18-000613BID Geo Reentry Services, Llc vs. Department Of Corrections Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, April 20, 2018.

Summary: DOC's decision to award contracts to intervenors for in-prison substance abuse treatment pursuant to ITN is not contrary to statutes, rules, ITN specifications, contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GEO REENTRY SERVICES, LLC,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 18 - 0613BID

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent,

and

GATEWAY FOUNDATION, INC., AND

THE UNLIMITED PATH, INC.,

Intervenors.

_______________________ ________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case came before Administrative Law Judge Darren A.

Schwartz of the Division of Administrative Hearings for final

hearing on March 1, 2018, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petition er: Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire

Benjamin E . Stearns, Esquire

Carlton, Fields, Jorden, and Burt, P.A.

Post Office Drawer 190

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Sean W. Gellis, Esquire

Kristen K. Clemons, Esquire

Department of Corrections

501 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2500

For Interven or Gateway Foundation, Inc. :

Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire

(Gateway) Mallory L. Harrell, Esquire

Joshua S. Smith, Esquire

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC

101 North Monroe Street , Suite 1090

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Intervenor The Unlimited Path, Inc. :

David C. Ashburn, Esquire

Hayden Dempsey, Esquire

Greenb erg Traurig, P.A.

101 East College Avenue

Post Office Drawer 1838

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent, Department of Corrections '

( " D epartment " ) intended d ecision to award contracts to

Intervenors, Gateway Foundation, Inc. ( " Gateway " ) , and The

Unlimited Path, Inc. ( " UPI " ), for licensed in - prison substance

abuse treatment services pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate FDC

ITN 17 - 112 ( " the ITN " ) , is contrary to the Department ' s governing

statutes, rules, or the ITN specifications, and contrary to

competition, clearly erroneous, arbitrary , or capricious.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 21, 2016, the Department published the ITN ,

seeking replies from vendors to provide licensed substance abuse

treatment services to inmates incarcerated by the Department . On

June 15, 2017, the Department received replies from six vendors.

Following the evaluation phase, the Department entered into

negotiations with four vendors : Petitioner, GEO Reentry

Services, LLC ( " GEO " ) ; Gateway ; UPI ; and Bridges of America, Inc .

On October 25, 2017, the Department issued a request for best and

final offers ( " RBAFO " ). On November 14, 2017, Geo, Gateway, and

UPI submitted their best and fin al offers ( " BAFO " ). On

January 9, 2018, the Department posted its notice of intent to

award Regions 1 and 2 to UPI and Regions 3 and 4 to Gateway. GEO

timely filed its notice of intent to protest the awards within

72 hours of the pos ting of the notice of the awards .

On January 19, 2018, GEO timely filed its formal written

protest and petition for administrative hearing . On February 6,

2018, the Department referred the matter to the Division of

Administrative Hearings ( " DOAH " ) to assign an Administrative Law

Judge to conduct the final hearing. On February 7 and 8, 2018,

Gateway and UPI entered their appearances, respectively.

On February 13, 2018, the undersigned entered an O rder

setting this matte r for final hearing on March 1, 2, and 9, 2018.

On Februa ry 16, 2018, GEO filed a motion to amend the petition.

On February 16, 2018, the Department filed a motion for partial

dismissal of GEO ' s initial petition for hearing. On February 21,

2018, GEO filed a response in opposition to the motion for

partial dis missal . On February 22, 2018, the undersigned entered

an Order granting the motion to amend the petition and denying

the motion for partial dismissal. On February 27, 2018, the

Department f iled a motion for official recognition of the final

order entered by the Second Judicial Circuit in Corcoran v.

Delacenserie , Case No. 2017 - CA - 365, as well as the First District

Court of Appeal docket sheet in Case No. 1D17 - 1247, involving the

appeal of that final order . GEO opposed the motion. On

February 27, 2018, t he parties filed their Joint Pre - hearing

Statement.

