12-000150BID Ace Waste Services, Llp vs. Broward County School Board Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, March 20, 2012.

Summary: Bid protest should be denied where three lower bids were responsive and responsible.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ACE WASTE SERVICES , LL C , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 12 - 0150BID

)

BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD , )

)

Respondent , )

)

a nd )

)

CHOICE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES )

OF BROWARD COUNTY, INC., )

)

Intervenor. )

__________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice a formal hearing was conducted on

February 9 , 2012 , by video teleconference at sites in Lauderdale

Lakes and Tallahassee , Florida , before Claude B. Arrington , a

duly - designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings ( DOAH ) .

APPEARANCES

For Pe titioner: Robert E. Ferencik Jr. , Esquire

Laura Ann Papay Baker , Esquire

Ferencik , Libanoff , Brandt , Bustamante ,

and Williams , P.A.

150 South Pine Island Road , Suite 400

Fort Lauderdale , Florida 33301

For Respondent: Robert Paul Vignola , Esquire

Office of the General Counsel

600 Southeast Third Avenue , 11th Floor

Fort Lauderdale , Florida 33301

For Intervenor: Jonathan M. Streisfeld , Esquire

Kopelowitz , Ostrow , Ferguson , Weiselberg ,

and Keechl

200 Southwest First Avenue , Suite 1200

Fort Lauderdale , Florida 33301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether in making a preliminary decision to award a

contract for the subject services under Invitation to Bid No.

12 - 039T Î Refuse Services (the ITB) Respondent School Board of

Broward County , Florida ( t he School Board) acted contrary to a

governing statute rule policy or project specification; and if

so whether such misstep(s) was/were clearly erroneous , arbitrary

or capricious , or contrary to competition. Speci fically ,

Petitioner Ace Waste Services , LLC (Petitioner) challenges the

determination that the bids submitted by the apparent low

bidder, the apparent low second low bidder, and the apparent low

third low bidder were responsive and responsible bids meeting

the specifications contained in the ITB .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

T he School Board issued the ITB to provide refuse services

to certain district school sites. Among the nine bidders

responding to the ITB were Choice Environmental Services of

Broward Inc. (Intervenor); Republic Services of Florida d/b/a

All Service Waste (All Service); Waste Services of Florida , Inc.

(WSI) ; and Petitioner . Petitioner is the in cumbent vendor for

the services at issue. All bidders were informed prior to the

submission of bids that there would be a primary awardee and an

alternate awardee.

Relevant to this proceeding, Intervenor was the apparent

low bidder, All Service was the ap parent second low bidder, WSI

was the apparent third low bidder, and Petitioner was the

apparent fourth low bidder.

After the bids were evaluated Respondent announced that it

intended to award the contract to Intervenor as primary awardee

and to All Servic e as alternate awardee. Petitioner thereafter

timely filed this bid protest and this formal proceeding before

DOAH followed. Petitioner ' s protest in the form of a letter

dated November 14 , 2011 , asserted that the prices submitted in

the bids of Interveno r , All Service , and WSI , although

apparently lower than Petitioner ' s bid , were not responsive or

responsible for performing the services described in the ITB ' s

specifications. Petitioner asserts that either it should be

awarded the contract or all bids sh ould be rejected.

The Formal Written Protest was filed with DOAH on

January 11 , 2012. By agreement of the Petitioner and t he School

Board the case was scheduled for hearing on February 9 , 2012.

Leave to intervene was granted on January 30 , 2012 to

Interv enor.

Prior to the formal hearing the parties submitted their

Joint Prehearing Stipulation which contained certain stipulated

facts . To the extent deemed necessary, those facts have been

in corporated as findings of fact after minor editing. 1 /

At the formal hearing the parties presented Joint Exhibits

1 through 5 which were admitted into evidence by stipulation of

the parties. In addition Petitioner presented pages 356 , 358 ,

359 , 360 , and 361 of Petitioner ' s premarked E xhibit 18 , which

were admitted i nto evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 18 .

Petitioner presented the testimony of William B. Harris , Jr.

