13-003030BID Securus Technologies, Inc. vs. Department Of Corrections
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, November 1, 2013.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioners failed to prove that the Department's rejection of all replies due to unclear criteria for award is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION, A

13DELAWARE CORPORATION ,

15Petitioner ,

16and

17SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

20Intervenor,

21vs. Case No. 13 - 3028BID

27DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ,

30Respondent,

31and

32EMBARQ PAYPHONE SERV ICES, INC.,

37d/b/a CENTURYLINK,

39Intervenor.

40/

41EMBARQ PAYPHONE SERVICES, INC.,

45d/b/a CENTURYLINK,

47Petitioner,

48and

49GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION, A

54DELAWARE CORPOR ATION ,

57Intervenor,

58vs. Case No. 13 - 3029BID

64DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

67Respondent,

68and

69SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

72Intervenor.

73/

74SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES , INC.,

77Petitioner,

78and

79GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION, A

84DELAWARE CORPORATION,

86Intervenor,

87vs. Case No. 13 - 3030BID

93DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

96Respondent,

97and

98EMBARQ PAYPHONE SERVICES, INC.,

102d/b/a CENTURYLINK,

104Intervenor.

105/

106GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION, A

111DELAWARE CORPORATION,

113Petitioner,

114and

115SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

118Intervenor,

119and

120EMBARQ PAYPHONE SERVICES, INC.,

124d/b/a CENTU RYLINK,

127Intervenor,

128vs. Case No. 13 - 3041BID

134DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

137Respondent.

138/

139RECOMMENDED ORDER

141On September 11, 12, and 18 , 2013, a duly - noticed hearing

153was held in Tallahassee, Florida, before F. Scott Boyd, an

163a dministrative l aw j udge assigned by the Division of

174Administrative Hearings.

176APPEARANCES

177For Global Tel Link Corporation:

182Robert H. Hosay, Esquire

186James A. McKee, Esquire

190Foley and Lardner, LLP

194Suite 900

196106 East College Avenue

200Tallahassee, Florida 32301

203John A. Tucker

206Foley and Lardner, LLP

210Suite 1300

212One Independent Drive

215Jacksonville, Florida 32202

218For Embarq Payphone Services, Inc. , d/b/a/ CenturyLink:

225Amy W. Schrader, Esq uire

230William E. Williams, Esquire

234GrayRobinson, P.A.

236Post Office Box 11189

240Tallahassee, Florida 32302

243For Securus Technologies, Inc.:

247W. Robert Vezina, III, Esquire

252Eduardo S. Lombard, Esquire

256Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A.

261413 East Park A venue

266Tallahassee, Florida 32301

269For Department of Corrections:

273Jonathan P. Sanford, Esquire

277James Fortunas, Esquire

280Florida Department of Corrections

284501 South Calhoun Street

288Tallahassee, Florida 32399

291STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

295Whether the De partment of CorrectionsÓ a ction to withdraw

305its Intent to Award and to reject all replies to ITN 12 - DC - 8396

321is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and if so,

330whether its Intent to Award is contrary to governing statutes,

340rules, policies, or th e s olicitation specifications.

348PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

350On April 15, 2013, the Department of Corrections ( the DOC

361or the Department) issued Invitation to Negotiate 12 - DC - 8396

373(the ITN) to solicit competitive replies for the a ward of a

385contract to provide statew ide i nmate t elephone s ervices . The

398Department issued Addenda to the ITN on Apr il 23, 2013, and

410May 14, 2013.

413The Department posted a Notice of Intent to Negotiate with

423Embarq Payphon e Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyL ink (EPSI), Global

433Tel Link Corporation ( GTL), and Securus Technologies, Inc.

442(Securus). After negotiations, the Department issued its

449Request for Best and Final Offers on June 14, 2013. After

460receiving and considering offers, the Department announced its

468Notice of Agency Decision to award the contract to EP SI on

480June 25, 2013. Securus filed its Noti ce of Intent to Protest on

493June 28, 2013, and its formal protest on July 5, 2013. GTL

505filed its Notice of Intent to Pr otest on June 28, 2013, and its

519f ormal protest on July 8, 2013.

526On July 23, 201 3, the Department posted a Notice of Agency

538Decision advising of its intent to withdraw the Intent to Award

549and to instead reject all replies and re - issue the ITN. EPSI

562and GTL each filed a Notice of Intent to Protest the

573DepartmentÓs decision to reject a ll replies on July 26, 2013,

584and filed their formal protests on August 5, 2013.

593These four bid protests were referred to the Division of

603Administrative Hearings for assignment of an administrative law

611judge. After a te lephonic pre - hearing conference on Au gust 19,

6242013, the cases were consolidated for hearing.

631After re - scheduling, the hearing was set for September 11,

64212, and 18, 2013. At the hearing, 53 Joint Exhibits, J - 1

655through J - 18, J - 20 through J - 24, J - 28 through J - 43, J - 46, and

677J - 48 through J - 60 we re a dmitted, with J - 33 indicated as

694confidential. In addition, nine other exhibits were accepted:

702two offered by EPSI, E - 2 and E - 3; four from GTL, G - 4 through

720G - 7; and three from Securus, S - 5 through S - 7. A joint

736Stipulation of Facts was accepted and those facts are included

746below among the Findings of Fact. Seven witnesses testified.

755Mr. Paul Cooper, G eneral M anager of CenturyLinkÓs Public Access

766Group, and Mr. Shane Phillips, an o perations m anager with the

778Department, were called by EPSI. GTL call ed Mr. Steve Montanaro

789of GTL Marketing and Communications; Ms. Julyn Hussey,

797Purchas ing Analyst with the Department; and Ms. Jodi Bailey,

807Director of Procurement and Con tracts for the Department.

816Mr. Stephan Viefhaus, Sales Vice President of Securus , was

825called by Securus. The Department called Ms. Rosalyn Ingram,

834Chief of Procurement, Land Leasing, and General Services for the

844Department.

845The five - volume Transcript of the proceedings was filed

855with the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 2, 2 013.

866All parties timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders, which were

875considered.

876FINDINGS OF FACT

8791. The DOC is an agency of the State of Florida that is

892responsible for the supervisory and protective care, custody,

900and control of FloridaÓs inmate pop ulation. In carrying out

910this statutory responsibility, the Department provides access to

918inmate telephone services.

9212. On April 15, 2013, the DOC issued the ITN, entitled

932Ð Statewide Inmate Telephone Services, ITN 12 - DC - 8396 ,Ñ seeking

945vendors to provide managed - access inmate telephone service to

955the DOC. Responses to the ITN were due to be opened on May 21,

9692013.

9703. The DOC issued Addendum #1 to the ITN on April 23,

9822013, revising one page of the ITN.

9894. The DOC issued Addendum #2 to the ITN on May 14, 2013,

1002revising a number of pages of the ITN, and including answers to

1014a number of vendor questions.

10195. EPSI, GTL, and Securus are providers of inmate

1028telephone systems and services. Securus is the incumbent

1036contractor, and has been providing the Departm ent with services

1046substantially similar to those solicited for over five years.

10556. No party filed a notice of protest to the terms,

1066conditions, or specifications contained in the ITN or the

1075Addenda within 72 hours of their posting or a formal written

1086pro test with in 10 days thereafter.

10937. Replies to the ITN were received from EPSI, GTL,

1103Securus, and Telmate, LLC. TelmateÓs reply was determined to be

1113not responsive to the ITN.

1118Two - Part ITN

11228. As amended by Addendum #2, section 2.4 of the ITN,

1133entitled Ð ITN Process,Ñ provided that the Invitation to

1143Negotiate p rocess to select qualified vendors would consist of

1153two distinct parts. In Part 1, an interested vendor was to

1164submit a response that described certain Mandatory

1171Responsiveness Requirement elements, as well as a Statement of

1180Qualifications, Technical Response, and Financial Documentation.

1186These responses would then be scored using established

1194evaluation criteria and the scores would be combined with cost

1204points assigned from submitted Cost Proposals .

12119. In Part 2, the Department was to select one or more

1223qualified vendors for negotiations. After negotiations, the

1230Department would reque st a Best and Final Offer from each vendor

1242for final consideration prior to final award decision. The ITN

1252provided that the Department could reject any and all responses

1262at any time.

