18-000384BID
Caliper Systems, Inc., D/B/A Caliper Corporation vs.
Department Of Transportation
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, April 20, 2018.
Recommended Order on Friday, April 20, 2018.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8CALIPER SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
12CALIPER CORPORATION,
14Petitioner,
15vs. Case No. 18 - 0384BID
21DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
24Respondent,
25and
26PTV AMERICA, INC.,
29Intervenor.
30_______________________________/
31RECOMMENDED ORDER
33On February 26 and 27 , 2018, Robert E . Meale,
43Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative
51Hearings (DOAH), conducted the final hearing in Tallahassee ,
59Florida.
60APPEARANCES
61For Petitioner: Frederick John Springer, Esquire
67Elizabeth W. Neiberger, Esquire
71Bryant Miller Olive P.A.
75101 North Monroe Street, Suite 900
81Tallahassee, Florida 32301
84For Respondent : Douglas Dell Dolan , Esquire
91Department of Transportation
94605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58
100Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450
105For Intervenor: Bryan Duke, Esquire
110Messer Caparello, P.A.
1132618 Centennial Place
116Tallahassee, Florida 32308
119STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
123The issue is whether , due to the nonresponsiveness or
132misscoring of Intervenor's proposal, Respondent's intent to
139award a contract to Intervenor based on its proposal submitted
149in response to a request for proposals known as Florida Travel
160Demand Modeling Software and License (RFP) is contrary to
169the governing statutes, rules or policies, or the RFP
178specifications , as provided by section 120.57(3)(f), Florida
185Statutes .
187PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
189In November 2017, Respon dent published the RFP. Respondent
198received three proposals b y the stated deadline of December 7,
2092017. On December 20, 2017, Respondent posted the proposed
218tabulation selecting Intervenor's proposal. On December 26,
2252017, Petitioner fi led a notice of i ntent to protes t, and, on
239January 5, 2018, Petitioner filed a Formal Written Protest and
249required security .
252The Formal Written Protest alleges generally that
259Intervenor's proposal was not responsive because it fails to
268comply with requirements of the RFP and that Respondent assigned
278an excessively high technical score to Intervenor's proposal.
286For relief, the Formal Written Protest seeks a final order
296awarding the contract to Petitioner or rejecting all proposals
305and readvertising the RFP.
309Respondent transmitted the file to DOAH on January 22,
3182018. On January 25, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge issued
328a Notice of He aring for February 12 through 14, 2018. On
340February 1, 2018, Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion for
349Continuance of the Final Hearin g, which sought the rescheduling
359of the final hearing for any two days during the week of
371February 26 , 2018 . By Order entered on the same date, the
383Administrative Law Judge granted the motion and reset the
392hearing for February 26 and 27, 2018.
399At the fi nal hearing, Petitioner called one witness and
409offered into evidence eight exhibits : Petitioner Exhibits 1, 2,
419and 6 through 11 . Respondent called four witnesses and offered
430into evidence no exhibits . Intervenor called no witnesses and
440offered into evid ence no exhibits. The parties jointly offered
450Joint Exhibits 1 through 13. All exhibits were admitted for all
461purposes, except Petitioner Exhibit 6, which was proffered, and
470Petitioner Exhibits 1 and 2, which were admitted, but not for
481the truth.
483The court reporter filed the transcript on March 15, 2018.
493The parties filed their proposed recommended orders by March 23,
5032018. On March 26, 2018, Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion
513to Reopen the Record to Supplement Joint Exhibit 1, which is
524granted .
526FINDINGS OF FACT
529I. RFP and Proposals
5331. In November 2017 , Respondent published the RFP. The
542RFP is divided into parts , including Special Conditions, Scope
551of Services , Price Proposal Form , and Introducti on, which,
560according to Special Condition 36, are to be interpreted in this
571order in the event of conflicting provisions. The purpose of
581the RFP is to procure travel demand mode li ng software , which
593projects future service demands on a transportation syste m, so
603that transportation planners, engineers, and policymakers can
610design, schedule, prioritize , and budget transportation projects
617and expenditures.
6192. The Price Proposal Form is the first page of the RFP.
631It contains four columns to be completed by the proposer with
642dollar figures for year 1, year 2, year 3, and 3 - year total.
656The Price Proposal Form contains five rows for the following
666prices: "Model Conversions," "Training," "Annual License
672Renewal," "Base Software Cost," and " OVERALL PRICE."
6793 . The next part of the RFP is the Introducti on.
691Introduction 1 invites interested persons to submit proposals
"699to provide travel demand modeling software and licensing in
708Florida for [Respondent], MPOs [Metropolitan Planning
714Organization s], local agencies and universities (teaching
721only). " The boldface language alerts prospective proposers
728that, although Respondent is conducting the procurement , the
736MPOs, local agencies, and universi ties in their academic
745capacity will be co - licensees wi th Respondent.
7544 . I ntroduction 1 states that Respondent "intends to award
765this contract to the responsive and responsible Proposer whose
774proposal is determined to be most advantageous" to Respondent.
783Introduction 1 states that the estimated term of the contract is
794three years.
7965 . Special Condition 1 warns that a proposer will be
807considered nonresponsive unless it is registered with the
815myfloridamarketplace system by the scheduled date for the
823opening of technical proposals. Special Condition 6
830incorpor ate s the Scope of Services . Special Condition 7 states
842that Respondent intends to award the contract to the "responsive
852and responsible vendor with the highest cumulati ve total points
862for the evaluati on criteria." Special Condition 20 warns that a
873propos er may not apply "conditions . . . to any aspe ct of the
888RFP," and the placement of such conditions "may result in the
899proposal being rejected as a conditional proposal (see
"907RESPONSIVENESS OF PROPOSALS")."
9116 . Special Condition 21 is "Responsiveness of Proposals."
920Special Condition 21.1 states that a:
926responsive proposal is an offer to perform
933the scope of services called for in this
941[RFP] in accordance with all requirements of
948this [RFP] and receiving [70 ] points or more
957on the Technical Proposal. Proposals found
963to be non - responsive shall not be
971considered. Proposals may be rejected if
977found to be irregular or not in conformance
985with the requirements and instructions
990herein contained. A proposal may be found
997to be irregular or non - responsive by reasons
1006that include . . . failure to utilize or
1015complete prescribed forms, conditional
1019proposals, incomplete proposals, indefinite
1023or ambiguous proposals, and improper and/or
1029undated signatures.