The final hearing commenced as scheduled and concluded on

March 1, 2018, with all parties present . At the hearing, the

undersigned denied the Department ' s request for official

recognition. Joint Exhibit s 1 through 54 were received in

evidence upon stipulation of the parties. GEO presented the

testimony of John Thurston. GEO ' s Exhibits 1 and 2 were received

in evidence. The Department presented the testimony of Margaret

Agerton, Mark Tallent, and Kasey Faulk. The Department ' s

Exhibits 1, 2, 6, and 20 were received in evidence. Gateway and

UPI did not present any witnesses or offer any exhibits in

evidence.

The two - volume final hearing Transcript was filed at DOAH on

March 9, 2018. The parties timely filed proposed recommended

orders, which were considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

The stipulated facts in the parties ' Joint Pre - hearing

Statement have been incorporated herein as indicated below.

Unless otherwise indicated, reference s to the F lorida Statutes

are to the 2017 version .

FINDING S OF FACT

The IT N, Site Visits, and Addenda

1. The Department is a state agency responsible for the

supervisory and protective care, custody, and control of all

inmates incarcerated by the Departme nt in each of its four

regions .

2. As of June 30, 2016, the Department had a total inmate

population of 99,119 , with 62 percent (61,454) of those inmates

in need of treatment for a substance abuse disorder.

3. The Department wants to st rategically improv e the manner

in which it provides lic ensed substance abuse treatment services

to inmates by f ocusing on maximizing the levels of treatment and

individual inmate needs without increasing costs .

4 . The Department chose to utilize a flexible competitive

proc urement process to achieve its goals ; specifically, an

invitation to negotiate method of procurement rather than an

invitation to bid or request for proposals, because it wanted

industry leaders to craft individual and i nnovative solutions to

address the p roblem . 1/

5 . Against this backdrop, o n September 21, 2016, the

Department issued the ITN, " In - Prison Substance Abuse Treatment

Services, " seeking replies from qualified vendors to provide

licensed substance abuse treatment services to inmates

incarcerated by the Department in each of its four regions. The

Department reserved the right to make sep arate awards to each of

its four regions, or to make a statewide award to a single

vendor .

6 . The initial term of the contract(s) to be awarded under

the ITN is f ive years. In addition, the Department may renew the

contract(s) for up to one additional five - year term .

7 . The ITN separate d substance abuse treatment services

into five distinct service t ypes : Prevention Services,

Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatmen t, Intensive Outpatient

Substance Abuse Treatment, Long - term Residential Therapeutic

Community, and Aftercare. Additional services were also

required, including motivation/readiness classes for program

participants awaiting admission to Outpatient, Intens ive

Outpatient, or Residential Therapeutic Community services, and an

alumni support group for program participants who have completed

treatment services. The ITN require d that the treatment services

be provided in programs licensed pursuant to Florida

Ad ministrative Code Chapter 65D - 30.

8 . The ITN identifie d the selection criteria as follows:

The focus of the negotiations will be on

achieving the solution that provides the best

value to the State based upon the " Selection

Criteria " and satisfies the Depa rtment ' s

primary goals as identified in this ITN. The

Selection Criteria may include, but is not

limited to, the following.

Selection Criteria:

1. Respondent ' s articulation of their

solution and the ability of the solution

to meet the requirements of this ITN and

provide additional innovations.

2. Respondent ' s experience in providing the

services being procured and the skills of

proposed staff relative to the proposed

approach and offering.

3. Respondent ' s Technical Reply and Cost

Reply, as they relate to satis fying the

primary goals of the services identified

herein.

9 . All interested vendors, before submitting their replies,

were required to visit various sites within the regions covered

by the ir reply. GEO attended these site visits , which were held

in Oct ober to November 2016 . During the visits, the topic of the

budget was discussed . A ll vendors were informed that the

Department " did not have any new money, " and that it would be

operating within the existing budget.

