15-006333BID Emergency Communications Network, Llc vs. Division Of Emergency Management Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, January 28, 2016.

Summary: Contract award meets all requirements.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

NETWORK, LLC,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 15 - 6333BID

DIVISION OF EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT,

Respondent,

and

EVERBRIDGE, INC.,

Intervenor.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On December 14 through 16, 2015, an administrative hearing

in this case was conducted in Tallahassee, Florida, before

William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge, Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire

Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire

Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

Post Office Drawer 190

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: David Yon, Esquire

Brittany Adams Long, Esquire

Radey Law Firm, P.A.

301 South Bronough Street , Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

a nd

Michael Terrence Kennett, Chief Legal Counsel

Florida Division of Emergency Management

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100

For Intervenor: William Robert Vezina, Esquire

Eduardo S. Lombard, Esquire

Megan S. Reynolds, Esquire

Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A.

413 East Park Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 323 01

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether the proposed award by the

Division of Emergency Management (DEM) of the contract

referenced herein to Everbridge, Inc. (Everbridge) is contrary

to DEMÓs governing statutes, rules or policies, or to the

solicitation specifications.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 1, 2015, DEM posted a Request for Proposals

seeking to procure a statewide emergency notification and alert

system.

Proposals were received from five vendors including

Emergency Com munications Network, LLC (ECN) and Everbridge.

On October 19, 2015, DEM issued notice of its intent to

award the contract to Everbridge. ECN filed a protest

challenging the proposed award and requesting a hearing.

On November 12, 2015, DEM forwarded t he challenge to the

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) , which scheduled and

conducted the proceeding.

On November 13, 2015, a Notice of Intervention was filed by

Everbridge, which was granted by Order dated November 16, 2015.

On November 18, 20 15, ECN filed a Motion for Leave to Amend

Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative

Hearing that was granted without objection at the commencement

of the hearing.

On December 14, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Pre - hearing

Stipulation that included a statement of admitted facts that

have been adopted and incorporated herein as necessary.

Also on December 14, 2015, Everbridge filed a Motion to

Dismiss for Lack of Standing or , Alternatively, to Relinquish

Jurisdiction (Motion to Dismis s) and two Motions in Limine. The

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Motions in Limine at

the commencement of the hearing. The ALJ reserved ruling on the

Motion to Dismiss and advised the parties to address the

arguments raised therein in proposed recommended orders.

At the hearing, Joint Exhibits 1 through 22 were admitted

by stipulation of the parties. ECN presented the testimony of

six witnesses and had Exhibits 8 through 11 admitted into

evidence. DEM presented no witnesses and had Exhibit 1 admitted

into evidence. Everbridge presented the testimony of one

witness.

A Transcript of the hearing was filed on December 28, 2015.

All parties filed proposed recommended orders that have been

reviewed in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. On September 1, 2015, DEM posted RFP - DEM - 15 - 16 - 037

(RFP), titled ÑFlorida Statewide Emergency Alert and

Notification System,Ñ on the stateÓs Vendor Bid System (ÐVBSÑ).

2. The purpose of the RFP is to procure a statewide

emergency alert and noti fication system as mandated by s ection

252.35(2)(a)(6) Florida Statutes, which requires the DEM to

Ð[e]stablish a system of communications and warning to ensure

that the stateÓs population and emergency management agencies

are warned of deve loping emergency situations and can

communicate emergency response decisions.Ñ

3. DEM is a separate budget entity established within the

Executive Office of the Governor. Tara Walters, the purchasing

manager for DEM, was responsible for the RFP and the procurement

process.

4. According to the RFP, the system is to be Ðvendor -

hostedÑ and capable of proving Ðmass notificationÑ of Ðimminent

or sudden hazardsÑ through voice telephone calls, text messages,

emails, social media, and ÐTelecommunications Dev ice of the

Deaf/TeleT Y pewriter (TDD/TTY)Ñ systems.

5. ECN and Everbridge are vendors of mass notification

systems.

