14-002828BID Centurylink Public Communications, Inc., D/B/A Century Link vs. Department Of Corrections Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, September 4, 2014.

Summary: RFP did not require labeled subsections. Agency arbitrarily ranked responses not marked by subsection s omitted. Allowing 2 bidders to exclude commissions from blended rate when RFP said they must be included was arbitrary and capricious.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CENTURYLINK PUBLIC

COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

d/b/a CENTURY LINK,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 2828BID

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent ,

and

GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION

AND SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Intervenors .

_______________________________/

SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 28 94 BID

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent ,

and

GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION

AND CENTURYLINK PUBLIC

COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

d/b /a CENTURY LINK,

Intervenors.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Administrative Law Judge John D. C. Newton, II , of the

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) , heard this case i n

Tallahassee, Florida, on July 17 and 18, 2014.

APPEARANCES

For CenturyLink :

Michael J. Glazer, Esquire

Erik Figlio, Esquire

Ausley and McMullen

123 South Calhoun Street

Post Office Box 391

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0391

For Department of Corrections :

James Fortun as, Esquire

Department of Corrections

501 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2500

For Global Tel*Link Corporation:

Robert H. Hosay, Esquire

James A. McKee, Esquire

John A. Tucker, Esquire

Foley and Lardner LLP

Suite 900

106 East College Ave nue

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 7732

For Securus Technologies, Inc.:

Eduardo S. Lombard, Esquire

W. Robert Vezina, III, Esquire

V ezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A.

413 East Park Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1515

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Is Respond ent, Department of Corrections ' (Department) ,

Notice of Intent to Award DC RFP - 13 - 031 for Statewide Inmate

Telecommunication Services to Inte r venor, Global Tel*Link

Corporation (Global) , contrary to the governing statutes, rules ,

or policies or to the Depa rtment ' s Request for Proposal

solicitation specifications?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On March 7, 2014, the Department released Request for

Proposal DC RFP - 13 - 031 (RFP). The RFP sought a vendor to

contract to provide statewide inmate telecommunication services .

The RFP sought proposals to provide an inmate telephone system,

inmate video visitation system, and other required services

detailed in the document.

Petitioner, CenturyLink Public Communications, Inc. ,

d/b/a Century Link (CenturyLink) ; Petitioner, Secu rus

Technologies , Inc. (Securus) ; Global ; and HomeWav, LLC (HomWav)

submitted proposals. The Department determined that HomeWav ' s

proposal was non - responsive. The Department accepted, reviewed,

and scored the other proposals. The Department posted its n otice

of intent to award the contract to Global.

CenturyLink and Securus protested the intended award as

provided by section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (2014) . 1/ Both

protests are consolidated in this proceeding. Securus intervened

in CenturyLink ' s p rotest, and CenturyLink intervened in Securus ' s

protest. Global intervened in both protests. On June 18, 2014,

the Department referred the matter to DOAH for conduct of a

formal administrative hearing. Securus submitted an Amended

Petition and proceeded in this cause upon it. 2/

The Department and Global seek a recommended order upholding

the decision to award the contract to Global. CenturyLink asks

for issuance of a n order recommending award of the contract to

CenturyLink or rejection of all proposa ls. Securus urges

rejection of all proposals.

Joint Exhibits 1 through 8, 13 through 1 7, 19,

21 through 24, 29, 31, 37, 39 through 42, 46 , and 48 were

received into evidence. CenturyLink presented the testimony of

Paul Cooper and Shane Phillips. Cent uryLink presented portions

of the deposition testimony of Jon Creamer and Sandra Jolene

Bailey. CenturyLink offered Exhibits 1 and 2 and 4 through 8 ,

all of which were received into evidence. CenturyLink proffered

Exhibit 3 which was not admitted .

Secur us presented the testimony of Stephen Viefhaus.

Securus presented portions of the deposition testimony of Sandra

Jolene Bailey, Rosalyn Ingram, Shane Phillips, Steve Wilson,

Randy Agerton, Jon Creamer, Charles Lockwood and Julyn Hussey.

The deposition ex cerpts were admitted as Securus E xhibits 16

through 23.

The Department presented the testimony of Sandra Jolene

Bailey, Jon Creamer, Julyn Hussey and Charles Lockwood. The

deposition transcripts of Randy Agerton and Steve Wilson were

accepted as Departm ent exhibits .

Global presented the testimony of Steve Montanaro. Global

also presented portions of the deposition testimony of Paul

Cooper and Stephen Viefhaus , which were received into evidence as

Exhibits 26 and 27. Global Exhibits 9, 11 through 13 a nd 23 were

received into evidence.

The parties provided cross designations of depositions that

were admitted into evidence.

The parties timely filed proposed recommended orders. Those

proposed orders have been considered in the preparation of this

Recom mended Order .

At hearing , the parties raised the issue of whether two

deviations noted in CenturyLink ' s proposal made its proposal

non - responsive. Those deviations involved the screen size of

video visitation kiosk s and the word recognition capability of

the video visit security features. The parties do not ad dress

those issues in the proposed recommended orders. They are deemed

abandoned.

During these proceedings , there was a dispute about the

Department permitting Securus to provide complete financia l

documents after the proposals were opened. No party advance d

that argument in the proposed recommended order. It is deemed

abandoned.

Issues related to a five - point error by Mr. Agerton in his

scoring of Global ' s project staff and issues about " value added "

options , offered by each vendor , have also been abandoned by the

proposed recommended orders.

FINDING S OF FACT

Background

1. The Legislature charged the Department with protecting

the public through the incarceration and supervision of offenders

an d rehabilitating offenders through work, programs, and

services. The Department is required to provide telephone access

to inmates in its c ustody .

2. Inmate telecommunication services provide inmates the

ability to stay in contact with friends and family . The services

promote and support efforts to help inmates re - enter society by

fostering communications with the community outside jail and

prison.

3. The Department does not pay for these services. The

inmates and their designated family members and fr iends pay for

the services.

4. The contract to provide the telecommunications service

generates revenue for the Department. The provider pays the

Department for access to the consumers. The provider charges the

inmates and their designees for the serv ice. The provider pays

the Department a commission calculated as a percentage of

revenues received. The c ommission is calculated as part of the

charge for the services and is included in it. The price

competition portion of the RFP is based on the price s charged to

the inmates and designees and the commissions paid to the

Department.

5. According to the RFP, the State of Florida presently has

a total inmate population of approximately 102,000 people. In

fiscal year 2010 - 2011, the inmate calling servi ces generated

total revenue of $14,180,345 from 9,587,040 calls. In fiscal

year 2011 - 2012, the inmate calling services generated total

revenue of $13,513,495 from 8,226,577 calls. And in 2012 - 2 013,

the inmate calling services generated total revenue of

$ 14,749,021 from 8,853,316 calls.

6. In 2012 Î 2013, interstate calls generated 11.6 percent of

calls and 12.9 percent of revenues from the contract.

7. Securus holds the contract with the Department to

provide inmate telephone services and has for over six years.

Before February 11, 2014, Securus paid a 35 percent commission to

the Department on all of its call revenue from the contract.

That changed as of February 11, 2014 , when the Department

interpreted a stay ed order of the Federal Communications

C ommission (FCC), discussed in more detail later, to prohibit

collecting the commissions on interstate calls . The record does

not reveal if Securus stopped collecting the commission portion

of the rates charged to inmates and their designees.

8. The Depar tment does not collect commissions because it

interprets the FCC order to say that it cannot receive commission

revenue because it is a state agency. The Department also

declines to accept commissions because it fears finding itself in

a position where it may have to refund money which has already

been transferred to the general fund, possibly an earlier year ' s

general fund.