1 0 . S ection 4. 10, TAB A , o f the ITN required that each

vendor submit with its reply a letter from a surety company or

bonding agent that documents the vendor ' s present ability to

obtain a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the

amount of $1,500,000, per region. In S ection 4. 8 of the ITN ,

Pass/Fail Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements, the Department

stated it would reject any and all replies that did not meet the

pass/fail criteria. One of these criteria , S ection 4.8e),

specifically required each vendor to demonstrate its a bility to

meet the performance bond requirement. A vendor was likewise

required to make this certification on Attachment IV to the ITN ,

Pass/Fail Requirement Certification and Non - Collusion

Certification. Section 4.8e) stated as follows:

The Vendor must be able to demonstrate its

ability to meet the Performance Bond

requirements. Prior to execution of

prospective contract, Respondent will deliver

to the Department a Performance Bond or

irrevocable letter of credit in the amount

equal to the lesser of $1. 5 million dollars,

per region, or the average annual price of

the Contract (averaged from the initial five

year Contract term pricing). The bond or

letter of credit will be used to guarantee at

least satisfactory performance by Respondent

throughout the t erm of the Contract

(including renewal years).

1 1 . Section 5.36 of the ITN , Performance Guarantee, also

provide d :

The Vendor shall furnish the Department with

a Performance Guarantee in the amount of

$1,500,000, per region, on an annual basis,

for a time frame equal to the term of the

Contract.

The form of the guarantee shall be a bond,

cashier ' s check, or money order made payable

to the Department. The guarantee shall be

furnished to the Contract Manager within

thirty (30) days after execution of the

C ontract which may result from this ITN. No

payments shall be made to the Vendor until

the guarantee is in place and approved by the

Department in writing. Upon renewal of the

Contract, the Vendor shall provide proof that

the performance guarantee has bee n renewed

for the term of the Contract renewal.

Based upon Vendor performance after the

initial year of the Contract, the Department

may, at the Department ' s sole discretion,

reduce the amount of the bond for any single

year of the Contract or for the rem aining

contract period, including the renewal.

1 2 . The purpose of a performance bond is to mitigate the

Department ' s risk should a vendor fail to perform on a contract.

1 3 . In Addendum 2, the Department identifie d six current

contracts being replaced by the ITN, and provide d links to those

contracts and budgetary information on the Florida Accountability

Contract Tracking System ( " FACTS " ). 2 /

1 4 . The Department also provided two rounds of formal

questions and answers, which are reflected in Addenda 6 and 7.

1 5 . In Addendum 6, question 3, a vendor asked a question

about cost. In response, the Department answered as follows:

Vendors are encouraged to submit a Cost Reply

in such a manner as to offer the most cost

effective and innovative solution for qua lity

services and resources, as both cost

efficiency and quality of services will be a

consideration in determining best value.

1 6 . In Addendum 6, question 77, a vendor asked a question

about how to submit a reply. In response, the Department

answered a s follows:

Vendor ' s shall only submit one Reply, and the

Reply must be clearly labeled with the

Region(s) included, or that the Reply is

Statewide.

1 7 . In Addendum 7, question 2, the Department again

addressed the issue of how many replies are required o f a vendor

who was interested in either a statewide or a regional award,

through the following questions and answers:

Question 2: In the responses to vendor

questions (Addendum 006), Change to No. 6 -

" 4.9 Submission of Replies " states that " In

Reply to thi s ITN, each Vendor shall: Submit

a separate Reply for each Region (bullet item

a on page 8). However, under answer #77

(p.21), it states that " Vendor ' s shall only

submit one Reply, and the Reply must be

clearly labeled with the Region(s) included,

or tha t the Reply is Statewide. "

Can you please confirm that a statewide

proposal can be one, single proposal for the

entire state rather than four separate

proposals for each of the four regions?