1265High Commissions and Low Rates

127010. Section 2.5 of the ITN, entitled ÐInitial Cost

1279Response,Ñ provided in part:

1284It is the DepartmentÓs intention, through

1290the ITN process, to generate the highest

1297percentage of revenue for the State, while

1304ensuring a quality telephone service with

1310reasonable and justifiable telephone call

1315rate charges for inmateÓs family and friends

1322similar to those available to the public - at -

1332large.

133311. Section 2.6 of the ITN, entitled ÐRevenue to be Paid

1344to the Department , Ñ provided in part that the Department

1354intended to enter into a contract to provide inmate telephone

1364service at no cost to the Department. It provided that, Ð[t]he

1375successful Contractor shall pay to the Department a commission

1384calculated as a percentage of gross revenues.Ñ 1/

139212. The commission paid by a vendor is the single largest

1403expense in the industry and is a n important aspect of any bid.

1416Contract Term

141813. Section 2.8 of the ITN was entitled ÐContract TermÑ

1428and provided:

1430It is anticipated that the initial term of

1438any Contract resulting from this ITN shall

1445be for a five (5) year period. At its sole

1455discretion, the Department may renew the

1461Contract in accordance with Form PUR 1000

1468#26. The ren ewal shall be contingent, at a

1477minimum, on satisfactory performance of the

1483Contract by the Contractor as determined by

1490the Department, and subject to the

1496availability of funds. If the Department

1502desires to renew the Contracts resulting

1508from this ITN, it w ill provide written

1516notice to the Contractor no later than

1523thirty days prior to the Contract expiration

1530date.

1531Own Technology System

153414. Section 3.4 of the ITN provided in part:

1543The successful Contractor is required to

1549implement its own technology system to

1555facilitate inmate telephone service. Due to

1561the size and complexity of the anticipated

1568system, the successful Contractor will be

1574allowed a period of transition beginning on

1581the date the contract is executed in which

1589to install and implement the utiliz ation of

1597its own technology systemansition,

1601implementation and installation are limited

1606to eighty (80) days. The Department

1612realizes that some "down time" will occur

1619during this transition, and Respondents

1624shall propose an implementation plan that

1630re duces this "down time" and allows for a

1639smooth progression to the proposed ITS.

164515. GTL emphasizes the language stating that the

1653successful contractor must implement Ðits ownÑ technology

1660system, and asserts that the technology system which EPSI offers

1670to install is not owned by it, but by Inmate Calling Solutions,

1682LLC ( ICS ) , its subcontractor. However, EPSI demonstrated that

1692while the inmate telephone platform, dubbed the ÐEnforcer

1700Sys tem,Ñ is owned by ICS now, that EPSI has a Master User

1714Agreement with ICS and that an agreement has already been

1724reached that before the contract would be entered into, a

1734Statement of Work would be executed to create actual ownership

1744in EPSI for pur poses of the Florida contract.

175316. GTL alleges that in EPSIÓs reply , EPSI re lied upon the

1765experience, qualifications, and resources of its affilia ted

1773entities in other areas as well . For example, GTL asserts that

1785EPSIÓs claim that it would be providing 83 percent of the

1796manpower is false, since EPSI has acknowledged that EPSI is only

1807a contracting subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc., and that EPSI has

1817no employees of its own. While it is clear that EPSIÓs reply to

1830the ITN relies upon the resources of its parent to carry out the

1843terms of the contract with respect to experience, presen ce in

1854the state, and personnel, EPSI demonstrated that this

1862arrangement was common, and well understood by the Department.

187117. EPSI demonstrated that all required capabilities would

1879be available to it through the resources of its parent and

1890subcontractors at the time the contract was entered into, and

1900that its reply was in conformance with the provisions of the ITN

1912in all material respects.

191618. EPSI has the integrity and reliability to assure good

1926faith performance of the contract.

1931Call Recording

193319. Sec tion 3.6 of the ITN, entitled ÐInmate Telephone

1943System Functionality (General),Ñ provided in part:

1950The system shall provide the capability to

1957flag any individual telephone number in the

1964inmateÓs Ò Approved Number List Ó as Ò Do Not

1974Record. Ó The default set ting for each

1982telephone number will be to record until

1989flagged by Department personnel to the

1995contrary.

199620. Securus alleges that section 3.6 of the ITN implements

2006Department regulations 2/ and that EPSIÓs reply was non - responsive

2017because it stated that re cording of calls to specific telephone

2028numbers would be deactivated regardless of who called that

2037number . Securus alleges that this creates a security risk

2047because other inmates calling the same number should still have

2057their calls recorded .

206121. EPSI ind icated in its reply to the ITN that it read,

2074agreed, and would comply with section 3.6. While EPSI went on

2085to say that this capability was not connected to an inmateÓs

2096PIN, the language of section 3.6 does not mention an inmateÓs

2107PIN either. Read literal ly, this section requires only the

2117ability to ÐflagÑ any individual telephone number that appears

2126in an inmateÓs number list as Ðdo not recordÑ and requires that,

2138by default, calls to a telephone number will be recorded until

2149it is flagged. EPSIÓs reply i ndicated it could meet this

2160requirement. This provision says nothing about continuing to

2168record calls to that same number from other inmates. Whether or

2179not this creates a security risk or is what the Department

2190actually desired are issues which might we ll be discussed as

2201part of the negotiations, but this do es not affect the

2212responsiveness of EPSIÓs reply to section 3.6. Furthermore,

2220Mr. Cooper testified at hearing that EPSI does have the

2230capability to mark a number as Ðdo not recordÑ only with respect

2242to an individual inmate, at the option of the Department.

225222. EPSIÓs reply conformed to the call - recording

2261provisions of section 3.6 of the ITN in all material respects.

2272Call Forwarding

227423. Section 3.6.8 of the ITN, entitled ÐSystem

2282Restriction, Fraud C ontrol and Notification Requirements,Ñ

2290provided that the provided inmate telephone services have the

2299following security capability:

2302Ability to immediately terminate a call if

2309it detects that a called partyÓs telephone

2316number is call forwarded to another

2322telephone number. The system shall make a

2329ÐnotationÑ in the database on the inmateÓs

2336call. The system shall make this

2342information available, in a report format,

2348to designated department personnel.

235224. In response to an inquiry noting that , as worded, t he

2364ITN did not technically require a vendor to have the capability

2375to detect call - forwarded calls in the first place, the

2386Department responded that this functionality was required.

239325. Securus alleges that EPSI is unable to comply with

2403this requirement, c iting as evidence EPSIÓs admission, made some

2413months before in connection with an RFP being conducted by the

2424Kansas Department of Corrections, that it did not yet have this

2435capability.

243626. EPSI indicated in its reply to the ITN that it read,

2448agreed, and w ould comply with this requirement. As for the

2459Kansas solicitation, EPSI showed that it now possesses this

2468capability, and h as in fact installed it before.

247727. EPSIÓs reply conformed to the call - forwarding

2486provisions of section 3.6.8 of th e ITN in all mat erial respects.

2499Keefe Commissary Network

250228. Section 5.2.1 of the ITN, entitled ÐRespondentsÓ

2510Business/Corporate Experience,Ñ at paragraph e. directed each

2518vendor to:

2520[P]rovide and identify all entities of or

2527related to the Respondent (including parent

2533company and subsidiaries of the parent

2539company; divisions or subdivisions of parent

2545company or of Respondent), that have ever

2552been convicted of fraud or of deceit or

2560unlawful business dealings whether related

2565to the services contemplated by this ITN or

2573not , or entered into any type of settlement

2581agreement concerning a business practice,

2586including services contemplated by this ITN,

2592in response to a civil or criminal action,

2600or have been the subject of any complaint,

2608action, investigation or suit involving an y

2615other type of dealings contrary to federal,

2622state, or other regulatory agency

2627regulations. The Respondent shall identify

2632the amount of any payments made as part of

2641any settlement agreement, consent order or

2647conviction.

264829. Attachment 6 to the ITN, se tting forth Evaluation

2658Criteria, similarly provided guidance regarding the assessment

2665of points for Business/Corporate Experience. Paragraph 1.(f)

2672provided: ÐIf any entities of, or related to, the Respondent

2682were convicted of fraud or of deceit or unlawf ul business

2693dealings, what were the circumstances that led to the conviction

2703and how was i t resolved by the Respondent?Ñ

271330. Addendum #2. to the ITN, which included questions and

2723answers, also contained the following:

2728Question 57: In Attachment 6, Articl e 1.f.

2736regarding respondents Ðconvicted of fraud,

2741deceit, or unlawful business dealing . . .Ñ

2749does this include associated subcontractors

2754proposed in this ITN?

