15-003302BID Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership vs. Florida Housing Finance Corporation
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, August 18, 2015.


View Dockets  
Summary: Intended award of tax credits to Intervenor should not be implemented because Intervenor's application contained a material misrepresentation, without which its application would not have been selected; recommended that award go to Petitioner.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8HOUSTON STREET MANOR LIMITED

12PARTNERSHIP ,

13Petitioner,

14vs. Case No. 15 - 330 2BID

21FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE

24CORPORATION ,

25Respondent,

26and

27POWERS AVENUE SENIOR APARTMENTS,

31LTD., d/b/a PINE GROVE SENIOR

36APARTMENTS ,

37Intervenor.

38/

39RECOMMENDED ORDER

41This case came before Administrative Law Judge

48John G. Van Laningham for final hearing on July 8 , 201 5 ,

60in Tallahassee , Florida.

63APPEARANCES

64For Petitioner: M. Christopher Bryant , Esquire

70Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant and

74Atkinson, P.A.

76Post Office Box 1110

802060 Delta Way

83Tallahassee, Florida 32 30 2 - 1110

90For Respondent: Christopher D. McGuire , Esquire

96Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel

101Florida Housing Finance Corporation

105227 North Bronough Street, Suite 50 00

112Tallahassee , Florida 3 23 0 1

118For Intervenor: Michael J. Glazer , Esquire

124Erik M. Figlio , Esquire

128Ausley and McMullen , P.A.

132123 South Calhoun Street

136Post Office Box 391

140Tallahassee , Florida 3 23 01

145STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

149The issues in this bid protest are whether Respondent's

158preliminary decision to award low - income housing tax credits to

169Intervenor should be implemented, notwithstanding the fact that,

177unbeknownst to Respondent during the evaluation and scori ng of

187the competing applications, Intervenor's application contained a

194material misrepresentation about a transit service, which

201Intervenor urges is a minor irregularity that can be waived;

211and, if the preliminary decision is set aside, whether

220Respondent should award the credits to Petitioner, who is next

230in line, but whose application, Intervenor alleges, contains

238material deviations from the specifications that render it

246nonresponsive.

247PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

249On November 21, 2014 , Respondent Florida Housing Finance

257Corporation issued Request for Applications 2014 - 115 for the

267purpose of awarding tax credits for the development of

276a ffordable h ousing in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm

286Beach, and Pinellas Counties . According to the te rms of the

298solicitation, only one development in the "Family or Elderly

307Demographic Commitment" category w ill be funded in Duval County.

317On May 8, 2015, Respondent announced its intent to select

327ten applicants for funding, including Intervenor Powers Avenu e

336Senior Apartments, Ltd., d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments ,

344whose proposed development would serve the Elderly demographic

352in Duval County . Thereafter, Petitioner Houston Street Manor

361Limited Partnership timely notified Respondent of its intent to

370chal lenge the award to Intervenor, and on May 26, 2015,

381Petitioner filed a formal written protest alleging that

389Intervenor's application should be rejected as nonresponsive.

396The case was referred to the Division of Administrative

405Hearings ("DOAH") , where the protest petition was filed on

416June 9, 20 15 . The next day, a Notice of Appearance was filed

430on behalf of Intervenor , who thereupon became a party to the

441proceeding .

443The final hearing took place on July 8, 2015 , as scheduled,

454with all parties present . The parties stipulated to a number of

466facts as set forth in their Joint Pre - Hearing Stipulation , and

478to the extent relevant these undisputed facts have been

487incorporated herein . Joint Exhibits 1 through 4 were admitted

497into evidence with the consent of a ll parties.

506Petitioner elicited testimony from Ken Reecy, an employee

514of Respondent; and Ken Bowron, Jr., an employee of Petitioner.

524In addition, Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6 were admitted into

534evidence. Intervenor offered, as Intervenor's Exhibits 1 - 3

543respectively, the depositions of Amy Garmon, an employee of

552Respondent; and James Klement and Folks Huxford, employees of

561the City of Jacksonville. These depositions, together with

569their exhibits, were received in evidence. Respondent presented

577no evide nce.

580The final hearing transcript was filed on July 21, 2015 ,

590making the p roposed recommended o rders d ue on July 31 , 20 15 ,

604pursuant to the schedule established at the conclusion of the

614final hearing. Each party timely filed a Proposed Recommended

623Order. All of the parties' post - hearing submissions were

633carefully considered during the preparation of this Recommended

641Order.

642U nless otherwise indicated, citations to the official

650statute law of the state of Florida refer to Florida Statutes

6612015.

662FINDINGS OF FACT

6651. Respondent Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("FHFC ")

674is the housing credit agency for the state of Florida whose

685responsibilities include the awarding of low - income housing tax

695credits , which developers use to financ e the construction of

705affordable housing. Tax credits are made available annually

713pursuant to a competitive cycle that starts with FHFC's issuance

723of a Request for Applications.

7282. On November 21, 2014 , FHFC issued Request for

737Applications 2014 - 115 ( the " RFA"), whose full title ÏÏ " Housing

750Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in

758Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas

766Counties " ÏÏ generally describes the developments for which FHFC

775expects to award tax credits totaling up to approx imately $15. 5

787million to selected applicants proposing to construct such

795projects in accordance with the specifications of the RFA,

804FHFC's generally applicable standards, and all other governing

812laws. Applications were due on February 3, 2015.

8203. Applica nts were required to make a commitment to serve

831one of several populations: Family, Elderly, or Homeless.

839Under the selection process that the RFA prescribes, only one

849project targeted for either the Family or Elderly population in

859Duval County will be s elected for funding. The dispute in this

871case arises from FHFC's preliminary decision regarding the award

880of credits for the Duval County development intended to serve

890the Family or Elderly demographic. Petitioner Houston Street

898Manor Limited Partnership ("Houston Street") and Intervenor

907Powers Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd., d/b/a Pine Grove Senior

916Apartments ("Pine Grove") each timely submitted an application

926proposing to build affordable housing for elderly residents in

935Duval County, making them direct competitors for the sole award

945available for such a project.

9504. The RFA provided that applications would be evaluated

959and scored by a committee, with the scoring to be based on

" 971Mandatory Items " and " Point Items " identified in a table

980included in the RFA. Upon completing its evaluation, the

989committee was required to list the eligible applications in

998order from highest total score to lowest total score, and to

1009make a recommendation to FHFC's B oard of Directors .