Answer: Yes. If submitting for a Reply for

Statewide, the Rep ly can be submitted as one

(1) Reply. If submitting a Reply for

multiple Regions such as Regions 1 and 2, a

Reply must be submitted for each Region. A

separate Technical Reply and Cost Reply must

be included for each submission. The Cost

Replies must be sealed in a separate envelope

from the Technical Replies, but they can all

be submitted in the same package.

Submission and Evaluation of Replies to the ITN

1 8 . On June 15, 2017, the Department received replies to

the ITN from the following six vendors: GEO, Gateway, UPI, SMA

Behavioral Health Services, Inc., Village South, Inc., and

Bridges of America, Inc.

19 . GEO submitted five separate replies, one for each

region and one for statewide.

2 0 . Gateway submitted a single statewide reply, but

indic ated in the reply that it wanted to be considered for a

statewide award and one or more regional awards . Gateway also

included a detailed budget breakdown by region with pricing for

each region. The Department ' s instructions to the evaluators of

the repl ies included a note reminding them that Gateway submitted

a statewide response, but that it wanted to be considered for

each individual region.

2 1 . UPI submitted three separate replies , one each for

Regions 1, 2, and 3.

2 2 . UPI made the required certific ations regarding the

performance guarantee and submitted a letter from a surety

company evidencing its ability to obtain a performance bond in

the amounts required by the ITN.

2 3 . All of the rep lies were deemed to satisfy the pass/fail

criteria and were then evaluated and scored .

Negotiations

2 4 . Following the evaluation of the replies, the Department

entered into the negotiation phase with GEO, Gateway, UPI, and

B ridges of America, Inc. Negotiations commenced in August 2017

and continued through Octobe r 2017. The Department held a total

of three negotiation sessions with each of these vendors. The

ITN provide d that the scores from the evaluation phase w ould not

carry over into negotiations and that the negotiation team was

not bound by the scores.

2 5 . The Department ' s negotiation team consisted of Kasey

Faulk, c hief of the B ureau of P rocurement ( l ead n egotiator);

Patrick Mahoney, c hief of the B ureau of R eadiness and C ommunity

T ransition ; and Maggie Agerton, the a ssistant c hief of In - Prison

Substance T reatment in the Bureau of Readiness and Community

Transition .

2 6 . Ms. Faulk has a master ' s degree in business

administration from the University of Florida. She is also a

Florida - certified project management professional; Florida -

certified contract negot iator; and Florida - certified contract

manager. In her tenure as c hief of the Bureau of Procurement,

she has overseen more than 130 competitive solicitations,

including at least 80 invitations to bid, at least 30 requests

for proposals, and approximately 1 7 invitations to negotiate.

She has drafted procurement procedures at two different state

agencies, and helped draft revisions to Florida Administrative

Co d e Chapter 68 - 1. Without objection, Ms. Faulk was accepted at

hearing as an expert in the area of F lorida procurement

processes.

2 7 . Ms. Agerton authored the programmatic portions of the

ITN and served as an evaluator . She has a bachelor ' s and

master ' s degree in criminology. She is also a Florida - certified

addiction professional and certified crimina l justice addictions

professional . She currently serves as contract manager for the

Everglades Recovery Center ( " Everglades " ) contract , of which G EO

is the incumbent vendor . 3/

2 8 . During negotiations, GEO , which had only provided

services to the Departme nt for a short time, touted its

experience and devotion of resources at Everglades.

29 . However, GEO was under a corrective action plan at

Everglades as of May 12, 2017, because of missing information in

clinical files and lack of staff supervision. Comp lete c linical

files are very important to substance abuse treatment . Proper

clinical documentati on is necessary for licensure purposes and

allows the Department to ensure that services are being provided

in accordance with the contract.

3 0 . By the end o f October 2017, Ms. Agerton had conducted a

site visit to Everglades, and although GEO had made significant

progress in the area of leadership and staff, the clinical files

were still a significant problem. Ms. Agerton and Ms. Faulk had

concerns about GEO ' s current contract performance at Everglades .