2758Answ er 57: Yes, any subcontractors you

2765intend to utilize on this project, would be

2773considered an enti ty of and related to your

2782firm.

278331. As a proposed subcontractor, ICS is an entity of, or

2794related to, EPSI. There is no evidence to indicate that ICS has

2806ever been convicted of fraud or of deceit or unlawful business

2817dealings. There is no evidenc e to indicate that ICS has entered

2829into any type of settlement agreement concerning a business

2838practice in response to a civil or criminal action. There is no

2850evidence to indicate that ICS has been the subject of any

2861complaint, action, investigation , or s uit involving any other

2870type of dealings contrary to federal, state, or other regulatory

2880agency regulations.

288232. The only evidence at hearing as to convictions

2891involved Ðtwo individuals from the Florida DOCÑ and Ðtwo

2900individuals from a company called AI S, I think thatÓs American

2911Institutional Services.Ñ No evidence was presented that AIS was

2920Ðan entity of or related toÑ EPSI.

292733. Conversely, there was no evidence that Keefe

2935Commissary Network (KCN) or anyone employed by it was ever

2945convicted of any cri me. There was similarly no evidence that

2956KCN entered into any type of settlement agreement concerning a

2966business practice in response to civil or criminal action. It

2976was shown that KCN Ðcooperated with the federal government in an

2987investigationÑ that res ulted in criminal convictions, and it is

2997concluded that KCN was therefore itself a subject of an

3007investigation involving any other type of dealings contrary to

3016federal, state, or other regulatory agency regulations.

302334. However, KCN is not an entity of, o r related to, EPSI.

3036KCN is not a parent company of EPSI, it is not a division,

3049subdivision, or subsidiary of EPSI, and it is not a division,

3060subdivision, or subsidiary of EPSIÓs par ent company,

3068CenturyLink, Inc.

307035. EPSIÓs reply conformed to the disclosu re requirements

3079of section 5.2.1, Attachment 6, and Addendum #2 of th e ITN in

3092all material respects.

3095Phases of the ITN

309936. Section 6 describes nine phases of the ITN:

3108Phase 1 Î Public Opening and Review of

3116Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements

3119Phase 2 Î Review of References and Other Bid

3128Requirements

3129Phase 3 Î Evaluations of Statement of

3136Qualifications, Technical Responses, and

3140Managed Access Solutions 3/

3144Phase 4 Î CPA Review of Financial

3151Documentation

3152Phase 5 Î Review of Initial Cost Sheets

3160Phase 6 Î Determination of Final Scores

3167Phase 7 Î Negotiations

3171Phase 8 Î Best and Final Offers from

3179Respondents

3180Phase 9 Î Notice of Intended Decision

3187Evaluation Criteria in the ITN

319237. As amended by Addendum #2, the ITN established scoring

3202criteria to evaluate replies in three main categories:

3210Statement of Qualifications (500 points); Technical Response

3217(400 points); and Initial Cost Sheets (100 points). It also

3227provided specific guidance for consideration of the commissions

3235and rates shown on the Initial Cost Sheet that made up the

3247pricing category. Section 6.1.5 of the ITN, entitled ÐPhase 5 Î

3258Review of Initial Cost Sheet,Ñ provided in part:

3267The Initial Cost Proposal with the highest

3274commission (percentage of gross revenue) to

3280be paid to the Department wil l be awarded 50

3290points. The price submitted in Table 1 for

3298the Original Contract Term, and the

3304subsequent renewal price pages for Table 1

3311will be averaged to determine the highest

3318commission submitted. All other commission

3323percentages will receive points according to

3329the following formula:

3332(X/N) x 50 = Z

3337Where: X = Respondents proposed Commission

3343Percentage to be Paid. N = highest

3350Commission Percentage to be Paid of all

3357responses submitted. Z = points awarded.

3363* * *

3366The Initial Cost Proposal with t he lowest

3374telephone rate charge will be awarded 50

3381points. The price submitted in Table 1 for

3389the Original Contract Term, and the

3395subsequent renewal price pages for Table 1

3402will be averaged to determine the highest

3409commission submitted. All other cost

3414re sponses will receive points according to

3421the following formula:

3424(N/X) x 50 = Z

3429Where: N = lowest verified telephone rate

3436charge of all responses submitted.

3441X = RespondentÓs proposed lowest telephone

3447rate charge. Z = points awarded.

345338. The I TN as amended by Addendum #2 provided

3463instructions that initial costs should be submitted with the

3472most favorable terms the Respondent could offer and that final

3482percentages and rates would be determined through the

3490negotiation process. It included the fo llowing chart: 4/

3499COST PROPOSAL

3501INITIAL ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE

3507Contract Year Year Year Year Year

3513Term Renewal Renewal Renewal Renewal Renewal

35195 years

3521Initial

3522Department

3523Commission %

3525Rate Proposed

3527Initial Blended

3529Telephone Rate

3531for All Calls*

3534(inc lusive of

3537surcharges)

353839. The ITN, including its Addenda, did not specify

3547selection criteria upon which the determination of best valu e to

3558the state would be based.

3563Allegation that EPSI Reply was Misleading

356940. On the Certification/Attestation Pa ge, each vendor was

3578required to certify that the information contained in its reply

3588was true and sufficiently complet e so as not to be misleading.

360041. While portions of its reply might have provided more

3610detail, EPSI did not mislead the Department regardi ng its legal

3621structure, affiliations, and subcontractors, or misrepresent

3627what entity would be providing technology or services if EPSI

3637was awarded the contract. EPSIÓs reply explained that EPSI was

3647a wholly owned corporate subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc. , and

3656described many aspects of the contract that would be performed

3666using resources of its parent, as well as aspects that would be

3678performed through ICS as its subcontractor.

3684Department Evaluation of Initial Replies

368942. The information on the Cost Propo sal t able was

3700reviewed and scored by Ms. Hussey, who had been appointed as the

3712p rocurement m anager for the ITN. Attempting to follow the

3723instructions provided in section 6.1.5, she added together the

3732six numbers found in the boxes indicating commission pe rcentages

3742on the Cost Proposal sheets. One of these boxes contained the

3753commission percentage for the original five - year contract term

3763and each of the other five boxes contained th e commission

3774percentage for one of the five renewal years. She then divide d

3786this sum by six, the number of boxes in the computation chart

3798(Ðdivide by sixÑ). In other words, she calculated the

3807arithmetic mean of the six numbers provided in each proposal.

381743. The Department had not intended for the commission

3826percentages to be a veraged in this manner. Instead, they had

3837intended that a weighted mean would be calculated. That is,

3847they intended that five times the commission percentage shown

3856for the initial contract term would be added to the commission

3867percentages for the five re newal years, with that sum then being

3879divided by ten, the total numb er of years (Ðdivide by tenÑ).

389144. The Department did not clearly express this intent in

3901section 6.1.5. Mr. Viefhaus testified that based upon the

3910language, Securus believed that in Phas e 5 the Department would

3921compute the average commission rate the way that Ms. Hussey

3931actually did it, taking the arithmetic mean of the six

3941commission percentages provided by each vendor, and that

3949therefore Securus prepared its submission with that calcula tion

3958in mind. 5/

396145. Mr. Montanaro testified that based upon the language,

3970GTL believed that in Phase 5 the Department would Ðdivide by

3981ten,Ñ tha t is, compute the weighted mean covering the ten - year

3995period of the contract, and that GTL filled out its Cost

4006Proposal table based upon that understanding.

401246. The DOC posted a notice of its intent to negotiate

4023with GTL, Securus, and EPSI on June 3, 2013. Telmate, LLC , was

4035not chosen for negotiations. 6/

404047. Following the Notice of Intent to Negotiate was this

4050s tatement in bold print:

4055Failure to file a protest within the time

4063prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida

4068Statutes, or failure to post the bond or

4076other security required by law within the

4083time allowed for filing a bond shall

4090constitute a waiver of procee dings under

4097Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

410148. On June 14, 2013, the DOC issued a Request for Best

4113and Final Offers (RBAFO), directing that Best and Final Offers

4123(BAFO) be provided to the DOC by June 18, 2013.

4133Location - Based Services

41374 9. The RBAFO incl uded location - based services of called

4149cell phones as an additional negotiated service, requesting a

4158narrative description of the service that could be provided.

4167The capability to provide location - based servi ces had not been

4179part of the original ITN, but discussions took place as part of

4191the negotiations.