9. During the RFP process, Securus was aware of the

Department ' s interpretation of the FCC order , because it had

negotiated the ch ange to its existing contract to end commission

payments . The changes did not affect Securus charging inmates

the commission. The Department did not include its

interpretation of the order in the RFP , as modified by the

Addenda.

10. Commissions on inte rstate calls are significant revenue

for the Department.

11. This case involves the Department ' s second attempt to

award a new contract for inmate telecommunication services.

Earlier , the Department issued an I nvitation to N egotiate for

these services. C enturyLink, Global, and Securus all responded.

The Department negotiated with all three.

1 2 . The Department initially decided to award the contract

to CenturyLink. Eventually , the Department rejected all bids

after it determined that the scoring languag e and selection

criteria were poorly worded. They were subject to different

reasonable interpretations that made how the Department would

select the winning vendor unclear and made the playing field for

vendors unequal.

1 3 . The vendors protested the deci sion to reject all bids.

In upholding the decision to reject all bids, Administrative Law

Judge Scott Boyd found at paragraph 70:

The Department concluded that the wording

and structure of the ITN and RBAFO did not

create a level playing field to evaluate

replies because they were confusing and

ambiguous and were not understood by

everyone in the same way. Vendors naturally

had structured their replies to maximize

their chances of being awarded the contract

based upon their understanding of how the

replie s would be evaluated. The Department

concluded that vendor pricing might have

been different but for the misleading

language and structure of the ITN and RBAFO.

Global Tel Link Corp . v. Dep ' t of Corr . , Case No. 13 - 3041BID

(Fla. DOAH Nov. 1, 2013), adopte d in whole , except for correcting

two scrivener ' s errors, FDOC Case No. 13 - 81 (Fla. DOC Nov. 25,

2013).

The Request for Proposals

1 4 . The Department released the RFP seeking to establish a

five - year contract with a vendor to provide inmate

telecommunicati ons services on March 7, 2014. The Department

subsequently issued Addenda 1, 2, and 3 to the RFP. The Addenda

included vendor questions and the Department ' s answers. No

vendor protested any term, condition , or specification of the RFP

or the Addenda.

1 5 . The RFP sought vendor proposals to provide an inmate

telephone system, video visitation system, and other services for

inmates housed in the Department ' s facilities. The requested

services included the actual service, system design, equipment,

installat ion, training, operation, repair, and maintenance at no

cost to the Department. The RFP included security, reporting,

auditing, and monitoring requirements. It also established the

procurement process, including scoring criteria.

1 6 . Of the RFP ' s 66 page s , only the commission s ' role in

pricing, scoring procedure, the score given Securus for its

response to RFP section 3.1 5 , and treatment of refunds are the

focus of the disputes in this proceeding at this point.

Review and Scoring

1 7 . The RFP established proposal scoring based upon four

categories. The chart below reflects the categories, the tab of

the RFP in which the scored categories are described, and the

maximum points allowed for category.

Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements 0 points

Executi ve Summary and Other Proposal Submissions 0 points

Category 1 -- Business/Corporate Qualifications (Tab 3) 50 points

Category 2 -- Project Staff (Tab 4) 200 points

Category 3 -- Technical Response (Tab 6) 400 points

Category 4 -- Price Proposal 350 points

TO TAL POSSIBLE POINTS 1 , 000 points

1 8 . The RFP breaks each of the categories into components,

each referencing and correlating to specific RFP sections. These

are found at RFP " Attachment 4 -- Evaluation Criteria. " For each

component, the Evaluation Crite ria posed a question. For

example, in Category 3, a question asks " How adequately does the

Respondent describe their overall capability and process for

providing a video visitation system? "

1 9 . The RFP provides a maximum score for each scoring

component, which range from 15 to 50 points depending on the

relative importance of the particular component.

20 . Each proposal was graded on the following qualitative

scale: Omitted , Poor , Adequate , Good , and Exceptional. The RFP

associate s a point value with ea ch qualitative description for

each particular scoring component. For instance, if a component

had a maximum score of 25 points, the scoring framework was as

follows: Omitted -- 0; Poor -- 6.25; Adequate -- 12.5; Good -- 18.75;

and Exceptional -- 25. A score of z ero meant that a vendor

completely omitted any information for the item from which a

qualitative assessment could be made.

21 . The RFP directed the vendors how to generally format

and package their proposals. Specifically, RFP Section 5

(Proposal Submissi on Requirements) stated:

All Project Proposals must contain the

sections outlined below. Those sections are

called " Tabs. " A " Tab , " as used here, is a

section separator, offset and labeled,

(Example: " Tab 1, Mandatory Responsiveness

Requirements " ), such that the Evaluation

Committee can easily turn [t] o " Tabbed "

sections during the evaluation process.

Failure to have all copies properly " tabbed "

makes it much more difficult for the

Department to evaluate the proposal.

2 2 . Vendors were to include seven " tabs " within their

proposals:

a. Tab 1 Mandatory Responsiveness

Requirements

b. Tab ansmittal Letter with Executive

Summary

c. T ab 3 Business/Corporate Qualifications

d. Tab 4 Project Staff

e. Tab 5 Respondent ' s Financial

Documentation

f. Tab 6 Techni cal Response

g. T ab 7 Minority/Service Disabled Veteran

Business Enterprise Certification

2 3 . The RFP gave further instructions about the contents

within each tab. RFP Section 5.6 provided the requirements for

Tab 6 , Technical Responses. It required ve ndors to provide a

narrative technical response identifying how vendors will meet

the scope of services required by the RFP and , more specifically ,

the scope of services described in RFP Sections 2 (Statement of

Need/Services Sought) and 3 (Scope of Servic es). The RFP did not

mandate any other formatting requirements for the contents of

Tab 6. This becomes significant in the analysis of Securus ' s

response to section 3.15 of the RFP.

2 4 . The RFP advised that the Department would assign an

evaluation commi ttee to evaluate proposals. It did not state how

many evaluators would be selected to score proposals or whether

evaluators would be responsible for scoring proposals in their

entirety or just specific portions.

2 5 . The Department appointed a team of six evaluators:

Jon Creamer, Shane Phillips, Randy Agerton, Steve Wilson, Charles

Lockwood, and Richard Law.

2 6 . Mr. Law, a certified public accountant , reviewed each

vendor ' s financial submissions on a pass/fail basis. The other

five evaluators scored the technical responses, categories one

through three.

2 7 . Julyn Hussey, the procurement officer, trained the

evaluators, except for Mr. Law. She provided the evaluators with

a training manual, the RFP, the vendors ' proposals, and scoring

sheets. During trai ning , Ms. Hussey instructed the evaluators to

review proposals in their entirety to properly evaluate and score

their various components.

2 8 . The Department gave the evaluators approximately eight

days to evaluate and score the proposals. The evaluators d id not

consult with each other during their evaluation. Each evaluator

turned his completed score sheet in to Ms. Hussey. She then

compiled the technical response scores.

2 9 . Ms. Hussey also calculated the price scores by taking

the prices from the vend ors ' price sheet submissions and applying

the RFP price scoring formula. The Department combined the

technical and price scores to calculate each vendor ' s total

score.

30 . G lobal received the highest total score with 2,960.42

points. Securus was second with 2,911.04 points. CenturyLink

was third with 2,727.94 points. Global outscored Securus by

49 points on a 3,600 - point scale. Global outscored CenturyLink

by 232.48 points. Securus outscored CenturyLink by 183.10

points.