6. Section 5 of the RFP provided, in relevant part, as

follows:

RESPONSIVENESS

a) Vendor . In order to qualify as a

responsive vendo r as that term is

defined by section 287.012(27), Florida

Statutes, a Proposer must submit a

proposal that conforms in all material

respects to this solicitation.

b) Proposal . In order to qualify as a

responsive proposal as that term is

defined by sec tion 287.012(26), Florida

Statutes, a proposal must conform in

all material respects to this

solicitation.

1. The Division shall not consider any

proposal that contains a material

deviation from the terms of this

solicitation. However, the Division

re serves the right to consider a

proposal that contains a minor

deviation or irregularity so long as

that minor deviation or irregularity

does not provide a competitive

advantage over the other proposers.

2. The Division shall not permit a

vendor to amen d a proposal after the

due date for submissions Î even if to

correct a deviation or irregularity.

* * *

5. A proposal may fail to qualify as

responsive by reasons that include, but

are not limited to:

a. Failure to include a material form

or addend um;

b. Failure to include material

information;

c. Modification of the proposal

specifications;

d. Submission of conditional proposals

or incomplete proposals; and,

e. Submission of indefinite or

ambiguous proposals.

7. Section 28 of the RFP included specific proposal format

instructions. Each proposal was to contain two parts : a

ÐTechnical ProposalÑ (Part I) and a ÐPrice ProposalÑ (Part II).

The RFP explicitly identified the contents to be set forth

within each part.

8. The Technic al Proposal was to include multiple

sections , including a table of contents, an executive summary,

and a ÐManagement Plan.Ñ

9. According to the RFP, the Management Plan was required

to include four elements: the vendorÓs relevant experience;

significan t examples of the vendorÓs other clients and pertinent

references; a project staffing plan; and a completed Ðdata

sheet,Ñ the form for which was included in the RFP.

10. The RFP also required that the Technical Proposal

include a section identified as Ð Technical Plan/Minimum S ystem

R equirementsÑ related to the ÐScope of WorkÑ necessary to

implement the system. The referenced minimum requirements were

explicitly set forth at Exhibit ÐAÑ to the RFP.

11. Finally, the RFP required that the Technical Prop osal

include the vendorÓs financial statements for the prior three

years as follows:

The Proposer shall provide information

regarding its financial status in order

to demonstrate that it is financially

stable and has the resources necessary

to perform th e services outlined in

this RFP on a statewide basis.

Proposers are to include financial

statements created in accordance with

Generally Accepted Accounting

Principles for the last three years.

(Financial documentation may be

combined into one file and a re not

included in the page count). The

Division reserves the right to evaluate

the financial status of any or all

Proposers before making an award

decision.

12. The Price Proposal was to be submitted separately from

the Technical Proposal by using th e ÐPrice Proposal FormÑ

included in the RFP.

13. According to the Schedule of Events set forth in the

RFP, proposals were due on September 30, 2015.

14. DEM received five proposals in response to the RFP.

DEM determined that three of the proposals w ere not responsive,

and they received no further evaluation.

15. The two proposals that advanced into the evaluation

process were those submitted by ECN and Everbridge.

16. The RFP identified the process by which each proposal

would be evaluated , inc luding the formulas by which some scores

would be calculated.

17. Technical Proposals and Price Proposals were

separately evaluated.

18. The Technical Proposals were reviewed by a group of

six evaluators, several of whom had extensive experience in

e mergency management and notification systems.

19. The evaluators subjectively scored the three

Management Plan elements pertaining to relative experience,

examples/references, and staffing plan. Based on the

evaluation, proposals could be awarded up to 30 points allocated

between the referenced elements. The scores assigned by the

evaluators to ECN and Everbridge for the three Management Plan

elements were as follows:

Evaluator ECN Everbridge

Danny Hinson 13 30

Scott Nel son 30 30

Brian Misner 24 29

Phil Royce 29 27

Kevin Smith 24 25

Scott Warner 20 26

20. The fourth element of the Management Plan, the data

sheet, was worth up to 20 points, and was scored through a

formula included in the RFP. The data sheet required a vendor

to identify a Ðguaranteed minimum number of concurrent recipient

contactsÑ obtainable by various methods and timeframes.