419350. Securus contends that EPSI was not a responsible

4202vendor because it misrepresented its ability to provide such

4211l ocation - b ased s ervices through 3Cinteractive, Inc. (3Ci).

422251. EPSI demonstrated that it had indicated to the

4231Department during negotiations that it did not have the

4240capability at that time, but that the capability could easily be

4251added. EPSI showed that due to an earlier call it received from

42633Ci, it believed that 3Ci wo uld be able to pro vide location -

4277based services to it. EPSI was also talking at this time to

4289another company, CTI, which could al so provide it that

4299capability.

430052. In its BAFO, EPSI indicated it could provide these

4310services, explained that they wo uld require payments to a third -

4322party provider, and showed a corresponding financial change to

4331their offer.

433353. No competent evidence showed whether or not 3Ci was

4343actually able to provide that service on behalf of EPSI, either

4354at the time the BAFO was submitted, or earlier. EPSI showed

4365that it believed 3Ci was available to provide that service,

4375however, and there is no basis to conclude that EPSI in any way

4388misrepresented its ability to provide location - based services

4397during negotiations or in its BAFO.

4403Language of the RBAFO

440754. The RBAFO provided in part:

4413This RBAFO contains Pricing, Additional

4418Negotiated Services, and Value Added

4423Services as discussed during negotiation and

4429outlined below. The other specifications of

4435the original ITN, unless modified in the

4442RBAFO, remain in e ffect. Respondents are

4449cautioned to clearly read the entire RBAFO

4456for all revisions and changes to the

4463original ITN and any addenda to

4469specifications, which are incorporated

4473herein and made a part of this RBAFO

4481document.

4482Unless otherwise modified in this Request

4488for Best and Final Offer, the initial

4495requirements as set forth in the

4501DepartmentÓs Invitation to Negotiate

4505document and any addenda issued thereto have

4512not been revised and remain as previously

4519indicated . Additionally, to the extent that

4526portion s of the ITN have not been revised or

4536changed, the previous reply/initial reply

4541provided to the Department will remain in

4548effect.

454955. These two introductory paragraphs of the RBAFO were

4558confusing. It was not clear on the face of the RBAFO whether

4570Ðother specificationsÑ excluded only the pricing information to

4578be supplied or also the specifications indicating how that

4587pricing information would be calculated or evaluated. It was

4596not clear whether Ðother specificationsÑ were the same thing as

4606Ðinitial requ irementsÑ wh ich had not been revised . It was not

4619clear whether scoring procedures constituted Ðspecifications.Ñ

4625While it was clear that , to the extent not revised or changed by

4638the RBAFO, initial replies that had been submitted -- including

4648Statements of Qualifications, Technical R esponse, Financial

4655Documentation, and Cost Proposals -- would Ðremain in effect,Ñ

4665it was not clear how, if at all, these would be considered in

4678determining the best value to the State.

468556. In the RBAFO under the heading ÐPRICIN G,Ñ vendors were

4697instructed to provide their BAFO for rates on a provided Cost

4708Proposal table which was virtually identical to the table that

4718had been provided earlier in the ITN for the evaluation stage,

4729including a single square within which to indicate a commission

4739rate for the initial five - year contract term, and five squares

4751within which to indicate commission rates for each of five

4761renewal years.

476357. The RBAFO stated that the Department was seeking

4772pricing that would provide the Ðbest value to the st ate.Ñ It

4784included a list of 11 additional services that had been

4794addressed in negotiations and stated that , Ðin order to provide

4804the best value to the state , Ñ the Department reserved the right

4816to accept or reject any or all of these additional services. It

4828provided that after BAFOs were received, the Negotiation Team

4837would prepare a summary of the negotiations and make a

4847recommendation as to which vendor would provide the Ðbest val ue

4858to the state.Ñ

486158. The RBAFO did not specify selection criteria upon

4870wh ich the determination of best val ue to the State would be

4883based.

488459. In considering commission percentages as part of their

4893determination as to which vendor would receive the contract, the

4903Negotiation Team decided not to consider commissions that had

4912been listed by vendors for the renewal years, co ncluding that

4923the original five - year contract term was all that was assured,

4935since renewals might or might not occur.

494260. On June 25, 2013, the DOC posted its Notice of Agency

4954Decision stating its intent to awar d a contract to EPSI .

4966Protests and the Decision to Reject All Replies

497461. Subsequent to timely filing notices of intent to

4983protest the intended award, Securus and GTL filed Formal Written

4993Protests with the DOC on July 5 and 8, 2013, respectively.

500462. The Department considered and compared the protests.

5012It determined that language in the ITN directing that in Phase 5

5024the highest commission would be determined by averaging the

5033price for the original contract term with the prices for the

5044renewal years was a mbiguous and flawed. It determined that use

5055of a table with six squares as the in itial cost sheet was a

5069mistake.

507063. The Department determined that the language and

5078structure of the RBAFO could be read one way to say that the

5091Department would use the sam e methodology to evaluate the

5101pricing in the negotiation stage as had been used to evaluate

5112the Initi al Cost sheets in Phase 5, or could be read another way

5126to mean that BAFO pricing would not be evaluated that way. It

5138determined that the inclusion in the RBAFO of a table virtually

5149identical to the one used as the ini tial cost sheet was a

5162mistake.

516364. The Department determined that the language and the

5172structure of the RBAFO could be read one way to require further

5184consideration of such factors as the Sta tement of Qualifications

5194and Technical Response in determining best value to the S tate,

5205or could be read another way to require no further consideration

5216of these factors.

521965. The Department prepared some spreadsheets

5225demonstrating the varying results that would be obtained using

5234Ðdivide by sixÑ and Ðdivide by tenÑ and also considered a

5245spreadsheet that had been prepared by Securus. The Department

5254considered that its own Contract Manager had interpreted the

5263Phase 5 instructions to mean Ðdivide by six,Ñ whi le the

5275Department had actually intended the instru ctions to mean

5284Ðdivide by ten.Ñ

528766. The De partment had intended that the N egotiation T eam

5299give som e weight to the renewal - year pricing, and had included

5312the pricing table in the RBAFO for that reason, not simply to

5324comply with statutory requirements regarding renewal pricing.

5331The Department determined that the way the RBAFO was written and

5342the inclusion of the chart required at least some consideration

5352of ten - year pricing, and th at vendors had therefore be en misled

5366when the N egotiation T eam gave no consideration to the

5377commission perc entages for the renewal years.

538467. Specifically, based upon the Securus protest, the

5392Department determined that the RBAFO language had been

5400interpreted by Securus to require t hat the Phase 5 calculation

5411of average commission percentage be carried over to evaluation

5420of the pricing in the BAFOs, which Securus had concluded meant

5431Ðdivide by six.Ñ

543468. The Department further determined that based upon the

5443GTL protest, the RBAFO lan guage had been interpreted by GTL to

5455require the Department to consider the renewal years in pricing,

5465as well as such things as the Statement of Qualifications and

5476Techni cal Response in the BAFO stage.

548369. The Department determined that had Ðdivide by six Ñ

5493been used in evaluating the BAFOs , Securus would have a computed

5504percentage of 70 percent, higher than any other vendor.

551370. The Department concluded that the wording and

5521structure of the ITN and RBAFO did not create a level playing

5533field to evaluate re plies because they were confusing and

5543ambiguous and were not understood by everyone in the same way.

5554Vendors naturally had structured their replies to maximize their

5563chances of being awarded the contract based upon their

5572understanding of how the replies w ould be evaluated. The

5582Department concluded that vendor pricing might have been

5590different but for the misleading language and structure of the

5600ITN and RBAFO.

560371. The Department did not compute what the final award

5613would have been had it applied the sco ring procedures for the

5625initial cost sheets set forth in section 6.1.5 to the cost

5636elements of the BAFOs. The Department did not compute what the

5647final award would have been had it applied the scoring

5657procedures for the Statement of Qualifications and Tec hnical

5666Response set forth in section 6.1.3 to the BAFOs.

567572. Ms. Bailey testified that while she had originally

5684approved the ITN, she was unaware of any problems, and that it

5696was only later, after the protests to the Notice of Intended

5707Award had been file d and she had reviewed the specifications

5718again, that she had come to the conclusion that the ITN and

5730RBAFO were flawed.

573373. Following the protests of the intended award by GTL

5743and Securus, on July 23, 2013, the DOC posted to the Vendor Bid

5756System a Not ice of Revised Agency Decision stating the DOCÓs

5767intent to reject all replies and reissue the ITN.