( t he School Board ' s Director of Supply Management and Logistics

Department, which will be referred to herein as the Purchasing

Department ); Paul C. Baker (Petitioner ' s Vice President); and

Patrick Pierre (Clerk Specialist IV in t he School Board ' s Energy

Conservation Utility Management Department). T he School Board

presented the testimony from William B. Harris , Jr. during its

case in chief.

A T ranscript of the proceedings consisting of one volume

was filed on February 29 , 2012. The parties timely filed

P roposed R ecommended O rders which have been duly considered by

the undersigned in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2011).

F INDING S OF FACT

1. School Board Policy 3320 entitled " Purchasing Policies "

is the agency ' s rule governing the purchasing of goods and

services.

2. On October 7 , 2011 , t he School Board issued the ITB

which was entitled " Refuse Services. " On October 18 , 2011 , t he

School Board is sued Addendum No. 1 to the ITB. The refuse

services were to be provided to 58 district school sites, which

were collectively referred to as Group 1.

3. The Bidder Acknowledgement found at Section 1.0 of the

ITB states in pertinent part as follows:

I agree to complete and unconditional

acceptance of this bid all appendices and

contents of any Addenda released hereto; I

agree to be bound to all specifications

terms and conditions contained in this I TB

. . . . I agree that this bid cannot be

withdrawn within 90 days from due date.

4. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at General

Condition 3(b):

MISTAKES : Bidders are expected to examine

the specifications delivery schedules bid

prices and exte nsions and all instructions

pertaining to supplies and services.

Failure to do so will be at Bidder ' s risk.

5. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at General

Condition 35:

PROTESTING OF BID CONDITIONS/SPECIFICATIONS :

Any person desiring to protest the

conditions/specifications of this Bid/RFP or

any Addenda subsequently released thereto

shall file a notice of intent to protest in

writing within 72 consecutive hours after

electronic release of the competitive

solicitat ion or Addendum and shall file a

formal written protest with ten calendar

days after the date the notice of protest

was filed. Saturdays Sundays legal holidays

or days during which the school district

administration is closed shall be excluded

in the comp utation of the 72 consecutive

hours. If the tenth calendar day falls on a

Saturday Sunday legal holiday or day during

which the school district administration is

closed the formal written protest must be

next cale ndar day that is not a Saturday

Sunday legal holiday or days during which

the school district administration is

closed. Section 120.57(3)(b) Florida

Statutes as currently enacted or as amended

from time to time states that " The formal

written protest shal l state with

particularity the facts and law upon which

the protest is based. "

Failure to file a notice of protest or to

file a formal written protest within the

a failure to post the bond or other security

req uired by law within the time allowed for

filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of

proceedings under School Board Policy 3320

and [ chapter 120]. The failure to post the

bond required by School Board Policy 3320

Part VI within the time prescribed by Schoo l

Board Policy 3320 Part VI as currently

enacted or as amended from time to time

shall constitute a waiver of proceedings

under School Board Policy 3320 and [chapter

120]. Notices of protest formal written

protests and the bonds required by School

Board P olicy 3320 Part VI shall be filed at

the office of the Director of Supply

Management and Logistics 7720 West Oakland

Park Boulevard , Suite 323 Sunrise , Florida

33351 (fax 754 - 321 - 0936). Fax filing will

not be acceptable for the filing of bonds

required by School Board Policy 3320 Part

VI.

6. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at General

Condition 36:

POSTING OF BID RECOMMENDATIONS/TABULATIONS :

Any person who files an action protesting an

intended decision shall post with the School

Board at the time of filing the formal

written protest a bond payable to t he School

Board of Broward County Florida in an amount

equal to one percent (1%) of the Board ' s

estimate of the total volume of the

contract. The School Board shall provide

the estimated contract amount to the vendor

within 72 hours excluding Saturdays Sundays

legal holidays and other days during which

the School Board administration is closed of

receipt of notice of intent to protest. The

estimated contract amount shall be

established on the award recommendation as

the " contract award amount. " The estimated

contract amount is not subject to protest

shal l be conditioned upon the payment of all

costs which may be adjudged against the

protestant in an Administrative Hearing in

which the action is brought and in any

subsequent appellate court proceeding. In

lieu of a bond the School Board may accept a

cashi er ' s check official bank check or money

order in the amount of the bond. If after

completion of the Administrative Hearing

process and any appellate court proceedings

the School Board prevails the School Board

shall recover all costs and charges which

sha ll be included in the Final Order or

judgment including charges made by the

Division of Administrative Hearings but

excluding attorney ' s fees. Upon payment of

such costs and charges by the protestant the

bond shall be returned. If the protestant

prevails then the protestant shall recover

from the Board all costs and charges which

shall be included in the Final Order or

judgment excluding attorney ' s fees.

7. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at Special

Condition 1:

INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE : The Scho ol Board of

Broward County Florida (hereinafter referred

to as " SBBC " ) desires bids on REFUSE

SERVICES for solid waste removal as

specified herein. Prices quoted shall

include pick up at various schools

departments and centers within Broward

County Florida .

8. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special

Condition 3:

AWARD : In order to meet the needs of SBBC

Bid shall be awarded in its entirety to one

primary and one alternate responsive and

responsible Bidders meeting specifications

terms and conditions. The lowest Awardee

shall be considered the primary vendor and

should receive the largest volume of work.

Therefore it is necessary to bid on every

item in the group and all items (1 - 58) in

the group must meet specifications in order

to have t he bid considered for award. Unit

prices must be stated in the space provided

on the Bid Summary Sheet. SBBC reserves the

right to procure services from the alternate

Awardee if:

a) the lowest Bidder cannot comply with

service requirements or specifica tions;

b) in cases of emergency;

c) it is in the best interest of SBBC.

After award of this bid any Awardee who

violates any specification term or condition

of this bid can be found in default of its

contract have its contract canceled be

subject to th e payment of liquidated damages

and be removed from the bid list and not be

eligible to do business with this School

Board for two years as described in General

Conditions 22 and 55.

9. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special

Condition 7:

ADDIN G OR DELETING SITES : SBBC may during

the term of the contract add or delete

service wholly or in part at any SBBC

location. When seeking to add a location

SBBC shall request a quote from both

Awardees. The lowest Bidder shall receive

an award for the add itional location. If

additional service is requested for an

existing site already receiving service the

current service provider will be contacted

to provide a new quote based on the pricing

formula submitted in response to this ITB or

a subsequent quote.

10. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special

Condition 11:

RECEPTACLES: The Awardee shall furnish

receptacles in good repair. . . .The Awardee

shall furnish any and all equipment

materials supplies and all other labor and

personnel necessary f or the performance of

its obligations under this contract. Design

of all equipment is subject to the approval

of the Manager Energy Conservation Utility

Management or his designee and must be

replaced upon notification without

additional cost to SBBC.

A. DESCRIPTION: All receptacles used for

solid waste referenced in Group 1 on the Bid

Summary Sheets and the Tamarac location

listed in Section 5 Additional Information

unless otherwise indicated shall be provided

by the Awardee at no additional cost. Bin

receptacles shall be provided for SBBC use

in the cubic yard capacities as indicated on

the Bid Summary Sheets. Receptacles shall

be bin - type units steel or plastic lift - up

lids NO SIDE DOORS unless specifically

requested for 8 cu. yd. fitted for automatic

loading on casters where necessary for chute

operations. (Receptacles not on casters

must have a 6 " Î 12 " clearance from ground

to bottom of bin for easy cleaning

underneath.)

B. TWO AND T HREE YARD CONTAINERS : It will

be necessary for The Awardee to supply the

two (2) and three (3) yard containers to

hold compacted refuse at a ratio of

approximately 4:1. These containers are

designed for front - end loading. THESE UNITS

ARE IDENTIFIED ON T HE BID SUMMARY SHEET BY A

SINGLE ASTERISK (*) NEXT TO THE CONTAINER

SIZE .

11. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special

Condition 20:

SMALL IN - HOUSE COMPACTION UNITS

(approximately two yards):

The following schools have in - house

compaction units which will need to be

provided by the Awardee. Waste is compacted

at an approximate ratio of 3:1.