During the negotiation phase, GEO was aware of the Department ' s

concerns regarding its performance at Everglades .

3 1 . During negotiations, GEO was told by the Department

that it is trying to spend its money more efficiently and in a

cost - effective manner . GEO was told by the Department that its

price was outside the range of competitive replies , and GEO was

encouraged to provide alternative pricing models and " sharpen its

pencils . "

3 2 . During negotiations, the Department asked every vendor

to identify its cost drivers. GEO did not identify the

performance bond as a cost driver. However, UPI identified the

performance bond as a cost driver.

3 3 . UPI informed the Department that a performance bond

would cos t it $200,000 per year regardless of whether the amount

of the bond was reduced, because the cost of the bond is based on

the complete value of the contract.

3 4 . UPI requested that it be allowed to submit a cashier ' s

check to the Department in the amount of $1,000,000 for three

regions in lieu of paying $200,000 per year for five years to a

bonding company for a performance bond.

3 5 . At hearing, Ms. Faulk explained the process of

negotiating with individual vendors , the importance of having a

strategy, and the value of making individual concessions with

individual vendors during negotiations .

3 6 . UPI had performed services for the Department for over

ten years, through budget cuts, and had not walked away from

their contracts. Accordingly, th e negotiat ion team considered

UPI ' s suggestion to be a low risk. That is, the Department did

not believe there was a significant risk that UPI would abandon

the contract.

3 7 . In any event, the cashier ' s check proposed by UPI would

benefit the Department because th e Department could easily take

the money and use it to recoup losses in the event of

nonperformance, as opposed to a bond, which may require the

Department to engage in protracted litigation with a surety

company to obtain the value of the bond. The Depar tment also saw

the cashier ' s check as an opportunity to obtain lower pricing

from UPI.

3 8 . The negotiation team told UPI it would accept, in lieu

of the performance bond, a $1,000,000 cashier ' s check if UPI was

awarded three regions; a $750,000 cashier ' s check if UPI was

awarded two regions; and a $500,000 cashier ' s check if UPI was

awarded one region.

39 . Allowing UPI to post a cashier ' s check in the amount of

$750,000 for the two regions it was awarded did not provide UPI

with a competitive advantage over GEO. At hearing, GEO ' s

representative , John Thurston, who oversaw the development of

GEO ' s reply and BAFO , and participated in the negotiations,

acknowledged that GEO ' s cost to obtain a performance bond in the

amount of $1,500,000 would only have bee n $67,500 per year.

40 . During negotiations, the Department revised the scope

of work. Following the negotiations, on October 25, 2017, the

Department emailed a n RBAFO to those vendors who participated in

the negotiations .

41 . The RBAFO informed vendo rs that the term " Best and

Final Offers " is used to provide the vendor the opportunity to

clarify its response and adjust its price based on the

negotiations, and that this does not preclude the Department from

seeking clarification or additional informati on upon receipt of

the BAFOs. The RBAFO further stated that the BAFO " must contain

a written narrative of services to be provided inclusive of

clarifications and any alternative or modifications discussed

during the negotiation process. " The BAFO require d an executive

summary, description of service delivery, a staffing matrix, and

a price sheet.

42 . GPR - 037 (General Program Requirements) in the RBAFO

addresse d staffing and provide d , in pertinent part:

The vendor shall ensure that all required

Vendor s taff positions are filled for the

entire scheduled 40 hour weekly working

period, and that those individuals are

physically present at the work site. All

positions are full - time, unless otherwise

specified, inclusive of interim positions.

4 3 . As to the price sheet, the per diem pricing " should

represent the best price the Vendor is willing to offer to the

Department. " The RBAFO specifically addresse d and allowed for

vendors to provide alternative pricing models and methods.

Providing alternative price offerings g ive s the Department more

options to solve its problem and demonstrate s a vendor ' s

understand ing of the Department ' s needs.

