18-003512BID South Florida Community Care Network, Llc, D/B/A Community Care Plan vs. Agency For Health Care Administration
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Monday, November 19, 2018.


View Dockets  
Summary: AHCA did not follow ITN ranking process. Required to reject all responses. AHCA did not follow requirement to negotiate with responsive Provider Service Network offering specialty Medicaid managed care plans. AHCA must negotiate. Evaluators qualified.

1SOUTH FLORIDA COMMUNITY CARE

5NETWORK, LLC d/b/a COMMUNITY

9CARE PLAN,

11Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 18-3513BID

16AHCA ITN 010-17/18 ( CSN Specialty Plan)

23v.

24STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR

29HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION,

32Respondent.

33SOUTH FLORIDA COMMUNITY CARE

37NETWORK, LLC d/b/a COMMUNITY

41CARE PLAN,

43Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 18-3514BID

48AHCA ITN 010-17/18 (CW Specialty Plan)

54V.

55STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR

60HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION,

63Respondent,

64and

65SUNSHINE STATE HEALTH PLAN,

69Intervenor.

70----------------------------- I

72FINAL ORDER

74This case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") where the

89assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), John D. C. Newton II, conducted a formal

102administrative hearing. The issues in this proceeding are: I) whether Petitioner, AHF MCO of

116Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan ("Positive"), has standing to contest the

132intended award to Simply Healthcare Plan, Inc. ("'Simply") for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection

151of all proposals (DOAH Case Nos. 18-3507BID and 18-3508BID); 2) whether the intended decision

165of the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency'"), to contract with Simply for Medicaid

181managed care plans for HIV I AIDS patients in Region 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-

198Dade and Monroe 1 Counties) should be invalidated and all proposals rejected (DOAH Case Nos. 18-

2143507BID and 18-3508BID); 3) whether the Agency must negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida

227Community Care Network, LLC. d/b/a Community Care Plan ("Community""), about a plan to

242provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive

257proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network ("PSN"") (DOAH Case No. 18-3512BID);

2734) whether the Agency must negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services

287in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN (DOAH Case

303No. 18-3511BID); 5) whether the Agency must contract with Community to provide Medicaid

316managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN

332(DOAH Case No. 18-3513BID); and 6) whether the Agency must negotiate with Community to

346provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because

359Community is a PSN (DOAH Case No. 18-3514BID). The Amended Recommended Order, which

372was entered on November 20, 2018, is attached to this final order and incorporated herein by

388reference, except where noted infra.

393RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS

396Simply, WellCare of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Staywell Florida ("Staywell"), Community, and

409the Agency all filed exceptions to the Amended Recommended Order. Simply filed a Response

423to Community's exceptions. Staywell filed a response to Community's exceptions. Community

434filed responses to both Staywell and the Agency's exceptions. The Agency filed a response to

449Community's exceptions. Positive filed responses to both Simply and the Agency's exceptions.

4611 The ALJ erroneously listed Collier County under Region 11 along with Miami-Dade County in his Amended

478Recommended Order. Collier County is under Region 8 of the Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Program.

493In determining how to rule upon Simply, Staywell, Community and the Agency's

505exceptions and whether to adopt the ALI's Amended Recommended Order in whole or in part,

520the Agency must follow Section 120.57(1 )(!), Florida Statutes, which provides in pertinent part:

534The agency may adopt the recommended order as the final order of the agency.

548The agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law over

563which it has substantive jurisdiction and interpretation of administrative rules

573over which it has substantive jurisdiction. When rejecting or modifying such

584conclusion of law or interpretation of administrative rule, the agency must state

596with particularity its reasons for rejecting or modifying such conclusion of law or

609interpretation of administrative rule and must make a finding that its substituted

621conclusion of law or interpretation of administrative rule is as or more reasonable

634than that which was rejected or modified. Rejection or modification of

645conclusions of law may not form the basis for rejection or modification of

658findings of fact. The agency may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless

673the agency first determines from a review of the entire record, and states with

687particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based upon competent

701substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did

714not comply with essential requirements oflaw ....

721Fla. Stat. § 120.57(1 )(!). Additionally, "[t]he final order shall include an explicit ruling on each

737exception, but an agency need not rule on an exception that does not clearly identify the disputed

754portion of the recommended order by page number or paragraph, that does not identify the legal

770basis for the exception, or that does not include appropriate and specific citations to the record."

786§ 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. In accordance with these legal standards, the Agency makes the

800following rulings on Simply, Staywell, Community, and the Agency's exceptions:

810Simply's Exceptions

812In its first exception, Simply takes exception to Paragraphs 89 and 145 of the Amended

827Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ erred in concluding that the Agency failed to follow the

842review process of the ITN. The Agency agrees. The ALJ's interpretation of the terms of the

858ITN in Paragraph 89 is erroneous. The ITN did not mandate three evaluators would review all

874the responses in their entirety. The ALJ failed to recognize the wide discretion the Agency has

890m the procurement process, or find that the Agency did not exercise such discretion in a

906dishonest manner. See Dep't of Transp. v. Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So. 2d 912, 913

920(Fla. 1988). Furthermore, as set forth in the ruling on the Agency's Exception No. 2 infra, which

937is hereby incorporated by reference, the parties had ample opportunity to challenge the

950specifications to the ITN, yet failed to do so. Thus, they have waived their rights to challenge

967the evaluation methods at this point in time. Based upon the foregoing, the Agency finds that it

984has substantive jurisdiction over the conclusions of law in Paragraphs 89 and 145 of the

999Amended Recommended Order, and that it is able to substitute conclusions of law that are as or

1016more reasonable than those of the ALJ. Therefore, the Agency grants Simply's first exception,

1030rejects Paragraph 145 of the Amended Recommended Order, and modifies Paragraph 89 of the

1044Amended Recommended Order as follows:

104989. The ranking process presented in the ITN and described in

1060paragraphs 62-64, did not contemplated ranking each respondent

1068by evaluator. The Agency carried this process over from an earlier

1079procurement. In this procurement, despite what the ITN said, the

1089Agency assigned responsibilities so that each evaluator reviewed

1097only a subset of SRCs. Therefore, the ranking of responses by

1108evaluator presented in the ITN could not vwrk. It v;as not even

1121possible because no one evaluator reviewed a complete response

1130and because each SRC had a different maximum point score.

1140In its second exception, Simply takes exception to Paragraph 143 of the Amended

1153Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ erred in finding that April Bossoms testified that she was

1168unable to rank responses by evaluator. Indeed, Ms. Bossoms testified that she was able to do so.