Collins Elementary

Oakridge Elementary

Sheridan Hills Elementary

12 . Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Revised

Special Condition 14:

PRICING Î ALL INCLUSIVE COST GROUP 1 ITEMS 1

Î 58 : Bidder shall submit fixed monthly

costs where indicated on the Bid Summary

Sheets for each location based on 4.33 weeks

per month. (This number is derived by

dividing 52 weeks by 12 months). Monthly

costs stated shall be an all - inclusive cost

for providing receptacles refuse removal and

disposal including but not limited to all

necessary labor services material equipment

taxes tariffs franchise fees maintenance and

applicable fees. SBBC agrees to pay the

Broward County Disposal Adjustment (tipping

fees) in effect at the time. Increases to

this fee will be paid as assessed by Broward

County. Any decreases in these rates shall

be passed on to SBBC as well.

13 . No bid specification protest was filed by any person

concerning the original ITB or Addendum No. 1.

14 . Nine companies submitted timely responses to the ITB.

Each bidder submitted a monthly bid and an annual bid. The

School Board thereafter ranked the respective bids. Int ervenor

was the apparent low bidder with a monthly bid of $39 ,5 76 and an

annual bid of $474 , 918.38. All Service was the apparent second

low bidder with a monthly bid of $40 , 540.90 and an annual bid of

$486 , 490.80. WSI was the apparent third low bidder with a

monthly bid of $47 , 671.71 and an annual bid of $572 , 060.52.

Petitioner was the apparent fourth low bidder with a monthly bid

of $50 , 177.73 and an annual bid of $602 , 132.76.

15 . On November 2 , 2011 , t he School Board ' s Purchasing

Department posted th e agency ' s intended recommendation for award

of the ITB. The intended decision was (A) to award to

Intervenor as the primary vendor for Group 1 (1 through 58); and

(B) to award to All Service as the first alternate for Group 1

(1 through 58).

16 . On Nove mber 4 , 2011 , Petitioner timely filed its

Notice of Protest with the School Board ' s Purchasing Department .

17 . On November 14 , 2011 , Petitioner timely filed its

Formal Bid Protest with t he School Board ' s Purchasing Department

and delivered the required bi d protest bond.

18 . T he School Board formed a Bid Protest Committee that

met with Petitioner on December 19 , 2011 , to consider

Petitioner ' s formal written protest in accordance with section

120.57(3)(d)(1) and School Board Policy 3320. The parties were

unable to resolve the protest by mutual agreement and the School

Board sent Petitioner a notice of non - resolution of dispute.

19 . Section 1 of the ITB precludes a bidder from

withdrawing its bid within 90 days of its submission to the

School Board. A t the time of the formal hearing 106 days had

passed since the submission of bids.

20 . No bidder , including Intervenor , has indicated that it

c ommitted an error in calculating its prices submitted under the

ITB or asked t he School Board to excuse it from the prices it

offered under the ITB. To the contrary , Intervenor ' s counsel

represented at the formal hearing that Intervenor was standing

by it s bid.

21. Generally, compacted waste is heavier and more

expensive to dispose of than non - compacted waste.

22. The ITB identifies the number and size (in cubic

yards) of the receptacles to be placed at each location and the

number of pick - ups per weeks to occur for each receptacle. The

ITB also informs the bidders whether a receptacle was compacted

or non - compacted. If compacted the ITB set forth the ratio of

compaction. Bidders were also asked to bid a monthly cost and

any applicable fees charged by the facility receiving the waste

to arrive at total monthly cost for each receptacle to be

furnished. The bidders were required to provide a total monthly

bid for the services and a total annual bid for the services.

The bidders were to use the informati on set forth in the ITB to

calculate their bids.

23 . Petitioner asserts that the bids submitted by

Intervenor , All Service , and WSI were not responsible bids

because those bids failed to factor in the higher costs of

disposing of waste that had been compa cted. Petitioner contends

that the reference to compaction ratios constitute

specifications by the School Board to require all bidders to

calculate their pricing utilizing the compaction ratios.

Petitioner describes the referenced compaction ratios as

"m ultipliers" that needed to be used by the bidders in

calculating their prices for handling and disposing of compacted

waste. Petitioner is seeking to impose its interpretation of

the ITB as requiring each of the bidders to calculate its bid

using the same pricing methodology that Petitioner employed.