10195. In theory, the award sh ould go to the applicant with

1031the highest score. Because of the likelihood , however, that

1040multiple applications w i l l get perfect scores ÏÏ as it happened,

1053all 49 of the eligible applications in the Family or Elderly

1064Demographic Co mmitment category received the maximum score of 23

1074points ÏÏ the RFA established a sequence of six tiebreakers, the

1085sixth being a lottery, with the award falling to the application

1096having the lowest, r andomly assigned lottery number.

1104K nowledgeable developer s underst oo d that , i n practice, most of

1117the successful applications would be lottery winners owing their

1126selection largely to luck .

11316. It is therefore no t surpris ing that all e ight eligible

1144applications proposing to serve the Family or Elderly population

1153i n Duval County received the full 23 points. None of the firs t

1167five tiebreakers separated these applications , which forced a

1175lottery. Pine Grove had the lowest lottery number (14) ,

1184followed by Houston Street Manor (25). Thus, Pine Grove was

1194chosen for preliminary funding , as FHFC announced on May 8,

12042015 .

12067. The RFA specifie s two Point Items in th e Family or

1219Elderly Demog raphic Commitment category. One Point Item is

"1228Local Government Contributions," for which a maximum of 5 .0

1238points could be awarded. The other is "Proximity to Transit and

1249Community Services," which was worth a maximum of 18 "proximity

1259points." To be considered eligible for funding, an applicant

1268needed to receive at least 10.25 proximity points, including a

1278m inimum of 2 .0 points for Transit Services. 1 / Significantly, a n

1292applicant who earned 12.25 or more proximity points would be

1302given the maximum Total Proximity Score of 18. Thus, to be

1313eligible an applicant needed to qualify for a Transit Service

1323Score of at least 2 .0 plus win 8.25 additional proximity points;

1335to be competitive , however , it had to win at least 1 0 .25

1348additional proximity points , to "bump up" to 18 .

13578. During the evaluation and scoring, Pine Grove received

1366a Transit Service Score of 5 .0 , which, together with the 9.5

1378proximity points that Pine Grove earned for its proximity to

1388other community services, gave Pine Grove a raw score of 14.5

1399and, consequently, a Total Proximity Score of 18 ÏÏ the maximum.

1410Pine Grove's Transit Service Score, ho wever, was based upon a

1421representation of material fact that ÏÏ it is undisputed ÏÏ was not

1433correct. To understand the problem requires a more detailed

1442explanati on of the Transit Services criteria.

14499. The RFA required an applicant to select one ÏÏ and only

1461one ÏÏ Transit Service upon which its Transit Service Score would

1472be based. The category of Transit Services comprises five

1481specifically defined services divided into three subgroups as

1489follows: (1) Private Transportation Ï 2 points; (2) Public Bus

1499Stop Î max imum 2 points ; and (3) Public Bus Transfer Stop;

1511Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop; or Public Rail Station Ï maximum

15226 points . The services relevant to this case are Public Bus

1534Stop and Public Bus Transfer Stop.

154010. The RFA defines Public Bus Stop in relevan t part as

1552follows:

1553[A] Public Bus Stop means a fixed location

1561at which passengers may access one or two

1569routes of public transportation via buses.

1575The Public Bus Stop must service at least

1583one bus route with scheduled stops at least

1591hourly during the time s of 7am to 9am and

1601also during the times of 4pm to 6pm Monday

1610through Friday, excluding holidays, on a

1616year - round basis.

1620RFA at 21.

162311. The pertinent provisions of the definition of Public

1632Bus Transfer Stop provide as follows:

1638[A] Public Bus Transfer St op means a fixed

1647location at which passengers may access at

1654least three routes of public transportation

1660via buses. Each qualifying route must have

1667a scheduled stop at the Public Bus Transfer

1675Stop at least hourly during the times of 7am

1684to 9am and also dur ing the times of 4pm to

16956pm Monday through Friday, excluding

1700holidays, on a year - round basis. This would

1709include both bus stations (i.e., hubs) and

1716bus stops with multiple routes.

1721RFA at 21.

172412. The number of proximity points that would be awarded

1734fo r a Public Bus Stop or a Public Bus Transfer Stop, if an

1748applicant chose one or the other as the sole service upon which

1760its Transit Service Score would be based, was not committed to

1771the discretion of the evaluators . Rather, the RFA prescribes

1781the precis e number of points to be assigned, based on an

1793objective criterion, namely the distance in miles between the

1802proposed development and the particular service. Thus, a Public

1811Bus Stop would be scored as follows:

1818RFA at 24.

182113. A Public Bus Transfer Stop, in contrast, would be

1831awarded points pursuant to the following schedule:

1838RFA at 25.

184114. The RFA required applicants to attach to their

1850applications a Surveyor Certification Form completed and signed

1858by a licensed surveyor. On this form, the surveyor must state

1869the latitude and longitude coordinates for, among other things,

1878the selected Trans it Service, e.g., Public Bus Stop or Public

1889Bus Transfer Stop, together with the distance in miles between

1899such service and the proposed development. By signing the form,

1909the surveyor declares, under penalties of perjury, "that the

1918foregoing statement is t rue and correct." RFA at 86.

192815. Pine Grove submitted a Surveyor Certification Form

1936which identified a Public Bus Transfer Stop as its Transit

1946Service:

1947Joint Ex. 3 at 52 of 101 . Because the distance between this

1960service and the proposed development w as stated to be 0.55

1971miles, Pine Grove received 5 .0 proximity points pursuant to the

1982schedule reproduced above.

198516. The site whose coordinates are shown in Pine Grove's

1995Surveyor Certification Form is , in fact, a bus stop, which the

2006Jacksonville Transpo rtation Authority ("JTA") refers to as Stop

2017#4203. But, as the parties have stipulated, only two routes

2027serve Stop #4 2 03 during the morning and afternoon rush hours.

2039Consequently, c ontrary to the representation in Pine Grove's

2048application, Stop #4203 is not a Public Bus Transfer Stop as

2059that term is defined in the RFA , but a less - prized Public Bus

2073Stop .