1185See Transcript, Volume 14, Pages 1596-1600. In addition, the Agency also believes Paragraph

1198143 of the Amended Recommended Order should be rejected for the reasons set forth in the

1214ruling on the Agency's Exception Nos. 4 and 5 infra, which are hereby incorporated by

1229reference. To the extent Paragraph 143 of the Amended Recommended Order contains findings

1242of fact, the Agency determines the findings of fact are not based on competent, substantial record

1258evidence. To the extent Paragraph 143 of the Amended Recommended Order contains

1270conclusions of law, the Agency finds that it has substantive jurisdiction over the conclusions of

1285law in Paragraph 143 of the Amended Recommended Order, and that it is able to substitute

1301conclusions of law that are as or more reasonable than those ofthe ALJ. Therefore, the Agency

1317grants Simply's second exception and rejects Paragraph 143 of the Amended Recommended

1329Order.

1330In its third, fourth, and fifth exceptions, Simply takes exception to Paragraphs 144 and

1344145 of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing the ALI erred in its conclusions of law

1359pertaining to Positive's standing in this matter. The Agency agrees for the reasons set forth in its

1376ruling on the Agency's Exception Nos. 4 and 5 infra, which are hereby incorporated by

1391reference. The Agency finds that it has substantive jurisdiction over the conclusions of law in

1406Paragraphs 144 and 145 of the Amended Recommended Order, and that it is able to substitute

1422conclusions of law that are as or more reasonable than those of the ALI. Therefore, the Agency

1439grants Simply's third, fourth and fifth exceptions, and rejects Paragraphs 144 and 145 of the

1454Amended Recommended Order.

1457Staywell's Exceptions

1459In its first exception, Staywell takes exception to the Appearances section of the

1472Amended Recommended Order, arguing it should be changed to reflect Staywell is an Intervenor

1486in this matter. Pursuant to rule 28-1 06.205(1 ), Florida Administrative Code, "[p ]ersons other

1501than the original parties to a pending proceeding whose substantial interest will be affected by

1516the proceeding and who desire to become parties may move the presiding officer for leave to

1532intervene." (Emphasis added). However, subsection (3) of the rule gives an exception for

"1545[ s ]pecifically-named persons whose substantial interest are being determined in the

1557proceeding." For them, entering a notice of appearance is sufficient for intervention. Staywell,

1570through its counsel, claimed it was a "specifically-named person" in DOAH Case No. 18-

15843511 BID, and entered a notice of appearance, citing to rule 28-1 06.205(3), Florida

1598Administrative Code. It's clear from the record that Staywell participated in the matter as a

1613party, and that the other parties to the matter considered Staywell as a party. The ALJ's styling

1630of the case is thus a scrivener's error. Therefore, the Agency will treat Staywell's first exception

1646as a motion to correct a scrivener's error, which it hereby grants. The style of DOAH Case No.

166418-3511BID is hereby changed to reflect that Staywell was an intervenor in the matter.

1678In its second exception, Staywell takes exception to the first paragraph on Page 11 of the

1694Amended Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ erred by stating Staywell offered an unredacted

1707version of Joint Exhibit 361. The Agency will treat this exception as a motion to correct a

1724scrivener's error, which it will grant. Therefore, the Agency modifies the first paragraph of Page

173911 ofthe Amended Recommended Order as follows:

1746Staywell presented the testimony of Elizabeth Miller. It offered

1755only unredaeted Joint Exhibit 361, which was admitted.

1763In its third exception, Staywell takes exception to Paragraphs 137 and 138 of the

1777Amended Recommended Order, arguing that some additional findings of fact should be added to

1791the legal conclusions that are contained within those paragraphs. However, the Agency is not

1805required to make additional findings of fact. See § 120.57(1 )(f), Fla. Stat. Therefore, the

1820Agency denies Staywell's third exception.

1825Community's Exceptions

1827In its first exception (Section II, 1. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

1839exception to the Statement of Issues portion of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing

1852Paragraphs C, D, and F do not identify whether the Agency was required to contract with

1868Community as an issue in the case. However, Community fails to "include appropriate and

1882specific citations to the record" in support of its exception as required by section 120.57(1)(k),

1897Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Agency need not rule on it.

1907In its second exception (Section III, 1. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

1919exception to Paragraph 16 of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing there were actually

1932three Provider Service Networks ("PSNs") that submitted proposals to serve the Children with

1947Special Needs ("CSN") population, not two PSNs as the ALJ found in that paragraph. However,

1964Community appears to be misreading the findings of fact in Paragraph 16 of the Amended

1979Recommended Order. Paragraph 16 of the Amended Recommended Order states that

"1990Community, Staywell, and two others submitted proposals to offer Specialty Plans for Children

2003with Special Needs (CSN) in Region 10. Community was one of two responding PSNs."

2017(Emphasis added). In addition, the findings of fact in Paragraph 16 of the Amended

2031Recommended Order are based on competent, substantial evidence. See Transcript, Volume 11,

2043Pages 1270-1271. Thus, the Agency cannot reject or modify them. See § 120.57(1)(1), Fla.

2057Stat.; Heifetz v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (holding that an

2076agency "may not reject the hearing officer's finding [of fact] unless there is no competent,

2091substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred"). Therefore, the

2104Agency must deny Community's second exception.

2110In its third exception (Section III, 2. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

2122exception to Paragraph 22 of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing the findings of fact

2136contained therein are incomplete. However, whether a finding of fact is complete is not a valid

2152basis for the Agency to reject or modify it. The Agency may only reject or modify findings of

2170fact if they are not based on competent, substantial evidence. See § 120.57(1 )(l), Fla. Stat.;

2186Heifetz. The findings of fact in Paragraph 22 of the Amended Recommended Order are based on

2202competent, substantial record evidence. See Joint Exhibit 1. Therefore, the Agency denies

2214Community's third exception.

2217In its fourth exception (Section III, 3. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

2229exception to Paragraphs 26 and 28 of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ's

2243findings that the ITN did not describe or specify specialty populations to be served were not

2259based on competent, substantial evidence. Community's argument is incorrect. The findings of

2271fact in Paragraphs 26 and 28 of the Amended Recommended Order are based on competent,

2286substantial record evidence. See, Transcript, Volume 2, Pages 218-220; and Joint Exhibit 1.

2299Thus, the Agency is not at liberty to reject or modify them. See § 120.57(1 )(l), Fla. Stat.;

2317Heifetz. Therefore, the Agency denies Community's fourth exception.

