681$5,000, whichever was less. However, RFP Attachment "B,"

2690Section IX, indicates that it replaces RFP Item 8, and provides

2701that the required bond or cash a mount is one percent of the

2714estimated contract amount.

271741. Pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes

2724(2003), JSP had 72 hours from the announcement of the bid award

2736to file a Notice of Protest and an additional ten days to file a

2750Formal Written Protest. The notice of intended bid award was

2760posted on August 25, 2003. Accordingly, the written protest and

2770appropriate deposits were due by September 8, 2003.

277842. The Department's Notice of Intended Award referenced

2786the bond requirement and stated that failure to post the bond

2797would constitute a waiver of proceedings.

280343. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a

2814cashier's check for $2,159.70 in relation to its protest of the

2826award for Circuit 5. The contract amount was $647,910. One

2837percent of the contract amount is $6,479.10.

284544. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a

2856cashier's check for $3,414.52 in relation to its protest of the

2868award for Circuit 6. The contract amount was $1,025,857.50.

2879One percent of the contract amount is $10,258.57.

288845. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a

2899cashier's check for $2,231.69 in relation to its protest of the

2911award for Circuit 20. The contract amount was $669,507. One

2922percent of the contract amount is $6,69 5.07.

293146. In response to JSP's insufficient cashier's checks,

2939the Department, by letter of September 12, 2003, advised JSP of

2950the underpayment and permitted JSP an additional ten days to

2960provide additional funds sufficient to meet the requirements of

2969the statute. JSP, apparently still relying on the superceded

2978language in the RFP, forwarded only an amount sufficient to

2988bring the deposited funds to $5,000 in each case.

299847. By letter dated September 25, 2003, the Department

3007again advised JSP that the depos ited funds were insufficient and

3018provided yet another opportunity to JSP to deposit additional

3027funds. On September 29, 2003, JSP forwarded additional funds to

3037provide the appropriate deposits.

3041CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

304448. The Division of Administrative Heari ngs has

3052jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

3062proceeding. §§ 120.57(1) and 120.57(3), Fla. Stat. (2003).

307049. Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2003),

3076provides as follows:

3079In a protest to an invitation to bid or

3088request for pr oposals procurement, no

3094submissions made after the bid or proposal

3101opening which amend or supplement the bid or

3109proposal shall be considered. In a protest

3116to an invitation to negotiate procurement,

3122no submissions made after the agency

3128announces its intent to award a contract,

3135reject all replies, or withdraw the

3141solicitation which amend or supplement the

3147reply shall be considered. Unless otherwise

3153provided by statute, the burden of proof

3160shall rest with the party protesting the

3167proposed agency action . In a competitive -

3175procurement protest, other than a rejection

3181of all bids, proposals, or replies, the

3188administrative law judge shall conduct a de

3195novo proceeding to determine whether the

3201agency's proposed action is contrary to the

3208agency's governing statutes, the agency's

3213rules or policies, or the solicitation

3219specifications. The standard of proof for

3225such proceedings shall be whether the

3231proposed agency action was clearly

3236erroneous, contrary to competition,

3240arbitrary, or capricious. In any bid -

3247protest procee ding contesting an intended

3253agency action to reject all bids, proposals,

3260or replies, the standard of review by an

3268administrative law judge shall be whether

3274the agency's intended action is illegal,

3280arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.

328450. Otherwise stated , the Petitioner has the burden of

3293establishing that the Department's proposed action was clearly

3301erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.

3308§ 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (2003). In this case, the burden has

3319not been met.

332251. The evide nce fails to establish that BAYS' failure to

3333include a signed copy of the RFP addendum in its proposal should

3345have resulted in a rejection of the BAYS submission. Inclusion

3355of a signed copy was not required by the RFP or by the addendum.

336952. The eviden ce fails to establish that the Department's

3379reliance on the "maximum payment" information set forth on JSP's

3389cost sheet was inappropriate. There is no requirement that the

3399Department examine supporting documentation to determine whether

3406a provider has cor rectly set forth its own cost proposal. JSP

3418clearly identified a "maximum payment," and the Department

3426properly relied on the information in scoring JSP's cost

3435proposal.

343653. There is no credible evidence that the CMBE proposal

3446submitted by BAYS fails t o comply with the requirements of the

3458RFP or is otherwise inappropriate.

346354. There is no credible evidence that the evaluations

3472performed by the Department employees were improper or biased in

3482any manner. The Department employees were aware of the RFP

3492requirements, were aware of the scoring procedure, and performed

3501their evaluations appropriately. The evidence fails to

3508establish that is was a substantial error for the evaluators to

3519consider the information set forth in Volume I, Tab 6, of BAYS

3531proposal .

353355. The evidence establishes that the Department failed to

3542consider the SERs submitted by BAYS in its proposals. Such

3552failure was clearly erroneous; BAYS is entitled to an award of

3563additional points as set forth herein.

3569MOTION TO DISMISS

357256. As to the Motion to Dismiss filed by BAYS, Section

3583287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), clearly provides that a

3591deposit of one percent of the total contract amount is required

3602by the date upon which the formal written protest is due.

361357. Florida Adminis trative Code Rule 28 - 110.005(3)

3622provides as follows:

3625When a bond is required, a notice of

3633decision or intended decision shall contain

3639this statement: "Failure to file a protest

3646within the time prescribed in Section

3652120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to

3658post the bond or other security required by

3666law within the time allowed for filing a

3674bond shall constitute a waiver of

3680proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida

3685Statutes." If the notice advises of the

3692bond requirement but a bond or statutorily

3699authorized alternate is not posted when

3705required, the agency shall summarily dismiss

3711the petition. (Emphasis supplied)

371558. The notice of intended award clearly referenced the

3724deposit requirement.