21. Using this formula, Everbridg e received a data sheet

score of 20 and ECN received a data sheet score of 3.99.

22. An assertion by ECN that Everbridge cannot achieve the

guaranteed minimums set forth on its data sheet was unsupported

by evidence.

23. The RFP specifically provided that the ÐTechnical

Plan/Minimum System RequirementsÑ section of the Technical

Proposal section would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis as

follows:

The minimum requirements of the system

are broken down in to five (5) sections

in the Exhibit ÐAÑ, Scope of Work, and

are as follows: Minimum System

Requirements, Minimum Geographical

Information System Requirements,

Minimum Notification Requirements,

Minimum Security Requirements, and

Minimum Support Requirements.

VendorÓs responses shall state each

requ irement and detail how the system

they are proposing meets or exceeds

that requirement. This portion of your

response is very important as proposed

systems that do not meet each of the

minimum requirements shall fail the

Responsibility Requirements of the RFP

and shall not be considered for

additional review or scoring.

24. Three of the six evaluators determined that ECNÓs

proposal failed to comply with all of the minimum requirements

and accordingly failed to comply with the ÐResponsibility

Requiremen tsÑ of the RFP. Nonetheless, DEM completed the review

and scoring of the ECN proposal.

25. Price Proposals were reviewed and scored by

Ms. Walters according to a formula specified in the RFP.

Pricing was worth up to 10 points. Everbridge received a price

score of 7 points. ECN received a price score of 10 points.

26. There is no evidence that Ms. WalterÓs review of the

Price Proposals failed to comply with the ap plicable

requirements of the RFP .

27. At the conclusion of the evaluation process,

EverbridgeÓs total score was 54.83 and ECNÓs total score was

37.32.

28. On October 19, 2015, DEM posted its Notice of Intent

to Award the contract under the RFP to Everbridge.

29. ECN filed a Notice of Protest on October 20, 2015.

30. ECN filed a Formal Written Protest on October 30,

2015 .

31. ECN asserts that at least some of the Management Plan

scoring deviated from the RFP and the instructions provided to

the evaluators. ECN specifically asserts that the evaluations

conducted by three of the e valuators included consideration of

information extrinsic to the RFP and the vendor proposals, that

the information was flawed, and that the scores awarded were

therefore inappropriate.

32. The evidence fails to establish that the evaluation of

the Mana gement Plan materially failed to comply with procedures

or criteria set forth in the RFP.

33. The evidence establishes that t he individuals selected

to evaluate the proposals understood the requirements of the

RFP , and that they conducted their evaluati ons according to

their understanding of the evaluation criteria at the time the

evaluations were performed.

34. The evidence further fails to establish that any

alleged deficiencies in the evaluation process, even if

established, would have altered the total scores sufficiently to

change the intended award of the contract as set forth in the

DEM Notice of Intent .

35. ECN asserts that the Question and Answer process

employed by DEM was irrational and materially impaired the

competitiveness of the procu rement process.

36. Pursuant to the RFP, vendors were permitted to submit

questions to DEM. On September 21, 2015, DEM posted the

questions and the DEM responses, including this question

submitted by ECN:

If a prospective bidder utilizes third

parties for completing the RFP

requirements, shall the bidderÓs

service level agreements (SLAs) with

those third parties be submitted within

the proposal response?

37. DEMÓ s posted response to the question was ÐYes.Ñ

38. Everbridge did not include SLAs within its proposal.

ECN asserts that DEM should have rejected the Everbridge

proposal as nonresponsive because Everbridge failed to include

SLAs in its proposal.

39. ECN submitted SLAs within its proposal, although the

SLAs submitted by ECN were unexecuted or incomplete.

40. There is no requirement in the RFP that vendors submit

SLAs as part of a response to the RFP.