10317 . Special Con dition 22.1 calls for each proposer to
1042submit, each in its own sealed package , a Technical Proposal and
1053a Price Proposal. Special Condition 22.2 requires that the
1062Technical Proposal be divided into six scored sections and
107130 unscored subsections; the six scored sections comprising five
1080technical sections and one price section. The six scored
1089sections are the six main sections of the Scope of Services,
1100which is discussed below. Special Condition 22.4 states that
"1109Technical Proposals should not exceed 30 p ages in total."
11198 . Special Condition 30 requires at least three evaluators
1129with suitable experience and knowledge. Each evaluator will
1137independently score each proposal, and the Procurement Office r
1146will average the scores for each Proposer. During the
1155evaluation process, the Procurement Office r is to examine the
1165proposals for responsiveness and "automatic ally reject . . ."
1175those that the officer finds are nonresponsive.
11829 . Special Condition 30.2 e xplains that the technical
1192evaluation "is the process of reviewing the Proposer's response
1201to eval uate the experience, qualifications, and capabilities of
1210the proposers to provide the desired services and assure a
1220quality product." For the five technical sections making up the
1230Technical Proposal, Special Condition 30.2.a assigns a maximum
1238of 90 points , as follows :
1244General Platform Capabilities 25 points
1249Network 20 points
1252Hardware Requirements and Options 10 points
1258Develop ment and Advanced Options 10 points
1265Other Considerations 25 points
1269These five sections are, respectively, Scope of Services 2, 3,
12794, 5, and 7 .
128410 . Special Condition 30.2 states that, i n evaluating the
1295Technical Proposals, each evaluator is to use the following
1304scale in assigning a single score for each section :
1314Exceeds Reply fully meets all 4
1320Expectations specifications and offers
1324innovative solutions to meet
1328specifications. Reply
1330exceeds minimum specifica -
1334tions and provis i ons in most
1341aspects for the specific
1345items.
1346Meets Reply adequately meets the 3
1352Expectations minimum described need, or
1357provisions of the speci fic
1362needs and is generally
1366capable of meeting
1369[Respondent's] needs for
1372specific items.
1374Partially Reply does not fully 2
1380Meets address the need, one or
1386Expectations more major considerations
1390are not addressed, or is so
1396limited that it results in
1401a low degree of confidence
1406i n the [p roposal]. Reply
1412is lacking in some
1416essential aspects f or the
1421specific items.
1423Does Not Meet Reply fails to address the 1
1432Expectations need, or it does not
1438describe any experience
1441related to the component.
1445Reply is inadequate in mo st
1451basic specifications or
1454provisions for the specific
1458items. Insufficient
1460information provided to be
1464evaluated.
146511 . For the Price Structure , Special Conditio n 30.2.b
1475states that the lowest Price Proposal earns 10 points and the
1486other Price Proposals receive points based on a formula in which
149710 is multiplied by a fraction whose numerator is the lowest
1508Price P roposal and whose denominat or is the price of the subject
1521Price P roposal. T hus, a Price P roposal with the lowest price
1534$100,000 would earn 10 points, and a proposal with a price of
1547$120,000 would earn 8.33 points ( $ 100,000/ $ 120,000 x 10).
156212 . Scope of Services 1 notes that the Scope of Services
1574is the product of input from the Florida Model Task Force
1585(FMTF), which comprises members of the Florida modeling
1593community. Scope of Services 1 describes the objective of the
1603procurement:
1604[Respondent] has for more than three decades
1611promoted a unified statewide modeling
1616approach for consistency to the application
1622of engineering and planning travel demand
1628modeling activities. As part of this effort
1635[Respo ndent] makes available a common
1641modeling software platform for use by all
1648public agencies in Florida which includes
1654[Re spondent], . . . MPOs , County and City
1663Governments and Regional Planning Councils.
1668Additionally, Florida universities are
1672provided a limited teaching license for
1678teaching and research purposes.
1682[Respondent] seeks to . . . select a travel
1691demand software package and license for the
1698purpose of meeting the state d objective of
1706providing a common modeling platform. This
1712platform is intended to support modeling
1718activities in the state and represent the
1725Florida - specific standardized modeling
1730procedures outlined in the Florida Standard
1736Urban Transportation Model Structure
1740(FSUTMS).
1741* * *
1744This scope of services represents input from
1751the Florida Model Task Fo rce (MTF)[,] . . .
1762whose mission is to advance model
1768development and applications to serve the
1774tra nsportation planning needs of
1779[Respondent], MPOs and local governments.
1784The input from the Florida MTF serves as a
1793guide for developing the model platform
1799scope.
180013 . No one challenged the specifications of the RFP.
1810Proposals were submitted timely by Intervenor, Petitioner, and
1818Citilabs, Inc., which is the present vendor of Respondent's
1827travel demand modeling software. The Pro curement Officer
1835examined each p roposal to ensure that it contained a Technical
1846Proposal and a Price Proposal and determined t hat each Proposer
1857was properly registered to do business in Florida. Without
1866undertaking further analysis of responsiveness, the Procu rement
1874Officer distributed the p roposals to the evaluators for scoring ,
1884assuming tha t any failure to meet RFP mandatories would result
1895in a lower score.
189914 . For the Price Proposals, Citilabs submitted the lowest
1909price, which was $96,000, so it received 10 points. Petitioner
1920submitted a price of $180,000, so it received 5.33 points.
1931Intervenor submitted a price of $260,0 00, so it received 3.69
1943points. These scores are not at issue.
195015 . For the Technical Proposals, Intervenor received 83.33
1959points, Petitioner received 78.75 points, and Citilabs received
196773.33 points. Thus, Intervenor received 87.03 points,
1974Petitioner re ceived 84.08 points, and Citilabs received 83.33
1983points. On December 20, 2017, Respondent published a notice of
1993intent to award the contract to Intervenor. The intended award
2003was protested by Petitioner, but not Citilabs.
2010II . Responsiveness
2013A. Introduction
201516 . The Procurement Officer's responsiveness review never
2023went beyond a determination that each proposer was registered to
2033do business in Florida and each proposal contained a Technical
2043Proposal and a Price Proposal. N one of the evaluators conducted
2054any examination of the proposals for responsiveness or reduced
2063any score of Intervenor for the two instances of
2072nonresponsiveness discussed in this section of the recommended
2080order. In order to apply the deferential standards d iscussed in
2091the Conclusions of Law, it is necessary to deem that Respondent
2102determined that Intervenor's proposal is responsive on the two
2111issues discussed immediately b elow .