207517. Houston Street raised this issue as a protest ground

2085in its formal petition challenging the proposed award to Pine

2095Grove. During discovery, Pine Grove confessed error and

2103admitted that Stop #4203 is only a Public Bus Stop, not a Public

2116Bus Transfer Stop . Thereafter, FHFC announced that it would

2126side with Houston Street in arguing that Pine Grove's

2135application must be rejected as ineligible since S top #4203, as

2146a Public Bus Stop greater than 0.30 miles from the proposed

2157development, earns just 0.0 points under the applicable scoring

2166schedule ÏÏ 2 .0 points less than the Required Minimum Transit

2177Service Score of 2. 0.

218218. Pine Grove would be dead in the water at this point

2194but for an un likely , yet undisputed, factual twist. It turns

2205out that JTA Stop #1397, which is located 0.48 miles from Pine

2217Grove's proposed development, happens to qualify as a Public Bus

2227Transfer Stop. Had Pine Grove identified Stop #1397 as its

2237Transit Service, it legitimately would have been entitled to 5.5

2247points. In other words , Pine Grove could have offered an actual

2258Public Bus Transfer Stop that is closer to its proposed

2268development than Stop #4203 ( and thus more valuable in terms of

2280proximity points ) , but instead it identified a Public Bus Stop ÏÏ

2292which it misrepresented as a Public Bus Transfer Stop ÏÏ that was

2304worth less in proximity points than Stop #1397 even if it truly

2316were a Public Bus Transfer Stop, and is worth less as the Public

2329Bus Stop it truly is.

233419. Houston Street and FHFC have framed their objection to

2344Pine Grove's application in terms of responsiveness, contending

2352that Pine Grove's failure to identify a Transit Service eligible

2362for at least the Required Minimu m Transit Service Score is a

2374material deviation that the agency cannot waive. This has

2383opened the door to Pine Grove's argument th at falsely describing

2394Stop #4203 in its Surveyor Certification Form as a Public Bus

2405Transfer Stop worth 5. 0 proximity points should be deemed a

2416minor irregularity given the existence of Stop #1397, which

2425everyone agrees is a Public Bus Transfer Stop that would have

2436been worth 5.5 proximity points to Pine Grove, had Pine Grove

2447relied upon Stop #1397. Pine Grove's position is par t "no

2458competitive advantage" (as indeed citing Stop #4203 was not

2467advantageous in light of the superior alternative) and part "no

2477harm, no foul."

248020. Before examining the question s of whether Pine Grove's

2490designating Stop #4203 as its Transit Service wa s a deviation

2501from the specifications and, if so, whether such a lack of

2512responsiveness should be considered a material deviation or a

2521minor irregularity, the undersigned wants to mention a point

2530that the parties have not raised, but which nevertheless

2539war rants consideration. Preliminarily, though, the undersigned

2546stresses that no allegation was made, no evidence was received,

2556and no finding is being made that Pine Grove intended to deceive

2568FHFC by holding out Stop #4203 as a Public Bus Transfer Stop.

2580Rat her, although there is no direct evidence in the record, the

2592logical and reasonable inference based on the circumstances is

2601that Pine Grove simply made an unfortunate and costly mistake in

2612failing timely to discover that Stop #4203 does not qualif y as a

2625Pu blic Bus Transfer Stop , as Pine Grove honestly had believed .

263721. That said, by identifying Stop #4203 in its Surveyor

2647Certification Form as a Public Bus Transfer Stop, Pine Grove

2657unequivocally represented that the material facts concerning

2664this parti cular stop satisfied the RFA's definition of a Public

2675Bus Transfer Stop ÏÏ and they did not. Not to put too fine a

2689point on it, the representation that Stop #4203 is a Public Bus

2701Transfer Stop was a false statement of material fact ÏÏ objective

2712fact at that, not ultimate fact involving the exercise of

2722discretion or judgment, and not opinion. To be sure, this

2732material misrepresentation was not intentionally false. But it

2740was false .

274322. Like all applicants, Pine Grove was required to submit

2753with its application a fully executed Applicant Certification

2761and Acknowledgment Form. Among the statements therein whose

2769truth Pine Grove confirmed is the following:

2776In eliciting information from third parties

2782required by and/or included in this

2788application, the Applicant has provided such

2794parties information that accurately

2798describes the Development as proposed in

2804this Application. The Applicant has

2809reviewed the third party information

2814included in this Application and/or provided

2820during the credit underwriting process and

2826the information provided by any such party

2833is based upon, and accurate with respect to,

2841the Development as proposed in this

2847Application .

2849Joint Ex. 3 at 26 of 101 (emphasis added) . In signing this

2862form, Pine Grove's agent "declare[d] and certi f[ied] that [he]

2872ha[d] read the foregoing and that the information is true,

2882correct, and complete."

288523. As is now known, a third party ( Pine Grove's surveyor )

2898provided information about Stop #4203 that was not accurate with

2908respect to the proposed devel opment . Pine Grove's submission of

2919third party information that contained a false statement of

2928material fact (i.e., that Stop #4203 is a Public Bus Transfer

2939Stop located 0.55 miles from the proposed development) was a

2949deviation from the RFA's specificatio ns, including the

2957provisions of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment

2964Form set forth above. The undersigned is inclined to believe

2974that a false statement of material fact in a bid or similar

2986response to a public solicitation should almost always be deemed

2996a material deviation. Agencies reasonably and justifiably rely

3004upon the statements of fact contained in such documents, and

3014therefore the disincentives to making factual misstatements ,

3021even innocently, should be strong and consistently applied .

303024. Here, however, as mentioned, no party has urged that

3040Pine Grove's application be deemed nonresponsive for

3047misrepresenting the true nature of Stop #4203, and therefore the

3057undersigned will not recommend that the case be decided on th is

3069basis. Nevert heless, it should be stated that to treat Pine

3080Grove's application as having accurately identified Stop #4203

3088as a Public Bus Stop, which is the premise behind Houston Street

3100and FHFC's position, is to waive the material misrepresentation

3109in Pine Grove's S urveyor Certification Form ÏÏ a significant, and

3120arguably unduly generous, threshold concession to Pine Grove.

312825. Once the misrepresentation is overlooked, it is not

3137obvious that a deviation exists that would make Pine Grove's

3147application nonresponsive. B us Stop #4203 meets the RFA's

3156definition of a Public Bus Stop worth up to 2 .0 points. Thus,

3169it is a n Eligible Service that does not depart from the

3181specifications for a Public Bus Stop. Pine Grove's application

3190was not "nonresponsive" for identifying a P ublic Bus Stop as its

3202Transit Service.