41. Section 15 of the RFP (titled ÐOral

Instructions/Changes to the Request for Proposal (Addenda)Ñ)

provided in material part as follows:

No negotiations, decisions, or actions

will be initiated or executed by a

proposer as a result of any oral

discussions with a State employee.

Only those communications which are in

writing from the Division will be

considered as a duly authorized

expre ssion on behalf of the Division.

Notices of changes (addenda) will be

posted on the Florida Vendor Bid System

at:

http://vbs.dms.state.fl.us/vbs/main_menu.

It is the responsibility of all potential

proposers to monitor this site for any

changing infor mation prior to submitting

your proposal. All addenda will be

acknowledged by signature and subsequent

submission of addenda with proposal when

so stated in the addenda.

42. DEMÓs response to the question posed by ECN did not

amend the RFP. DEM did n ot issue any notice o f change or

addenda to the RFP that required a vendor to include SLAs within

a response to an RFP.

43. ECN asserts that Everbridge is not a responsible

vendor because Everbridge failed to comp ly with Section 18 of

the RFP (titled ÐQ ualificationsÑ), which provided , in relevant ,

part as follows:

The Division will determine whether the

Proposer is qualified to perform the

services being contracted based upon

their proposal demonstrating

satisfactory experience and capability

in the wo rk area.

* * *

In accordance with sections 607.1501,

608.501, and 620.169, Florida Statutes,

foreign corporations, foreign limited

liability companies, and foreign

limited partnerships must be authorized

to do business in the State of Florida.

ÐForeign CorporationÑ means a

corporation for profit incorporated

under laws other than the laws of this

state. Such authorization should be

obtained by the proposal due date and

time, but in any case, must be obtained

prior to posting of the intended award

of the contract.

44. ECN, a Delaware - incorporated limited liability

company, complied with the referenced requirement. Everbridge,

a Delaware - incorporated corporation, did not.

45. Although Everbridge asserts that the statutes

referenced in the requireme nt did not require it to be

registered prior to the posting of the intended award, the issue

is not whether Everbridge complied with state law, but whether

Everbridge met the RFPÓs qualification requirements .

46. The RFP specifically provided that in or der to qualify

as a responsive vendor Ðas that term is defined by section

287.012(27) Florida Statutes,Ñ proposals were required to

conform in all material respects to the solicitation. The RFP

provided as follows:

The Division shall not consider any

pro posal that contains a material

deviation from the terms of this

solicitation. However, the Division

reserves the right to consider a

proposal that contains a minor

deviation or irregularity so long as

that minor deviation or irregularity

does not provide a competitive

advantage over the other proposers.

47. The issue is whether the registration requirement was

ÐmaterialÑ to the RFP. It was not. The foreign corporation

registration requirement was Ðboiler plateÑ language, apparently

include d by DEM in the RFP with little thought. Neither Ms.

Walters, no r any other DEM employee, made any effort to

determine whether the vendors that submitted proposals in

response to the RFP complied with the requirement.

48. The evidence fails to establish that the failure to

comply with the registration requirement constituted a material

deviation from the terms of the RFP. Everbridge obtained no

competitive advantage over ECN or any other vendor th r ough

noncompliance with the registration requirement.

49. ECN a sserts that the Everbridge p roposal was

nonresponsive to the RFP because the Everbridge proposal

included the following language:

Legal Disclosure

Everbridge's RFP response is provided

for informational purposes and is not

meant to form a binding contrac t for

the provision of our critical

communications suite. Upon request,

Everbridge will engage in contract

negotiations to execute a service

agreement tailored to appropriately

capture each party's applicable rights

and obligations.

50. ECN asserts th at the cited language rendered the

Everbridge proposal as conditional. The RFP provided that

submission of a conditional proposal could result in a proposal

being deemed nonresponsive. The evidence fails to establish

that Everbridge submitted a condition al proposal in response to

the RFP.

51. Section 20 of the RFP (titled ÐAgreement DocumentÑ)

provided as follows:

The DivisionÓs ÐContractÑ document is

attached hereto and made a part hereof.

The terms and conditions contained

therein will become an int egral part of

the contract resulting from this RFP.