211717. Although the RFP could have more clearly presented its
2127mandatories by setting them out separately , its failure to do so
2138is irrelevant. Dispe rsed through the RFP are numerous
2147requirements imposed upon a proposal that, if ignored or
2156violated , would render t he proposal nonresponsive. The items
2165discussed in this section of the recommended order are
2174mandatories in the RFP.
217818. In its proposed recommended order, Petit ioner claims
2187that Intervenor's p roposal is nonresponsive in model conversion s
2197and special acce ss to the software .
2205B . Conversion s of ABMs and Timeframes for
2214Conversions of All 13 Models
221919 . Except for three provisions, the RFP could easily be
2230misconstrued to call for the submittal of travel demand modeling
2240software on a platform that might or might not accommodate the
2251platforms, and thus the travel demand modeling software,
2259presently used by Respondent, the MPOs, and local agencies. The
2269first of these exceptions is in the Price Propos al Form. The
2281first of only four price categories in the Price Proposal Form
2292is "Model Conversions," a prominent two - word reference that
2302stands without explanation or context, although the plura l form
2312alerts the proposer to the need to price more than one
2323conversion .
232520. Nearly as laconic, Scope of Services 7.3.2 requires
2334each proposer to "outline a plan for implementation of the
2344software and/or software updates." A n understandably puzzled
2352proposer asked, "Is this about conversion plan for [Respondent]
2361or general software update plan as a whole?" Failing to seize
2372upon the opportunity to elaborate on conversion requirements, in
2381Addendum No. 1, Respondent replied on ly, "The intent was to form
2393a conversion plan."
239621. In Scope of Services 6, Respondent ab andons its
2406reticence and describes the conversion responsibilities in
2413reasonable detail. As noted above, Scope of Services 6 is Price
2424Structure, which describes each of the four price components
2433incl uded in the Price Proposal Form or Price Proposal.
244322. In its proposed recommended order, Respondent argued
2451that responsiveness requirements for the Technical Proposal may
2459not be culled from the portion of the RFP detailing the Price
2471Proposal. Given the failure of the remainder of the RFP to
2482detail conversi on requirements, Respondent's argument is
2489burdened by the fact that, if the argument were to prevail,
2500Respondent would be deprived of the only provisions anywhere in
2510the RFP to enforce important conversion responsibilities
2517undertaken by the ultimate vendor . But Respondent's argument
2526finds no support in the RFP itself.
253323. Scope of Services 6.1 addresses model conversions as
2542follows:
2543It is the mission of the [FMTF] that every
2552travel forecasting model in Florida operates
2558from the same software platform. Th ese
2565models are validated to standards
2570established by the [FMTF]. The Vendor is
2577expected to convert these models to the
2584selected platform such that the converted
2590models are provided as validated models. A
2597timeframe and conversion methodology is
2602required. While conversions are not
2607expected to precisely meet the outputs of
2614the original model, they are required to
2621meet validation standards consistent with
2626guidelines established through National
2630Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
2635Report 716 and othe r resources identified on
2643the FSUTMSOOnline.net modeling website.
2647Specific requirements will also include
2652recoding ancillary modeling scripts into the
2658selected platform or to a more common,
2665standardized programming language such as
2670Python.
2671Updates to soc ioeconomic data inputs, local
2678travel demand variables and network coding
2684are not required through this RFP.
2690The vendor must provide a cost estimate for
2698the conversion of seven (7) 4 - step models
2707(Florida Statewide Model, Florida Turnpike
2712Model, Northwest, Capital Region,
2716Gainesville, DS, and D1); four (4) ABM
2723[activity - based models) models (Southeast,
2729Tampa Bay, Northeast and Treasure Coast);
2735and two (2) training models.
274024. Scope of Services 6.1 not only informs proposers what
2750they need to include in their cost projections for Model
2760Conversions, but , in so doing, also informs them of their
2770obligation to convert Respondent's Citilabs model, ten local
2778models, and two training models . Except for Scope of Services
27896.1, the requirements of the RFP, as distinct from the mission
2800statements contained in Scope of Services 1, might be
2809misinterpreted as specifications for the procurement for
2816Respondent of a travel demand modeling software on a platform
2826whose compatibility with the platform presently used by
2834Respondent and platforms presently used by the MPOs and local
2844agencies is irrelevant.
284725. Most importantly, Respondent's argument ignores
2853Special Condition 21.1, which identifies the entire RFP as a
2863source of mandatori es. Without regard to Special Condition
287221.1, Special Condition 22.2 lists Scope of Services 6 within
2882the Technical Proposal, which, Respondent would concede, is an
2891obvious source of mandatories . Scope of Services 6 is merely
2902the fifth of six sections to be scored by the evaluator .
2914Respondent's argument to disregard Scope of Services 6 as a
2924source of mandatories is a misreading of the RFP.
293326 . Intervenor's p roposal, which refers to its traffic
2943demand modeling software as "Visum," responds to Scope of
2952S ervices 7.3.2 by proposing to convert Respondent's present
2961Citilabs model, but not all of the models currently used by the
2973MPOs and local agencies :
2978We understand that successful model
2983conversion only can be achieved through a
2990collaborative relationship in between [sic]
2995[Respondent] (and affiliated agencies),
2999local consultants, and the software
3004provider. Therefore, we propose a process
3010that all three parties can contribute to
3017this process and ensure all local modeling
3024and software expertise can be fully uti lized
3032for this proce ss. The overall conversion
3039proc ess is divided into four tasks below:
30471. Kick - off meeting with [Respondent 's ]
3056Central office : First, we will work with
3064[Respondent 's ] Central office to come up
3072with a set of basic templates which will be
3081applicable to four - step models as well as
3090ABM models. In this way, we can come up
3099with set standard that can be ap p lied to all
3110models that need to be converted and/or new
3118models that need to be devel oped in the
3127future. Details on model conversion
3132sche dule and prioritization of each model
3139will be discussed and decided based on
3146required model update (for LRTP) schedule
3152and similarities of models.
31562. Kick - off meeting with [Respondent 's ]
3165District office(s) : Based on priority list
3172provided from previous step, we will set up
3180individual kick - off meetings with each
3187district. We expect t o meet with local
3195model coordin ators as well as local
3202consultants with local modeling knowledge
3207(up to two consultants selected by
3213[Respondent]) to learn about the model that
3220needs to be converted. This will give us a
3229background on special features of the
3235exi s ting models, expected run - time, memory
3244requirements and current shortcomings. All
3249data and documentation necessary for model
3255conversion should be provided at the meetin g
3263so that it can be reviewed by conversion
3271team. At the end of the meeting, conversion
3279team will come up with initial model
3286conversion plan and shared [sic] with model
3293coordinator and invited consultants.