577674. On August 5, 2013, EPSI, GTL, and Securus filed formal

5787written protests challenging DOCÓs intended decision to reject

5795all replies. Securus subsequently withdrew its protest to DOCÓs

5804rejection of all replies.

580875. As the vendor initially notified that it would receive

5818the contract, EPSIÓs substantial interests were affected by the

5827Department's subsequent decision to reject all replies.

583476. GTL alleged t he contract had wrongly been awarded to

5845EPSI and that it should have received the award, and its

5856substantial interests were affected by the Department's

5863subsequent d ecision to reject all replies.

587077. The Department did not act arbitrarily in its d ecision

5881to reject all replies.

588578. The Department did not act illegally, dishonestly , or

5894fraudulently in its decision to reject all replies.

590279. EPSI would likely be harmed in any re - solicitation of

5914bids relative to its position in the first ITN, because

5924potenti al competitors would have detailed information about

5932EPSIÓs earlier reply that was unavailable to them during the

5942first ITN.

594480. An ITN requires a great deal of work by the Department

5956and creates a big demand on Department resources. The decision

5966to reje ct all repl ies was not undertaken lightly.

597681. The State of Florida would likely benefit in any new

5987competitive solicitation 7/ because all vendors would be aware of

5997the replies that had been submitted earlier in response to the

6008ITN, and bidders would like ly try to improve upon those

6019proposals to improve their chances of being awarded the

6028contract.

6029CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

603282. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

6039jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in this

6049case under sections 120.569 and 120.57(3), Florida Statutes

6057(2013) .

605983. All fou r protests were timely filed.

606784. Petitioners protesting the DepartmentÓs proposed

6073agency actions bear the burden of proof. § 120.57(3)(f); State

6083Contr. and Eng Óg Corp. v. Dep't of Transp ., 709 So. 2d 607, 609

6098(Fla. 1st DCA 1998) .

6103Point of En try to Challenge Responsiveness

611085. Section 287.057(1)(c)4. provides in part:

6116The agency shall evaluate replies against all

6123evaluation criteria set forth in the

6129invitation to negotiate in order to establish

6136a competi tive range of replies reasonably

6143susceptible of award. The agency may select

6150one or more vendors within the competitive

6157range with which to commence negotiations.

616386. Consistent with this statute, the Department posted

6171its Notice of Intent to Negotiate with EPSI, GTL, and Securus,

6182including point of entry language.

618787. Prior to hearing, and in response to pleadings

6196indicating that GTL and Securus sought to challenge the

6205responsibility of EPSI or the responsiveness of its reply, EPSI

6215sought to limit any evidence as to these issues. EPSI argued

6226that the Notice of Intent to Negotiate offered the appropriate

6236point of entry, and that failure to raise these issues at that

6248time meant that they had been waived. EPSI cited Verizon

6258Business Network Services, In c. v. Department of Corrections ,

6267Case No. 07 - 2468BID at ¶¶ 39, 40, 60j (Fla. DOAH Aug. 13, 2007),

6282rejected in part (Fla. DOC Sept. 18, 2008), a case in which the

6295Department previously determined that the Notice of Intent to

6304Negotiate had provided such a po int of entry. 8/

631488. GTL and Securus countered that at the time the Notice

6325of Intention to Negotiate was issued, EPSIÓs reply to the

6335solicitation remained confidential and was exempt from the Public

6344Records Act under section 119.071(1)(b)2 . They argued th at the

6355DepartmentÓs purported creation of a clear point of entry

6364beginning at the time of the Notice of Intent to Negotiate was

6376thus ÐillusoryÑ and contrary to statute. It would be absurd,

6386they argued, to conclude that they had waived their right to

6397chall enge before they even had access to the facts that would be

6410require d to support such a challenge.

641789. An agency normally has some discretion in determining

6426at what point Ðthe necessary or convenient procedures, unknown

6435to the APA, by which an agency trans acts its day - to - day

6450businessÑ 9/ crystallize into Ðagency actionÑ and so necessitate

6459the offering of a point of entry. A point of entry, once

6471offered, can be waived if the challenge is not timely asserted.

6482Dickerson, Inc. v. Rose , 398 So. 2d 922, 924 (Fla . 1st DCA

64951981).

649690. An agency is not writing with a free hand, however,

6507when conducting bid protest proceedings, because the statute

6515requires that certain points of entry must be offered.

6524Section 120.57(3)(a) provides that an agency shall provide a

6533noti ce of rights to accompany Ða decision or intended decision

6544concerning a solicitation, contract award, or exceptional

6551purchase by electronic posting.Ñ S ection 120.57(3)(b) then goes

6560on to expressly provide that failure to file a notice of protest

6572within 72 hours after notice of an agency Ðdecision or intended

6583decisionÑ followed by a formal written protest within 10 days

6593consti tutes waiver.

659691. Florida Adminis trative Code Rule 28 - 110.002(2) defines

6606Ðdecision or intended decisionÑ for purposes of contract

6614so licitation and award:

6618(2) ÐDecision or intended decisionÑ means:

6624(a) The contents of a solicitation,

6630including addenda;

6632(b) A determination that a specified

6638procurement can be made only from a single

6646source;

6647(c) Rejection of a response or all

6654respon ses to a solicitation; or

6660(d) Intention to award a contract as

6667indicated by a posted solicitation

6672tabulation or other written notice.

667792. Whatever its discretion to offer other points of

6686entry, the Department is thus statutorily compelled to offer an

6696o pportunity for hearing at the time it gives notice of its

6708intention to award a contract. Section 287.057(1)(c)4. provides

6716that the award shall be made to the Ðresponsible and responsive

6727vendor that the agency determines will provide the best value to

6738the state, based on the selection criteria.Ñ The determination

6747that the winning bidder is responsible and responsive is thus an

6758integral part of the decision to award. An agency cannot

6768effectively rewrite the statute through procedures that purport

6776to winnow off and insulate from later challenge various

6785components of its intended decision before that decision has

6794even been announced. S tatutorily mandated points of entry

6803cannot be modified or vitiate d by such agency initiatives.

6813EPSIÓs Responsibility and Resp onsiveness

681893. Although the pre - hearing ruling thus denied EPSIÓs

6828motions to limit the introduction of evidence as to its

6838responsibility or the responsiveness of its reply, no pre -

6848hearing motion was filed contesting EPSIÓs standing. Cf . Peace

6858River/Manas ota Reg'l Water Supply Auth. v. IMC Phosphates Co. ,

686818 So. 3d 1079, 1081 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)(though standing is

6881usually a threshold issue, where facts need to be developed to a

6893great degree, judicial economy may be served by considering

6902standing in the hearing on the merits).

690994. Section 287.012(24) defines a responsible vendor as "a

6918vendor who has the capability in all respects to fully perform

6929the contract requirements and the integrity and reliability that

6938will assure good faith performance."

694395. EP SI demonstrated at hearing that it had the

6953capability to fully perform the contract requirements utilizing

6961the resources of its parent company and those of subcontractors

6971and it made no misrepresentations regarding its structure or

6980relationship with other entities. It showed that it had the

6990integrity and reliability to assure good faith performance of

6999the contract. EPSI was a responsible vendor.

700696. A responsive vendor is defined by section 287.012(26)

7015as "a vendor that has submitted a bid, proposal, o r reply that

7028conforms in all material respects to the solicitation."

703697. EPSI demonstrated at hearing that its reply was

7045responsive to provisions of the ITN relating to call - recording,

7056call - forwarding, business and corporate experience disclosures,

7064and ca pabilities to perform the contract, and that its reply

7075otherwise conformed in all material respects to the

7083solicitation. EPSI was a responsive vendor.

708998. GTL also demonstrated that it had the capability in

7099all respects to fully perform the contract re quirements and the

7110integrity and reliability to assure good faith performance, and

7119so was a responsible vendor. GTL similarly demonstrated that

7128its reply conformed in all material respects to the

7137solicitation, and th at it was a responsive vendor.

714699. In order to demonstrate standing, a party must show :

71571) that he will suffer injury in fact which is of sufficient

7169immediacy to entitle him to a section 120.57 hearing, and

71792) that his substantial injury is of a type or nature which the

7192proceeding is designed to protect. The first aspect of the test

7203deals with the degree of injury. The second deals with the

7214nature of the injury. Agrico Chem. Co. v. Dep't of Envtl. Reg. ,

7226406 So. 2d 478, 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) .

7236100. The Department had announced that EPSI wou ld be

7246awarded the contract. As a responsive and responsible vendor,

7255EPSIÓs substantial interests were thus affected by the

7263subsequent decision to reject all replies, and EPSI has

7272standing. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Jacksonville Transp.