In submitting a proposal, the proposer

agrees to be legally bound by these

terms and conditions.

52. One of the three submitted proposals rejected by DEM

prior to evaluation was considered to be a co nditional proposal,

in part because the vendor struck through portions of the RFP in

its response. Unlike that vendor, Everbridge unequivocally

acknowledged, on page 127 of its response, the DEMÓs

Ðinstructions regarding the terms and conditions that will

ultimately form the service agreement between the state and its

selected vendor.Ñ

53. Everbridge asserts t hat the ECN proposal failed to

comply with the requirement that the Technical Proposal include

Ðfinancial statements created in accordance with Ge nerally

Accepted Accounting Prin ciples for the last three years, Ñ and

that the failure renders the ECN proposal nonresponsive. The

evidence supports the assertion.

54. The phrase ÐGenerally Accepted Accounting PrinciplesÑ

(GAAP) refers to a set of fina ncial reporting standards and

procedures adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board

(FASB), a private organization, and adopted throughout the

accounting profession.

55. Financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP

include what are com monly identified as ÐnotesÑ that disclose

extensive and relevant information supporting the financial

analysis reported in the statements.

56. The finan cial statements submitted by ECN did not meet

the requirements of the RFP. Although ECN asserted at the

hearing that the financial statements it submitted were prepared

in accordance with GAAP, the financial statements submitted by

ECN were incomplete because they failed to contain the requisite

notes.

57. The RFP required that the financial informati on

provided by each vendor Ðdemonstrate that it is financially

stable and has the resources necessary to perform the services

outlined in this RFP on a statewide basis.Ñ

58. The notes to ECNÓs financial statements should

properly have disclosed that the ECN statements contained

financial information related to ECN subsidiaries, in addition

to that of ECN. The absence of notes impeded determination of

the reporting entityÓs financial stability and resources.

59. The Everbridge proposal fully complied with the

requirement to submit financial statements prepared in

accordance with GAAP and included the notes.

60. ECNÓs failure to submit financial statements meeting

the RFP requirement is a material deviation from the terms of

the solicitation that may not be waived because it provided a

competitive advantage over other proposers who complied with the

requirement.

61. Everbridge also asserts that the ECN proposal is

nonresponsive because thre e of the six evaluators determined

that, for various reason s, ECNÓs technical plan failed to meet

the minimum requirements set forth in the Scope of Work.

62. The RFP specifically provided that a failure to meet

each of the minimum requirements would result in a proposal not

being further reviewed or scored. N onetheless, the ECN proposal

was reviewed and scored.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

63. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding. §§ 120.57(1) and 120.57(3), Fla. Stat. (2015). 1/

64. Sec tion 120.57(3)(f) provides, in relevant part, as

follows:

In a protest to an invitation to bid or

request for proposals procurement, no

submissions made after the bid or

proposal opening which amend or

supplement the bid or proposal shall be

considered. I n a protest to an

invitation to negotiate procurement, no

submissions made after the agency

announces its intent to award a

contract, reject all replies, or

withdraw the solicitation which amend

or supplement the reply shall be

considered. Unless otherwis e provided

by statute, the burden of proof shall

rest with the party protesting the

proposed agency action. In a

competitive - procurement protest, other

than a rejection of all bids,

proposals, or replies, the

administrative law judge shall conduct

a de no vo proceeding to determine

whether the agencyÓs proposed action is

contrary to the agencyÓs governing

statutes, the agencyÓs rules or

policies, or the solicitation

specifications. The standard of proof

for such proceedings shall be whether

the proposed ag ency action was clearly

erroneous, contrary to competition,

arbitrary, or capricious. In any bid -

protest proceeding contesting an

intended agency action to reject all

bids, proposals, or replies, the

standard of review by an administrative

law judge shall be whether the agencyÓs

intended action is illegal, arbitrary,

dishonest, or fraudulent. (Emphasis

added).

65. The evidence fails to establish that the proposed

award of the contract to Everbridge is contrary to DEMÓs

governing statutes, rules or polic ies.