2325In its fifth exception (Section III, 4. and 5. of Community's Exceptions), Community

2338takes exception to the ALJ's finding of fact in Paragraph 28 of the Amended Recommended

2353Order that "Petitioners and Intervenors describe the populations that they propose serving as

2366HIV/AIDS patients, patients with SMI, CSN, and child welfare populations." Community

2377argues the finding of fact incorrectly suggests these categories were created by ITN respondents

2391and that the Agency did not specifically solicit responses as to these specialties. The finding of

2407fact at issue in Paragraph 28 of the Amended Recommended Order is based on competent,

2422substantial record evidence. See Joint Exhibit 1. Thus, the Agency is not permitted to disturb it.

2438See § 120.57(1)(1), Fla. Stat.; Heifetz. In addition, Community's argument concerning the

2450admission of its Exhibits 22-26 is outside of the Agency's substantive jurisdiction. See Barfield

2464v. Dep't of Health, 805 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Therefore, the Agency denies

2480Community's fifth exception.

2483In its sixth exception (Section III, 6. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

2495exception to the ALJ' s finding of fact in Paragraph 46 of the Amended Recommended Order that

"2512Attachment A at A I 0-( d) makes it clear that the answers are part of the addendum." However,

2531Community fails to "identify a legal basis for the exception'' as required by section 120.57( I )(k),

2548Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Agency need not address it.

2557In its seventh exception (Section III, 7. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

2569exception to Paragraph 69 of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing it contains mislabeled

2582and erroneous conclusions of law. To the extent Paragraph 69 of the Amended Recommended

2596Order could be construed to be conclusions of law, the Agency finds that, while it does have

2613substantive jurisdiction over them because it is the single state agency in charge of administering

2628Florida's Medicaid program, it cannot substitute conclusions of law that are as or more

2642reasonable than those of the ALJ. To the extent that Paragraph 69 of the Amended

2657Recommended Order contains findings of fact, the findings of fact in that paragraph are based on

2673competent, substantial record evidence. See Joint Exhibit 3; and Paragraph 8 of the parties' Joint

2688Prehearing Stipulation. Therefore, the Agency denies Community's seventh exception.

2697In its eighth exception (Section IV, 1. and 2. of Community's Exceptions), Community

2710takes exception to Paragraph 119 of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing that: 1) the

2724ALl's summarization of Community's argument that "sections 409.974 and 409.966 and the ITN

2737require the Agency to negotiate with it because it is a PSN" is underinclusive; and 2) the AU's

2755summarization of Community's argument that "the Agency's decision not to award a Children

2768with Special Needs plan does not qualify as a rejection of all bids" is an overgeneralization.

2784Community's exception is unfounded. The ALJ's summarization of Community's arguments

2794mirrors what Community argued in its proposed recommended order. See Pages 12-13, 21, and

280841-42 of Community's Consolidated Proposed Recommended Order. Therefore, the Agency

2818denies Community's eighth exception.

2822In its ninth exception (Section IV, 3. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

2834exception to Endnote 5 of the Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ erred by stating

"2848Community did not raise or preserve the 'ranking' issue advanced by Positive." The ALJ's

2862conclusion of law in Endnote 5 of the Recommended Order is outside of the Agency's

2877substantive jurisdiction. See, Barfield, 805 So. 2d 1008. Therefore, the Agency denies

2889Community's ninth exception.

2892In its tenth exception (Section IV, 4. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

2904exception to Paragraph 124 of the Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ erred by not

2918concluding that Community was entitled to a contract to serve those with Serious Mental Illness

2933("SMI"). Community's argument is founded on the premise that Paragraph 124 of the

2948Recommended Order identifies all the contract awards Community is entitled to. However,

2960nowhere in Paragraph 124 of the Amended Recommended Order does it state this. Thus,

2974Community's argument is unfounded. In addition, the Agency finds that, while it has

2987substantive jurisdiction over the ALJ's conclusions of law in Paragraph 124 of the Amended

3001Recommended Order because it is the single state agency in charge of administering Florida's

3015Medicaid program, it cannot substitute conclusions of law that are as or more reasonable than

3030those of the ALJ. Therefore, the Agency denies Community's tenth exception.

3041In its eleventh exception (Section IV, 5. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

3053exception to Paragraphs 125 and 133 of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ did

3068not recognize, account for, or acknowledge the numerous preferences and requirements that have

3081to be met when contracting out Medicaid services. The Agency finds that, while it does have

3097substantive jurisdiction over the conclusions of law in Paragraphs 125 and 133 of the Amended

3112Recommended Order because it is the single state agency in charge of administering Florida's

3126Medicaid program, it cannot substitute conclusions of law that are as or more reasonable than

3141those ofthe ALJ. Therefore, the Agency denies Community's eleventh exception.

3151In its twelfth exception (Section IV, 6. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

3163exception to Paragraph 129 of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ erred by

3177concluding that "[t]he statutes are not clear on the subject or whether the PSN requirement

3192applies to specialty plans." The Agency disagrees, and finds that, while it does have substantive

3207jurisdiction over the conclusions of law in Paragraph 129 of the Amended Recommended Order

3221because it is the single state agency in charge of administering Florida's Medicaid program, it

3236cannot substitute conclusions of law that are as or more reasonable than those of the ALJ.

3252Therefore, the Agency denies Community's twelfth exception.

3259In its thirteenth exception (Section IV, 7. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

3271exception to Paragraph 130 of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ erred in his

3286interpretation ofthe applicability ofthe 2018 amendment to Article V, Section 21 ofthe Florida

3299Constitution. This issue is outside of the Agency's substantive jurisdiction. Therefore, the

3311Agency denies Community's thirteenth exception.

3316In its fourteenth exception (Section IV, 8. - 10. of Community's Exceptions),

3328Community takes exception to Paragraph 133 of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing: 1)

3341the ALJ erroneously concludes that an award of two MMA plans, to CSN plans, two SMI plans,

3358two CW plans, and two HIV I AIDS plans is an outcome that was not intended or contemplated by

3377the Legislature; 2) the ALJ erroneously concluded that Community's interpretation would

3388require the Agency to award at least two vendors for any specialty population "proposed" as

3403misstating Community's position; and 3) the ALJ erred in concluding "Community's

3414interpretation also violates the principle that tribunals should not construe statutes in ways that lead

3429to an absurd result." The Agency finds that, while it does have substantive jurisdiction over the

3445conclusions of law in Paragraph 133 of the Amended Recommended Order because it is the single

3461state agency in charge of administering Florida's Medicaid program, it cannot substitute conclusions

3474of law that are as or more reasonable than those of the ALJ. Therefore, the Agency denies

3491Community's fourteenth exception.

3494In its fifteenth exception (Section IV, 11. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

3506exception to Paragraph 137 of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ erred by

3520concluding the terms of the ITN do not require the Agency to contract with Community. The

3536Agency disagrees. It agrees with ALI's conclusion that the Agency is not required to contract

3551with Community. Therefore the Agency denies Community's fifteenth exception.

