07-005454BID Roam Secure, Inc. vs. Division Of Emergency Management Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, April 23, 2008.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that the award by Respondent was done contrary to Respondent`s governing statute, rules or policies, or RFP specifications. Recommend Petitioner`s protest be dismissed and awarding contract to Intervenor.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ROAM SECURE, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 07-5454BID

)

DIVISION OF EMERGENCY )

MANAGEMENT, )

)

Respondent, )

) )

and )

)

NTI GROUP, INC., )

)

Intervenor. )

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to written notice, the above matter was heard

before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly-

designated Administrative Law Judge, Don W. Davis, on

February 27-28, 2008.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: J. Stephen Menton, Esquire

Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A.

Post Office Box 551

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1841

For Respondent: Thomas F. Congdon, Esquire

Division of Emergency Management

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Room 120E

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Intervenor: William E. Williams, Esquire

Amy W. Schrader, Esquire

Gray Robinson, P.A.

301 S. Bronough Street, Suite 600

Post Office Box 11189

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3189

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues presented for decision in this case are:

1) whether DEM’s proposed award of the contract pursuant to

Request for Proposals, DEM 06/07-10 “Emergency Notification

System Pilot Program” (RFP) to NTI is contrary to DEM’s

governing statutes, rules, policies or the solicitation

specifications; 2) whether DEM’s failure to reject Roam’s

proposal as non-responsive is contrary to DEM’s governing

statutes, rules, policies or the solicitation specifications;

3) whether DEM’s failure to disqualify Roam from consideration

of a contract award because of Roam’s contact with DEM during

the no contact period is contrary to DEM’s governing statutes,

rules, policies or the solicitation specifications; 4) whether

DEM’s failure to reject NTI’s proposal as non-responsive for

failure to include pricing information beyond the seven month

pilot period is contrary to DEM’s governing statutes, rules,

policies or the solicitation specifications; 5) whether NTI has

violated Section 287.075, Florida Statutes, and is ineligible

for an award of the contract; and 6) whether pursuant to Section

120.57(3), Florida Statutes, a de novo proceeding to determine

whether DEM’s action deeming Roam’s proposal responsive to the

RFP by virtue of scoring that RFP is contrary to DEM’s governing

statutes, its rules or policies or the solicitation

specifications.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

DEM issued the RFP to implement an emergency notification

pilot program in Brevard, Pasco, Polk and Orange counties which

would deploy unlimited complete, time-sensitive notices to warn

citizens, local emergency management entities and state and

regional entities against disasters. The deployed system was

required to be able to send voice calls to landlines and cell

phones; text to cell phones and email accounts; and messages to

TTY/TDD receiving devices for the hearing impaired.

On October 9, 2007, NTI, Roam and nine other vendors

submitted proposals for consideration of a contract award. Two

proposals were rejected by DEM upon opening for failure to meet

form requirements. The remaining nine proposals were scored by

an evaluation committee consisting of three evaluators employed

by DEM, Charles Hagan, III, James Montague, James Roberts, III,

along with two evaluators employed by the Department of

Management Services (DMS), Danette McBride and Mahmoud Sondossi.

The evaluation committee short-listed five of the nine vendors

and invited them to make oral presentations demonstrating their

proposed systems to the committee in meetings taking place on

October 15-16, 2007. After the oral presentations and

consistent with the timetable set forth in the RFP, on

October 17, 2007, DEM posted its notice of intent to award the

contract under the RFP to NTI. Roam was listed as the second

ranked vendor.

On October 22, 2007, Roam filed a notice of intent to

protest DEM’s intended award to NTI. Roam’s formal written

protest and petition for administrative hearing alleged that DEM

erroneously modified its cost proposal causing Roam to come in

second place. Roam alleged that if DEM had not modified its

cost proposal, Roam would have had the lowest cost proposal,

thus receiving the highest number of points in the evaluation

and would have been ranked first ahead of NTI. Specifically,

Roam alleged that DEM improperly added $135,000 to its proposal

for additional voice minutes, $135,000 for additional text

messages and $100,000 for implementation of its proposed system

in Orange County.