32973. Basic Model Conversion : Basic
3303components in the existing model will be
3310converted to Visum by [Intervenor] at no
3317additional cost. This conversion includes
3322network (traffic and transit) conversion for
3328the base year model, 4 - step procedures, trip
3337tables, and any special scripts used in the
3345current mod el (to model trip adjustments,
3352special assignments, skim averaging, etc.).
3357In case of models integrated with third -
3365party ABM, we will provide network (traffic
3372and transit) conversion for the base year
3379model, assignment and skimming procedures,
3384and scripts necessary for the ABM interface
3391on the Visum side (any modifications
3397required for the ABM side, i.e., code within
3405the ABM is beyond the scope of the basic
3414conversion process).
3416Once the basic model conversion is
3422completed, we will host a hand - over meeting
3431to the model coordinator and selected local
3438consultant (e.g. on - call consultant). At
3445the meeting, we will present the process
3452that was undertaken and detailed information
3458on new attributes, calculations and overall
3464model operation. We will also provide model
3471conversion report so that [Respondent] and
3477consultan ts can use it to understand
3484con verted model .
34884. Model fine - tuning and final delivery :
3497[Intervenor] will take the lead along with
3504[Respondent] model coordinator (or selected
3509consultant with local know ledge) on this
3516final model fine - t uning process that
3524includes calibration and validation of the
35304 - step models along with [Intervenor]. The
3538calibration and validation will be conducted
3544based on guidelines/standards provided on
3549NCHRP Report 716. For the ABM interface,
3556the local consultant is expected to re -
3564write/modify the code with the ABM system in
3572order to successfully interface it with
3578Visum ([Intervenor] will provide full
3583support on the Visum side required in this
3591process.) As a software expert,
3596[I ntervenor] will support [Respondent] model
3602coordinator (or selected consultant), local
3607model expert, to complete fine - tuning and
3615localization process and attend meetings (as
3621necessary) to provide continuous feedback.
362627 . By contrast, Petitioner's p roposa l responds to Scope
3637of Services 7.3.2 with an unconditional undertaking to convert,
3646not just Respondent's Citilabs model and local nonABMs , but also
3656local ABMs :
3659In this section, we present our approach to
3667and time frame for the model conversions.
3674Quite obviously model conversions are the
3680principal obstacle to a successful
3685transition to new travel demand modeling
3691software. We wi ll not be taking on this
3700task from scratch, as we have already
3707converted a number of current Florida models
3714and, upon selection, would aggressively ramp
3720up the model conversion efforts.
3725No one has more experience in converting
3732models from Citilabs software to another
3738platform than we do, as we have been doing
3747it for more than two decades. Recently we
3755converted the NFTPO [North Florida
3760Transportation Planning Organization]
3763activity - based mod el to run on TransCAD. In
3773the process, we improved the models in
3780several respects. First, we replaced the
3786stick road network with an accurate HERE
3793network that was already licensed. We then
3800recreated the transit network so that the
3807bus es run on the correct streets in the road
3817network. In doing so, we also fixed errors
3825in both networks. We also identified an d
3833fixed a variety of errors in the model
3841scripts and significantly reduced th e run
3848times for both models. We also converted
3855the statewide model and the Olympus training
3862model as part of the aborted ITN process.
3870[The "aborted ITN process" refers to an
3877earlier, unsuccessful effort by Respondent
3882to procure the subject software by an
3889invitation to negotiate.]
3892At the outset of the conversion process, we
3900will meet with the stakeholders for each
3907model to be converted to understand their
3914priorities and prefer ences and to develop a
3922mutually acceptable approach to the model
3928conversion. We will welcome the
3933participation of involved consultants as
3938well as agency managers in these
3944discussions.
3945W e will use templates for FSUTMS in TransCAD
3954to facilitate the conversion process. These
3960will consist of a standard flowchart
3966interface and the ident ification of the
3973specific macro functions to be used for trip
3981generation, trip distribution, model choice,
3986and assignment. Highly experienced staff
3991will then perform the conversions and test
3998the results to ensure a successful outcome.
4005Significant discrep ancies will be
4010investigated and resolved in a technically
4016proficient manner , consul ting with agency
4022representatives if errors are found that
4028need to be corrected. Each and every
4035conversion will ensure that similar results
4041are obtained, may at the option o f each
4050model stakeholder have obvious scr i pting
4057errors corrected, and will improve upon
4063valida t i on measures and run much faster than
4073the current Cube version model.
4078Each conversi o n will be accompanied by a
4087technical memorandum detailed the conversion
4092effo rt, changes made, and validation
4098achieved. The conversion effort will be
4104further strengthened and memorialized in the
4110creation of standard scripts for FSUTMS in
4117TransCAD, which will be publish ed and shared
4125with users statewide.
4128We estimate that we will be able to complete
4137all the conversions in a 6 - to 12 - month time
4149frame. Based on our prior experience, we
4156know that different agencies will have
4162different timetables for this work, and we
4169intend to work with [Respondent] and other
4176model stakeholders to s chedule the work
4183effort to reflect these schedul es and
4190[Respondent] priorities.
4192We will be mindful of the i mprovement and
4201standardization opportunities afforded by
4205the conversion effort and will work close
4212with [Respondent] and MPO staff to
4218incorporate so me upgrades to the models as
4226part of the process.
423028 . Upon close analysis, the promise of kick - offs featured
4242in Intervenor's proposal fade to a more prosaic element of t he
4254kicking game, as Intervenor fails to convert and punts its
4264responsibilities to Respondent, local agencies, and even
4271unspecified private consultants . In three ways, Intervenor's
4279proposal comes up short as to conversion, so as to deprive
4290Respondent of much of the benefit of the bargain that is the
4302purpose of the procurement.
430629 . Firs t, Intervenor's p roposal does not undertake the
4317conversion of the four travel demand ABM models, which include
4327the heavily populated areas of southeast Florida and Tampa Bay.
4337Instead, Intervenor shifts the responsibility for converting the
4345ABMs, so as to enable them to interface with Visum , to local
4357consultants who are, in the RFP, third - party beneficiaries of
4368the procurement, not the vendor or its subcontractors.
4376Intervenor's unwillingness to convert the ABMs evidenc es the
4385difficulty of converting this type of model, as borne out by
4396Petitioner's p roposal. Petitioner has considerable experience
4403converting Citilabs' travel demand model ing software, so
4411Petitioner's conversion of Respondent's Citilabs model, which
4418Intervenor also has agreed to do, shou ld not be difficult; the
4430open - ended timeframe to which Petitioner committed for
4439converting all of the models -- 6 to 12 months -- likely reflects
4452the difficulty of converting the ABMs , which Intervenor has
4461expressly decline d to do .