Commissions, Pricing, and an FCC Order

31 . The vendors ' price proposal was a critical category of

the RFP review and evaluation. It was worth 350 of the 1 , 000

points available. Only the technical response could score more

points, 400. Of the 350 points, 300 points were directed tow ard

the inmate telephone service price proposal and 50 points were

for the video visitation service price proposal.

3 2 . The RFP subdivides the inmate telephone service points

into 150 possible points for the provider offering the highest

commission payment s to the Department; 125 points for the lowest

intralata, interlata, intrastate , and interstate per - minute

rates; and 25 points for the lowest local and local extended area

per - minute rates. The vendor with the most favorable numbers in

each subcategory r eceived the maximum points. The rest received

a percentage of the maximum points based on a ratio between their

bid and the most favorable bid

3 3. RFP Section 3.8.3, " Rate and Call Charge Requirement s " 3/

provided:

For the price sheet, the Respondent shall

establish a separate single, blended rate per

minute, inclusive of all surcharges and

department commission rate on the price sheet

(attachment 5) for the inmate telephone

service and the video visitation service .

Local and local extended area service ca lls

shall be billed as local calls and shall not

exceed $0.50 for a 15 minute phone call.

For the price sheet, the Respondent shall

establish a single, blended rate per minute,

inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on

the North American Dialing Plan, including

intralata, interlata, intrastate, and

interstate calls which shall not exceed the

maximum rate per minute allowed by the

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and

appropriate regulatory authority during the

time the call is placed. In additio n to the

FCC, vendors can contact the state consumer

protection agency, Better Business Bureau, or

State Attorney General ' s Office to obtain

maximum rate per minute information.

Note: In accordance with Federal

Communications Commission 47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket No. 12 - 375; FCC 13 - 113] -- Rates for

Interstate Calling Services -- effective

February 11, 2014, no commission shall be

paid on revenues earned through the

completion of interstate calls of any type

received from the Contract

Call charges for internati onal calls shall

not exceed the maximum rate allowed by the

appropriate regulatory authority during the

time the call is placed.

Local call charges for coin - operated

telephone calls at the Work Release Centers

shall not exceed thirty - five cents (.35) per

local call plus the Local Exchange Carrier

(LEC) charges, which vary between LEC ' s.

Long distance call charges for coin - operated

phones at the Work Release Centers shall be

at the same rates for inmate telephone calls.

The Contractor shall agree that char ges for

calls shall include only the time from the

point at which the called party accepts the

call and shall end when either party returns

to an on - hook condition or until either party

attempts a hook flash. There shall be no

charges to the called party for any setup

time.

The Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or

pass through to the customer paying for

collect or prepaid calls any charges referred

to as Local Exchange Carrier ' s (LEC ' s) or

Competitive Local Exchange Carrier ' s (CLEC ' s)

billing costs, o r any bill rendering fee or

billing recovery fee. The Contractor shall

also ensure that LEC ' s and CLEC ' s do not

charge or pass on to the customer any

additional fee or surcharges for billing.

The Contractor shall be responsible for any

such LEC or CLEC s urcharges incurred if

billing through the LEC or CLEC.

In addition, the Contractor shall not charge,

pass on, or pass through to the customer

paying for the collect, prepaid calls or

video visitation visits any of the following

charges and/or fees:

Bill Statement Fee, Funding Fee, Mail - In

Payment Fee, Western Union Payment Fee,

Refund Fee, Regulatory Recovery Fee, Wireless

Admin Fee, Single Bill Fee, Paper Statement

Fee, Account Setup Fee, Account Maintenance

Fee, Inactive Account Fee, Account Close - Out

F ee, Non - Subscriber Line Charge, Inmate

Station Service Charge, Third - Party Payment

Processing Fee, State Regulatory Recovery

Fee, Check/Money Order Processing Fee,

Biometric Service Charges, JPay Payment Fee,

Federal Regulatory Cost Recovery Fee,

Regulator y and Carrier Cost Recovery Fee,

Validation Surcharge or Wireless Termination

Surcharge.

The Contractor shall ensure, inmates ' family

and friends utilizing the Florida Relay

Service to receive calls from inmates are

charged the same rates as those family and

friends receiving calls from inmates not

utilizing this service. [ emphasis added ] .

3 4 . The Department intended for the boldface note to advise

responding vendors that the vendor would not pay commissions on

interstate call revenues. The language rai sed questions which

the Department replied to in the Addenda issued after the RFP

issued.

3 5 . None of the Addenda modified the plain statement in

section 3.8.3 that " the Respondent shall establish a separate

single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of al l surcharges and

department commission rate on the price sheet (attachment 5) for

the inmate telephone service. "

3 6 . Section 7.3.1 of the RFP established the requirements

for commission and monthly payments. It states:

The Contractor shall pay to the Depa rtment a

monthly commission based on the percentage of

gross revenues as determined through this RFP

process. The Department will begin to

receive payment for a facility on the date

the Contractor assumes responsibility for the

operation of that facility ' s inmate

telecommunication service in accordance with

the Final Transition and Implementation Plan.

3 7 . Sections 7.3.2 through 7.3.4 contain additional

requirements for commission payments, supporting documentation

for the commission calculation, and pena lty , if the vendor does

not timely make the final commission payment a t the end of the

contract. They make the importance of commission payments to the

Department clear.

3 8 . Attachment 5 is a mandatory form for vendors to provide

their proposed call an d c ommission rates. It contains the same

boldface note about the FCC order as section 3.8.3.

39 . The form solicited a blended rate and a single

commission rate for telephone service s .

40 . FCC, 47 C . F . R . Part 64 ( WC Docket No. 12 - 375;

FCC 13 - 113 ) (FCC ord er), referred to in RFP Section 3.8.3 and

Attachment 5, is a commission decision and regulation , effective

May 31, 2013, addressing a need for reform in what the FCC

determined were " egregious interstate long distance rates and

services " in the inmate tele communications business. The FCC

identified paying commissions to correctional institutions and

including them in the rates charged inmates and their famil ies

and other designees as a significant factor contributing to

unreasonably high rates for inmate t elecommunications services.

The decision also addresse d surcharges and fees. The FCC

determined that inmate telecomm unications charges must be cost -

based and that commission payments, among other things, could not

be included in the costs. The FCC adopt ed subpart FF to

47 C.F.R. p art 64 of its regulations to regulate inmate calling

services.

41 . The FCC included in subpart FF , section 64.010 , titled ,

c ost - based rates for inmate calling services. It states: " All

rates charged for Inmate Calling Services and all Ancillary

Charges must be based only on costs that are reasonably and

directly related to the provision of ICS [inmate calling

services]. " This is the rule implementing the FCC ' s decision

that commission payments are not included in the reasonabl y and

directly related costs.

4 2 . The FCC made clear that it was not prohibiting payment

of or collection of commissions, only prohibiting including them

in the costs determining the fee paid by inmates and their

designees.

4 3 . The FCC addressed this in pa ragraph 56 of the order,

which states:

We also disagree with ICS providers '

assertion that the Commission must defer to

states on any decisions about site commission

payments, their amount, and how such revenues

are spent. We do not conclude that ICS

prov iders and correctional facilities cannot

have arrangements that include site

commissions. We conclude only that, under

the Act, such commission payments are not

costs that can be recovered through

interstate ICS rates. Our statutory

obligations relate to the rates charged to

end users Ï the inmates and the parties whom

they call. We say nothing in this Order

about how correctional facilities spend their

funds or from where they derive. We state

only that site commission payments as a

category are not a co mpensable component of

interstate ICS rates. We note that we would

similarly treat " in - kind " payment

requirements that replace site commission

payments in ICS contracts.