320426. Located at a distance of 0.55 miles from the proposed

3215development, Bus Stop #4203 was entitled to a score of 0.0

3226according to the RFA's scoring schedule, which requires that 0.0

3236points be awarded to a Public Bus Stop that is farther than 0.30

3249miles from the proposed development. That Bus Stop #4203 must

3259be awarded no points does not , of itself, make Pine Grov e's

3271application nonresponsive ; it just means that the application

3279will receive fewer points than the maxim um available for this

3290item. T he RFA pointedly does not state that reliance upon a

3302Public Bus Stop located more than 0.30 miles from the proposed

3313development will result in a finding of noncompliance , and it

3323strongly implies otherwise by instructing that distant Public

3331Bus Stops shall be given a score, albeit a score of zero . Pine

3345Grove's application was not "nonresponsive" merely for

3352identifying a faraway Public Bus Stop as its Transit Service.

336227. Because Bus Stop #4203 could be awarded no more than

33730. 0 points, however, Pine Grove's application fails to earn the

3384Required Minimum Transit Service Score of 2 .0 , which makes it

3395ineligible to be considered for funding. Being found ineligible

3404for funding due to a low score is different from being deemed

3416nonre sponsive to the specifications . T o be sure, in this

3428instance the effect is the same, either way. But still, it is

3440at best debatable whether there is any deviation here that FHFC

3451could waive as a minor irregularity, even if it wanted to.

346228. Putting as ide that technicality, t he irreducible

3471problem for Pine Grove is that, to remain in line for the award,

3484it must receive at least 2.75 proximity points for its Transit

3495Service . Pine Grove needs a Transit Service Score of 2.75 to

3507get a raw score of 12.25 an d hence an adjusted Total Proximity

3520Score of 18 . Without a Total Proximity Score of 18, Pine Grove

3533will not have a perfect overall score of 23, and without a

3545perfect overall score, Pine Grove is out of the lottery.

355529. Pine Grove's irreducible problem is insoluble because

3563a Public Bus Stop such as Stop #4203 cannot receive more than

35752.0 points , and Pine Grove needs 2.75 . Therefore, even if FHFC

3587could deem Pine Grove's reliance upon a Public Bus Stop that is

3599situated beyond the 0.30 - mile limit a "minor irregularity"; and

3610even if FHFC could then award Pine Grove the full 2.0 points for

3623Stop #4203 , these extraordinary (and probably impermissible)

3630steps still would be in sufficient to keep Pine Grove in first

3642place for preliminary funding . Obviously FHFC co uld not award

3653Pine Grove more than the maximum score of 2.0 points for a

"3665nonresponsive" distant Public Bus Stop.

367030. The only way for Pine Grove to hold on to its

3682preliminary funding would be for FHFC to treat S top #4203 as a

3695Public Bus Transfer Stop even though, pursuant to the

3704unambiguous specification s of the RFA , it is a Public Bus Stop .

3717This, it seems to the undersigned, would not be a matter of

3729waiving a "minor irregularity," but instead would amount to

3738pretending that one clearly defined Transit Service (Public Bus

3747Stop) i s another clearly defined Transit Service (Public Bus

3757Transfer Stop), for the sole purpose of raising an applicant's

3767score above that which the RFA plainly requires. Such agency

3777conduct would be both clearly erroneous an d contrary to

3787competition ÏÏ in short, impermissible.

379231. Pine Grove has a point when it asserts that the

3803existence of Stop #1397 means that its proposed development

3812actually would be located close to adequate transportation

3820services ÏÏ a fact that is undispu ted ÏÏ and therefore that the

3833needs behind the Transit Services component of the proximity

3842criteria would be fulfilled notwithstanding Pine Grove's

3849misplaced reliance upon Stop #4203. Rejecting Pine Grove's

3857application for lack of a nearby Transit Service w hile knowing

3868that a nearby Transit Service exists does seem somewhat unfair.

3878This sense of unfairness is ameliorated in part , however, by the

3889recognition that Pine Grove's preliminary selection was, after

3897all, the result of the "luck of the draw" ÏÏ not qua litative

3910superiority over other applicants. It is eliminated by the

3919recognition that to accept Pine Grove's application as the

3928winner would require FHFC to give Pine Grove a Transit Service

3939Score to which it clearly is not entitled ÏÏ in effect handing out

" 3952bonus points " ultimately explicable, if with a wink and a nod,

3963only as an impermissible tribute to Stop #1397. 2 /

397332. In sum, Pine Grove's application was technically

3981responsive to the RFA. Unbeknownst to Pine Grove and FHFC,

3991however, Pine Grove's appli cation contained a material

3999misrepresentation ÏÏ namely that Stop #4203 is a Public B us

4010Transfer Stop ÏÏ upon which FHFC reasonably relied in giving Pine

4021Grove a Transit Service Score of 5.0, which, under the RFA's

4032unambiguous scoring schedule , was the correct score to give for

4042a Public Bus Transfer stop located 0.55 miles from the proposed

4053development. As everyone now agrees, Stop #4203 is not a Public

4064Bus Transfer Stop, but a Public Bus Stop ÏÏ a n Eligible Service,

4077without question , but one which, under the RF A's scoring

4087schedule, earns just 0.0 points. Adjusting Pine Grove's Transit

4096Service Score to 0.0, as must be done after forgiving and

4107correcting the misrepresentation, makes Pine Grove's application

4114ineligible for further consideration for failure to achieve the

4123Required Minimum Transit Score of 2.0. Even if eligible,

4132however, Pine Grove necessarily would be out of the running, for

4143with a Transit Service Score of 0.0 (ignoring eligibility), Pine

4153Grove's overall score falls short of the perfect 23 that seven

4164other competitors achieved.

416733. If Pine Grove is eliminated from consideration, as the

4177undersigned will recommend, the next applicant in line is

4186Houston Street, holder of the second lowest lottery number.

4195Pine Grove asserts t hat Houston Street's application is

4204nonresponsive for two reasons: (1) failure to demonstrate site

4213control and (2) failure to prove its ability to proceed. These

4224issues will be taken up in turn.