446730 . Second, Intervenor fail s adequately to describe
4476exactly what it will undertake as to the conversion of ABMs.
4487For these four models, including two with very large service
4497bases, t he last sentence of the above - qu oted excerpt from
4510Intervenor's p roposal offers only Intervenor's support of the
"4519localization" efforts of other parties. Failing to define
"4527localization," Intervenor nonetheless has made it clear that it
4536does not accept the RFP requirement that it convert the four
4547ABMs. To this requirement, Interveno r has attached a condition
4557that relieves Intervenor of the responsibility for the final
4566step or steps necessary for local agencies' travel demand
4575models, which will share the new platform of Respondent's
4584software , actually to work . By so doing, Intervenor has
4594declined unconditionally to assume the daunting tasks of
4602calibration, in which each model is adjusted to force results
4612that match real - world conditions, and validation, in which the
4623model is tested by performing a model run for an historic
4634period, for which the actual data is known, to confirm that the
4646model's output compar es favorably to actual results -- although,
4656as described in Scope of Services 6.1, quoted a bove, validation
4667in this RFP also may mean the ability of the model to reproduce
4680the outputs of the model that it is replacing .
469031 . Third , Intervenor's p roposal does not contain the
4700required timeline for the conversion work that Intervenor has
4709undertaken to perform. Intervenor has not imposed upon itself
4718the required timeline for any of the 13 models required to be
4730converted. The materiality of this omission is underscored by
4739Petitioner's warning, " Quite obviously model conversions are the
4747principal obstacle to a successful transition to new travel
4756demand modeling software. "
475932 . Intervenor's nonresponsiveness to the conversion
4766requirements in Scope of Services 6.1 and 7.3.2 confers upon
4776Intervenor a competitive advantage. Conversion, calibration,
4782and validation of the 13 travel demand models are time -
4793consuming, expensive processes, which are at the core of the
4803services for which Respondent is paying in t his procurement,
4813so that a proposal that incompletely undertakes these
4821responsibilities confers upon the proposer a significant
4828competitive ad vantage. Intervenor has also undermined
4835Respondent's ability to enforce the contract in case of
4844incomplete work by shifting to Respondent and private
4852consultants the final stages of the conversion of the ABMs and
4863omitting a timeframe within which to compl ete any of the 13
4875conversions.
4876C . Access as a Co - Licensee for Universities in their
4888Teaching Capacity and Affordable Access for
4894Universities as Consultants and Private Consultants
490033 . Petitioner argued in its proposed recom mended order
4910that Intervenor's p roposal is nonresponsive due to inadequacies
4919in its undertaking to provide access to the travel demand
4929modeling software for universities and certain privat e modeling
4938consultants. As the heading indicates, t here are two distinct
4948aspects to t his challenge.
495334 . Sc ope of Services 7.4 provides:
4961While [Respondent] makes the modeli ng
4967software available to other public agencies
4973(and Universities acquire no - cost teaching
4980licenses), selection of the software will
4986consider the costs to priv at e industry
4994working in Florida. Private industries and
5000Universities work in collaboration with
5005[Respondent] and Florida's public agencies.
5010It is important to ensure that these
5017industries, particularly smaller firms, have
5022affordable access to the selected so ftware.
502935 . In Addendum No. 1, Respondent responded to a vendor's
5040question of how and where to present pricing information
5049pertaining to the specifications contained in Scope of
5057Services 7.4. Respondent replied: "Please present a price, a
5066discount, or your approach as to how these entities will have
5077affordable access to the selected software in section 7.4."
508636 . Intervenor's p roposal responds to Scope of
5095Services 7.4 as follows:
5099[Intervenor] has been providing a separate
5105pricing structure for academic users.
5110First, all academic users in Florida will
5117get access to not only Visum licenses as a
5126part of this contract but also, for each
5134semester, they will be eligible for
5140additional classroom licenses for up to 60
5147students per request. If they wou ld like to
5156acquire separate licenses, they will be
5162eligible for academic pricing where we
5168provide all four off - line software that
5176[Intervenor] provides.
5178For smaller firms in Florida, we will apply
5186maximum multiple license discount (50%) from
5192first license ; however, we will require them
5199to submit Florida DBE [Disadvantage d
5205Business Enterprise] certification to ensure
5210their eligibility . In addition, we will
5217offer a lease - to - own option as well as
5228making Visum license to be even more
5235affordable to them. Leas ed licenses will be
5243fully functional with an expiration date.
5249Upon expiration, user will be able to choose
5257whether they would like to p urchase a
5265license and the full a mount that they have
5274paid until then (within 1 - year) will be
5283applied as a credit toward their purchase.
5290In this way, we can provide affordable
5297access to users with smaller companies.
530337 . Petitioner's p roposal, which refers to its travel
5313demand modeling software as "TransCAD" and its traffic simulator
5322software as TransDNA and TransModeler, responds as follows :
5331Our offer will actually lower the cost to
5339Florida consultants and university
5343researchers. Many, of course, already have
5349our software and will not need to acquire
5357additional licenses. For those that will
5363need licenses, we will provi de TransCAD free
5371of charge, but expect that the normal annual
5379support fee of $1,200 be paid up front to
5389receive the software. We will limit this
5396offer to two co pies per consulting firm for
5405use in Florida and for work performed for
5413Florida public agencies. Similarly, we will
5419offer one optional TransModeler license to
5425Florida consultants and university
5429researchers for work performed in Florida
5435for free but with the normal annual support
5443fee of $1,500 per year to be paid in
5453advance.
545438 . Intervenor's p roposal is nonresponsive in two
5463respects. First, Scope of Services 7.4 clearly identifies as
5472co - licensees local public agencies and universities in their
5482teaching capacity. This is consistent with Introduction 1,
5490which, as noted above, alerts in boldface that Respondent is
5500acquiring the software and license for itself, the MPOs, local
5510agencies, and universities in their teaching capacity. T he
5519university 's teaching of traffic demand modeling is not feasible
5529if only the professor were to be entitled to a f ree copy of the
5544software, which students would be required to purchase at a cost
5555of tens of thousands of dollars per copy. Attaching an
5565impermissible condition to the requirement to treat the
5573university in its teaching capacity as a co - licensee,
5583Interveno r's p roposal limits the free stu dent copies to 60 per
5596semester and offers additional student copies at an unspecified
5605academic discount. Thus , Intervenor's p roposal is nonresponsive
5613to Scope of Services 7.4 and the Introduction in its treatment
5624of univers ities in their teaching capacity as a co - licensee.