4 4 . All vendors were provided with an equal opportunity to

submit BAFOs reflecting revisions to the ITN made by the

Depa rtment during negotiations. The RBAFO reminded vendors to

include in their BAFOs alternatives or any modification discussed

during the negotiation process. GEO was aware during

negotiations that it could have inquired about or proposed to

negotiate diffe rent components of all aspects of its proposal.

GEO was also aware that any global c hanges for all vendors would

be included in the RBAFO, but that negotiation concessions,

innovative solutions , and negotiated points with individual

vendor s , would not be included. In fact, GEO negotiated items

that were not shared with other vendors.

The BAFO s and Negotiation Team Recommendation

4 5 . The deadline for vendors to submit their BAFOs was

November 14, 2017. The Department received BAFOs from the four

vendors invited to negotiate.

4 6 . The ITN provide d that BAFOs would not be scored and the

negotiation team would make a recommendation of award based on

which vendor ' s solution presented the best value to the state,

utilizing the selection criteria in the ITN.

47 . Prior to submitting its BAFO, the Department responded

to Gateway ' s inquiries about differences between what was to be

included in the BAFO and what was discussed during negotiations,

specifically in the context of the ratio of Prevention Services

couns elors (indicated as one counselor to fifty participants in

the RBAFO , but discussed during negotiations as one counselor to

eighty participants). The Department instructed Gateway to use

the ratios included in the RBAFO, and " provide an alternative

price with the ratio your Company is proposing. "

4 8 . As allowed by the RBAFO and further clarified by the

Department, Gateway ' s BAFO included both a base price offering

and an alternative price offering, with detailed explanations of

the assumptions included w ithin each offering. Gateway ' s BAFO

included a ratio for P revention S ervices counselors from one

counselor for every fifty participants (1:50) , and an alternative

ratio of one counselor for every eighty participants (1:80).

49. Gateway ' s staffing models in its BAFO also included

part - time positions.

50 . The members of the negotiation team reviewed the BAFOs

and then made a formal recommendation of award at a public

meeting held on November 17, 2017 , with recorded minutes . The

negotiation team recommende d regional awards rather than a

statewide award. It recommended an award of Regions 1 and 2 to

UPI and Regions 3 and 4 to Gateway. The team recommended these

vendors because it believed their solutions represented the best

value to the state based on the selection criteria identified in

the ITN.

5 1 . Ms. Faulk recommended UPI for Regions 1 and 2 because

UPI was an incumbent vendor with a long history of providing

satisfactory services to the Department. Additionally, she felt

UPI had tremendous ideas on how to maximize treatment , their cost

was affordable , and they proposed innovative solutions.

5 2 . Ms. Faulk ultimately recommended Gateway ' s alternate

price offering for Regions 3 and 4 because she found them very

innovative and treatment - focused. She fe lt they had extensive

experience in a correctional setting providing substance abuse

treatment, and their cost was very affordable. She recommended

the alternate price offering because it was an innovative

solution to increase service s . Gateway ' s alterna te price

offering increased the number of available treatment slots and

provided staffing which the Department found acceptable and

appropriate , while at the same time offering a better price .

5 3 . Ms. Agerton recommended UPI for Regions 1 and 2 because

sh e felt UPI brought an innovative solution in negotiations , as

well as many different ideas. She felt that based on their

incumbent status, they had knowledge of the Department ' s systems

and were able to suggest improvements while remaining affordable.

5 4 . Ms. Agerton recommended Gateway for Regions 3 and 4

because they also brought innovative solutions, particularly an

evaluator that would help with monitoring their implementation.

She also felt Gateway was likewise affordable and energetic.