4 4 . Providers of inmate calling services, including all

three vendors in this procee ding, sought review of the decision

and regulation by the United States Court of Appeals for the

D istrict of Columbia C ircuit. The court stayed section 64.010 ,

along with sections 64.6020, and 64.6060.

4 5 . F ollowing release of the RFP, the Department rece ived

and answered inquiries from vendors. The inquiries, the

Department ' s responses, and changes to the RFP are contained in

Addenda 1, 2, and 3 to the RFP. Rates and commissions received a

fair amount of attention in the process.

4 6 . In response to inqu iries about section 3.8.3 and

Attachment 5, the Department changed both with Addendum 2. The

questions and Department responses follow .

4 7 . Question No. 4 states :

Page 30: 3.8.3 - Rate and Call Charge

Requirements and Attachment 5 Î Blended Call

Rates . Regarding the blended rate (inclusive

of all surcharges) to be bid Î the current

wording could be opportunistically

misinterpreted in a few different ways:

First in the treatment of per - call versus

per - minute fees, based on our understanding,

one bidder c ould possibly offer a flat $1.80

per call fee for non - local inmate telephone

calls and claim to have the same blended rate

($1.80/15 minutes = $0.12) as someone bidding

$0.12 per minute with no per - call fee. This

could occur even though calls average les s

than 15 minutes (and many calls are less than

10 minutes), meaning these two offers are not

comparable in terms of overall cost to family

members.

Second, the RFP wording could also possibly

be interpreted as allowing a Contractor to

set different rates for different call types

(collect/prepaid, intraLATA/interstate) and

then averaging them using assumptions they

define.

Question 1: To minimize cost to family

members and make offers comparable, would the

Department please explicitly disallow

per - call f ees for the inmate telephone system

(for example, per - call setup charges,

per - call surcharges), allowing only a true

per - minute rate?

Question 2: If no to Question 1, would the

Department require separate disclosure of

per - call fees and per - minute rates?

Question 3: Would the Department please

verify that ALL non - local domestic calls --

intraLATA, interLATA, and interstate, for

both collect and prepaid - Î must be charged at

an identical rate?

4 8 . Answer No. 4 states:

Question 1: Per this Addendum #2, the

following revisions will be made to Section

3.8.3:

In 3rd paragraph after first sentence add :

The Respondent shall establish a separate

single, blended rate per minute inclusive of

all surcharges for all local and local

extended area calls. These per mi nute rates

delete: which

Delete 4th paragraph beginning with Note.

In 6th paragraph first sentence revised to

read: Local call charges for coin - operated

telephone calls at the Work Release Centers

shall not exceed forty - five cents (.45) per

local call plus the Local Exchange Carrier

(LEC) charges, which vary between LEC ' s.

In 9th paragraph following In addition, the

Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass

through to the customer paying for the

collect, prepaid calls or video visitation

visits any of the following charges and/or

fees: Add Pre - call setup charges, Pre - call

surcharges,

Delete last paragraph;

Question 2: Not applicable,

Question 3: Confirmed, per Section 3.8.3 all

non - local and local extended area calls must

be charged at an iden tical rate.

4 9 . Question No. 5 states :

Attachment 5 - Price Sheet .

Page 30 -- Section 3.8.3 states that on the

price sheet, the Respondent will provide a

" single, blended rate per minute, inclusive

of all surcharges . . . . " Attachment 5

states " Blended T elephone Rate for All

Calls . . . " To eliminate ambiguity, would

the Department consider changing the language

in Attachment 5 to read " Blended Telephone

Rate Per Minute for All Calls . . . ? " [sic]

50. Answer No. 5 states :

Attachment 5 will be revised t o include

" Blended Telephone Rate Per Minute for All

Calls " .

51 . Question No. 6 states :

Page 30: 3.8.3 - Rate and Call Charge

Requirements . The fourth paragraph states

that " In accordance with Federal

Communications Commission 47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket No. 12 - 375; FCC 13 - 113] -- Rates for

Interstate Calling Services -- effective

February 11, 2014, no commission shall be

paid on revenues earned through the

completion of interstate calls of any type

received from the Contract. "

Respectfully, this interpretati on of the

FCC ' s Order is incorrect. The Order, without

question, does not prohibit the payment of

commissions on interstate calls. Also, rules

regarding future cost - based regulation

(including consideration of commissions in

rate - setting) have been staye d by the D.C.

Circuit Court of Appeals, and FL DOC

interstate rates are well below the FCC rate

caps that have been left in place by the

Court. This is why most providers have

continued to pay commissions on interstate

calling, in compliance with their co ntracts.

Q. Will the State consider removing this

paragraph from the RFP in order to ensure

revenue for the State and a level playing

field across providers?

5 2 . Answer No. 6:

Section 3.8.3 and Attachment 5 -- Price Sheet

is amended, per this Addendum to remove the

paragraph. In addition, Section 7.3.1 has

also been amended, per this Addendum, to

state that commissions will be paid in

accordance with all Federal, State and Local

regulations and guidelines.

5 3 . Further questions and clarifications followe d. They

are found in Addendum 3 to the RFP.

5 4 . Question No. 2 states :

In Addendum No. 2; Answer #4 Revises Section

3.8.3 by revising the 3 rd paragraph

Instructions are to add the following

language:

The Respondent shall establish a separate

single, blen ded rate per minute inclusive of

all surcharges for all local and local

extended area calls. These per minute rates

( delete : which)

For the price sheet, the Respondent shall

establish a single, blended rate per minute,

inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on

the North American Dialing Plan, including

intralata, interlata, intrastate, and

interstate calls which shall not exceed the

maximum rate per minute allowed by the

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and

appropriate regulatory authority durin g the

time the call is placed. The Respondent

shall establish a separate single, blended

rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges

for all local and local extended area calls.

These per minute rates ( deIete [sic]: which).

I n addition to the FCC, vendor s can contact

the state consumer protection agency, Better

Business Bureau, or State Attorney General ' s

Office to obtain maximum rate per minute

information.

The instructions to add " These per minute

rates (delete: which) " does not fit with the

instructio ns. The word " which " is not

included in this area of paragraph 3.

Question #2: Can the Department please

clarify?

5 5 . A nswer No. 2 states :

To further clarify 3.8.3, paragraph 3 is

revised to read as follows:

For the price sheet, the Respondent shall

e stablish a single, blended rate per minute,

inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on

the North American Dialing Plan, including

intralata, interlata, intrastate, and

interstate calls. The Respondent shall also

establish a separate single, blended rat e per

minute inclusive of all surcharges for all

local and local extended area calls. Both of

these per minute rates shall not exceed the

maximum rate per minute allowed by the

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and

appropriate regulatory authority d uring the

time the call is placed. In addition to the

FCC, vendors can contact the state consumer

protection agency, Better Business Bureau, or

State Attorney General ' s Office to obtain

maximum rate per minute information.

5 6 . Question No. 3 states :

Ques tion: Is the Department requiring the

successful Respondent to pay commissions on

revenues generated through the completion of

interstate calls?

5 7. Answer No. 3 states :

The Department ' s position is that the

collection of commission rates will be

determi ned by the FCC ruling 47 CFR Part 64

[WC docket no. 12 - 375; FCC13 - 113].

For purposes of this solicitation the

Department requests respondents submit a

commission rate for interstate calls. The

Department will comply with any future FCC

ruling.

5 8 . Quest ion No. 10 states :

Section 7.3.1 was revised to include:

" Commissions will be paid in accordance with

all Federal, State and Local regulations and

guidelines. " There are no Federal, State, or

Local regulations and guidelines which

require phone vendors t o pay commissions on

interstate calling. Thus, in not paying

commissions on interstate calling, there

would be no violation of any Federal, State,

or Local regulation or guideline. The

requirement as to whether or not commissions

will be paid on intersta te calling must come

from FL DOC and must be clearly indicated in

the RFP. If not clearly indicated one way or

another, we fear some vendors may have an

unfair advantage as commissions are not

currently being paid and there does not seem

to be a complianc e issue with the current

contract which requires such commissions.

a. Please, clearly specify whether or not

commissions are required to be paid on

interstate calls.