On November 30, 2007, NTI filed its petition to intervene

in these proceedings. NTI’s petition to intervene was granted

on December 10, 2007. On December 11, 2007, NTI filed a motion

to amend its petition to intervene alleging that Roam’s proposal

should have been rejected by DEM as non-responsive for its

failure to offer unlimited voice and text messages at a fixed

price as was required under the RFP. NTI further alleged that

DEM should have deemed Roam’s proposal non-responsive for its

failure to allocate any funds for implementation of a system in

Orange County. The system Roam had installed in Orange County

only provided for text notifications, whereas the RFP required a

system that would deploy unlimited text and voice messages for

the duration of the pilot period. NTI alleged that instead of

deeming Roam’s proposal non-responsive to the material terms of

the RFP, DEM inappropriately estimated the cost for a minimal

level of voice and text minutes for testing Roam’s system in the

pilot counties. NTI’s motion to amend its petition to intervene

was initially denied on December 18, 2007, but was later granted

on January 7, 2008, in response to NTI’s motion for

reconsideration.

On January 23, 2008, NTI filed a second motion for leave to

amend its petition to intervene alleging that Roam also should

have been disqualified from participation in the RFP process

because Roam’s representative, Richard Tiene, had improper

contacts with evaluation committee chair, Charles Hagan, III,

both by phone and through email during the period of no-contact

under the terms of the RFP and Chapter 287, Florida Statutes.

NTI’s motion for leave to file its second amended petition to

intervene was granted on February 26, 2008.

On February 22, 2008, Roam also filed a motion to amend its

petition. In its amended petition, Roam added allegations that

NTI’s proposal failed to provide cost information that would

allow DEM to calculate a renewal price beyond the seven-month

pilot period and also alleged that NTI’s representatives

improperly participated in drafting language that appeared in

the RFP. Roam’s motion to amend its petition was granted on

February 25, 2008.

The parties filed a Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation on

February 26, 2008. The final hearing was held on February 27

and 28, 2008 in Tallahassee, Florida. Joint exhibits 1 through

31 were offered and received into evidence. Roam presented the

testimony of evaluation committee members, James Roberts, III,

James Montague, Danette McBride and Mahmoud Sondossi, along with

Roam corporate representative, Richard Tiene. DEM and NTI

presented the testimony of Charles Hagan, III, DEM employee and

evaluation committee chair. The transcript of the final hearing

was filed on March 13, 2008, with the Division of Administrative

Hearings. The parties filed proposed recommended orders, which

have been duly considered and utilized in the preparation of

this Recommended Order.

References to Florida Statutes or Laws of Florida are to

the 2007 edition unless otherwise noted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the

final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding,

including the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation of the parties, the

following findings of fact are made:

1. DEM issued a Request for Proposals, entitled DEM 06/07-

September 18, 2007, for the purpose of implementing an emergency

notification pilot program in Brevard, Pasco, Polk and Orange

counties which would deploy unlimited complete, time-sensitive

notices to warn citizens, local emergency management entities

and state and regional entities against disasters. The deployed

system was required to send voice calls to landlines and cell

phones; text to cell phones and email accounts; and messages to

TTY/TDD receiving devices for the hearing impaired. The pilot

program was to be funded through “Specific Appropriation 1621W”

for two million dollars in non-recurring funds from the

Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund.

The pilot program was to last seven months beginning on

December 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008. The RFP did not

request pricing for the pilot program to extend beyond June 30,

2008.

2. The RFP set forth certain mandatory requirements that

could not be waived as minor irregularities by DEM.

Specifically, the Evaluation Criteria section of the RFP stated

in pertinent part: “A non-responsive proposal shall include,

but not be limited to, those that: i) are irregular or are not

in conformance with the requirements and instructions contained

herein . . .; iii) fail to utilize or complete prescribed forms;

iv) are conditional proposals . . .; vi) propose a project that

. . . will require additional funding to implement . . .” The

RFP further stated with emphasis: “THE RESPONSIVENESS OF A

PROPOSAL SHALL BE DETERMINED BASED UPON THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED

WITH THE PROPOSAL. A NON-RESPONSIVE PROPOSAL WILL NOT BE

CONSIDERED.”

3. The RFP further explained:

DEM may waive minor irregularities in the

proposals received where such are merely a

matter of form and not substance, and the

corrections of such ARE NOT PREJUDICIAL to

other respondents. Variations which are not

minor shall not be waived.