372659. In the Department's letters to JSP extending the

3735deadline fo r filing the deposit, the Department cites no legal

3746authority supporting the extension. In the Proposed Recommended

3754Order filed by the Department in this case, the Department

3764acknowledges that there is no authority to waive or delay the

3775bond requirement a nd further acknowledges that JSP's petitions

3784for hearing should have been dismissed. The Department has no

3794legal authority to waive or delay the posting of a proper bond

3806or cash amount. The cited Rule requires that the Department

3816dismiss the cases. The Motion to Dismiss filed by BAYS is

3827granted.

3828RECOMMENDATION

3829Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3839Law, it is

3842RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a

3851Final Order as follows:

38551. Dismissing the Petition for Hearing filed by MAD DADS of

3866Greater Ocala, Inc., in Case No. 03 - 3670BID based on the

3878withdrawal of the Petition for Hearing.

38842. Dismissing the Petitions for Hearing filed by JSP for

3894failure to comply with Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes

3902(2003), and for the other reasons set forth herein.

3911DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2004, in

3921Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3925S

3926WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

3929Administrative Law Judge

3932Division of Administrative Hearings

3936The DeSoto Building

39391230 Apalachee Parkway

3942Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3947(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

3955Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

3961www.doah.state.fl.us

3962Filed with the Clerk of the

3968Division of Administrative Hearings

3972this 16th day of January, 2004.

3978COPIES FURN ISHED :

3982James M. Barclay, Esquire

3986Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster

3990& Russell, P.A.

3993215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815

3999Tallahassee, Florida 32301

4002Brian Berkowitz, Esquire

4005Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire

4009Department of Juvenile Justice

4013Knight Building, Room 312V

40172737 Centerview Drive

4020Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3100

4025Larry K. Brown, Executive Director

4030MAD DADS of Greater Ocala, Inc.

4036210 Northwest 12th Avenue

4040Post Office Box 3704

4044Ocala, Florida 34478 - 3704

4049Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire

4053The Nelson Law Firm, P.A.

4058P ost Office Box 6677

4063Tallahassee, Florida 32314

4066William G. Bankhead, Secretary

4070Department of Juvenile Justice

4074Knight Building

40762737 Centerview Drive

4079Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3100

4084Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel

4089Department of Juvenile Justice

4093Knight B uilding

40962737 Centerview Drive

4099Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3100

4104NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

4110All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

412010 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

4131to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

4142will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 02/23/2004
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 02/23/2004
Proceedings: Final Order (iled via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 02/03/2004
Proceedings: Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.`s Response to Exceptions of Juvenile Services Program, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/16/2004
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 01/16/2004
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held November 13, 2003). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 01/16/2004
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 12/12/2003
Proceedings: Petitioner`s, Juvenile Services Program, Inc., Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/12/2003
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order filed by Respondent.
PDF:
Date: 12/12/2003
Proceedings: Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2003
Proceedings: Teleephonic Deposition (of Connie Lewis) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2003
Proceedings: Telephonic Deposition (of Jeff Clarcq) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2003
Proceedings: Telephonic Deposition (of Michael G. Shoemaker) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2003
Proceedings: Telephonic Deposition (of Donna Butt) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2003
Proceedings: Telephonic Deposition (of Lori Bright) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2003
Proceedings: Telephonic Deposition (of Jeffrey Balliet) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Filing filed by Petitioner.
Date: 12/03/2003
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
Date: 11/13/2003
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2003
Proceedings: Pre-hearing Stipulation (filed by A. Nelson, B. Berkowitz and J. Barclay via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance Plaintiff Juvenile Services Program`s Initial Set of Interrogatories to Respondent (filed by K. Sisko via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2003
Proceedings: Pre-hearing Stipulation (filed by B. Berkowitz via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2003
Proceedings: Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.`s Motion to Dismiss Juvenile Services Program, Inc.`s Petitions for Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2003
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Quattlebaum from L. Brown regarding withdrawal of appeal for hearing (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2003
Proceedings: Department of Juvenile Justice`s Motion to Quash Petitioner Juvenile Services Program`s Witness Subpoena for Department Employees (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance with Plaintiff Juvenile Services Program`s Request for Production of Documents (filed by K. Ward via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenor Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.`s First Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents Related to Circuit 6 to Juvenile Services Program, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenor Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.`s First Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents Related to Circuit 5 to Juvenile Services Program, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2003
Proceedings: Intervenor Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.`s First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Juvenile Services Program, Inc. Related to Circuit 5 filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenor Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.`s First Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents Related to Circuit 20 to Juvenile Services Program, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2003
Proceedings: Intervenor Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.`s First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Juvenile Services Program, Inc., Related to Circuit 6 filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2003
Proceedings: Intervenor Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.`s First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Juvenile Services Program, Inc., Related to Circuit 20 filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2003
Proceedings: Order Granting Petition to Intervene. (Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.)
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2003
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for November 13, 2003; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 10/28/2003
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance filed by A. Nelson.
PDF:
Date: 10/28/2003
Proceedings: Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.`s First Amended Petition to Intervene (Amended Only as to Certificate of Service) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2003
Proceedings: Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.`s Petition to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance with Pre-Hearing Order filed by B. Berkowitz.
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2003
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation. (consolidated cases are: 03-003670BID, 03-003671BID, 03-003672BID, 03-003673BID)
PDF:
Date: 10/08/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Agency Decision filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/08/2003
Proceedings: Second Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/08/2003
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM
Date Filed:
10/08/2003
Date Assignment:
10/08/2003
Last Docket Entry:
02/23/2004
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
BID
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (4):