3560In its sixteenth exception (Section IV, 12. of Community's Exceptions), Community

3571takes exception to Paragraph 146 of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ' s

3585statement that "Community criticizes the Agency's decision to not contract with any provider of

3599services for children with special needs" is contrary to the record. The ALJ's statement is an

3615accurate summary of what Community argued in its Proposed Recommended Order. See Pages

362821 and 48 of Community's Consolidated Proposed Recommended Order. Therefore, the Agency

3640denies Community's sixteenth exception.

3644In its seventeenth exception (Section V., 1. of Community's Exceptions), Community

3655takes exception to Recommendations B, C, and D of the Amended Recommended Order because

3669the ALJ did not direct the Agency to award Community contracts as the sole responsive PSN.

3685Based on the ruling on Community's fifteenth exception supra, which is hereby incorporated by

3699reference, the Agency denies Community's seventeenth exception.

3706In its eighteenth exception (Section V., 2. of Community's Exceptions), Community

3717takes exception to Recommendation C of the Amended Recommended Order due to the fact that

3732it is identical to Recommendation B of the Amended Recommended Order. The Agency agrees.

3746It will treat Community's eighteenth exception as a motion to correct a scrivener's error, which it

3762will grant. Therefore, the Agency modifies the Amended Recommended Order to eliminate

3774Recommendation C.

3776In its nineteenth exception (Section V., 3. of Community's Exceptions), Community

3787takes exception to Recommendation E of the Amended Recommended Order, arguing the

3799Agency's failure to enter any award was an arbitrary and capricious action that was contrary to

3815competition. Community's argument makes no sense because Recommendation E of the

3826Amended Recommended Order upholds the Agency's preliminary decision to award Staywell a

3838contract for SMI in Region 10. Therefore, the Agency denies Community's nineteenth

3850exception.

3851In its twentieth exception (Section VI., 1. of Community's Exceptions), Community takes

3863exception to the Amended Recommended Order in general for not addressing the choice of

3877coverage argument and anti-trust compliance arguments it raised. Community's exception fails

3888to cite to the Amended Recommended Order by page number or paragraph. Thus, the Agency

3903does not need to address it. See§ 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat.

3913Agency's Exceptions

3915In Exception No. 1, the Agency takes exception to Paragraphs 136, 137, and 138 of the

3931Amended Recommended Order, as well as Recommendations B, C, and D of the Amended

3945Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ should have denied Community's protest or dismissed it

3958as an untimely challenge to the terms of the ITN. Specifically, Community argued, and the ALJ

3974concluded, that both section 409.974(1), Florida Statutes, and Attachment A, Section D(5) of the

3988ITN require the ALJ to invite the top-ranked PSN to negotiations. The Agency agrees with the

4004ALJ' s conclusions of law in these paragraphs. Therefore, it denies Exception No. I.

4018In Exception No. 2, the Agency takes exception to Paragraph 139 of the Amended

4032Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ erred by concluding the Agency violated section

4044287.057(16)(a)l., Florida Statutes, by using only two evaluators to evaluate certain sections of

4057the offers that were submitted in response to the ITN. The Agency agrees. For the ITN at issue

4075in this matter, section 287.057(16)(a)l., Florida Statutes, required the Secretary to appoint "[a]t

4088least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and

4101knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual

4114services are sought." The competent, substantial record evidence demonstrates the Agency more

4126than satisfied this statutory requirement by appointing II evaluators to evaluate the responses to

4140the ITN. See, Transcript, Volume 2 at Page 226. The ALJ incorrectly interprets the statute

4155to require at least three evaluators to evaluate every section of the responses, when such is not

4172the case. It is established that "a public body has wide discretion in soliciting and accepting bids

4189for public improvements and its decision, when based on an honest exercise of this discretion,

4204will not be overturned by a court even if it may appear erroneous and even if reasonable persons

4222may disagree." Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So. 2d at 913 (emphasis in the original). The

4236Agency used its discretion in appointing more than three evaluators in all, even though less than

4252three evaluators evaluated and scored certain sections of the responses to the ITN. Furthermore,

4266there was no evidence any of the parties who responded to the ITN received an unfair

4282competitive advantage due to how the Agency had its evaluators evaluate and score the ITN.

4297See Capeletti Bros., Inc. v. State, Dep't of Gen. Svcs., 432 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). All

4316who responded to the ITN were equally affected by the Agency's scoring methods. Finally, the

4331Agency specifically stated in Attachment A, Section D, 5.c.2 of the ITN that "[t]he Agency

4346reserves the right to have specific Sections of the responses evaluated by less than three (3)

4362individuals." See Joint Exhibit 1 at Bates Page 30 (Emphasis added). None of the bidders in this

4379matter filed a challenge to this specification of the ITN. Thus, they have no right to challenge

4396the Agency's evaluation process. See section 120.57(3)(b ), Florida Statutes. The Agency finds

4409that it has substantive jurisdiction over the conclusions of law in Paragraph 139 of the

4424Recommended Order because it is the single state agency in charge of administering Florida's

4438Medicaid program, and that it can substitute conclusions of law that are as or more reasonable

4454than those of the ALJ. Therefore, the Agency grants Exception No. 2, and modifies Paragraph

4469139 as follows:

4472139. Section 287.057(16)(a)(1) requires the Agency to use at least

4482three qualified individuals to evaluate and score the ITN responses.

4492The statute is clear. It requires the Agency head to appoint "at

4504least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who

4513collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas

4522and service requirements for which commodities or contractual

4530services are sought." When the language is clear, the statute should

4541be given its plain meaning. Resort to principles of statutory

4551interpretation is not needed or proper. Daniels v. Fla. Dep't of

4562Health, 898 So. 2d 61, 64-65 (Fla. 2005); Nicoll v. Baker, 989 So.

45752d 990-91 (Fla. 1996). Due to The Agency's-the reassignment of

4585some of Evaluator 3 's scoring assignments, the evaluation process

4595did not cause the Agency to be non-compliantcomply with section

4605287.057(16)(a)(l) because there were 11 evaluators who were

4613appointed to score the ITN. This, Positive arguesThus, there is no

4624good reason to reject all bids and begin the procurement process

4635anew.

4636In Exception No. 3, the Agency takes exception to Paragraph 100 of the Amended

4650Recommended Order, arguing the ALJ erred by finding the Agency made "significant" scoring

4663errors in the procurement. This argument is correct. There is no competent, substantial evidence

4677in the record indicating the Agency's scoring errors were significant. Additionally, Positive

4689lacked standing to raise this argument because it did not challenge the Agency's scores for all the

4706other ranked bidders in Region I 0 and 11. See Madison Highlands, LLC v. Fla. Hous. Fin.