7279Auth. , 491 So. 2 d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). GTL, a

7292responsive and responsible vendor alleging irregularities in

7299evaluation of the BAFOs and an incorrect award to EPSI, also has

7311standing to challenge the rejection of all replies. Couch

7320Const r . Co. v. DepÓt of Trans p. , 361 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA

73361978).

7337Rejection of All Replies

7341101. In a proceeding brought to protest intended rejection

7350of all competitive proposals, the applicable standard of review

7359is that developed in Department of Transportation v. Groves -

7369Watkins Constructors , 530 So. 2d 912, 914 (Fla. 1988), a case in

7381which the Florida Supreme Court held that the administrative law

7391judge's responsibility Ðis to ascertain whether the agency acted

7400fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly." The

7406statute w as later amended to reflect that this is the applicable

7418standard when all replies are rejected. § 120.57(3)(f) .

7427102. This is a stringent burden. As the First District

7437has stated, "an agency's rejection of all bids must stand,

7447absent a showing that the ' purpose or effect of the rejection is

7460to defeat the object and integrity of competitive bidding.'"

7469Gulf Real Props., Inc. v. Dep't of HRS , 687 So. 2d 1336, 1338

7482(Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

7486103. No party here has alleged that the Department acted

7496fraudulently or dishonestly. There has been no evidence that

7505the rejection of all replies was illegal, as distinct from

7515contentions that it was arbitrary. This leaves only the

7524question of whether the Department's intended decision to r eject

7534all replies is arbitrary.

753810 4. An arbitrary decision is one that is not supported by

7550facts or logic, or is despotic. Agrico Chem. Co. v. Dep't of

7562Envtl. Reg. , 365 So. 2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) .

7574105. Where an agency, in deciding to reject all replies,

7584has engaged in an honest , lawful, and rational exercise of its

"7595wide discretion in soliciting and accepting bids for public

7604improvements , " its decision will not be overturned, even if it

7614may appear erroneous and even if reasonable persons may

7623disagree. DepÓt of Transp. v. Groves - Watkins Constructors , 530

7633So. 2d 912, 913 (Fla. 1988) (quoting Liberty Cnty. v. Baxter's

7644Asphalt & Concrete , 421 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 1982)) .

7655106. An agency's discretion to reject all replies is not

7665unbridled, however. In applying the "arbitrary or cap ricious"

7674standard of review, it must be determined whether the agency

7684has: (1) considered all the relevant factors; (2) given actual,

7694good faith consideration to those factors; and (3) used reason

7704rather than whim to progress from consideration of each of these

7715factors to its final decision. Adam Smith Enters. v. DepÓt of

7726Envtl. Reg. , 553 So. 2d 1260, 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) . I f

7740agency action is justifiable under any analysis that a

7749reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar

7759importance, the decision is neither arbitrary nor capricious.

7767Dravo Basic Materials Co. v. Dep't of Transp. , 602 So. 2d 632,

7779634 n.3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

7785107. Evidence was adduced at hearing regarding the factors

7794considered by the Department in making its decision t o reject

7805all replies. The Department considered spreadsheets comparing

7812Ðdivide by sixÑ and Ðdivide by tenÑ using the commission numbers

7823supplied by the vendors. The Department considered that its own

7833Contract Manager had interpreted the Phase 5 instructi ons to

7843mean Ðdivide by six,Ñ though the Department had actually

7853intended them to mean Ðdivide by ten.Ñ The Department

7862considered that the protests indicated that Securus had

7870interpreted the RBAFO to require Ðdivide by sixÑ and GTL had

7881interpreted the RBAF O to bring over elements of the initial

7892evaluation and require the Department to give some consideration

7901to commission percentages. It considered that its N egotiation

7910T eam had not done this.

7916108. Petitioners can prove the Department's action

7923arbitrary if they demonstrate that these factors were

7931irrelevant, that good faith consideration was not given to them,

7941or that the Department did not use reason in progressing from

7952these factors to its decision.

7957109. EPSI asserts that any flaw in the scoring formula in

7968section 6.1.5 is irrelevant. It correctly points out that no

7978vendor was prejudiced by the DepartmentÓs application of the

7987scoring formula to the initial cost proposals in Phase 5 because

7998the purpose of that scoring was simply to select vendors for

8009nego tiation, and in fact the Department entered into negotiation

8019with all three vendors. However, it does not follow that the

8030DepartmentÓs determination that the scoring formula language was

8038flawed is therefore irrelevant in this proceeding.

8045110. The Depar tment determined that Securus read language

8054in the RBAFO to mean that the flawed scoring formula for Phase 5

8067had been incorporated by reference as selection criteria in

8076determining the best value to the S tate. The Department thus

8087determined that it was th e cumulative effect of these two poorly

8099worded documents, considered together, that misled Securus. The

8107language of section 6.1.5 is therefore relevant.

8114111. Consideration must also be given to the language of

8124section 287.057(1)(c), which provides in pa rt:

81313. The criteria that will be used for

8139determining the acceptability of the reply

8145and guiding the selection of the vendors

8152with which the agency will negotiate must be

8160specified.

81614. The agency shall evaluate replies

8167against all evaluation criteria se t forth in

8175the invitation to negotiate in order to

8182establish a competitive range of replies

8188reasonably susceptible of award. The agency

8194may select one or more vendors within the

8202competitive range with which to commence

8208negotiations. After negotiations ar e

8213conducted, the agency shall award the

8219contract to the responsible and responsive

8225vendor that the agency determines will

8231provide the best value to the state, based

8239on the selection criteria . (emphasis added) .

8247112. It appears that the reference to Ðthe s election

8257criteriaÑ at the end of subparagraph 4. relates back to the

8268criteria used to determine acceptability of replies and select

8277vendors for negotiation, mentioned immediately before in the

8285same subparagraph and in subparagraph 3. If the statute does i n

8297fact strictly require an agency to apply these exact same

8307criteria at the award stage, the Invitation to Negotiate process

8317has lost a tremendous amount of flexibility. When, as here,

8327that agency has established a detailed and reasonably objective

8336scorin g system to be applied as the standard for determining the

8348acceptability of replies and selection of vendors for

8356negotiations, it might limit the determination of best value to

8366simple mathematical recalculation based upon changes in offers

8374by vendors.

8376113. On the other hand, the phrase Ðbased on the selection

8387criteriaÑ might be interpreted more loosely to allow an agency

8397to establish and describe distinct selection criteria to be

8406applied in determining best value. Exactly how close a

8415relationship these cr iteria must have to the standards that were

8426used to determine the acceptability of replies and select

8435vendors for negotiation will likely be a matter considered by

8445courts in the future. In any case, the legislative history of

8456the statute dictates that som e additional criteria beyond the

8466old Ðbest value to the stateÑ mantra must be applied. The

8477phrase Ðbased on the selection criteriaÑ was not added until

8487eight years 10/ after the Legislature created the Ðbest valueÑ

8497standard. 11/ A statute must be interpret ed to give effect to

8509every clause in it, and to accord meaning and harmony to all of

8522its parts. Larimore v. State , 2 So. 3d 101, 106 (Fla. 2008);

8534Jones v. ETS of New Orleans, Inc . , 793 So. 2d 912, 914 - 15 (Fla.

85502001). The modifying phrase Ðbased on the se lection criteriaÑ

8560must be given meaning. An agency must establish selection

8569criteria to determine the best value to the state.

8578114. It is not necessary, however, to determine whether or

8588not the Department here violated section 287.057(1)(c)4., either

8596by failing to apply the exact criteria it had earlier used to

8608select vendors for negotiation or alternatively by failing to

8617establish and apply distinct criteria to determine best value to

8627the S tate. 12/ While there is no reason to conclude that the

8640Departmen tÓs rejection of all replies was predicated upon any

8650conviction that it had violated this statute, the record does

8660indicate that the Department based its decision to reject all

8670replies on a closely related issue: that the ITN specifications

8680and RBAFO, tak en together, were not clear as to how the

8692Department was going to select the winning vendor .

8701115. The goals and purposes of competitive procurement

8709statutes are clear:

8712[T]he object and purpose of this statute is

8720to protect the public against collusive

8726con tracts; to secure fair competition upon

8733equal terms to all bidders; to remove not

8741only collusion but temptation for collusion

8747and opportunity for gain at public expense;

8754to close all avenues to favoritism and fraud

8762in its various forms; to secure the best

8770values for the county at the lowest possible

8778expense, and to afford an equal advantage to

8786all desiring to do business with the county,

8794by affording an opportunity for an exact

8801comparison of bids.