66. As to whether the proposed award complies with the

specifications set forth in the solicitation, the proposal

submitted by Everbridge substantially complied with the

specifications of the RFP. EverbridgeÓs failure to comply with

the foreign co rporation registration requirement was not a

material deviation from the specifications.

67. A deviation from the specifications is material, "if

it gives the bidder a substantial advantage over the other

bidders and thereby restricts or stifles competi tion."

Tropabest Foods, Inc. v. Dept. of Gen. Servs. , 493 So. 2d 50

(Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Robinson Elec. Co., Inc. v. Dade Cnty. , 417

So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

68. At the hearing, DEM was unable to offer any rationale

for having even included the requirement in the RFP. DEM made

no effort to ascertain compliance with the requirement by any

vendor. Everbridge gained no competitive advantage over other

vendors by the deviation. It is not possible to conclude that a

deviation is material when DEM m ade no effort to determine

compliance by any vendor prior to posting the notice of intended

award.

69. On the other hand, ECNÓs failure to submit appropriate

financial statements gave ECN a substantial competitive

advantage over other vendors. The fail ure to provide the notes

that are routinely provided as part of financial statements

prepared in accordance with GAAP obstructed an accurate analysis

of ECNÓs financial stability and resources, and was a material

deviation from the requirements of the RFP sufficient to warrant

disqualification of the ECN proposal as nonresponsive.

70. The evidence fails to establish that the proposed

award of the contract to Everbridge is clearly erroneous,

contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.

71. A deci sion is clearly erroneous when it is based on

substantial error in proceedings. An agency's decision or

intended decision will be found to be "clearly erroneous" if it

is without rational support and, consequently, the

Administrative Law Judge has a "defi nite and firm conviction

that a mistake has been committed." See U.S. v. U.S. Gypsum

Co. , 68 S. Ct. 525 (1948). The evidence fails to establish that

there has been an error in the proceedings or that the award of

the contract at issue in this case to Eve rbridge would be a

mistake.

72. As to whether the RFP process was "contrary to

competition," the phrase is best understood by its plain and

obvious meaning -- i.e., against or in opposition to competition.

The purpose of the competitive bidding process i s to secure fair

competition on equal terms to all bidders by affording an

opportunity f or an exact comparison of bids. See Harry Pepper

and Ass oc., Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d

DCA 1977). The evidence fails to establish that the RFP process

employed by DEM in this case was contrary to competition.

73. The evidence further fails to establish that the

process was arbitrary or capricious. "A capricious action is

one which is taken without thought or reason or irrationally.

An ar bitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic, or

despotic." Agrico Chemical Co. vs. St ate Dep Ó t of Env tl . Reg . ,

365 So. 2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. den ied , 376 So.

2d 74 (Fla. 1979).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings o f Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Emergency

Management enter a final order dismissing the First Amended

Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative

Hearing filed by Emerge ncy Communications Network, L LC, and

awarding the contract to Everbridge, Inc.

DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January , 2016 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hear ings

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 Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 28th day of January , 2016 .

ENDNOTE

1/ All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2015),

unless otherwise indicated.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire

Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire

Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

Post Office Drawer 190

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

(eS erved)

Brittany Adams Long, Esquire

David Yon, Esquire

Radey Law Firm, P.A.

301 South Bronough Street , Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(eServed)

Megan S. Reynolds, Esquire

Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A.

413 East Park Avenue

Tallahassee, Flor ida 32301

(eServed)

Eduardo S. Lombard, Esquire

Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A.

413 East Park Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(eServed)

William Robert Vezina, Esquire

Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A.

413 East Park Avenue

Tallahassee, Flori da 32301

(eServed)

Mindy Dowling, Agency Clerk

Florida Division of Emergency Management

25 5 5 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100

(eServed)

Michael Terrence Kennett, Chief Legal Counsel

Florida Division of Emergency Management

25 5 5 S humard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100

(eServed)

Timothy Cerio, General Counsel

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Suite 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1001

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to su bmit 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.