(Emphasis in original.)

4. The RFP mandated that all proposals comply with the

language in the legislative appropriation for the project, which

stated as follows:

From the funds in Specific Appropriation

1621W, $2,000,000 in non-recurring funds in

the Emergency Management Preparedness and

Assistance Trust Fund shall be used to

implement a pilot program in Brevard, Pasco,

Polk and Orange counties for the purpose of

deploying unlimited complete, time-sensitive

notices quickly and easily to citizens,

local emergency management entities, and

state and regional entities to warn against

disasters and provide community outreach and

education notifications. The deployed

service should be able to send voice calls

to landlines and cell phones; text to cell

phones and email accounts; and TTY/TDD

receiving devices for the hearing impaired.

5. The RFP further stated in the Scope of Work section:

This Pilot Program is subject to Legislative

appropriation and as such, all annual

subscriber costs and maintenance fees for

the life of the project must be anticipated

by the responsive bidder when calculating

proposal, and will not be billable upon

implementation as a separate charge to the

State, Counties, or individuals

participating in this program.

Id. at 25. (Underlining in original.)

6. DEM proposed to award a “fixed fee contract” under the

RFP.

7. Respondents were allowed to submit written questions

regarding the RFP to DEM in letter or email form on or before

October 1, 2007. According to the RFP, Respondents were not

permitted to contact DEM between the advertisement of the RFP on

September 18, 2007, until the end of the 72-hour period

following the agency posting of the notice of the intent to

award, except to submit questions regarding the RFP in written

form on or before October 1, 2007.

8. The closing date for submission of proposals in

response to the RFP was October 9, 2007. Eleven proposals were

submitted, with two being rejected upon opening as non-

responsive for failure to meet form requirements. Each of the

nine remaining proposals was reviewed by the evaluation

committee. Of the nine proposals scored, only the proposal

submitted by NTI offered unlimited voice and text messages at a

fixed price. 1 Although the RFP required an unlimited, fixed-

price system, and the evaluation committee could not determine

what would be the ultimate price to the state for proposals that

did not offer a fixed price, the evaluation committee scored all

nine proposals, regardless of whether they offered unlimited

messages for a fixed price.

9. The evaluation committee did not make a determination

of whether the nine remaining proposals were responsive to the

RFP, but rather chose to evaluate all proposals, regardless of

whether the vendor offered unlimited minutes for a fixed price,

so that they “could evaluate all potential technologies” in

making a recommendation of what system would be of most benefit

to the state.

10. The evaluation committee, however, was unable to

perform an “apples-to-apples” comparison of the proposals

because they did not all offer unlimited voice and text minutes

for a fixed price. Many proposals such as the one submitted by

Roam, offered a set number of voice and text minutes at a fixed

price, and then offered additional voice and text minutes at a

per minute rate above the base price. Although the Roam system

had the ability to provide unlimited voice and text messages,

Roam did not give the state a firm price for such unlimited

usage. Thus, there was no way DEM could determine the ultimate

cost to the state of Roam’s system.

11. Since the evaluation committee could not compare

pricing proposals among vendors simply by looking at the

proposals, the committee decided to compare systems by applying

a minimum level of usage to all proposals that did not offer

unlimited voice and text minutes to arrive at an estimate of

what DEM might spend on testing any given system. This usage

assumption by DEM regarding a number of voice minutes and text

messages for testing the system is because many vendors,

including Roam, did not follow the instructions of the RFP and

failed to submit a fixed price for unlimited messages. Had all

vendors submitted fixed price unlimited proposals, as required

under the RFP, DEM would not have had to engage in estimating

how many voice and text minutes it would use to test the system

under the pilot program and would not have adjusted vendors’

proposed prices.

12. DEM made a minimum estimate of three million messages

to be sent via voice and three million messages to be sent via

text over the course of the pilot period simply to test the

system. This figure was based on three messages being sent to

an estimated one million households in the pilot area. DEM

evaluators admitted, however, that there was really no way to

tell how many messages would be used in the pilot program and

that the actual number could easily exceed the three million

message estimate. DEM tests each of its systems at least

monthly. Notably, DEM’s estimates did not take into account

actual usage of the system apart from testing. As established

by testimony at the final hearing, during just one weather

event, it is possible that the number of messages offered in

Roam’s base proposal would be exceeded and the state would incur

additional costs.