423134. "Evidence of Site Control" is an unscored Mandatory

4240It em. The RFA instructs that the " Applicant must demonstrate

4250site control by providing, as Attachment 14 to Exhibit A, the

4261documentation required . . . below. If the proposed Development

4271consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated

4280for al l of the Scattered Sites. " RFA at 31. As relevant to

4293this case, the document necessary to establish site control is

4303an "Eligible Contract," which is an instrument defined in

4312pertinent part as follows:

4316For purposes of the RFA, an eligible

4323contract is one that has a term that does

4332not expire before July 31, 2015 or that

4340contains extension options exercisable by

4345the purchaser and conditioned solely upon

4351payment of additional monies which, if

4357exercised, would extend the term to a date

4365that is not earlier than July 31, 2015;

4373specifically states that the buyer ' s remedy

4381for default on the part of the seller

4389includes or is specific performance; and the

4396buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an

4403assignment of the eligible contract which

4409assigns all of the buyer's rights , title and

4417interests in the eligible contract to the

4424Applicant, is provided.

4427RFA at 31.

443035. Houston Street's proposed development would be located

4438on property comprising two contiguous parcels, each of which

4447Houston Street has under contract to purcha se. Houston Street

4457provided both contracts as evidence of site control, attaching

4466them to its application as instructed .

447336. One of the two parcels is 0.09 acres owned by Kesher

4485Investments, LLC ("Kesher") , for which Houston Street has agreed

4496to pay $7 50,000. Based on the Real Estate Purchase Agreement

4508supplied as evidence of site control , the Kesher parcel remained

4518on the market as of the date Houston Street submitted its

4529application to FHFC . Paragraph 18 of the contract provides:

4539RIGHT OF FIRST REFU SAL . It is understood

4548that Purchaser is planning to apply for

4555housing tax credits from the FHFC. Seller

4562shall continue to market the property until

4569FHFC approved or denies Purchasers

4574application for tax credits, bonds or other

4581similar financing. If any other written

4587purchase offer for Property is submitted and

4594deemed acceptable to Seller, the offer shall

4601be presented to Purchaser and Purchaser

4607shall have ten (10) days in which to match

4616the terms of written offer or terminate this

4624Agreement and receive a full refund of the

4632Deposit and neither party shall have any

4639further ob ligations under this Agreement.

4645Only exception to this First Right of

4652Refusal is if such submitted written offer

4659is from an entity that would be a competitor

4668for FHFC tax credits, bonds or other type of

4677similar financing then that offer will be

4684deemed unacceptable.

4686Joint Ex. 2 at 65 of 111.

469337. The Real Estate Purchase Agreement requires the

4701parties to close on the Kesher parcel "no later than

4711August 31st, 2015, unless the closing date is extended."

4720Joint Ex. 2 at 5 9 of 111. The agreement provides extension

4732options, as follows:

4735Purchaser shall have the right to extend the

4743closing for the payment of Two Thousand Five

4751Hundred Dollars ($2,500) per 30 day

4758("Extension Period") for Four (4) Extension

4766Periods. The extension fee(s) shall be

4772released to Seller by the Escrow Agent

4779immediately upon notice from Purchaser to

4785Seller to extend the contract. Payment of

4792extension fee(s) to be deducted from the

4799Earnest Money Deposit. All extension fee(s)

4805released to Seller through Escrow Agent

4811shall be non - refundable, but applicable to

4819the purchase price, and shall be deemed to

4827be liquidated damages in the event this

4834transaction does not close and is earned as

4842such by Seller.

4845Joint Ex. 2 at 59 of 111.

485238. T he other parcel is owned by Downtown Station, LLC.

4863It is 0.50 acres , and Houston Street has agreed to purchase the

4875property for $975,000. Like the Kesher parcel, this half - acre

4887piece of land remained on the market as of the date Houston

4899Street submitted its application , according to a provision of

4908the Real Estate Purchase Agreement which provides as follows:

4917Continued Marketing/Right of First Refusal.

4922It is agreed that Seller herein, shall

4929continue to m arket the subject Property and

4937entertain any and all offers to purchase the

4945said Property by others. Should Seller

4951receive an offer to purchase the subject

4958property from any other person or entity,

4965with terms and conditions acceptable to

4971Seller, Seller sh all provide Purchaser

4977herein notice of same. Purchaser shall have

4984ten (10) days from notice of the foregoing

4992that it wishes to purchase the subject

4999property on the same terms and conditions as

5007offered by another buyer. If Purchaser

5013herein does not agree to purchase the

5020subject property in accordance with said

5026terms and conditions, then Seller shall have

5033the right to proceed to sell the subject

5041property to the subsequent buyer and this

5048Agreement shall be null and void, at which

5056time any and all deposits pl aced by

5064Purchaser herein shall be returned to

5070Purchaser.

5071Joint Ex. 2 at 80 of 111.

507839. Closing on the Downtown Station parcel is to occur "no

5089later than August 31st, 2015, unless the closing date is

5099extended." Joint Ex. 2 at 74 of 111. The purchase and sale

5111agreement gives the buyer four successive options to extend the

5121closing date for 30 - day period s , respectively, upon payment of

5133$2,500 for each extension , pursuant to a provision which is

5144identical to the one in the Kesher agreement, quoted above.

515440. Pine Grove argues that Houston Street has failed to

5164demonstrate site control because the properties it has under

5173contract are still for sale, and because exercising a right of

5184first refusal could require Houston Street to meet conditions

5193besides the p ayment of additional monies. Pine Grove's position

5203first raises the question of whether both of the agreements

5213Houston Street provided with its application satisfy the

5221definition of an "Eligible Contract." If this question were

5230answered in the negative, then Houston Street's application

5238would be nonresponsive because the submission of an Eligible

5247Contract is necessary to demonstrate site control. If the

5256answer were affirmative, however, a second question would arise,

5265and that is whether an Eligible Contr act is sufficient to

5276demonstrate site control. If so, then Houston Street's

5284application would be responsive. If not, then it would be

5294necessary to scrutinize the terms and conditions of the Eligible

5304Contracts to ascertain whether they demonstrate site co ntrol or

5314(as Pine Grove maintains) a lack thereof.

532141. The contracts that Houston Street submitted satisfy

5329the plain and literal meaning of the language used in the RFA to

5342define an Eligible Contract. Neither agreement expires before

5350July 31, 2015, and i n any event both agreements contain

5361extension options which Houston Street can exercise solely by

5370paying additional monies. The other requirements of the

5378relevant definition , e.g., the availability of specific

5385performance as a buyer's remedy, are met . Th erefore, Houston's

5396Street's application is responsive to the specifications

5403mandating that an Eligible Contract be provided as evidence of

5413site control.