5 9. Answer No. 10 states :

Please see answer to question 3.

60. The Department never def initively stated whether it

would ultimately collect commissions on interstate revenues. Nor

did it provide a means for vendors to propose rates or

commissions based upon whatever the Department concluded were the

most likely scenarios resulting from the FCC order and appeal.

But the Department ' s RFP persisted in the RFP requirement that

the bidders must include the commission in the calculation of

their blended rate for the price proposal. This stands in

contrast to the RFP ' s lengthy list of items , such as bill

statement fees, paper statement fee s , and account setup fee s,

which could not be included in the rate. These are i t e ms , like

the commissions , that the FCC order said could not be part of the

fee base.

61. A vendor , who did not calculate the commi ssion in the

blended rate , would have a significant price advantage over a

vendor who included the commission in its blended rate. It could

propose lower rates and/or higher commissions while maintaining

its profit margin. That is because although the pr ice sheet

identifies a commission, the commission is not accounted for in

the blended rate.

62. CenturyLink included payment of a commission rate of

65.3 percent on interstate calls in the blended rate it provided

on Attachment 5. This action is a reasona ble application of the

statements of the RFP and the Addenda about blended rates,

commissions, and the cryptic statement about plans to follow the

FCC order.

6 3. CenturyLink proposed a blended rate that did " establish

a separate single, blended rate per m inute, inclusive of all

surcharges and department commission rate . "

6 4. If CenturyLink had not included the commission payment

on interstate calls in its blended rates, it could have bid

higher commissions, lower rates, or a combination of both.

6 5. Secur us identified a commission percentage for all

calls of 73 percent on its Attachment 5 price sheet. Securus did

not include the cost of paying a commission on interstate calls

in calculating the blended rate that it submitted. This allowed

Securus to subm it a lower blended rate tha n it would otherwise

have had to submit to achieve the same revenue from the contract.

6 6. The blended rate that Securus proposed did not

" establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive

of all surcharges and depa rtment commission rate . "

6 7. Global identified a commission percentage of 46 percent

for all calls in its Attachment 5 price sheet. In determining

the proposed rates for interstate calls, Global did not include

or assume payment of the commission percenta ge rate. This

allowed it to submit lower blended rates and/or a higher

commission rate.

6 8. G lobal did not intend to or think it would be required

to pay commission rates on interstate calls. This was based on

its evaluation of the FCC order , the appeal , and the Department ' s

decision not to accept commission payments on interstate calls

under its current contract with Securus. This is why it did not

include the commission as a cost when calculating the blended

rate.

6 9. Global chose to take the business risk that its

evaluation of the FCC order would be correct. If it was

incorrect and a commission payment was required, G lobal was

prepared to make the payment , even though it would not have been

collected from inmates and their designees through the blend ed

rate.

70. The blended rate proposed by Global did not " establish

a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all

surcharges and department commission rate . "

7 1. Ms. Hussey applied the formula in the RFP to determine

points awarded each vend or for its price proposal. This

calculation was a ministerial function that did not call for any

exercise of judgment or discretion.

7 2. The overall cost ranking scores were: Global 280.42,

Securus 276.04, and CenturyLink 232.94.

73. The scores for the commission s were: Global 94.52,

Securus 150, and CenturyLink 134.18.

74. The scores for the blended rates for inmate telephone

services that included interstate services were: Global 125,

Securus 56.25, and CenturyLink 50.90. This difference reflects

the vendors ' differing treatment of commissions when proposing

their blended rates.

7 5. The Department did not know during the evaluation

process that Global and Securus had not included or assumed

payment of the commission in its proposed rates for inter state

calls. The Department learned this during discovery in this

proceeding.

7 6. Not including commission payments on interstate calls

in the proposed blended rate was contrary to the instructions of

the RFP.

Securus Response to RFP Section 3.15

7 7 . The Department awarded Securus zero points for the

question of " [h] ow adequate is the Respondent ' s plan to meet the

performance measures outlined in section 3.15 of the RFP? " This

criterion related to the performance measures of RFP Section 3.15,

for which pr oposals could earn 125 total points. The difference

between zero and the possible maximum points would have made a

difference in winning and losing the contract award for Securus.

7 8 . The score of zero is a factual finding by the Department

that Securus ' s 600 - plus - page proposal had no information from

which evaluators could qualitatively assess the proposal by that

criterion.

7 9 . A score of zero is not a qualitative assessment , like a

score of " poor " or " exceptional. " A score of zero reflects a

finding th at information is completely absent.

80 . T he e valuation c riteria score sheet, RFP Attachment 4,

provided factors to be considered in evaluating and scoring

proposals. It presented the factors to evaluators in the form of

questions to evaluators. For sect ion 3.15 , the question and

accompanying scores allowed were: How adequate is the

Respondent ' s plan to meet the performance measures outlined in

section 3.15 of this RFP? ( Omitted - 0 ; Poor - 6.25; Adequate - 12.5;

Good - 18.75; and Exceptional - 25. )

8 1 . Because t he Department allowed each evaluator to score

this factor, a total of 125 points was ultimately available to the

vendors.

8 2 . RFP Section 3.15 provides :

3.15 Performance Measures

Upon execution of this contract, Contractor

agrees to be held accountable fo r the

achievement of certain performance measures

in successfully delivering services under

this Contract. The following Performance

Measure categories shall be used to measure

Contractor ' s performance and delivery of

services.

Note: the Contractor shal l comply with all

contract terms and conditions upon execution

of contract and the Department may monitor

each site upon implementation of services at

that site to ensure that contract

requirements are being met. The Department

reserves the right to add/d elete performance

measures as needed to ensure the adequate

delivery of services.

1) Performance Outcomes and Standards; and

2) Other Contract Requirements.

A description of each of the Performance

Measure categories is provided below :

8 3. RFP Section 3.15 was divided into two components.

Section 3.15.1 listed key " Performance Outcomes and Standards "

deemed most critical to the success of the contract and required

that " the contractor shall ensure that the stated performance

outcomes and standards are met. " The k ey elements were :

(1) Completion of Routine Service, (2) Completion of Major

Emergency Repair Service, and (3) Commission and Call/Video

Visitation Detail Report (Invoice Documentation).

8 4. The first is RFP Section 3.15.1. It provides:

3.15.1 Performance Outcomes and Standards

Listed below are the key Performance Outcomes

and Standards deemed most crucial to the

success of the overall desired inmate

telecommunication service. The contractor

shall ensure that the stated performance

outcomes a nd standards (level of achievement)

are met. Performance shall be measured as

indicated, beginning the second month after

which service has been fully implemented.

1. Completion of Routine Services

Outcome: All requests for routine service

(as defined in Section 1.22) shall be

completed within twenty - four (24) hours of

request for service from the Department,

unless otherwise instructed by the

Department.

Measure: Compare the date/time that service

is completed to the date/time that the

request for s ervice was received from the

Department by the Contractor. ( Measure

Monthly).

Standard: Ninety percent (90%) of routine

service requests shall be completed within

twenty - four (24) hours of notice from the

Department.

2. Completion of Major Emergency R epair

Service

Outcome: A ll major emergency repair service

(as outlined in Section 3.10.8) shall be

completed within twelve (12) hours of request

for repair from the Department, unless

otherwise instructed by the Department.