4723220 So. 3d 467, 473-474 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ("An applicant who submits the fifth

4739lowest bid does not have a substantial interest, unless the applicant can establish that the four

4755higher-ranked applications must all be rejected or re-evaluated, resulting in the protesting filer

4768being ranked highest."). Finally, even if Positive did somehow have standing to raise the issue,

4784and it could be successfully argued that the Agency made scoring errors in the procurement, the

4800ALJ did not find that such scoring errors gave anyone an unfair advantage so as to necessitate a

4818rejection of all bids. See Robinson Elec. Co., Inc. v. Dade Cnty., 417 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA

48371982). Therefore, for these reasons, the Agency grants its Exception No. 3, and modifies

4851Paragraph 100 ofthe Amended Recommended Order as follows:

4859100. The fact that so many respondents submitted proposals for so

4870many regions and types of plans provided the Agency another

4880opportunity for time-saving. The Agency loaded Adobe Pro on the

4890evaluators' computers as a timesaving measure. This program

4898allowed the evaluators to compare a bidder's Comprehensive Plan

4907Proposal to the same company's regional and Specialty Plan

4916proposals. If the Adobe Pro comparison feature showed that the

4926proposal response was the same for each plan, the Agency

4936permitted evaluators to score the response once and assign the

4946same score for each item where the respondent provided the same

4957proposal. This speeded scoring. It, however, meant that for SRCs

4967where evaluators did this, that they were not reviewing the SRC

4978response in the specific context of the specialty plan population,

4988each of which had specific and limited characteristics that made

4998them different from the broader General and MMA plan

5007populations. This is significant because so many £RCs required

5016narrative responses '.Vhere context 'Nould matter.

5022In Exception Nos. 4 and 5, the Agency takes exception to Paragraphs 142, 143, 144 and

5038145 of the Amended Recommended Order, as well as Recommendation A, arguing Positive did

5052not have standing to raise any challenge in this matter because it was a non-responsive bidder.

5068The Agency agrees. Positive was clearly a non-responsive bidder because it violated the

5081provisions of section 287.057(23), Florida Statutes, which provides:

5089Each solicitation for the procurement of commodities or

5097contractual services shall include the following provision:

"5104Respondents to this solicitation or persons acting on their behalf

5114may not contact, between the release of the solicitation and the end

5126of the 72-hour period following the agency posting the notice of

5137intended award, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays,

5145any employee or officer of the executive or legislative branch

5155concerning any aspect of this solicitation, except in writing to the

5166procurement officer or as provided in the solicitation documents.

5175Violation of this provision may be grounds for rejecting a

5185response."

5186There is no factual dispute that Positive repeatedly contacted government officials for a contract

5200award under the ITN during the time frame prohibited by section 287.057(23), Florida Statutes

5214(the "cone of silence"). See Transcript, Volume 2, Pages 237-238; Transcript, Volume 3, Pages

5229337-339; and Agency's Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 263 (which were proffered but not admitted by the

5246ALJ). Its counsel admitted Positive committed such a violation at hearing. See Transcript,

5259Volume 1, Pages 32-34. Applicable precedent indicates that a non-responsive bidder does not

5272have standing to protest an agency's contract awards. "A party has standing to protest the lowest

5288bid if that party has a substantial interest to be determined by the agency." Westinghouse Elec.

5304Corp. v. Jacksonville Transp. Auth., 491 So. 2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding that

"5320[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances not present here, a non-bidder does not have standing to

5333challenge the successful bid.") (citing Preston Carroll Co., Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth., 400

5349So.2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)). A non-responsive bidder has no chance of obtaining the

5364contract award, and is in a similar position to that of a non-bidder. Accordingly, at least two

5381administrative agencies have concluded that non-responsive bidders do not have standing to

5393protest contract awards. In Sprint Payphone Svcs., Inc. v. Dep't of Corrections and MCI

5407Worldcom Communications, Inc., DOAH Case No. 01- 0189BID (DOAH Apr. 6, 2001; DOC

5420Apr. 24, 2001), the ALJ concluded as a matter of law that "[o]nly responsive bidders have

5436standing to protest agency contract awards." Further, the ALJ concluded that "[b ]ecause Sprint's

5450proposal is non-responsive as matter oflaw, it is not necessary to address the question of whether

5466the Department's award of the contract to Worldcom is contrary to agency' s governing statutes,

5481rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications." Similarly, in Hemophilia Health

5494Services, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 28 F ALR 1928 (AHCA 2006);

5508curiam aff'd 950 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), the ALJ concluded that "[a] vendor who

5525responds to an RFP does not have standing, on that basis alone, to protest the agency's

5541determination of a winner or winners. In order to establish the required substantial interest for

5556standing, a protestor must demonstrate that, but for the agency's errors, the protestor would have

5571been a winner." I d. at 1946- 194 7. Thus, the ALJ should not have entertained any of Positive's

5590arguments in this matter.

5594In addition, the ALJ erred by ruling that, in spite of the fact Positive committed a cone of

5612silence violation, the Agency waived its right to argue Positive lacked standing to participate in

5627the proceeding because the Agency did not affirmatively disqualify Positive as non-responsive

5639bidder at the time of Positive's violation. First, as pointed out by Simply in its exceptions to the

5657Amended Recommended Order, the Agency did not need to affirmatively reject Positive's

5669proposal based on the cone of silence violation because Positive was not in contention for a

5685contract award when it committed the violation - Positive had already failed to reach

5699negotiations. See Pages 9-10 of Simply's Exceptions to the Amended Recommended Order.

5711Second, section 287.057(23), Florida Statutes, does not have a temporal aspect to it. In other

5726words, the statute does not give the Agency a certain amount of time to affirmatively act on a

5744cone bidder's of silence violation before it is deemed to have waived its right to raise the issue.

"5762In the administrative context, ' [ s ]tanding has been equated with jurisdiction of the

5777subject matter of litigation and has been held subject to the same rules, one of which is that

5795jurisdiction of the subject matter (thus standing to bring suit) cannot be conferred by consent.'''

5810Grand Dunes, Ltd. v. Walton Cnty., 714 So. 2d 473, 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), citing Askew v.

5828Hold the Bulkhead-Save Our Bays, Inc., 269 So. 2d 696, 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), overruled on

5845other grounds; Save Sand Key, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 281 So. 2d 572, 577 (Fla. 2d DCA

58631973). Just as standing cannot be conferred by consent, neither can it be conferred by waiver.