13. Roam’s proposal offered 300,000 voice minutes included

in its base price. Based on DEM’s minimum usage estimate, the

Evaluation Committee added $135,000 to Roam’s proposal for the

additional 2,700,000 minutes at five cents per minute to reach

an estimated price for voice minutes. Roam admits that DEM has

the right to project any number of voice minutes for use in the

pilot program and does not contest that DEM could use the three

million estimate if applied evenly to all proposals.

14. Roam’s proposal also offered 300,000 “Enhanced SMS”

text messages as included in its base price, and indicated that

additional messages were available at a rate of five cents per

DEM would only be charged for additional messages over the base

300,000 if the messages did not go through Roam’s free gateway

and an aggregator were used, the necessity for usage of such an

aggregator is unclear. The evaluation committee could not

determine from Roam’s proposal how many messages would go

through the free gateway and how many would be charged at five

cents per message.

15. DEM was under no obligation to seek clarification from

Roam regarding its proposal, and was not allowed to consider any

additional information outside of Roam’s proposal in making its

award decision.

16. NTI met the RFP’s requirements for unlimited minutes

for unlimited voice and text messages at a fixed price. Because

NTI’s proposal provided for unlimited voice and text messages,

DEM did not add any additional amounts to NTI’s cost proposal.

17. In addition to cost adjustments for voice and text

messages, DEM also added an additional $100,000 to the price of

Roam’s proposal for implementation of a system in Orange County.

Roam asserts in its formal written protest that the reason it

did not allocate funds for deployment in Orange County was

because “Orange County is an existing fully deployed customer,

and that, as a result, implementation of the pilot project in

that county presents an opportunity for cost savings.” Although

Roam’s proposal stated that there was an existing system in

Orange County, this system is owned by Orange County, not by

Roam. Roam’s proposal gave no indication whether Orange County

had given approval for use of its system in the pilot program.

Additionally, DEM could not determine from Roam’s proposal

whether the state would incur additional charges for use of

Orange County’s system. Roam has nothing in writing from Orange

County confirming that the state could use that system in the

pilot program without charge. Roam further admits that the

Orange County system is currently only set up to provide text

notifications.

18. As a result of the cost adjustments made to Roam’s

base proposal of $300,000.00 for additional voice and text

messages and for deployment of the system in Orange County, DEM

assigned Roam’s proposal a cost of $670,000.00. Since NTI had

offered unlimited voice and text messages at a fixed price in

its proposal, DEM did not need to make any adjustments to its

cost proposal of $583,333.00.

19. The RFP required that vendors provide a cost for

implementing and operating the proposed system for the seven-

month pilot period and that vendors supply a cost analysis

referring to cost categories as set forth on page 27 of the RFP.

NTI’s proposal provided all cost information required by the

RFP. There is no indication that vendors were to provide cost

information for any period beyond the seven-month pilot period.

Evaluation committee members testified that they only evaluated

cost effectiveness of a proposal for the pilot period as was

required under the RFP. Roam’s proposal also did not offer

pricing beyond the pilot period.

20. Roam’s representative, Richard Tiene, violated the

requirement that a vendor not contact the agency during the

period of “no contact” as set forth in the RFP. The general

prohibition on contact between vendors and the agency issuing a

procurement is stated in Section 287.057(24), Florida Statutes,

and set forth in the RFP is as follows:

No Contact Period: Respondents to this

solicitation or persons acting on their

behalf may not contact, between the release

of the solicitation and the end of the 72-

hour period following the agency posting the

notice of intended award, excluding

Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays, any

employee or officer of the executive or

legislative branch concerning any aspect of

this solicitation, except in writing to the

procurement officer or as provided in the

solicitation documents. Violation of this

provision may be grounds for rejecting a

response.