Measure: Compare the date/ti me that major

emergency repair service is completed to the

date/time that the request for major

emergency repair service was received from

the Department by the Contractor. ( Measure

Monthly).

Standard: Ninety percent (90%) of routine

service requests sh all be completed within

twelve (12) hours of notice from the

Department.

3. Commission and Call/Video Visitation

Detail Report (Invoice Documentation):

Outcome: The Contractor shall provide the

Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail

Report to the Contract Manager or designee as

specified in Section 7.3.3 within thirty (30)

days of the last day of the Contractor ' s

regular billing cycle.

Measure: Compare the date the Commission and

Call/Video Visitation Detail Report was

received with the last day of the

Contractor ' s regular billing cycle. ( Measure

Monthly).

Standard: One hundred percent (100%) of

Commission and Call Detail Reports shall be

received within thirty (30) days of the last

day of the Contractor ' s regular billing

cycle.

Upon execution of this Contract, the

Contractor hereby acknowledges and agrees

that its performance under the Contract shall

meet the standards set forth above. Any

failure by the Contractor to achieve any

outcome and standard identified above may

result in assessment of Liquidated Damages as

provided in Section 3.17. Any such

assessment and/or subsequent payment thereof

shall not affect the Contractor ' s obligation

to provide services as required by this

Contract.

8 5. Section 3.15.2 advised that the Department will mo nitor

the contractor ' s performance to determine compliance with the

contract. It states:

3.15.2 Other Contract Requirements

Standard: The Department will monitor the

Contractor ' s performance to determine

compliance with other contract requirement s ,

incl uding, but not limited to, the following:

¤ Video Visitation System (as outlined in

Section 3.7)

¤ Inmate Telecommunication System

Functionality (as outlined in Section

3.7)

¤ Transition/Implementation/Installation of

System

¤ Bi - Annual Audit

¤ Timely Sub mittal of Corrective Action

Plans (when applicable)

Measure: Failure to meet the agreed - upon

Final Transition/Implementation/Installation

schedule or failure to meet (compliance with

other terms and conditions of the contract or

contract requirements lis ted above) may

result in the imposition of liquidated

damages

8 6. Each of the three items in section 3.15.1 and the five

items in s ection 3.15.2 relate directly to a particular provision

within RFP Section 3 titled , " Scope of Services. "

8 7. Section 3.15. 1 related to RFP Sections 1.22 and 3.10.7

(Routine Maintenance), 3.10.8 (Major Emergency Repair Service),

and 7.3.3 (Detail Report). Section 3.15.1 specifically identifies

the last two.

8 8. Similarly, s ection 3.15.2 cross referenced s ection 3.7

(Telecommu nications Services System Functionality) for the first

two performance measure items.

8 9. Two others items relate directly to s ections 3.5

(Facility Implementation Plan and Transition of Service), 3.6

(Installation Requirements), and 3.11 (Bi - Annual Audit ). This is

significant because Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3. 11 were independently

scored.

90. In other words, the RFP required that the proposals

contain a narrative explaining how vendors planned to provide the

services required by each of those sections.

9 1. The RFP did not require the proposals to contain a

separately delineated section titled , " 3.15. " It only required

that each proposal include , under " Tab 6 , " a narrative description

of the vendor ' s solution and plan to meet the performance

measures.

Ev aluation of Responses to Section 3.15

9 2. Global included a specifically labeled s ection 3.15 in

its response. It essentially copied and pasted the RFP language

for Sections 3.15, 3.15.1, and 3.15.2 , and after each subsection ,

inserted the words " GTL [Glo bal] Response: GTL understands and

complies. " Global did not provide a substantive narrative under

the heading , s ection 3.15. CenturyLink ' s labeled response to

section 3.15 was very similar.

9 3. The evaluators reviewed the section of Global ' s proposal

l abeled as responsive to section 3.15. The maximum score the

evaluators could award per evaluator was 25 points. Global earned

scores of 25, 18.75, 12.5, 12.5, and 12.5 from M essrs . Lockwood,

Agerton, P hillips, Creamer, and Wilson, respectively.

9 4. The evaluators reviewed CenturyLink ' s proposal labeled

as responsive to section 3.15. It also earned scores of 25,

18.75, 12.5, 12.5, and 12.5 from M essrs . Lockwood, Agerton,

Phillips, Creamer, and Wilson, respectively.

9 5. All five evaluators reviewed copies of the vendors '

proposals. Some evaluators performed a section - by - section and

some performed side - by - side evaluations of the proposals.

9 6. Since Securus did not have a labeled s ection 3.15 and

the other proposers did, the evaluators scored Securus ' s pr oposal

as " Omitted - 0 " for s ection 3.15.

97. After their initial review of Securus ' s proposal, three

evaluators raised concerns with the Department ' s procurement

officer, Ms. Hussey, over their inability to find a section in the

Securus proposal specificall y identified as a response to

Section 3.15.

9 8. Ms. Hussey reiterated the instruction given during

evaluator training to review proposals in their entirety when

scoring any component of the RFP.

9 9. None of those evaluators changed their scores of

" omitt ed " for s ection 3.15 of Securus ' s proposal after receiving

Ms. Hussey ' s additional instruction and presumably performing a

second review of Securus ' s proposal.

100. RFP Section 3.15 included cross references to

s ections 3.7 and 3.10.8. Following these r eferenced sections to

the matching section numbers in the Securus proposal reveal s

narratives addressing the s ection 3.15 requirements. In addition ,

these cross - referenced sections were separately scored by each

evaluator during his review of each vendor ' s Telecommunications

Service System Functionality and Telecommunication Service

Equipment Requirements.

10 1 . Securus ' s proposal complied with the RFP specifications

by affirming Securus ' s commitment to comply with s ection 3.15

throughout the proposal. A lthough Securus ' s proposal did not

include a separate t abbed section addressing Securus ' s plan to

meet the s ection 3.15 performance measures, Securus provided a

narrative explaining how Securus would meet each performance

measure required in s ection 3.15. Securus also provided

narratives explaining how it would meet and provide the scope of

service of each one of the performance measures of Section 3.15.

10 2 . The first performance measure in RFP Section 3.15.1

required that 90 percent of all routine servi ce be completed

within 24 hours of the Department giving notice to the vendor.

The routine service requirement was located at s ection 3.10.7.

10 3 . In its proposal, behind Tab 6 and labeled " 3.10.7

Routine Service, " on page 388, Securus ' s response stated :

All routine service shall be completed within

twenty - four (24) hours of the initial system

failure notice, service request for service

or equipment failure or liquidated damages

may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17.

Securus has read, understands, and complies.

Securus Field Repair staff is strategically

located throughout the state to be able to

respond to all repair service needs in order

to meet all repair service needs. Securus

will continue to complete all routine

service, as we do under the existing

contract, within twenty - four (24) hours if

the initial system failure notice, service

request for service or equipment failure or

liquidated damages may be imposed as stated

in Section 3.17.

10 4 . This response complied with the RFP requirement. It

could not rationally be deemed omitted.

10 5 . The second performance measure in RFP Section 3.15.1

required that 90 percent of all major emergency repair services

(as outlined in s ection 3.10.8) be completed within 12 hours of

the Department giving no tice to the vendor. This performance

measure cross - referenced s ection 3.10.8.

10 6 . Securus ' s proposal behind Tab 6 and labeled " 3.10.8

Major Emergency Repair Service , " addressed the emergency repairs

stating:

All major emergency service shall be

complete d within twelve (12) hours of the

initial system failure notice request or

liquidated damages may be imposed as stated

in Section 3.17.

Securus has read, understands, and complies.