5879See 84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper, 656 So. 2d 1297, 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Instead, a party

5897either has standing or it does not, regardless of what stage the legal proceeding is in. The

5914Agency had the right to raise the issue of Positive's standing at any time without affirmatively

5930disqualifying Positive as a non-responsive bidder. Here, the Agency raised the issue at the very

5945outset of the DOAH proceeding - making any waiver argument incorrect. The ALJ departed

5959from the essential requirements of law by ruling otherwise, and refusing to even consider

5973evidence of Positive's blatant non-responsiveness. The Agency cannot allow the ALJ's ruling on

5986Positive's standing that was entered without compliance with - and thus in violation of- the

6001essential requirements of law to remain undisturbed because it would open the gate for future

6016bidders to act similarly to Positive in the hopes of receiving public contracts.

6029Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, the Agency grants its Exception Nos. 4 and 5,

6045and rejects Paragraphs 142, 143, 144 and 145 of the Amended Recommended Order, as well as

6061Recommendation A, in their entirety due to the fact that Positive lacked standing to participate in

6077this matter because it was a non-responsive bidder. 2

6086FINDINGS OF FACT

6089The Agency hereby adopts the findings of fact set forth in the Amended Recommended

6103Order, except where noted supra.

6108CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

6111The Agency adopts the conclusions of law set forth in the Amended Recommended

6124Order, except where noted supra.

6129ORDER

6130Based upon the foregoing, the formal written protests of Positive that were filed in

6144DOAH Case Nos. 18-3507BID, 18-3508BID and 18-3512BID are hereby dismissed due to lack

6157of standing; the formal written protest of Community that was filed in DOAH Case No. 18-

61733513BID is hereby dismissed based on the reasoning set forth in the Amended Recommended

6187Order; and the Agency will enter into negotiations with Community for the contracts that were at

6203issue in DOAH Case Nos. 18-3511BID and 18-3514BID. The parties shall govern themselves

6216accordingly.

6217DONE and ORDERED this l_L day of , 2018, in Tallahassee,

6227Florida.

6228TIN M. SENIOR, SECRETARY

6232ENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION

62372 Even if Positive had standing, it did not prove its case and its protest must still be dismissed. See the ruling on the

6261Agency's Exception 3 supra.

6265NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

6271A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO

6284A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A

6297NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY

6310ALONG WITH THE FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT

6322COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY

6332MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW

6341PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA

6350APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF

6363RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

6370CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6373. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy foregoing Ot;..d9_r has been

6388to the oeti

<>< 6./="" ,2018.="">

6391RICHARD J. SHOOP, Agency Clerk

6396Agency for Health Care Administration

64012727 Mahan Drive, MS #3

6406Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403

6409(850) 412-3630

6411COPIES FURNISHED TO:

6414Honorable John D. C. Newton II

6420Administrative Law Judge

6423Division of Administrative Hearings

6427The DeSoto Building

64301230 Apalachee Parkway

6433Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

6436(via electronic filing)

6439Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire

6444Assistant General Counsel

6447Agency for Health Care Administration

64522727 Mahan Drive, MS #3

6457Tallahassee, Florida 32308

6460(via electronic mail to Joseph.Helton@ahca.myflorida.com)

6465Joseph M. Goldstein, Esquire

6469Andrew E. Schwartz, Esquire

6473Sidney C. Calloway, Esquire

6477Suzanne M. Driscoll, Esquire

6481Shutts & Bowen, LLP

6485200 East Broward Boulevard

6489Suite 2100

6491Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

6495(via electronic mail to jgoldstein@shutts.com,

6500aschwartz@shutts.com, scalloway@shutts.com,

6502sdriscoll@shutts.com, jgoodwin@shutts.com,

6504mpoppell@shutts.com, and ehumaran@shutts.com)

6507Brian A. Newman, Esquire

6511Brandice D. Dickson, Esquire

6515Kathryn L. Hood, Esquire

6519Joseph B. Brannen, Esquire

6523Pennington, P .A.

6526215 South Monroe Street, 2nd Floor

6532Post Office Box 1 0095

6537Tallahassee, Florida 32301

6540(via electronic mail to brian@penningtonlaw.com,

6545bamdi@penningtonlaw .com, khood@penningtonlaw .com,

6549and breck@penningtonlaw.com)

6551Michael J. Glazer, Esquire

6555Stephen C. Emmanuel, Esquire

6559Erik Matthew Figlio, Esquire

6563Alexandra Akre, Esquire

6566Ausley and McMullen

6569123 South Calhoun Street

6573Post Office Box 391

6577Tallahassee, Florida 32302

6580(via electronic mail to mglazer@ausley.com,

6585semmanuel@ausley.com, rfiglio@ausley.com,

6587and aakre@ausley.com)

6589Robert H. Hosay, Esquire

6593Benjamin J. Grossman, Esquire

6597Nicholas John Peter Meros, Esquire

6602Foley & Lardner, LLP

6606106 East College A venue, Suite 900

6613Tallahassee, Florida 32301

6616(via electronic mail to rhosay@foley.com,

6621bjgrossman@foley.com, and nmeros@foley.com)

6624John A. Tucker, Esquire

6628Christopher Ryan Maloney, Esquire

6632Foley & Lardner, LLP

6636One Independent Drive, Suite 1300

6641Jacksonville, Florida 32202

6644(via electronic mail to jtucker@foley.com, and

6650cmaloney@foley.com)

6651Kevin A. Reck, Esquire

6655Foley & Lardner, LLP

6659111 North Orange A venue, Suite 1800

6666Orlando, Florida 32801

6669(via electronic mail to kreck@foley.com)

6674F. Philip Blank, Esquire

6678F. Philip Blank, P.A.

6682Post Office Box 13236

6686Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3236

6689(via electronic mail to phil@blanklaw.com)

6694Frank P. Rainer, Esquire

6698Leonard M. Collins, Esquire

6702John F. Loar, Esquire

6706M. Stephen Turner, Esquire

6710Ginger B. Boyd, Esquire

6714Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel

6719215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400

6725Post Office Box 11300

6729Tallahassee, Florida 32301

6732(via electronic mail to frank.rainer@nelsonmullins.com,

6737lcollins@nelsonmullins.com, john.loar@nelsonmullins.com,

6739stephen. tumer@nelsonmullins. com, and

6743ginger.boyd@nelsonmullins.com)

6744Lacey D. Corona, Esquire

6748Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel

6753390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400

6759Orlando, Florida 32801

6762(via electronic mail to lacey.corona@nelsonmullins.com)

6767Beth Kidder, Deputy Secretary

6771Division of Medicaid

6774(via electronic mail to Beth.Kidder@ahca.myflorida.com)