563639 . As to Scope of Services 7.4 , Petitioner's p roposal is
5648also nonresponsive because it imposes substantial "annual
5655support fees" on all "free" university licenses -- even though the
5666above - quoted Price Proposal Form clearly includes the price of
5677the "Annual License Renewal" for three years . Additionally,
5686Petitioner's proposal fails to provide any free copies of the
5696software for students.
569940 . Second, re gardless of whether they are private
5709entities or universities, consultants , who are not co - licensees,
5719are assured by Scope of Services 7.4 affordable access to the
5730software . This assurance does not impose much of a burden upon
5742a proposer . As amplified by Respondent's re sponse to the second
5754question in Addendum No. 1, each proposal was required to
"5764present a price, a discount, or your approach as to how these
5776entities will have affordable access to the selected software in
5786section 7.4." Con trary to Petit i oner's contentio n , a discount
5798without a price against which to ap ply the discount is facially
5810sufficient , so Intervenor's p roposal is responsive to this
5819requirement .
582141 . However , Intervenor's proposal is nonresponsive
5828because Intervenor inexplicably failed to offer its vague
5836promise of preferential pricing to the class of users to whom
5847Scope of Services 7.4 assures affordable access . Rather than
5857extend its discount to all private and university consultants,
5866Intervenor 's proposal limits its discount to private consultants
5875that are certified as DBEs , which is likely a small fraction of
5887private consultants and, of course, improperly ignores all
5895universities in their capacity as consultants .
590242 . Intervenor's nonresponsiveness to the se requirements
5910confers upon I ntervenor a competitive advantage. The advantage
5919from failing to treat the universities in their teaching
5928capacity as co - licensees means that every dollar exacted from
5939students or universities in their teachin g capacity for the term
5950of the RFP is unearned because Respondent has already paid for
5961these licensing rights in this procurement . The advantage from
5971extending a discount to a small fraction of the class of persons
5983entitled to the discount means that Intervenor will improperly
5992realize thousands of do llars on the sale of undiscounted
6002software to consultants that are not DBEs .
6010III . Scoring
6013A. Introduction
601543 . The evaluators w ere T. Hill, T. Corkery, and
6026F. Tabatabee (respectively, Evaluator 1, Evaluator 2, and
6034Evaluator 3). The evaluators were not trained in the RFP, and
6045they did not communicate with each other while scoring the three
6056proposals. The evaluators worked briskly , completing their
6063evaluations within two weeks.
606744 . Evaluator 1 has been Respondent's state modeling
6076manager for the past five years and has prior experience with
6087Respondent in transportation modeling in a district office. He
6096has a total of 18 years' experience in transportation modeling.
6106Evaluator 2 has been employed by Respondent for 25 years. He is
6118presently a senior t ravel demand modeler, in which capacity he
6129has served for ten years. Evaluator 2 previously served as a
6140transportation modeler for Respondent. Prior to his employment
6148with Respondent, Evaluator 2 worked as a travel demand modeling
6158consultant for seven ye ars. Evaluator 3 lacks experience in
6168modeling, but instead is experienced in statistics and the
6177development of Respondent's traffic data system , which supplies
6185the data used for traffic modeling.
619145 . As noted above, none of the evaluators lowered a score
6203of Intervenor's proposal due to its nonresponsiveness, but
6211neither did they lower a score of Petitioner's proposal due to
6222its nonresponsiveness. In any event, these omissions have not
6231rendered the sco ring clearly erroneous.
623746 . Oddly, Evaluator 3 may have lowered a score of
6248Petitioner for c omplying with an RFP provision. Evaluator 3
6258testified that Petitioner improperly included a price within its
6267Technical Proposal, even though , as noted above, Res pondent
6276instructed the propo sers to do so in Addendum No. 1. However,
6288this act has not rendered Evaluator 3's scoring clearly
6297erroneous.
629847 . In contrast to the clear, confident testimony of
6308Evaluators 1 and 2 , who demonstrated fluency with the RFP and
6319re asonable familiarity with the proposals, the testimony of
6328Evaluator 3 was often vague, sometimes confusing , and, at least
6338once, as noted in the preceding paragraph, confused. Perhaps
6347due to his unique expertise, Evaluator 3 was not as conversant
6358as the ot her evaluators with the RFP or the proposals. But
6370Evaluator 3's shortcomings do not rend er his scoring clearly
6380erroneous, although it inspires less confidence than the scoring
6389of Evaluators 1 and 2. In any event, Petitioner would have lost
6401to Intervenor even if Evaluator 3 's scores had been discarded.
6412Averaging the scores of Evaluators 1 and 2, Intervenor outscored
6422Petitioner on the Technical Proposal 86.875 to 83.125, so the
6432addition of Intervenor's Price Proposal score of 3.69 and
6441Petitioner's Price Pr oposal score of 5.33 would have yielded a
6452final score of 90.565 for Intervenor and 88.455 for Petitioner.
646248 . Moreover , t he scoring of the two sections at issue --
6475Scope of Services 3 and 7 -- did not reveal that Evaluator 3 was
6489much of an outlier. For Sc ope of Services 3, Evaluators 1 and 2
6503assigned a 4 to both proposals, and Evaluator 3 assigned a 3 to
6516both proposals. For Scope of Services 7, Evaluator 3 assigned
6526to each proposal the same score as one of the two other
6538evaluators: for Intervenor's propo sal, Evaluators 1 and 3
6547assigned a 4, and Evaluator 2 assigned a 3, and, for
6558Petitioner's proposal, Evaluator 1 assigned a 4, and
6566Evaluators 2 and 3 assigned a 3.
657349 . Petitioner's evidence of clearly erroneous scoring
6581takes two forms. First, Petitioner relies mostly on the
6590testimony of its principal, who is extremely knowledgeable about
6599travel demand modeling, but equally interested in the outcome of
6609the case. Second, Petitioner relies on a few in ternal
6619i nconsistencies in scoring that are not so grave as to render
6631the scoring clearly erroneous. Petitioner 's task of proving
6640clearly erroneous scoring was undermined by the strong testimony
6649of Evaluators 1 and 2, the open - ended nature of the scoring
6662criteria driving a single score for each section, and, for Scope
6673of Services 7, the large number of unw e ighted subsections. It
6685is a daunting task for a party challenging a proposed award in a
6698highly technical procurement to se t aside scoring as clearly
6708erroneous with out the testimony of at least one independent
6718expe rt witness , who is well informed of the facts of the case .