21. Since the RFP was released on September 18, 2007, and

the notice of intended award posted on October 17, 2007, the

period of no contact between vendors and the agency began on

September 18, 2007, and extended through October 20, 2007. The

only exception to the general prohibition on contact with the

agency during the “no contact” period was that vendors were

permitted to send questions in writing to the chair of the

evaluation committee, Charles Hagan, relating to the procurement

through October 1, 2007. Specifically, vendors were instructed

by the RFP as follows:

No verbal inquiries will be accepted.

Written questions from prospective

contractors will be accepted in letter form

or by email by the contact person through

the date specified above under Proposal

Solicitation Schedule/Timetable (refer to

Deadline for Submission of Written

Inquiries). Responses to written questions

timely received by the contact person will

be posted as an Addendum to this RFP on the

DMS Vendor Bid System website on or before

the date specified above under Proposal

Solicitation Schedule/Timetable (refer to

Deadline for Posting an Addendum on the DMS

Vendor Bid System).

(Underlining in original.)

22. On October 17, 2007, Roam’s representative, Richard

Tiene, telephoned evaluation committee chair, Charles Hagan, on

his cell phone after business hours to make inquiries regarding

the RFP. Mr. Hagan advised Mr. Tiene that he could not speak

with him and advised him to put anything he had to say in

writing.

23. On October 18, 2007, Mr. Tiene again contacted

Mr. Hagan by sending him an email attempting to persuade the

evaluation committee to select Roam’s proposal over NTI’s. The

phone call and email to Mr. Hagan were both within 72 hours of

DEM's posting its notice of intent to award the contract under

the RFP to NTI on October 17, 2007.

24. Roam asserts that NTI should be disqualified for bid

award because NTI participated in the drafting of the RFP

through involvement in creating the language for Specific

Appropriation 1621W that was incorporated by DEM in the RFP. No

proof establishes any request by NTI that the appropriations

language be included in the RFP, and this assertion by Roam is

not credited. The only recorded evidence regards NTI’s

participation in the appropriations process and establishes that

NTI’s representative simply requested to review the

appropriations language prior to submission to the Legislature

and Governor for approval.

25. NTI’s substantial interests are affected by Roam’s

attempt to overturn DEM’s intended award of the contract under

the RFP to NTI.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

26. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto

pursuant to Section 120.57(1) and (3), Florida Statutes.

27. Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, provides in

pertinent part:

In a protest to an invitation to bid or

request for proposals procurement, no

submissions made after the bid or proposal

opening which amend or supplement the bid or

proposal shall be considered. . . Unless

otherwise provided by statute, the burden of

proof shall rest with the party protesting

the proposed agency action. In a

competitive-procurement protest , other than

a rejection of all bids, proposals, or

replies, 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

solicitation specifications. The standard

of proof for such proceedings shall be

whether the proposed agency action was

clearly erroneous, contrary to competition,

arbitrary or capricious.

(Emphasis supplied.)

28. “A capricious action is one taken without thought or

reason or irrationally. An arbitrary decision is one not

supported by facts or logic.” Agrico Chemical Co. v. Dep’t of

Environ. Reg. , 365 So. 2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

29. To determine whether an agency acted in an arbitrary

or capricious manner, it must be determined “whether the agency:

(1) has considered all relevant factors; (2) has given actual,

good faith consideration to those factors; and (3) has used

reason rather than whim to progress from consideration of these

factors to its final decision.” Adam Smith Enterprises v. Dep’t

of Environ. Reg. , 553 So. 2d 1260, 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

30. The agency actions challenged here are DEM’s intended

award of the contract under the RFP to NTI and DEM’s decision to

treat Roam’s proposal as responsive to the RFP by ranking Roam

second in this procurement.

31. Each party challenging proposed agency action must

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency action

is arbitrary, capricious, or beyond the scope of DEM’s

discretion as a state agency. Dep’t of Transp. v. Groves-

Watkins Constructors , 530 So. 2d 912, 913-914 (Fla. 1988); see

also § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2007).

32. Roam’s protest contends that DEM acted arbitrarily and

capriciously and contrary to competition when it added

additional costs to its proposal for voice minutes, and text

minutes and implementation of its system in Orange County.

33. Roam’s deviations from the requirements of the RFP,

through its failures to provide a fixed price proposal and to

provide sufficient information regarding its system proposed for

Orange County are material variances from the requirements of

the RFP, however, rendering Roam’s proposal non-responsive.