541542. The foregoing determination gives rise to the question

5424of whether an Eligible Contract is sufficie nt to establish site

5435control. On this point, the RFA is ambiguous. The provisions

5445dealing with site control reasonably could be understood as

5454directing that the submission of an Eligible Contract is both

5464necessary and sufficient to establish the requisit e degree of

5474control over the proposed development site. Under this

5482interpretation, the inquiry into Houston Street's site control

5490ends, for Houston Street provided FHFC with Eligible Contracts

5499relating to the parcels it hopes to develop.

550743. Alternativ ely, the RFA's site control provisions

5515reasonably could be read as directing that the submission of an

5526Eligible Contract is necessary , but not sufficient , to prov e the

5537requisite degree of site control. Pine Grove has offered

5546evidence showing that, in past cycles, FHFC has examined the

5556terms and conditions of "Qualified Contracts" (the substantial

5564equivalent of Eligible Contracts under the RFA) to determine the

5574existence of site control, and found the site - control evidence

5585to be insufficient. This suggests that providing the necessary

5594contract does not necessarily demonstrate site control.

560144. Indeed, Pine Grove asserts that under FHFC's previous

5610interpretations of "site control," Houston Street's

5616documentation should be found wanting. In one earlier inst ance,

5626FHFC expressed concern over a Qualified Contract that was

5635subject to a right of first refusal belonging to a third party.

5647In other words, by exercising its right of first refusal, a

5658third party over whom the applicant had no control could

5668purchase t he proposed development site, and the applicant had no

5679contractual means of stopping such a sale, which would deprive

5689the applicant of the subject site. In another past instance,

5699FHFC found fault with a provision in a Qualified Contract which

5710gave the sel ler the right (until a certain date) to sell the

5723property to a third party but did not grant the applicant a

5735right of first refusal . Here then, once again, a third party

5747over whom the applicant had no control could purchase the

5757proposed development site, and the applicant had no contractual

5766means of stopping such a sale, which would deprive the applicant

5777of the subject site.

578145. Despite some superficial similarities, Houston

5787Street's situation is distinguishable from these historical

5794situations because Houston Street, as a hold er of first - refusal

5806rights , possesses a measure of control over the potential

5815sale (s) of the development site(s) to a third party or parties

5827that the previous applicants lacked. Unlike them, Houston

5835Street has at its disposal con tractual means of stopping another

5846person from buying the subject parcel(s). The decision whether

5855to meet the terms and conditions of a competing offer is Houston

5867Street's to make; therefore, Houston Street controls its own

5876destiny with regard to the purc hase of the proposed development

5887site.

588846. Consequently, assuming that an Eligible Contract is

5896not sufficient under the RFA to prove site control, but instead

5907must be examined to ascertain whether site control exists, the

5917undersigned determines that H ouston Street's sellers' continued

5925marketing of the parcels comprising the development site subject

5934to Houston Street's rights of first refusal is not inconsistent

5944with Houston Street's retention of adequate control over its

5953acquisition of the site. In sh ort, it is determined, as a

5965matter of ultimate fact , that Houston Street has demonstrated

5974site control adequately for purposes of the RFA. At the very

5985least, it is determined that FHFC's determination to the same

5995ef fect was not clearly erroneous. 3 /

600347. The RFA requires that an applicant provide

6011documentation establishing its "Ability to Proceed," including

6018the following items:

6021(1) Status of Site Plan Approval. The

6028Applicant must provide, as Attachment 7

6034to Exhibit A, the properly completed

6040and executed Florida Housing Finance

6045Corporation Local Government

6048Verification of Status of Site Plan

6054Approval for Multifamily Developments

6058form (Form Rev. 11 - 14).

6064(2) Appropriate Zonin g. The Applicant must

6071provide, as Attachment 8 to Exhibit A,

6078the applicable properly completed and

6083executed verification form: (a) Florida

6088Housing Finance Corporation Local

6092Government Verification that

6095Development is Consistent with Zoning

6100and Land Use Regulations form (Form

6106Rev. 11 - 14) or (b) Florida Housing

6114Finance Corporation Local Government

6118Verification that Permits are not

6123Required for this Development form

6128(Form Rev. 11 - 14).

6133RFA at 60 .

613748. Attachment 7 relat es to the status of the project' s

6149site plan approval. T he form directs the person who signs it to

6162mark one of three alternative statements to signify which is

6172applicable to the proposed development. On the form attached to

6182Houston Street's application, the following statement was

6189selected:

61902. ƙ The above - re ferenced Development is (a)

6200new construction , or (b) rehabilitation

6205with new construction, or (c)

6210rehabilitation, without new

6213construction, that requires additional

6217site plan approval or similar process,

6223and (i) this jur isdiction provides

6229either preliminary site plan approval

6234or conceptual site plan approval which

6240has been issued , or (ii) site plan

6247approval is required for the new

6253construction work and/or the

6257rehabilitation work; howeve r, this

6262jurisdiction provides neither

6265preliminary site plan approval nor

6270conceptual site plan approval, nor is

6276any other similar process provided

6281prior to issuing final site plan

6287approval. A lthough there is no

6293pre liminary or conceptual site plan

6299approval process and the final site

6305plan approval has not yet been issued,

6312the site plan, in the zoning

6318designation stated above, has been

6323reviewed.

6324T he necessary approval and/or review

6330was performed on or before the

6336submission deadline for the above

6341referenced FHFC Request for

6345Proposal/Application by the appropriate

6349City/County legally authorized body;

6353e.g. council, commission, board,

6357department, division, etc., responsible

6361for such approval process.

6365Joint Ex. 2 at 39 of 111 .

637349. The Local Government Verification of Status of Site

6382Plan Approval must be "signed by the applicable City's or

6392County's Director of Planning and Zoning, chief appo inted

6401official (staff) responsible for determination of issues related

6409to site plan approval, City Manager, or County

6417Manager/Administrator/Coordinator." Houston Street's form was

6422signed by Folks Huxford, Chief of the Current Planning Division

6432for the Cit y of Jacksonville. By signing the form, Mr. Huxford

6444certified that he had the authority "to verify status of site

6455plan approval as specified above and . . . that the information

6467stated above is true and correct." Mr. Huxford wa s an

6478acceptable signatory.