6732B . Scoring of Scope of Services 3: Network
674150 . Scope of Services 3 comprises two subsections :
6751ue Shape Network -- At a minimum, the
6759vendor's software must efficiently
6763accommodate true shape networks.
67673.2 Integrated Advanced Network
6771Capabilities -- Inefficiencies o f contemporary
6777modeling network s have made it challenging
6784to share data among models and have led to
6793duplication in data collection. This
6798results in less than optimal model execution
6805times and consequently reduced capacity to
6811dev elop multiple scenarios efficie ntly. The
6818vendor's software shall include access to
6824integrated advanced networks an d
6829capabilities that promote a unifi ed network
6836platform for all travel demand models in the
6844state and promote more efficient and
6850flexible networks.
685251 . These subsections generally ask each evaluator to
6861assess how efficiently the proposed software accommod ates true
6870shape networks, which capture the actual geometry of roads
6879rather than invariably representing them linearly as sticks, and
6888the accessibility of the proposed software to integrated
6896advanced networks and capability that promote a unified network
6905platform for all travel demand models. The phrasing of these
6915criteria introduces an element of flexibility in the scoring of
6925the proposals under Scope of Services 3 , although this section
6935is much less open - ended than Scope of Services 7 and its myriad
6949criteria .
695152 . Evaluator 1 testified to no significant differences
6960between the proposals of Intervenor and Petitioner in handling
6969true shape networks and integrating advanced networks.
6976Evaluator 2 testified that the proposals of Intervenor and
6985Petitioner offered true shape networks and also did well in
6995importing other map - based information on top of the road
7006information, which evidences the integration of advanced network
7014capabilities. This testimony is credited, and Petitione r has
7023failed to prove that the scoring of Scope of Services 3 was
7035clearly erroneous in favor of Intervenor's proposal.
7042C. Scoring of Scope of Services 7 : Other Considerations
705253 . Scope of Services 7 comprises nine subsections:
70617.1 Support Needs and I ntegration with
7068Other Florida Models
70717.2 Model Flexibility
70747.3 Implementation and Collaboration
70787.4 Private Industry and University
7083Consideration
70847.5 Comprehensive Documentation
7087aining Plan
70897.7 Consultant Support
70927 .8 Consultant Work Experience
70977.9 Addressing Florida's Future Modeling
7102Needs
7103Three of these nine subsections have a total of seven
7113subsubsections, so a total of 16 separate scoring criteria are
7123found in Scope of Services 7 , which, like other scoring
7133sections, is ultimately assigned a single score of 1 through 4 .
714554 . For Scope of Services 7, Intervenor's proposal
7154received an average of 22.92 points, and Petitioner's proposal
7163received an average of 20.83 points. As noted above,
7172Intervenor's proposal is nonresponsive to Scope of Services 7.3
7181and 7.4, al though Petitioner's proposal is nonresponsive to
7190Scope of Services 7.4. Intervenor's proposal also offer s one
7200year, not three years, of training, so as to earn a relatively
7212low score on Scope of Services 7.6 and describe s less work
7224experience than that described in Petitioner's proposal .
7232However, the open - endedness of Scope of Services 7 requires
7243deference e ven to Evaluator 3's enthusiastic endorsement of
7252Intervenor's proposal's response to Scope of Services 7.6 for
7261its division of the state , for personnel training, by latitude,
7271not lo ngitude, exactly as Evaluator 3 does.
727955 . Nothing in the RFP compels a sp ecific weighting of the
729216 scoring criteria in Scope of Services 7. Addressing this
7302point in its proposed recommended order, Petitioner argued that
7311for a score "to be true of the overall whole [section,] it must
7325also be true of a fair number of its parts. " T he deferential
7338standards discussed in the Conclusions of Law undermine this
7347assertion by reducing a "fair number" to a very low number .
7359Although Evaluators 1, 2, and 3 struggled to justify their
7369scores for Intervenor's proposal as to Scope of Services 7, as
7380compared to the explanations offered by Evaluators 1 and 2 as to
7392Scope of Services 3, Petitioner failed to prove that their
7402scores were clearly erroneous in favor of Intervenor's proposal .
7412CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
741556 . DOAH has jurisdiction of the sub ject matter.
7425§§ 120.569 and 120.57 (1) and (3 ) , Fla. Stat . (2017). Any person
"7439adversely affected" by proposed agency action to award a
7448contract in a competitive procurement is entitled to an
7457administrative hearing. § 120.57(3)(b). A person is adversely
7465affected if the person has submitted a proposal. Advocacy Ctr.
7475for Pers. with Disab. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. , 721 So.
74882d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998 ).
749557 . In a competitive procurement case that does not
7505involve the rejection of all bids, the Administrative Law Judge
7515conducts a "de novo hearing" to determine whether an agency's
7525proposed action is "contrary to the agencyÓs governing statutes,
7534the agencyÓs rules or policies, or the solicitation
7542specifications." § 120.57(3)(f) . The standard of proof is
7551whether the person challenging the intended award has proved
7560that the agency's proposed action is " clearly erroneous,
7568contrary to compet ition, arbitrary, or capricious " (Clearly
7576Erroneous Standard). Id. In general, though, administrative
7583pro ceedings are governed by the prep onderance standard of proof.
7594§ 120.57(1)(j). The difference between these evidentiary
7601standards is significant. A preponderance of the evidence is
7610the greater weight of the evidence, see , e.g. , Gross v. Lyons ,
7621763 So. 2d 276, 280 (Fla. 2000), but the Clearly Erroneous
7632Standard requires proof that the agency's determination is not
"7641within the range of possible and reasonable interpretations."
7649See Cagle v. St. Johns Cnty. Sch . Dist. , 939 So. 2d 1085, 1089
7663(Fla. 5th DCA 200 6).
766858 . Evidentiary, basic, or direct facts, such as whether a
7679bid contained an attachment when submitted, are governed by the
7689preponderance standard. See , e.g. , Asphalt Pavers, Inc. v.
7697Dep't of Transp. , 602 So. 2d 558 , 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
7709Determinations of ultimate facts, mixed questions of fact and
7718law, and technical facts drawing on the expertise of the agency,
7729which typically drive an agency's proposed action, are governed
7738by the Clearly Erroneous Standard. Compare State Contr. & Eng' g
7749Corp. v. Dep't of Transp. , 709 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA
77621998). Determinations of whether a proposal deviates from a
7771request for proposals and, if so, whether the deviation is
7781material also fall under the Clearly Erroneous Standard. Id.