8804Wester v. Belote , 138 So. 721, 723 - 24 (Fla. 1931) .

8816116. In Caber Systems, Inc. v. Department of General

8825Services , 530 So. 2d 325, 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) , it was held

8838that it was not arbitrary for an agency to reject all bids where

8851there was ambiguity in the bid specifications:

8858Some bidders prepared their bids ba sed upon

8866the historical method of award, and others

8873followed more literal readings of the

8879invitation to bid. Thus, the specifications

8885did not adequately apprise the bidders of

8892the method of award that would be used.

8900117. There is evidence supporting th e DepartmentÓs

8908determination that Securus interpreted the language of the ITN

8917very literally and read it in conjunction with the language and

8928structure of the RBAFO to conclude that the Department was

8938required to Ðdivide by sixÑ in evaluating BAFOs. Evide nce also

8949supports the DepartmentÓs determination that GTL read both

8957documents differently, to require consideration of broader

8964aspects from the initial evaluation, and also require the

8973Department to give some consideration to renewal years. EPSI

8982interpret ed different language in the RBAFO to allow the

8992Department to base its award only on the commission percentage

9002for the initial contract term, and to provide no restriction on

9013how the Department would determine the Ðbest value to the

9023stateÑ.

9024118. The Dep artment reasonably concluded that the

9032introductory language in the RBAFO , along with the Cost Proposal

9042table there, when considered in light of the detailed directions

9052as to what and how the initial replies would be evaluated, had

9064led to ambiguity as to th e selection criteria the Department

9075would be using to determine which vendor offered the best value

9086to the S tate. It further concluded that it had failed to

9098apprise vendors of the criteria for award, and had affected the

9109preparation of their replies. See Aurora Pump, Div. of Gen.

9119Signal Corp. v. Goulds Pumps, Inc. , 424 So. 2d 70, 74 - 75 (Fla.

91331st DCA 1982).

9136119. The DepartmentÓs conclusion that these ambiguities

9143destroyed its ability to fairly compare replies cannot be said

9153to be irrational. There was e vidence upon which the Department

9164could conclude that the vendors conformed their commission

9172pricing to their respective interpretations of the ITN and RBAFO

9182to maximize their opportunity to be awarded the contract, and

9192this evidence was before the Departm ent at the time it made the

9205d ecision to reject all replies.

9211120. There are few, if any, aspects of a solicitation more

9222fundamental and material than the basis of award. The

9231evaluation of the commission percentage alone would be material,

9240for the commissi on paid by a vendor is the single largest

9252expense in the industry. If vendors were misled as to the

9263selection criteria, rejection was appropriate. Cf. Capeletti

9270Bros. v. State Dep't of Gen . Servs. , 432 So. 2d 1359, 1363 (Fla.

92841st DCA 1983)(error in site drawings was not so material as to

9296require agency to reject all bids where there was no evidence

9307that anyone was misled) .

9312121. GTL argues that the case of Austin Construction

9321Corporation v. Department of Management Services , Case No. 94 -

9331006082BID (Fla. DO AH Dec. 16, 1994; Fla. DMS Dec. 21, 1994) ,

9343instructs that if bids can be accurately compared by conducting

9353a simple mathematical calculation, that should be done, and in

9363such a case all bids should not be rejected. While the

9374principle of Austin is undoubt edly correct, it is not applicable

9385in the instant case. The DepartmentÓs motivation here to reject

9395all replies was not because different methods had been used to

9406convey pricing in the various replies, which could be made

9416uniform by subjecting them to a si mple mathematical calculation.

9426Instead, the Department conclud ed that the ITN and RBAFO misle d

9438vendors into making different bids than they would have made had

9449the selection criteria been made clear. If the Department is

9459correct, no after - the - fact mathem atical adjustment could remedy

9471that error.

9473122. While reasonable persons might disagree with the

9481DepartmentÓs conclusion that Securus and GTL were misled by

9490Department documents, and that this affected their replies and

9499the fairness of the solicitation, t here is evidence to support

9510it, and there is no reason to conclude that the DepartmentÓs

9521determination was not made in good faith. The DepartmentÓs

9530decision to reject a ll replies was not arbitrary.

9539123. Petitioners have not met their burden to show that

9549the rejection of all replies was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest,

9558or fraudulent.

9560Award to EPSI

9563124. As it has been determined that the DepartmentÓs

9572intended decision to reject all replies is not illegal,

9581arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, the earlier in tended

9589decision to award the contract to EPSI need not be considered .

9601RECOMMENDATION

9602Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and

9611conclusions of law, it is

9616RECOMMENDED:

9617That the Department of Corrections issue a final order

9626finding that the reject ion of all replies submitted in response

9637to ITN 12 - DC - 8396 was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or

9650fraudulent, and dismissing all four protests.

9656DONE AND ENTERED th is 1st day of November , 2013 , in

9667Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

9671S

9672F. SCOTT BOYD

9675Administrative Law Judge

9678Division of Administrative Hearings

9682The DeSoto Building

96851230 Apalachee Parkway

9688Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

9693(850) 488 - 9675

9697Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

9703www.doah.state.fl.us

9704Filed with the Clerk of the

9710Division of Administrative Hearings

9714this 1st day of November , 2013 .

9721ENDNOTES

97221/ The ITN also called for telephone rates to be paid by inmates

9735and their families, including rates for renewal years. The

9744solicitation of telephone rates is barely discusse d here because

9754it raises issues similar to those involving commission

9762percentages and there is less variation in telephone rate

9771pricing.

97722/ The ITN provision does not appear to implement Florida

9782Administrative Code Rule 33 - 602.205(3) at all, but instead

9792appears to be seeking to establish a new system. The rule

9803actually provides that if an attorney telephone number is placed

9813on an inmateÓs telephone list , it is thereby subjected to

9823recording. The rule requires the use of a specially designated

9833phone that is not even connected to the monitoring system if a

9845call is not to be recorded. The ITN, in contrast, describes a

9857system with capability to Ðturn offÑ the recording function with

9867respect to certain telephone nu mbers that appear on the list.

98783/ Addendum #2 eliminated Managed Access Solutions from the

9887solicitation and struck references to it.

98934/ A second table was also provided to contain commission rates

9904and telephone rates applicable to proposals including managed

9912access, but , as noted , this option wa s later abandoned.

99225/ ÐDivide by sixÑ is not a logical method of computing average

9934commission percentage because it bears no relationship to the

9943actual contract term. The arithmetic mean calculated from the

9952commission rates supplied by Securus could not actually ever be

9962realized. However, if Securus was correct in its belief that

9972this was the method that the Department was required to use (or

9984would use), it would be logical for Securus to use Ðdivide by

9996sixÑ in preparing its reply, perhaps especially so if it

10006correctly bel ieved others would not do so.

100146/ Although TelmateÓs bid was found non - responsive, it is clear

10026from the language of section 287.057(1)(c)4. that those vendors

10035not found responsible or responsive and those vendors with whom

10045the agency n egotiates are not necessarily exclusive categories.

10054Based upon criteria set forth in an ITN, an agency is free to

10067choose not to negotiate with a responsible and responsive bidder,

10077or even one that falls Ðwithin the competitive range.Ñ Although

10087Ms. Hussey testified that Telmate was not included on the short

10098list because they were ÐnonresponsiveÑ on their financials, the

10107ITN provided at section 2.4 that the Department intended to

10117conduct negotiations with Ðone or moreÑ qualified respondents

10125while introducto ry provisions in section 6 stated that the

10135Department would establish a committee to evaluate and select the

10145Ðthree highest ranking responses.Ñ

101497/ It is not clear that an ITN would be appropriate because the

10162Department may now know what additional serv ices it desires and

10173because the managed access component that provided major

10181justification for that type of procurement is evidently no

10190longer being solicited.

101938/ It appears that the arguments found persuasive here as to the

10205effect of rule 28 - 110.002(2) and the point of entry mandated by

10218section 120.57(3)(b) were not presented to the ALJ or to the

10229Department in Verizon . Given the conclusion that

10237section 120.57(3)(b) offers a point of entry upon the posting of

10248the decision or intended decision, the issue of lack of

10258authority of the Department to provide additional points of

10267entry without modification of either the statute or the uniform

10277rules, as suggested by GTL and Securus, does not arise under the

10289facts of this case. However, assuming the Department ha s such

10300authority, it must be exercised in such a manner as to provide

10312effective access to a substantial interests hearing. A point of

10322entry may be too early as easily as too late. Cf . Gen. Dev.