648050. Pine Grove asserts that Houston Street did not obtain

6490the conceptual site plan approval for which local law allegedly

6500provides, and therefore that Houston Street's Local Government

6508Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval form is incorrect

6518and, ac cordingly , nonresponsive . Pine Grove bases its argument

6528on certain provisions of the Jacksonville, Florida, Code of

6537Ordinances, about whose meaning Pine Grove disagrees with

6545Mr. Huxford, and on the fact that no conceptual site plan

6556approval ha d been issued for Houston Street's proposed

6565development.

656651. A good place to start in evaluating Pine Grove's

6576position is with a look at the site - plan status form's purpose.

6589It is clear from the language of the form that what FHFC wants ,

6602in a nutshell, is an authoritative statement from the local

6612government advising that the local government either has

6620approved, or is currently un aware of grounds for disapproving,

6630the proposed development's site plan. The relevance of this

6639statement lies not so much i n its being correct , per se, but in

6653the fact that it wa s made by a person in authority whose word

6667carries the weight of a governmental pronouncement . Put another

6677way , the statement is correct if made by a n official with the

6690authority to utter the statement on behalf of the local

6700government; it is a verbal act, a kind of approval in itself .

671352. FHFC might , of course, deem a fully executed site - plan

6725status form nonresponsive for a number of reasons. If it were

6736determined that the person who signed the form lacked the

6746requisite authority to speak for the government; if the

6755statement were tainted by fraud, illegality, or corruption; or

6764if the signatory withdrew his certification, for example, FHFC

6773likely would reject the certification. No such grounds were

6782e stablished in this case, or anything similar.

679053. Instead, Pine Grove contends that Mr. Huxford simply

6799erred, that he should not have signed the Local Government

6809Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval . Pine Grove makes

6820a reasonable, or at least pl ausible, case to this effect. The

6832fatal flaw in Pine Grove's argument , however, is that the

6842decision whether to grant or deny this particular form of

6852(preliminary) local governmental approval to Houston Street's

6859site plan must be made by the local governm ent having

6870jurisdiction over the proposed development, i.e, t he City of

6880Jacksonville ÏÏ n ot by Pine Grove, Houston Street, FHFC, or the

6892undersigned. Mr. Huxford was empowered to make the statement

6901for the city . He made it. No compelling reason has been shown

6914here to disturb FHFC's accept ance of Mr. Huxford's certification

6924as a valid expression of the City of Jacksonville's favorable

6934opinion, as of the application submission deadline , regarding

6942Houston Street's site plan.

694654. Attachment 8 relates to local zoning and land use

6956regulations and requires a local official to confirm the

6965following representation s :

6969The proposed number of units and intended

6976use are consistent with current land use

6983regulations and the referenced zoning

6988designation or, if the Development consists

6994of rehabilitation, the intended use is

7000allowed as a legally non - conforming use. To

7009the bes t of my knowledge, there are no

7018additional land use regulation hearings or

7024approvals required to obtain the zoning

7030classificati on or density described herein.

7036Assuming compliance with the applicable land

7042use regulations, there are no known

7048conditions whic h would preclude construction

7054or rehabilitation (as the case may be) of

7062the referenced Development on the proposed

7068site.

7069J oint Ex. 2 at 41 of 111. Mr. Huxford signed Houston Street's

7082form, verifying that the proposed development is consistent with

7091the Ci ty of Jacksonville's "local land use regulations and the

7102[applicable] zoning designation." Mr. Huxford had the authority

7110to make this statement on the city's behalf .

711955. Pine Grove claims that Houston Street's Local

7127Government Verification T hat Develo pm ent Is Consistent W ith

7138Zoning and Land Use Regulations form is incorrect and

7147nonresponsive because Houston Street has not yet obtained all

7156the necessary land use approvals, including the allegedly

7164available conceptual site plan approval mentioned previousl y .

7173Pine Grove's argument in this regard is identical to its

7183objection to Houston Street's site - plan status form, which was

7194rejected above. For the reasons previously given, therefore, it

7203is found that FHFC did not err in accept ing Mr. Huxford's

7215verificat ion of consistency with local zoning and land use

7225regulations as a valid expression of the City of Jacksonville's

7235position on these matters in relation to Houston Street's

7244proposed project .

724756. Thus, it is determined, as matter s of ultimate fact,

7258that Ho uston Street's application satisfied the RFA 's

7267specifications pertaining to Evidence of Site Control and

7275Ability to Proceed, and that FHFC made no mistake s in deeming

7287the application compliant with these requirements.

7293CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

72965 7 . DOAH has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in

7307this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and

7315120.57(3), Florida Statutes . See also Fla. Admin. Code R.

732567 - 60.009 . FHFC's decisions in this competitive process

7335determin e the substant ial interests of Pine Grove and Houston

7346Street, each of whom therefore has standing to participate in

7356this proceeding .

73595 8 . Pursuant to section 120.57(3)(f), the burden of proof

7370rests with the party opposing the propos ed agency action, s ee

7382State Contractin g & Eng'g Corp. v. Dep't of Transp. , 709 So. 2d

7395607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) , who must establish its allegations

7406by a preponderance of the evidence. Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C.

7417Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778, 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

74285 9 . Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, spells out the

7438rules of decision applicable in bid protests. In pertinent

7447part, the statute provides:

7451In a competitive - procurement protest, other

7458than a rejection of all bids, the

7465administrative law judge shall conduct a de

7472novo proceedi ng to determine whether the

7479agency's proposed action is contrary to the

7486agency's governing statutes, the agency's

7491rules or policies, or the bid or proposal

7499specifications. The standard of proof for

7505such proceedings shall be whether the

7511proposed agency act ion was clearly

7517erroneous, contrary to competition,

7521arbitrary, or capricious.

752460 . The undersigned has discussed elsewhere, at length ,

7533the meaning of this statutory language, the analytical framework

7542established thereby, and the levels of deference to be afforded

7552to the agency's preliminary findings and conclusions. See,

7560e.g. , Care Access PSN, LLC v. Ag. for Health Care Admin. ,

7571Case No . 13 - 4113BID, 2014 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 3 , 41 - 55

7587(Fla. DOAH Jan. 2, 2014) . It is not necessary to review these

7600principles here.