779059 . "C ontrary to competition" probably derives from the
7800longstanding requirement of Florida courts that the bidding
7808process assures "fair competition" to all bidders. As stated in
7818Wester v. Belote , 138 So. 721, 723 - 24 ( Fla. 1931), the effect of
7833this standard is :
7837to protect the public against collusive
7843contracts; to secure fair competition upon
7849equal terms to all bidders; to remove not
7857only collusion but temptation for collusion
7863and opportunity for gain at public expense;
7870to close all avenues to favoritism and fraud
7878in its various forms; to secure the best
7886values for the county at the lowest possible
7894expense, and to afford an equal advantage to
7902all desiring to do business with the county,
7910by affording an opportunity for an ex act
7918comparison of bids.
792160 . "A rbitrary" require s that the proposed agency action
7932is "supported by logic or the necessary facts," and capricious
7942precludes proposed agency action that is taken "without thought
7951or reason or is irrational." Hadi v. Liberty Behavioral Health
7961Corp . , 927 So. 2d 34, 38 - 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); § § 120.56(1)(a)
7977and 120.52(8)(e).
797961 . Any deviation from a requirement in a procurement
7989document may render the bid or proposal nonresponsive, even if
7999the document fails to identify the requirement as a mandatory
8009item on which responsiveness will be determined. See , e.g. ,
8018State Contr. , 709 So . 2d at 609 . Deviations from mandatories
8030are divided into material variances , which the agency may not
8040waive, and minor irregularities, which the agency may waive. As
8050the court explained in Tropabest Foods, Inc. v. Department of
8060Gen eral Serv ices , 493 So. 2d 50, 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986):
8073although a bid containing a material
8079variance is unacceptable, not every
8084deviation from the invitation to bid is
8091material. It is only material if it gives
8099the bidder a substantial advantage over the
8106other bidders and thereb y restricts or
8113stifles competition.
811562 . The Clearly Erroneous Standard necessarily applies to
8124actions taken by Respondent in determining the responsiveness
8132and scoring of Intervenor's proposal -- here, a deemed
8141determination of responsiveness . For the reasons stated in the
8151Findings of Fact, Petitioner has proved that Respondent's
8159determination of responsiveness is Clearly Erroneous as to the
8168conversions of models, access as co - licensees for universities
8178in their teaching capacity, and affordable a ccess for
8187universities as consultants and private c onsultants .
8195Respondent's clearly erroneous determinations of responsiveness
8201on these two points resulted in an intended award that is
8212contrary to competition and contrary to the above - cited
8222provisions of the RFP.
822663 . For the reasons stated in the Findings of Fact,
8237Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's scoring of the
8247proposal s of Intervenor and Petitioner was Clearly Erroneous.
8256RECOMMENDATION
8257It is
8259RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a
8267final order rejecting Intervenor's proposal as nonresponsive.
8274DONE AND ENTERED this 20 th day of April , 2018 , in
8285Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
8289S
8290ROBERT E. MEALE
8293Administrative Law Judge
8296Division of Administrative Hearings
8300The DeSoto Building
83031230 Apalachee Parkway
8306Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
8311(850) 488 - 9675
8315Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
8321www.doah.state.fl.us
8322Filed with the Clerk of the
8328Division of Administrative Hearings
8332this 20 th day of April , 2018 .
8340COPIES FURNISHED:
8342Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire
8346Department of Transportation
8349605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58
8355Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450
8360(eServed)
8361Frederick John Springer, Esquire
8365Elizabeth W. Neiberger, Esquire
8369Bryant Miller Olive P.A.
8373101 North Monroe Street, Suite 900
8379Tallahassee, Florida 32301
8382(eServed)
8383Bryan Duke, Esquire
8386Messer Caparello, P.A.
83892618 Centennial Place
8392Tallahassee, Florida 32308
8395(eServed)
8396Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of
8400Agency Proceedings
8402Department of Transportation
8405Haydon Burns Building
8408605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58
8414Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450
8419(eServed)
8420Erik Fenniman, General Counsel
8424Department of Transportation
8427Haydon Burns Building
8430605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58
8436Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450
8441(eServed)
8442Michael J. Dew, Secretary
8446Department of Transportation
8449Haydon Burns Building
8452605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57
8458Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450
8463(eServed)
8464NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
8470All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
848015 days from the date of this Rec ommended Order. Any exceptions
8492to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that
8503will issue the Final Order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 05/23/2018
- Proceedings: Department of Transportation's Response to Exceptions filed by Caliper Corporation.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/23/2018
- Proceedings: Intervenor PTV America, Inc.'s Exceptions to Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/20/2018
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/20/2018
- Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held February 26 and 27, 2018). CASE CLOSED.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/09/2018
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Department's Motion for Leave to Supplement Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/09/2018
- Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Leave to Supplement Proposed Recommended Order.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/09/2018
- Proceedings: Department's Motion for Leave to Supplement Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/28/2018
- Proceedings: Order Granting Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Amended Proposed Recommended Order.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/28/2018
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Amended Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/26/2018
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Unopposed Motion to Reopen Record to Supplement Joint Exhibit 1 filed.
- Date: 03/15/2018
- Proceedings: Transcript (Volumes 1-4) (not available for viewing) filed.
- Date: 02/26/2018
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/21/2018
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Department's Responses to Petitioner's Second Request for Production of Documents to the Department filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/21/2018
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Department's Responses to Petitioner's Second Set of Interrogatories to the Department filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/19/2018
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Petitioner's Responses to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/16/2018
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Petitioner's Second Request for Production of Documents to Respondent filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/16/2018
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Petitioner's Second Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/16/2018
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/13/2018
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Department's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/01/2018
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing (hearing set for February 26 and 27, 2018; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/01/2018
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Unopposed Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/30/2018
- Proceedings: Respondent's Responses to Petitioner's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/30/2018
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Department's Responses to Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories to the Department filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/25/2018
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving of Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/25/2018
- Proceedings: Notice of Serving Petitioner's First Request for Production of Documents to Respondent filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- ROBERT E. MEALE
- Date Filed:
- 01/22/2018
- Date Assignment:
- 01/23/2018
- Last Docket Entry:
- 08/14/2018
- Location:
- Tallahassee, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
- Suffix:
- BID
Counsels
-
Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire
Address of Record -
Bryan Duke, Esquire
Address of Record -
Elizabeth W. Neiberger, Esquire
Address of Record -
Frederick John Springer, Esquire
Address of Record