5 5 . Neithe r Ms. Faulk nor Ms. Agerton recommended GEO for

any of the regions. Ms. Faulk felt GEO ' s cost was significantly

higher than the other vendors . She also had concerns about some

of GEO ' s r esponses during the negotiation sessions , particularly

with regard t o the problems at Everglades . Ms. Faulk felt GEO

lacked innovation , it did not understand the problems at

Everglades , and it lacked an effective strategy for how not to

have the problems reoccur in the future.

5 6 . M s. Agerton did not recommend GEO for an y of the

regions because she felt they were very expensive compared to the

other vendors ; so expensive, in fact, that their price exceeded

the Department ' s budget . Ms. Agerton also had concerns about

GEO ' s current contract performance at Everglades .

5 7 . A formal recommendation memorandum was prepared by the

p rocurement o fficer and routed through various levels of the

Department. The memorandum include d a cost analysis , which

reflect ed the total awarded price for all four regions for the

initial five - year term to be $57,683,377.25. GEO ' s proposed

price for all four regions for the same period was

$80,558,693.75, approximately $22,000,000 higher than the

Department ' s intended awards for all four regions.

58. Notably, the formal recommendation memorandum

m istakenly reflected 225 prevention slots in Region 3, instead of

the 320 prevent ion slots included in Gateway ' s alternative

proposal; and 200 prevention slots in Region 4, instead of the

320 prevention slots included in Gateway ' s alternative proposal.

59. For Region 3, multiplying 320 slots times Gateway ' s per

diem rate of $3.89 (and by 365 days a year), results in an annual

total cost of $454,352; compared to the annual cost figure of

$319,466.25 for 225 slots reflected in the memorandum. For

Region 4 , m ultiplying 320 slots times Gateway ' s per diem rate of

$3.89 (and by 365 days a year), results in an annual total cost

of $454,352; compared to the annual cost figure of $283,970 based

on 200 slots. Thus, accounting for the increased prevention

slots for R egions 3 and 4 results in an annual increase in cost

of $305,267.75 above the $11,536,675.45, for a total annual cost

for all four regions of $11,841.943.20 , and a five - year cost of

$59,209 , 71 6 .

60 . On the other hand, GEO ' s proposed price for all four

reg ions for the same period was $80,558,693.75 , which divided by

five results in an annual cost to the Department of

$16,111 , 738.70. GEO eliminated the cost of Aftercare s ervices

because the Department intends to use an Alumni Program for zero

cost in lieu o f Aftercare s ervice s . GEO calculated that removing

the cost to the Department of Aftercare s ervices would result in

$1,885.790.75 less, or a total annual cost of $14,225,948.70.

61. Thus, removing the cost of Aftercare s ervices from

GEO ' s proposed price for all four regions would still result in a

five - year cost to the Department of $71,129,743.50 , which may

exceed the amount appropriated, budgeted, and available to the

Department for substance abuse treatment for Fiscal Year 2017 -

2018, and which far exce eds the cost of $59,209 , 71 6 (the amount

of the proposed award to Gateway and UPI for the same time

period ) . 4/

6 2 . The recommendation memorandum was approved by the

Department ' s s ecretary on January 9, 2018.

GEO ' s P rotest

6 3 . GEO ' s protest raises numerou s i ssues, none of which

warrant rescission of the Department ' s intended award to Gateway

and UPI .

Gateway ' s Reply to the ITN

6 4 . GEO contends Gateway submitted only a single

" statewide " reply to the ITN, and no reply for any region s , and

therefore, Gatewa y is ineligible for a regional award.

6 5 . The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing

demonstrates that Gateway ' s reply was properly considered as a

reply for multiple regions because Gateway clearly indicated its

intent to be considered for m ultiple regions.

6 6 . Moreover, Gateway gained no competitive advantage over

other vendors as a result of combining its statewide reply with a

regional reply. In fact, the Department would have been

inundated with replies if it required a vendor to reply for every

conceivable combination of regions.