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 01/25/2019
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding duplicate copies of Petitioner's Exhibits, Joint Exhibit 1, and a notebook containing Medicaid Cases, to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 01/03/2019
Proceedings: AHCA's Exceptions to Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 18-003512BID).
PDF:
Date: 01/03/2019
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plan, Inc.'s Exceptions to Amended Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 18-003512BID).
PDF:
Date: 01/03/2019
Proceedings: Community's Exceptions to Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 18-003512BID).
PDF:
Date: 01/03/2019
Proceedings: Staywell's Exceptions to Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 18-003512BID).
PDF:
Date: 01/03/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/21/2018
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2018
Proceedings: Amended RO
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2018
Proceedings: Amended Recommended Order (hearing held August 27-29; September 9-12, 14, 24, 26; and October 1, 2018).
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2018
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2018
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held August 27-29; September 9-12, 14, 24, 26; and October 1, 2018). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2018
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 11/08/2018
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 18-003507BID, 18-003508BID, 18-003512BID, 18-3511BID, 18-3513BID, and 18-3514BID).
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2018
Proceedings: Community's Notice of Filing Consolidated Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plan, Inc.'s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plan, Inc.'s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2018
Proceedings: PHC's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2018
Proceedings: All Parties' Completed Exhibits filed. (not available for viewing)
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2018
Proceedings: Flash Drive containing all parties exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
Date: 10/19/2018
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings, Volumes 1-14 (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/03/2018
Proceedings: Post Hearing Order.
Date: 10/01/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2018
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Evidentiary Ruling.
PDF:
Date: 09/12/2018
Proceedings: PHC's Response in Opposition to AHCA's Motion for Reconsideration of Evidentiary Ruling filed.
Date: 09/10/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to October 1, 2018; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Motion for Reconsideration of Evidentiary Ruling filed.
Date: 09/07/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Status Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2018
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Exclude Testimony of Deborah Holmes, M.D.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Status Conference (status conference set for September 7, 2018; 3:00 p.m.).
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2018
Proceedings: PHC's Response in Opposition to Intervenor Simply Health Care, Inc.'s Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2018
Proceedings: Second Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for August 27 through 29, September 5 through 7, 10 through 14, 24 through 28, October 1 through 5 and 8 through 11, 2018; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL; amended as to ).
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2018
Proceedings: Order Granting AHCA's Request for Official Recognition.
Date: 08/27/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to September 10, 2018; 09:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2018
Proceedings: PHC's Memorandum of Law regarding Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation of Adverse Witness Testimony filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Notice of Filing Objections filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Motion for Leave to Supplement Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2018
Proceedings: Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/24/2018
Proceedings: Agreed Protective Order.
Date: 08/24/2018
Proceedings: PHC's Proposed Exhibits filed (flash drive, exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 08/24/2018
Proceedings: Order Granting PHC'S Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Petition (in Case No. 18-3508).
PDF:
Date: 08/24/2018
Proceedings: Order Granting PHC'S Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Petition (in Case No. 18-3507).
Date: 08/23/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
Date: 08/23/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Notice of Joinder to Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to Exclude Tesimony of Deborah Holmes, M.D. filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor, Simply Healthcare Plan, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony for Deborah Holmes, M.D., filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Serving Answers to AHF's Third Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2018
Proceedings: Response to AHF's First Request for Admission to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2018
Proceedings: Response to AHF's Third Request for Production to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2018
Proceedings: PHC's Response to Simply's Second Requests for Admission filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2018
Proceedings: PHC's Notice of Service of Answers to Simply's Third Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Request for Judicial Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2018
Proceedings: Order Regarding Counsel Who No Longer Represent Parties.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plan, Inc.'s Statement of Position filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2018
Proceedings: PHC's Statement of Position filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2018
Proceedings: CCP's Statement of Position filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Supplmentary Document Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2018
Proceedings: PHC's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Petition (Region 11 HIV/AIDS) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2018
Proceedings: PHC's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Petition (Region 10 HIV/AIDS) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Response to Simply's Second Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Response to Simply's Third Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' Notice of Serving Third Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' Second Request for Admissions to Petitioner AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2018
Proceedings: AHF's First Requests for Admission to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Third Request for Production to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Service of Third Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2018
Proceedings: Joint Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/16/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Jessica Lerner) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/16/2018
Proceedings: Simply Healthcare Plans' Third Request for Production to AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2018
Proceedings: CCP's Answers to Respondent's Requests for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum (April Bosson) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2018
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference (pre-hearing conference set for August 23, 2018; 2:00 p.m.).
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2018
Proceedings: Order on ACHA's Motion for a Deadline to Amend Specialty Plan Protests.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2018
Proceedings: Agreed Protective Order filed.
Date: 08/13/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2018
Proceedings: (Amended) Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' Notice of Taking Continued Deposition of AHF's Corporate Representative filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference (set for August 13, 2018; 10:30 a.m.).
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2018
Proceedings: Simply Healthcare Plans' Second Request for Production to AHF MCO of Florida, Inc. filed.
Date: 08/10/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2018
Proceedings: Respondent's Request for Admissions to South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Motion for a Deadline to Amend Specialty Plan Protests filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2018
Proceedings: Order On Motion to Compel Of Simply Healthcare Plans, INC..
Date: 08/09/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/09/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Second Amended Response to Simply's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/09/2018
Proceedings: AHFs Notice of Service of Second Amended Answers to Simply's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/09/2018
Proceedings: Respondent AHCA's Cross-Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Date: 08/09/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/09/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Community Care Plan's Revised Answers to Agency's Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/09/2018
Proceedings: (Amended) Simply Healthcare Plans' Motion to Compel Interrogatory and Production Requests from AHF MCO of Florida, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/09/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Amended Response to Simply's First Requests for Production as to Request Number 7 filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/09/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Motion Conference (status conference set for August 9, 2018; 1:00 p.m.).
PDF:
Date: 08/09/2018
Proceedings: Simply Healthcare Plans' Motion to Compel Interrogatory and Production Requests from AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/09/2018
Proceedings: Simply Healthcare Plans' Objection to AHF MCO of Florida, Inc.'s Notices of Taking Holly Prince and Simply's Corporate Representative filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Response to Simply's First Requests for Admission filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Service of Answers to Simply's Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Service of Amended Answer to Simply's Interrogatory Number One filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference (set for August 21, 2018; 9:00 a.m.).
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Corporate Representative of Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Taking Deposition of Holly Prince Duces Tecum filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Corporate Representative of Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc., filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Donna Stidham filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2018
Proceedings: Amendment to Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2018
Proceedings: Respondent AHCA's Cross-Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' Second Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Corporate Representative of Petitioner AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Taking Depositions filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for August 27 through 29, September 5 through 7, 10 through 14, 24 through 28, October 1 through 5 and 8 through 11, 2018; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Response to AHF's Second Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Taking Depositions filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/03/2018