Securus Field Repair staff is strategically

located throughout the stat e to be able to

respond to all repair service needs in order

to meet all repair service needs. Securus

will continue to complete all major emergency

service, as we do under the existing

contract, within twelve (12) hours if the

initial system failure noti ce, service

request for service or equipment failure or

liquidated damages may be imposed as stated

in Section 3.17.

Securus ' s response complied with the RFP requirement. It could

not rationally be deemed omitted.

10 7. The third performance measure in RFP Section 3.15.1

required that the Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail

Report (Invoice Documentation) be provided to the contract manager

or designee , as specified in s ection 7.3.3 at the end of every

month with the contractor ' s regular billing cycle. Securus

addressed this requirement behind Tab 6 in a section labeled " 2.4

Revenue to be Paid the Department, " on page 107.

10 8 . Securus ' s response stated:

This RFP will result in a Revenue Generating

Contract. The Contractor shall pay the

Departm ent a commission based on a percentage

of gross revenue. The Contractor shall be

responsible for collections and fraud, and

shall not make any deductions from gross

revenue for uncollectible accounts, billing

fees or other administrative costs prior to

ap plying the commission percentage.

Notwithstanding the above, gross revenue

shall not include taxes charged by an

appropriate governmental entity. The monthly

commission amount is obtained by multiplying

the commission percentage times each month ' s

total c harges.

The successful contractor shall submit a

Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail

Documentation for Monthly Payment report as

indicated in Section 7.3.3 with the monthly

commission payment.

Securus has read, understands and complies.

Securu s will provide the monthly payment

report as required and will provide all

appropriate auditing detail required upon

request from the Department.

10 9. This response complies with the RFP requirement and

cannot rationally be deemed omitted.

1 10 . Some e valuators acknowledged that they did not factor

Section 3.15.2 into their scoring of Securus ' s proposal.

11 1 . The terms of the RFP require considering s ection 3.15.2

during the scoring of s ection 3.15. It is part of that section.

Failing to consider Sec urus ' s narrative related to s ection 3.15.2

is not rational.

11 2 . As with section 3.15.1, Securus ' s proposal complied

with the RFP Section 3.15.2. Securus committed to complying with

the requirements of s ection 3.15.2 throughout its proposal.

11 3 . The record does not prove whether each evaluator

re - reviewed the cross - referenced sections identified in

Section 3.15. But Mr. Phillips did. Despite seeing the exact

language in those sections as required in the " Outcome " portion of

Section 3.15, Mr. Philli ps awarded Securus a score of zero

because, in his mind, " key parts of 3.15 " were not addressed.

11 4 . Th e conclusion that Securus entirely omitted a plan to

address Section 3.15 ' s requirements is irrational and clearly

erroneous. Something was there. A score of omitted is not

supported.

11 5 . Mr. Phillips also did not score s ection 3.15

consistently with the way he scored another section of Securus ' s

proposal. He originally gave Securus a score of zero for

s ection 3.14 entitled , Training, because he di d not find a

specifically delineated section titled s ection 3.14 in Securus ' s

response.

11 6 . But Mr. Phillips changed his score before submitting it

to Ms. Hussey because upon further review of Securus ' s proposal,

he found some aspects that addressed the training requirements of

s ection 3.14. He scored that section accordingly. This

highlights the error in evaluators not doing the same with

section 3.15 .

11 7 . The evaluators irrationally concluded that Securus

failed to include in its technical proposal any information

explaining how it would meet the performance standards and

outcomes of s ection 3.15. Some evaluators relied on the theory

that Securus did not " acknowledge " the outcomes and standards. As

established above, Securus acknowledged that " the Performance

Outcomes and Standards are crucial to the success of the overall

inmate telephone service, " and throughout its technical response,

Securus addressed all the required outcomes and standards.

11 8 . Securus mentioned and acknowledged the performa nce

outcomes and standards a total of six times in its proposal:

twice on page 42 and once on each of pages 100, 138, 160, and 392.

Three of those pages were narrative responses to s ections 3.7

and 3.11, which are specifically included as part of s ection 3.15.

11 9 . Some evaluators also claimed that Securus never

expressly agreed to be bound by the performance measures of

s ection 3.15. That may theoretically affect the qualitative

evaluation of the response , b ut it does not support a finding that

the inf ormation was omitted.

1 20 . Also, the RFP did not require a vendor to specifically

delineate each of the 18 subsections of s ection 3 in its response.

To comply with the Technical Response section of the RFP, a vendor

needed to address, in narrative form, its plan to provide the

scope of services outlined in s ection 3.

12 1 . This was not disputed. Several Department employees

testified and agreed that a response to the RFP did not require

specifically delineated sections of the response that mirrored the

delineation of the RFP.

Inclusion of Prohibited Fees

12 2 . In Addendum 2, the Department asked the vendors to

provide a sample refund policy. The policies were not described

as or intended to be final refund policies that would be used in

administration of the contract. The terms of a refund policy, if

any, would be negotiated with the winning vendor, subject to the

requirements of the RFP, including the prohibition against

including fees in the blended rate.

12 3 . The sample policies of Securus and G lobal included

some costs or forfeitures for obtaining a refund depending on how

and when the inmate sought the refund. These are not prohibited

fees or even items agreed to in the RFP. They are only samples.

The evidence does not prove that the sample refund policies

violate the requirement of section 3.8.3.

Scoring

12 4 . The review and evaluation process described in

section 6 of the RFP identified the maximum number of points that

could be awarded for each part of the inmate calling services

project. The total number of possible points was 1,000. The

sections and points allotted to them were as follows: Mandatory

Responsiveness Requirements -- 0, Executive Summary and O ther

Proposal Submissions -- 0, Business/Corporate Qualification -- 50,

Project Staff -- 200, Technical Response -- 400, and Price

Proposal -- 350. This allowed 350 points for the pricing section

and 650 for the remaining technical sections.

12 5 . Because each evaluator scored the technical sections,

the cumulative totals of their scores exceed 1,000. Securus

maintains that this scoring is inconsistent with the process

described in the RFP.

12 6 . But each evaluator scored the technical portion of the

proposals within the maximum 650 total points available to each

vendor. And the procurement st aff scored the price proposals

within the maximum 350 points available for price to each vendor .

12 7 . Applying the RFP ' s mathematical scoring methodology to

the price proposals, the procurement staff scored the pricing as

follows: Global 280.42, Securu s 276.04, and CenturyLink 232.94.

The scoring for each was within the RFP ' s 350 - point maximum.

12 8 . The scores given by each evaluator for the technical

portion of the vendors ' p roposals are as follows:

Shane Steve Jon Charles Randy

EVALUATORS: Phillips Wilson Creame r Lockwood Agerton

CenturyLink 722.94 857.94 707.94 776.69 734.19

Securus 749.79 808.54 702.29 834.79 779.79

G lobal 782.92 880.42 751.67 859.17 802.92

12 9 . Each evaluator ' s technical score when combined with

the pricing score was within the RFP ' s 1,000 - point maximum.

1 30 . Ms. Hussey totaled all the evaluator ' s technical

scores for each vendor with the pricing score for that vendor.

The resulting number exceeded 1,000. The award memorandum

presented the totals , as follows:

Ranking = C ost Total Evaluator Scores (As Posted)

Commission Evaluation Total Ranking

Rates Scores

G lobal 280.42 2,680.00 2,960.42 1

CenturyLink 232.94 2,495.00 2,727.94 3

Securus 276.04 2,635.00 2,911.04 2

13 1 . This method of compilation did not affect t he relative

ranking of the vendors.

13 2 . If the technical scores awarded by the five evaluators

are averaged and added to the pricing scores, the points total

for each vendor is under 1,000. And the ranking of the vendors

does not change.