24 . There is no ambiguity in the ITB , and there is no

factual basis to conclude that all bidders were required to

prepare their bids in the same fashion as Petitioner. There is

nothing set forth in the ITB that required t he School Board to

interpret its reference to the compaction ratios as being a

specification of a " multiplier " for pricing as opposed to a

descripti on of the capacity of the receptacles to be used at

each of the school locations. At no point is the word

" multiplier " used in the ITB to specify that the bidders were

required to engage in mathematics involving multiplying their

prices against some unit price the bidders were specifying in

their bids.

25 . The ITB specifies the frequency with which the varying

container sizes needed to be picked up at each of the 58 schools

with the weight or volume of the container not being a factor in

setting the speci fication of how often the container is to be

picked up by the awardee. No adjustments were to be made to the

prices paid by the School Board based on the weight of the

container when removed. The School Board did not specify in the

ITB that a bidder was required to charge the same monthly cost

at each school for a similarly - sized refuse container nor did

t he School Board require di fferent pricing for compacted waste

as compared to non - compacted waste.

26. Petitioner's assertion that the bidders were requ ired

to use those ratios as a multiplier when bidding on the cost of

disposing of compacted waste is rejected as being contrary to

the plain language of the ITB. The compaction ratios were

provided to the bidders as information only. There is no

requirem ent that a bidder use a particular methodology in

determining its bid amounts.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2 7. DOAH has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in

this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 , 120.57(1) , and

120.57(3).

2 8 . This is a de novo proceeding . The First District

Court of Appeal has construed the term " de novo proceeding " as

used in s ection 120.57(3)(f) to " describe a form of intra - agency

review. The judge may receive evidence as with any formal

hearing under section 120.57(1) but t he object of the proceeding

is to evaluate the action taken by the agency. " S ee State

Contracting and Eng'g Corp. v. Dep't of Transp. 709 So. 2d 607 ,

609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

29 . Pursuant to section 120.57(3)(f) the burden of proof

rests with the party opposing the proposed agency action here

Petitioner. See State Contracting , 709 So. 2d at 609.

Petitioner must sustain its burden of proof by a preponderance of

the evidence. S ee Fla. Dep ' t of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co. Inc . 396

So. 2d 778 , 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

30 . Section 120.57(3)(f) spells out the rules of decision

applicable in bid protests. In pertinent part the statute

provides:

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 the administrative law

judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding to

determine whether the agency ' s prop osed

action is contrary to the agency ' s governing

statutes the agency ' s rules or policies or

the bid or proposal specifications. The

standard of proof for such proceedings shall

be whether the proposed agency action was

clearly erroneous contrary to compe tition

arbitrary or capricious .

31 . The foregoing requires the party protesting the

intended award to identify and prove by the greater weight of

evidence a specific instance or instances where the agency ' s

conduct in taking its proposed action was eithe r:

(a) contrary to the agency ' s governing

statutes;

(b) contrary to the agency ' s rules or

policies; or

(c) contrary to the bid or proposal

specifications.

Further the protester must establish that the agency ' s misstep

was:

(a) clearly erroneous;

(b) contrary to competition; or

(c) an abuse of discretion.

32 . A capricious action is one taken without thought or

reason or irrationally. An arbitrary decision is one that is not

supported by facts or logic or is despotic. Agrico Chemical Co.

v. State Dep ' t of Envtl. Reg. 365 So. 2d 759 763 (Fla. 1st DCA

1978) cert. denied 376 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1979). T he reviewing

court must consider whether the agency: (1) has considered all

relevant factors; (2) has given actual good faith consideration

to thos e factors; and (3) has used reason rather than whim to

progress from consideration of each of these factors to its final

decision. Id.

3 3. The second district framed the " arbitrary or

capricious " review standard in these terms: " If an

administrative decision is justifiable under any analysis that a

reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar

importance it would seem that the decision is neither arbitrary

nor capricious. " Dravo Basic Materials Co. Inc. v. State Dep ' t

of Transp. 602 So. 2d 632 634 n.3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). As the

court observed this " is usually a fact - intensive determination. "

Id. at 634.