Proceedings: Joint Notice of Availability for Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/03/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Availability filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/03/2018
Proceedings: (Amended) Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' Notice of Taking Deposition of Dr. Deborah Holmes filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/03/2018
Proceedings: (Amended) Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plan's Notice of Taking Deposition of Dr. Deborah Holmes (Corporate Representative of AHF) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/03/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 08/02/2018
Proceedings: Order Canceling Hearing, Granting Continuance, and Scheduling Simultaneous Hearings (parties to advise status by August 3, 2018).
PDF:
Date: 08/02/2018
Proceedings: Order on AHCA's Motions to Dismiss in Consolidated Cases.
PDF:
Date: 08/02/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply's Joinder to AHCA's Motion to Dismiss AHF's Protests and Supplemental Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Response to AHCA's Second Requests for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Response to AHCA's First Requests for Admission filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Service of Answers to Respondent's Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Community Care Plan's Answers to AHCA's Second Interrogatories (18.3507) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' Notice of Taking Deposition of Dr. Deborah Holmes filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' Notice of Taking Deposition of Donna Stidham filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' Notice of Taking Deposition of Corporate Representative of Petitioner AHF MCO of Florida, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2018
Proceedings: Joint Motion, in Part, to Consolidate and to Continue Hearings filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2018
Proceedings: South Florida Community Care Network, LLC d/b/a Community Care Plan's Notice of Cancellation of Taking Deposition to Preserve Testimony filed.
Date: 07/31/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Status Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Response to Simply's First Requests for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2018
Proceedings: AHf's Notice of Service of Answers to Simply's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Response in Opposition to SFCCN's Motion to Compel filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' First Request for Admissions to Petitioner AHF MCO of Florida, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner AHF MCO of Florida, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (M. Turner) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner South Florida Community Care Network's Opposition Response to AHCA's Amended Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: Community Care Plan's Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner South Florida Community Care Network d/b/a Community Care Plan's Notice of Filing Order Compelling Discovery and Overruling Objections to Request to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Second Request for Production to Agency for Health Care Administration filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent's Answers to AHF's Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: Respondent AHCA's Cross-Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Marie Donnelly) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Response to SFCCN's First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Response in Opposition to AHF's Motion to Compel filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: Community Care Plan's Corrected Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Corporate Representative of the Agency for Healthcare Administration and AHCA Witnesses and Accompanying Request to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Taking Deposition of Agency Representative of AHCA filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: Community Care Plan's Notice of Taking Deposition to Preserve Testimony filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2018
Proceedings: Community Care Plan's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Corporate Representative of the Agency for Health Care Administration and AHCA Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: Notice to Court on Parties Agreement as to Date of Petitioner's Response to Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Second Request for Production to the Intervenor, Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc., filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor, Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Documents from AHCA filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Response to AHCA's Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Notice of Serving Second Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Service of Amended Answer to AHCA Interrogatory Number Seven (R11) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: AHF's Notice of Service of Amended Answer to AHCA Interrogatory Number Seven (R10) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Serving Second Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner AHF MCO Florida, Inc. d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: Respondent Agency for Healthcare Administration's Second Request for Production to AHF MCO Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: Respondent's Request for Admissions to AHF MCO Florida, Inc. d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Return of Service filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2018
Proceedings: Corrective Community Care Plan's Response to AHCA's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2018
Proceedings: Corrective Notice of Service of Community Care Plan's Answers to Agency's First Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plans' First Request for Production to Petitioner AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of Answers to AHCA's First Set of Interrogatories (R11) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of Answers to AHCA's First Set of Interrogatories (R10) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan's Response to AHCA's First Requests for Production (R11) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan's Response to AHCA's First Requests for Production (R10) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent's Answers to AHF's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Kevin Reck) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Returns of Service filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Simply Healthcare Plan's Responses and Objections to AHF MCO of Florida Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2018
Proceedings: Intervenor Simply Healthcare Plan's Response and Objections to Petitioner AHF MCO of Florida, Inc.'s First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Nicholas Meros) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Response to AHF's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2018
Proceedings: Corrected Community Care Plan's First Requests for Admissions to Simply filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Notice of Serving Answers to SFCCN's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Objections to SFCCN's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2018
Proceedings: Community Care Plan's First Requests for Admissions to AHCA filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2018
Proceedings: Community Care Plan's First Requests for Admissions to Simply filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2018
Proceedings: Community Care Plan's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Corporate Representative of the Agency for Health Care Administration and AHCA Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's Request for Copies to Community Care Plan filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2018
Proceedings: Community Care Plan's First Requests for Production to Simply filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (John Loar) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2018
Proceedings: Agency for Health Care Administration's Amended Motion to Dismiss Petitioner South Florida Community Care Network, LLC's Protest filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Leonard Collins) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner AHF MCO of Florida, Inc. (Region 11) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's First Request for Production to South Florida Community Care Network, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner South Florida Community Care Network, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner South Florida Community Care Network, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's First Request for Production to AHF MCO of Florida, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's First Request for Production to AHF MCO of Florida, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner AHF MCO of Florida, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2018
Proceedings: Agency for Health Care Administration's Motion to Dismiss Petitioner AHF MCO of Florida, Inc.'s Protests filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2018
Proceedings: Agency for Health Care Administration's Motion to Dismiss Petitioner South Florida Community Care Network, LLC's Protest filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/19/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's First Request for Production to the Intervenor filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/19/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's First Request for Production to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/19/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/19/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/19/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Joseph Helton, Jr.) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/19/2018
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 07/19/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for August 7, 2018; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 07/18/2018
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 18-3507BID, 18-3508BID, 18-3512BID).
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Pre-hearing Conference (set for July 18, 2018; 10:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2018
Proceedings: Community Care Plan's Response to AHCA's Motion to Consolidate filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (John Tucker) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Benjamin Grossman) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Intervention filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Robert Hosay) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/11/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Suzanne Driscoll) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/10/2018
Proceedings: AHCA's Motion to Consolidate Specialty Plan Protests filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/10/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Sidney Calloway) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/10/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Andrew Schwartz) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Agency Decision filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Protest filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2018
Proceedings: Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2018
Proceedings: Notice (of Agency referral) filed.

Case Information

Judge:
JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II
Date Filed:
07/09/2018
Date Assignment:
08/02/2018
Last Docket Entry:
01/25/2019
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Other
Suffix:
BID
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (3):

Related Florida Statute(s) (9):