10336Utils. v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Reg. , 417 So. 2d 1068, 1070 ( Fla.

103501st DCA 1982)(Ðsimply providing a point of entry is not enough

10361if the point of entry is so remote from the agency action as to

10375be ineffectual as a vehicle for affording a partyÑ a fair

10386opportunity to challenge). A point of entry at t he Notice of

10398Inte nt to Negotiate may well be premature, at least as to chosen

10411vendors seeking to challenge the responsiveness of their

10419competitorsÓ replies, as opposed to a vendor challenging its own

10429non - selection. It is recommended that in its final order the

10441Department explain this and recede from its conclusion in

10450Verizon . The Department might also wish to re - examine its

10462purposes in providing this earlier point of e ntry not discussed

10473in the ITN.

104769/ Capelletti Bros., Inc. v. DepÓt of Transp. , 362 So. 2d 346,

10488348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

1049310/ Section 19 of chapter 2010 - 151, Laws of Florida, added

10505Ðbased upon the selection criteria.Ñ

1051011/ Section 15 of chapter 2002 - 207, Laws of Florida, codified

10522the Ðbest value to the stateÑ language.

1052912/ No vendor here filed a timely challenge to the

10539specifications for failing to set forth the selection criteria

10548to be used in determining the best value to the state, and so

10561any protest on this ground was waived. Consultech of

10570Jacksonville v. Dep't of Health , 876 So. 2d 731, 734 (Fla. 1 st

10583DCA 2004). Neither has any vendor argued that the failure of

10594the Department to subsequently establish such criteria in the

10603RBAFO wa s contrary to the statute.

10610COPIES FURNISHED

10612Jonathan P. Sanford, Esquire

10616James Fortunas, Esquire

10619Department of Correct ions

10623501 South Calhoun Street

10627Tallahassee, Florida 32399

10630Robert H. Hosay, Esquire

10634Foley and Lardner, LLP Suite 900

10640106 East College Avenue

10644Tallahassee, Florida 32311

10647John A. Tucker, Esquire

10651Foley and Lardner, LLP Suite 1300

106571 Independent Drive

10660J acksonville, Florida 32202

10664W. Robert Vezina, III, Esquire

10669Eduardo S. Lombard, Esquire

10673Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A.

10678413 East Park Avenue

10682Tallahassee, Florida 32301

10685Amy W. Schrader, Esquire

10689William E. Williams, Esquire

10693Gray Robinson, P.A. Suite 600

10698301 South Bronough Street

10702Tallahassee, Florida 32301

10705Michael D. Crews, Secretary

10709D epartment of C orrections

10714501 South Calhoun Street

10718Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2500

10723Jennifer Parker, General Counsel

10727D epartment of C orrections

10732501 South Calh oun Street

10737Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2500

10742NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

10748All parties have the right to submit exceptions within 10 days

10759from the date of the Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this

10770Recommended Order should be filed with the ag ency that will

10781issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 12/11/2013
Proceedings: Respondent, Florida Department of Corrections' Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/11/2013
Proceedings: Securus's Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/11/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/11/2013
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/26/2013
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/01/2013
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 11/01/2013
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held September 11-12, and 18, 2013). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 11/01/2013
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing (of Securus' Proposed Recommended Order) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2013
Proceedings: Respondent, Florida Department of Corrections' Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2013
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 10/02/2013
Proceedings: Transcript Volume I-V (not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 09/11/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 09/11/2013
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: Securus's Motion for Leave to Amend Formal Written Protest Petition (filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing (Stipulated Protective Order; filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: Deposition Transcript (Steve Montanaro, Global Tel Link's Corporate Representative) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: Florida Department of Corrections' Notice of Filing Deposition Transcript of Global Tel Link Representative filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's Response to Department of Corrections' First Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: GTL's Response to the Department of Corrections' First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: Florida Department of Corrections' Notice of Filing Answers to Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner, Global Tel*Link's Notice of Serving Responses to Securus Technologies Inc's First Set of Interrgatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's Notice of Serving Response to Securus' First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2013
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2013
Proceedings: Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2013
Proceedings: Order Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for September 11, 12, 18, and 19, 2013; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 09/06/2013
Proceedings: Status Report on Securus's Motion to Compel (filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 09/06/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephone Deposition Duces Tecum of Securus Corporate Representative filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2013
Proceedings: Securus' Notice of Service of Unverified Responses to Embarq's First Set of Interrogatories (filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2013
Proceedings: Securus' Responses to Embarq's First Request for Production (filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2013
Proceedings: Florida Department of Corrections' Response to Global Tel Link's First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner, Global Tel*Link's Notice of Serving Responses to Department of Corrections' First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2013
Proceedings: Securus's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to GTL (filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2013
Proceedings: Securus's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Embarq (filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2013
Proceedings: GTL's Response to the Department of Corrections' First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's Notice of Serving Response to Department of Corrections' Second Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's Response to Department of Corrections' First Requests for Admission filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2013
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Agency Representative (S. Phillips; amended as to date and time only) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of DOC Employees (J. Hussey, R. Ingram, and J. Bailey) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2013
Proceedings: Cross-notice of Taking Deposition (of R. Law) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2013
Proceedings: Order Denying CenturyLink`s Motion to Strike and Motion in Limine.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2013
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Amend Formal Written Protest Petition.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2013
Proceedings: Order Reserving Ruling on Motion to Compel.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2013
Proceedings: Order Granting Petition to Intervene.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing (exhibits to motion to compel; filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Florida Department of Corrections' Notice of Serving Second Interrogatories to CenturyLink filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Florida Department of Corrections' Notice of Serving First Interrogatories to Global Tel Link filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Securus' Motion to Compel Documents from Embarq (filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Florida Department of Corrections' First Requests for Admission to Global Tel Link filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Florida Department of Corrections' First Requests for Admission to CenturyLink filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Securus' Memorandum of Law Opposing Embarq's Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike (filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Global Tel*Link's Response in Opposition to Embarq Payphone Services, Inc.'s Motion to Strike and Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (W. Vezina; filed in Case No. 13-003041BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (W. Vezina) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Eduardo Lombard; filed in Case No. 13-003041BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Eduardo Lombard) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Centurylink's Notice of Filing Verification Page to Responses to DOC's First Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: GTL's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to the Department of Corrections filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: GTL's First Request for Production to the Department of Corrections filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: GTL's First Request for Admissions to the Department of Corrections filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Agency Representative filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's First Request for Production to Securus filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to Securus filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2013
Proceedings: Motion to Amend Formal Written Protest Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's Notice of Serving Response to Department of Corrections' First Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's Response to Securus' First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Motion Hearing (motion hearing set for August 30, 2013; 10:00 a.m.).
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2013
Proceedings: Order Granting Petition to Intervene.
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2013
Proceedings: Agreed Motion to Intervene (filed by Global Tel*Link Coproation; filed in Case No. 13-003041BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2013
Proceedings: Agreed Motion to Intervene (filed by Global Tel*Link Coproation; filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2013
Proceedings: Agreed Motion to Intervene (filed by Global Tel*Link Coproation; filed in Case No. 13-003029BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2013
Proceedings: Agreed Motion to Intervene (filed by Global Tel*Link Coproation) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (John Tucker; filed in Case No. 13-003041BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (John Tucker; filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (John Tucker; filed in Case No. 13-003029BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (John Tucker) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2013
Proceedings: Securus' First Request for Production to Embarq (filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2013
Proceedings: Securus' First Request for Production to Embarq (filed in Case No. 13-003029BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's Motion to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2013
Proceedings: CenturyLink's Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (James Fortunas; filed in Case No. 13-003041BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (James Fortunas; filed in Case No. 13-003030BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (James Fortunas; filed in Case No. 13-003029BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (James Fortunas) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for September 11 through 13 and September 16, 2013; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 13-3028BID, 13-3029BID, 13-3030BID, 13-3041BID).
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2013
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Appearance (William Williams and Amy Schrader) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Amy Schrader) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (William Williams) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2013
Proceedings: Formal Written Protest filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2013
Proceedings: Invitation to Negotiate filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2013
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
F. SCOTT BOYD
Date Filed:
08/15/2013
Date Assignment:
08/16/2013
Last Docket Entry:
12/11/2013
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
BID
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (4):