3 4. The test for reviewing discretionary decisions has been

discussed as follows:

" Discretion in this sense is abused when the

judici al action is arbitrary fanciful or

unreasonable which is another way of saying

that discretion is abused only where no

reasonable man would take the view adopted by

the trial court. If reasonable men could

differ as to the propriety of the action

taken by the trial court then it cannot be

said that the trial court abused its

discretion. " Canakaris v. Canakaris 382 So.

2d 1197 1203 (Fla. 1980) quoting Delno v.

Market St. Ry. Co. 124 F.2d 965 967 (9th Cir.

1942). Further [t]he trial court ' s

discretionary p ower is subject only to the

test of reasonableness but that test requires

a determination of whether there is logic and

justification for the result. The trial

courts ' discretionary power was never

intended to be exercised in accordance with

whim or capri ce of the judge nor in an

inconsistent manner. Judges dealing with

cases essentially alike should reach the same

result. Different results reached from

substantially the same facts comport with

neither logic nor reasonableness. Canakaris

382 So. 2d at 1 203.

3 5 . Petitioner contends that the three bidders that

submitted bids lower than its bid were not " responsible " or

" responsive " bidders. Section 287.012(24) defines " responsible

vendor " to mean a vendor who has the capability in all respects

to fully perform the contract requirements and the integrity and

reliability that will assure good faith performance. " Section

287.012(25) defines a " responsive bid " to mean a bid submitted

by a res ponsive and responsible vendor that conforms in all

material respects to the solicitation. As will be discussed

below Petitioner failed to prove that any of the three apparent

low bidders was not a " responsible " or was not a " responsive "

bidder.

36 . The School Board has determined that the bids submitted

by Intervenor , All Service, and WSI were responsive and

responsible. Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance

of the evidence that the School Board acted fraudulently ,

arbitrarily , illegally , or dishonestly in determining that

Intervenor , All Service , and WSI had submitted responsive and

responsible bids. Consequently, Petitioner ' s challenge to the

responsiveness and responsibility of those bids should be

rejected.

37 . An agency has wide discretion in soliciting and

accepting bids and its decision if based on an honest exercise

of this discretion will not be overturned even if reasonable

persons may disagree with the outcome. See: C.H. Barco

Contracting Co. v. State Dep ' t of Transp . , 483 So. 2d 796 800

(Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Liberty Cnty . v. Baxter ' s Asphalt &

Concrete Inc. , 421 So.2d 505 507 (Fla. 1982). The School

Board ' s determination that the challenged bids were responsive

and responsible was well within its discretion.

38 . Petitione r seeks relief in the alternative. If

Petitioner is not awarded the contract Petitioner asks that all

bids be rejected. Both requests for relief should be denied. A

public agency may not arbitrarily or capriciously reject

responsive bids. See Dep ' t of Transp . v. Grove - Watkins Constr .

530 So. 2d 912 , 914 (Fla. 1988). The agency soliciting bids

must have a rational basis for rejecting responsive bids. To

permit the soliciting agency to arbitrarily reject responsive

bids would undermine and eventually de stroy the integrity of the

competitive bid process.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law it is

RECOMMENDED that t he School Board of Broward County Florida

enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and

conclusions of law contained herein , dismisses the protest filed

by Petitioner Ace Waste Services LLC , and upholds the award of

the procurement to Choice as primary awardee and to All Service

as alternate awardee .

DONE AND ENTERED this 20 t h day of March 20 12 , in

Tallahassee Leon County Florida.

S

____________________________________

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 20 th day of March 20 12 .

ENDNOTE

1 / The Pre - Hearing Stipulation filed by the parties contains

verbatim quotes from the ITB. The emphasis contained in each

quote set forth below as a Findi ng of Fact is in the original.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Robert Runcie, Superintendent

Broward County School Board

600 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 - 3125

Gerard Robinson, Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Charles M. Deal, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire

Office of the General C ounsel

600 Southeast 3rd Avenue, 11th Floor

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

[e-mail]

Robert E. Ferencik, Jr., Esquire

Ferencik, Libanoff, Brandt,

Bustamante, and Williams

150 South Pine Island Road, Suite 400

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324

[e-mail]

David Laurence Ferguson, Esquire

Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Keechl

200 Southwest 1st Avenue, Suite 1200

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

[e-mail]

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All par ties 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.