34. As the RFP stated: “A non-responsive proposal shall

include but not be limited to, those that: i) are irregular or

are not in conformance with the requirements and instructions

contained herein . . .; iii) fail to utilize or complete

prescribed forms; iv) are conditional proposals; v) are

incomplete proposals . . . [or] vi) propose a project that

cannot be implemented upon completion for any reason . . . “

35. DEM was permitted to waive minor irregularities, but

no requirement of the RFP could be waived unless it was “merely

a matter of form and not substance, and the corrections of such

ARE NOT PREJUDICIAL to other respondents.” (Emphasis in RFP.)

36. Roam’s failure to provide pricing for unlimited voice

and text messaging was not a simple matter of form, but rather

goes directly to the substantive requirement of the RFP that the

proposed system be able to provide “unlimited complete, time-

sensitive notices.” The pricing provided in Roam’s proposal

only supplied a limited number of messages at a fixed price

leaving DEM unable to determine the ultimate cost to the state

of Roam’s system.

37. Based on Roam’s failure to submit a responsive

proposal, DEM’s ranking of Roam’s proposal and treatment of the

proposal as responsive is clearly erroneous, contrary to

competition, arbitrary, capricious, violative of the

specifications in the RFP, and contrary to the statutes

governing DEM’s procurement under this RFP including Section

287.057(2), Florida Statutes.

38. It was only by virtue of Roam submitting a non-

responsive proposal that that DEM made price adjustments to its

proposal in an attempt to score it notwithstanding the

proposal’s deficiencies. Such price adjustments, therefore,

were meaningless since Roam’s proposal should not have been

scored in the first instance.

39. Additionally, Roam’s representative, Richard Tiene,

had improper contacts with DEM during the period of no contact

as set forth in the RFP and Section 287.057(24), Florida

Statutes. Although the RFP states that a failure to comply with

the prohibition on no contact “may be grounds for rejecting a

response,” the nature of Mr. Tiene’s communications for the

purpose of persuading DEM to select Roam’s proposal over NTI’s

was anti-competitive. DEM’s failure to disqualify Roam after

receiving these communications from Mr. Tiene was therefore,

contrary to competition, arbitrary and capricious.

40. Roam argues that its communications to DEM during the

no-contact period were harmless since DEM chose NTI’s proposal

over Roam’s proposal. Notably, the success or lack thereof of a

prohibited communication is not what makes it unlawful.

Mr. Tiene chose to both call and email Mr. Hagan with

unsolicited information during the no-contact period. Roam,

thus, should have been disqualified from participation in the

RFP process.

41. Roam’s allegations that NTI should have been

disqualified from the RFP process are without merit and are

rejected. There is no evidence that NTI improperly participated

in the preparation of the RFP document. Section 287.075,

Florida Statutes, which sets forth the prohibition on vendors

participating in preparation of a purchase request provides:

A contractor, as defined in this chapter, or

its employees, agents, or subcontractors,

may not knowingly participate, through

decision, approval, disapproval, or

preparation of any part of a purchase

request, investigation, or audit, in the

procurement of commodities or contractual

services by a state agency from an entity in

which the contractor, or its employees,

agents, or subcontractors, has a material

interest.

42. NTI did not fail to provide any pricing information

required under the RFP. As noted in the above-stated findings

of fact, the RFP did not require pricing beyond the seven-month

pilot period. NTI’s pricing sheets provided all information

requested by the RFP and thus, NTI’s proposal was responsive.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,

it is recommended the Division of Emergency Management award the

contract under Request for Proposals, DEM 06/07-10 “Emergency

Notification System Pilot Program” to the NTI Group, Inc.

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2008, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

___________________________________

DON W. DAVIS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 23rd day of April, 2008.

ENDNOTE

1/ One other vendor submitted an unlimited fixed price option

along with a per minute/message option.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Thomas F. Congdon, Esquire

Division of Emergency Management

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Room 120E

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

J. Stephen Menton, Esquire

Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A.

Post Office Box 551

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1841

William E. Williams, Esquire

Amy W. Schrader, Esquire

Gray Robinson, P.A.

Post Office Box 11189

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3189

Thomas Pelham, Secretary

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Shaw Stiller, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2160

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

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.