Ranking = Cos t Evaluator Scores (Evaluator Scores Averaged)

Commission Rates Evaluation Scores Total Ranking

G lobal 280.42 535.00 815.42 1

CenturyLink 232.94 499.00 731.94 3

Securus 276.04 527.00 803.04 2

13 3 . Averaging in this fashion is consistent with th e RFP.

13 4 . The evidence does not prove the Department erred in

scoring the proposals.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

13 5 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and of the subject matter of this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat.

13 6 . CenturyLink and Securus bear the burden of proving the

proposed award of the contract to Global does not comply with

legal standards. § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat.

13 7 . This is a de novo proceeding. § 120.57(3)(f), Fla.

Stat. But it is not a typical de novo proceeding in which a

factual basis for the Department ' s decision or error must be

proven by the evidence. The Florida Legislature has established

a specific standard of review and standard of proof for

administrative hearings on pr otests to the Department ' s proposals

to contract through the competitive procurement process.

13 8 . These statutory standards do not require a

determination that the Department has made the best decision or

the only decision or the decision that the trie r - of - fact would

have made. The legislatively established standards state:

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

reject ion of all bids, proposals, or replies,

the administrative law judge shall conduct a

de novo proceeding to determine whether the

agency ' s proposed action is contrary to the

agency ' s governing statutes, the agency ' s

rules or policies, or the solicitation

sp ecifications. The standard of proof for

such proceedings shall be whether the

proposed agency action was clearly erroneous,

contrary to competition, arbitrary, or

capricious. § 120.57(3)(f) , Fla. Stat.

13 9 . The Recommended Order in Health Management S ystems v.

Agency for Health Care Admin istration , Case No. 08 - 2566BID at 21

(Fla. DOAH Aug. 15, 2008 ; Fla. AHCA Aug. 28, 2008) , defines

" clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or

capricious , " as:

Agency action will be found to be " clearly

e rroneous " if it is without rational support

and, consequently, the trier - of - fact has a

" definite and firm conviction that a mistake

has been committed. " U.S. v. U.S. Gypsum

Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).

49. An act is " contrary to competition " if

it un reasonably interferes with the

objectives of competitive bidding, which are:

To protect the public against collusive

contracts; to secure fair competition upon

equal terms to all bidders; to remove not

only collusion but temptation for collusion

and oppo rtunity for gain at public expense;

to close all avenues to favoritism and fraud

in various forms; to secure the best values

for the [public] at the lowest possible

expense; and to afford an equal advantage to

all desiring to do business with the

[governme nt], by affording an opportunity for

an exact comparison of bids.

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

1931).

50. " An action is ' arbitrary if it is not

supported by logic or the necessary facts, '

and ' capricious if it is adopted without

thought or reason or is irrational. '" Hadi

v. Liberty Behavioral Health Corp. , 927 So.

2d 34, 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

Pricing

1 40 . The facts proven by the preponderance of the

persuasive evidence in this cause prove that Global and Securus

submitted prices th at did not include, as section 3.8.3 of the

RFP required, " a separate single, blended rate per minute,

inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate on the

price sheet (attachment 5) for the inmate telephone service and

the video visitation se rvice. " The facts also prove that they

did not disclose this information to the Department.

14 1 . Awarding the inmate telecommunications service

contract to either of them would be contrary to the RFP ' s

solicitation standards.

14 2 . The Global and Securus proposals also undermine the

Department ' s ability to secure the best value for the public at

the lowest possible expense. Since they do not include all of

the price elements required by the RFP , the Department cannot and

did not conduct a meaningful pric e comparison of them and the

CenturyLink proposal.

14 3 . This is not a minor irregularity as defined in

section 1.19 of the RFP. It affects approximately 12 percent of

the revenue under the proposed contract and provided Global a

substantial advantage. T ropabest Foods, Inc. v. Dep ' t of Gen.

Serv. , 493 So. 2d 50, 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Commissions are

also critical factors both to the price paid by inmates and their

designees and the Department , should it collect the revenue.

They are also an important variable considered by vendors when

they construct their proposals. Basing a decision on prices that

do not include commissions when the RFP required including them ,

is contrary to competition , clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and

capricious. See Pro Tech M onitoring , Inc. v. Dep ' t of Corr. ,

Case No. 11 - 5794 BID (DOAH April 4, 2012; Fla. Dep ' t of Corr.

May 1, 2012) ( V endor ' s d ecision not to list all state, federal,

and government contracts for electronic monitoring as required by

the RFP provided direct compe titive advantage; Department ' s

failure to enforce the requirement was clearly erroneous,

contrary to completion, arbitrary, and capricious.)

14 4 . Not including the commissions in the blended rate also

made the competition between the three vendors unfai r and

unequal.

145. This is not a matter of raising a specifications

protest in an award protest. This is a matter of specifications

not being followed. At the least, the parties had differing

interpretations of the meaning and effect of the FCC order . The

RFP provided no guidance on the issue. Awarding the contract in

these circumstances denies CenturyLink the equal advantage the

competitive procurement laws were enacted to provide. Wester v.

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

RFP Section 3. 15

146. The documents proved , and several Department

representatives acknowledge , that the Securus proposal contained

the required narrative responsive to, at a minimum, some of the

elements of section 3.15. The failure to consider and award some

points for the Securus response is not rational, not supported by

logic, and clearly erroneous. The effect is contrary to

competition because it severely undermined the ability of the

Department to award the contract to a competent possible

provider.

Scoring

147 . Section 287.057(1)(b), Florida Statutes, governing

requests for proposals, requires that the RFP state the " relative

importance of price and other evaluation criteria . "

148. The Department stated the relative importance of price

and the other evaluatio n criteria in its RFP. CenturyLink and

Securus argue, however, that the Department failed to follow its

RFP or to comply with section 287.057(1)(b)2.b. The findings of

facts do not support a conclusion that the Department ' s

application of the RFP scoring system was arbitrary or

capricious. They also do not support a conclusion that

assembling the scores in the fashion urged by CenturyLink and

Securus would have caused a different result.

Conclusion

149. CenturyLink and Securus have met the burden impose d by

section 120.57(3)(f). The Department ' s intended award to Global ,

where price proposals of two vendors do not comply with the RFP

specifications and the scoring of Securus ' s proposal incorrectly

awarded zero points out of the possible 25 for its respo nse to

section 3.15 , together , require concluding that the preponderance

of the credible persuasive evidence establish a " definite and

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. "

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusio ns of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a

final order rejecting all proposals for Request for Proposal

DC RFP - 13 - 031.

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September , 2014 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Cl erk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 4th day of September , 2014 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ All references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2014

codification , unless otherwise noted.

2/ The Pre - Hearing Order granted the unopposed motion to amend.

3/ Boldface type shown in quotations of the RFP appeared in the

original.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Michael D. Crews, Secretary

Department of Corrections

501 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2500

(eServed)

Jennifer Parker, General Counsel

D epartment of Corrections

501 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2500

(eServed)

Eduardo S. Lombard, Esquire

W. Robert Vezina, III, Esquire

Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A.

413 East Park Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1515

(eServed)

J ames Fortunas, Esquire

Department of Corrections

501 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2500

(eServed)

Michael J. Glazer, Esquire

Erik Figlio, Esquire

Ausley and McMullen

123 South Calhoun Street

Post Office Box 391

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0391

(eServed)

Robert H. Hosay , Esquire

James A. McKee, Esquire

John A. Tucker, Esquire

Foley and Lardner LLP

Suite 900

106 East College Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 7732

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have th e right to submit written exceptions within

1 0 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.