760261. FHFC's intended decision cannot stand, as the agency

7611itself realizes, because Pine Grove 's application, after fixing

7620the factual misstatement about Stop #4203, fails to earn enough

7630points to remain competitive or even eligible . Pine Grove urges

7641the undersigned to recommend that FHFC waive a minor

7650irregularity in its application ÏÏ meaning not the material

7659misrepresentati on (which FHFC is willing to overlook), but the

7669reliance on Stop #4203 instead of Stop # 1397. What Pine Grove

7681really seeks (and needs) is the waiver of the RFA scoring

7692specifications so that at least 2.75 points could be awarded for

7703a faraway Public Bus S top . Such an action would be, of course,

7717clearly contrary to the specifications; it cannot be

7725recommended.

772662 . T he undersign ed found no variance, material or

7737otherwise, between Houston Street's application and the RFA

7745specifications relating to Evidenc e of Site Control and Ability

7755to Proceed. Therefore, it is concluded that Pine Grove's

7764objection s establish no grounds for disqualifying Houston

7772Street's application as nonresponsive .

7777RECOMMENDATION

7778Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

7788Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance

7797Corporation enter a Final Order rescinding the preliminary award

7806to Pine Grove and designating Houston Stree t as the recipient of

7818the tax credits being made available for the development in the

"7829F amily or Elderly Demographic Commitment" category to be built

7839i n Duval County .

7844DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August , 201 5 , in

7855Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

7859S

7860___________________________________

7861JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM

7865Administrative Law Judge

7868Division of Administrative Hearings

7872The DeSoto Building

78751230 Apalachee Parkway

7878Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

7883(850) 488 - 9675

7887Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

7893www.doah.state.fl.us

7894Filed with the Clerk of the

7900Division of Administrative Hearings

7904this 18th day of August , 2015.

7910ENDNOTES

79111 / For some applicants, the required minimum Transit Servic e

7922Score was 1.5. This reduced threshold is not applicable,

7931however, in the instant case.

79362 / Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, forbids consideration

7944of "submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which

7954amend or supplement the bid or proposal." Thus, FHFC is not

7965permitted to award an applicant points, even (or perhaps

7974especially) if only by implication, for a quality established

7983exclusively by in formation or evidence submitted post - opening.

79933 / In light of these determinations, it is not necessary for the

8006undersigned to resolve the ambiguity in the RFA's site control

8016provisions. To avoid future uncertainty, however, FHFC might

8024want to make clear its interpretation of these provisions in its

8035Final Order, or to consider tightening the pertinent provisions

8044in its next request for applications.

8050COPIES FURNISHED :

8053M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire

8057Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant and

8061Atkinson, P.A.

8063Post Office Box 1110

80672060 Delta Way

8070Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 1110

8075(eServed)

8076Christopher D. McGuire, Esquire

8080Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel

8085Florida Housing Finance Corporation

8089227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000

8095Tallahassee, Florida 32301

8098(eServed)

8099Michael J. Glazer, Esquire

8103Erik M. Figlio, Esquire

8107Ausley and McMullen, P.A.

8111123 South Calhoun Street

8115Post Office Box 391

8119Tallahassee, Florida 32301

8122(eServed)

8123Kate Flemming, Corporation Clerk

8127Florida Housing Finance Corporation

8131227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000

8137Tallahassee, Florida 32301

8140(eServed)

8141NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

8147All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

815710 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

8168to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

8179will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 08/18/2015
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 08/18/2015
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held July 8, 2015). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 08/18/2015
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2015
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2015
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order of Petitioner Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2015
Proceedings: Pine Grove Senior's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/22/2015
Proceedings: Order Regarding Proposed Recommended Orders.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2015
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2015
Proceedings: Order Denying Petitioner`s Motion in Limine.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2015
Proceedings: Order on Motion for Clarification.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2015
Proceedings: Order Taking Official Recognition.
PDF:
Date: 07/06/2015
Proceedings: Pine Grove Seniors Respnose to Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/06/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/06/2015
Proceedings: Pine Grove Senior's Response to Motion for Clarification filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/01/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Clarification of Order Denying Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/01/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Cancelling Deposition (Fernando Rodriguez) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/30/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition to Preserve Testimony (of Fernando Rodriguez) filed.
Date: 06/29/2015
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2015
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Protective Order.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2015
Proceedings: PGS's Response to Motion for Protective Order and Request for Attorneys' Fees filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/26/2015
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Change of Position filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/26/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Hearing on Petitioner's Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/26/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/26/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of Amy Garmon and Ken Reecy) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/26/2015
Proceedings: (Intervenor's) Motion for Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/26/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Erik Figlio) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/24/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of James Clement and Folks Huxford) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/23/2015
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Strike.
PDF:
Date: 06/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Responses to Intervenor's First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Intervenor's Second Request for for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of Answers to Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner Houston Street Manor's Response in Opposition to Intervenor Pine Grove Senior's Motion to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/22/2015
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.
PDF:
Date: 06/17/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/17/2015
Proceedings: Intervenor Powers Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd's Notice of Service of Answers to First Set of Interrogatories from Houston Street Manor filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/17/2015
Proceedings: Pine Grove Senior's Response to First Requests for Admission to Intervenor filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of Answers to Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/15/2015
Proceedings: Intervenor Powerrs Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd., d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments' Second Request for Production to Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/15/2015
Proceedings: Power Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd., d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments First Request for Admissions to Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/15/2015
Proceedings: Intervenor Powers Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd., d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments' Notice of Service of Second Interrogatories to Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/15/2015
Proceedings: Pine Grove Senior's Motion to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/12/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's First Requests for Admission to Intervenor filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/12/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: Intervenor Powers Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd. d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments' Notice of Service of First Interrogatories to Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: Intervenor Powers Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd. d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments' First Request for Production to Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 8 and 9, 2015; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed.
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Christopher McGuire) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/10/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Michael Glazer) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2015
Proceedings: Motion for Entry of Final Order of Dismissal filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2015
Proceedings: Notice to All Bidders on RFA 2014-15 filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Protest filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2015
Proceedings: Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2015
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM
Date Filed:
06/09/2015
Date Assignment:
06/10/2015
Last Docket Entry:
08/18/2015
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Florida Housing Finance Corporation
Suffix:
BID
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (2):