UPI ' s Performance Guarantee

6 7 . GEO contends the Department materially deviated from

the ITN and gave UPI a competitive advantage over it by allowing

UPI to p rovide, in lieu of a performance bond, a cashier ' s check

in the amount of $500,000 if awarded one region ; $750,000 if

awarded two regions ; or $1,000,000 if awarded three regions .

6 8 . The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing

demonstrates that the Department did not materially deviate from

th e ITN and give UPI a competitive advantage over GEO by allowing

UPI to provide, in lieu of a performance bond, a cashier ' s check

in the amount of $500,000 if awarded one region; $750,000 if

awarded two regions; or $1,000,000 if awarded three regions.

6 9 . Notably, the ITN did not require proposers to submit a

performance bond or letter of credit with its reply to the ITN,

and none of the vendors submitted a performance bond or letter of

credit with the i r repl ies . Instead, in replying to the ITN, a

vendor w as only required to " demonstrate its ability to meet the

Performance Bond requirements. "

70 . UPI satisfied the requirements of the ITN by

demonstrating its ability to meet the performance bond

requirements.

7 1 . In any event, t he reduction in the amount o f the bond

agreed to by the Department ($750,000 in connection with the

award of contracts for two regions) did not provide UPI with a

competitive advantage over GEO.

7 2 . At hearing, Mr. Thurston estimated GEO ' s annual cost of

providing a performance bond in connection with contracts to be

awarded pursuant to the ITN would be approximately $67,500 , well

below the $200,000 per year that UPI was quoted for its bond.

7 3 . Moreover, the amount of $67,500 is insignificant

compared to the significant disparity i n the annual, total prices

proposed by GEO and UPI in their BAFOs for Regions 1 and 2

(GEO: $9,299,141.50; UPI: $6,342,203 , for a difference of

$2,956,938.50 per year).

7 4 . At hearing, Mr. Thurston acknowledged he could have

raised the issue of the perfo rmance bond during negotiations. As

Mr. Thurston also acknowledged at hearing, even if GEO had been

able to negotiate an elimination of the performance bond amount

requirement in its entirety, GEO would not have been able to

offer a price that would have remedied the disparity.

Gateway ' s BAFO ( Prevention Services Ratio )

7 5 . GEO contends Gateway ' s ratio for Prevention Services

counselors of 1:80 , as provided in Gateway ' s BAFO a lternative

p rice o ffering , is a material deviation from the RBAFO

requirements. As detailed above, this alternative offering was

expressly permitted by the RBAFO and was further clarified by the

Department to Gateway before its BAFO was submitted.

7 6 . Moreover, increasing the prevention capacity to 80 per

institution adds an additi onal 605 inmates served at any one

time, resulting in the Department being able to serve more

inmates for the same appropriation amount. This is precisely the

type of innovative thinking the Department sought to reach its

goals.

7 7 . GEO did not submit an alternative pricing model , and it

never asked the Department if the ratios for Prevention

Counselors were negotiable. At hearing, GEO could not say how

much it could have lowered staff levels, if at all, if it

attempted to negotiate ratios. Gateway was not given a

substantial advantage over GEO by increasing the prevention

capacity.

7 8 . In addition, although chapter 65D - 30 does include

required ratios for certain types of services, there is no

maximum caseload requirement applicable to Prevention Servic es.

Gateway ' s BAFO ( Part - Time Positions)

7 9 . GEO also contends Gateway violated GPR - 037 in the RBAFO

because Gateway ' s staffing models included part - time positions.

However, the Department interprets the phrase " unless otherwise

specified " to mean that unless the vendor specifies a position in

its reply as part time, the Department will assume that any

positions referenced in the reply are full time (40 hours). GEO

never asked the Department for clarification on the meaning of the

phrase " unless otherwi se specified. " At hearing, Mr. Thurston

could not say whether its BAFO would have been adjusted had GEO

asked about negotiating the posit i ons, in terms of being full

time.

80 . In any event, t he Department currently utilizes part -

time staff under the cont racts being replaced by the ITN. Part -

time staff may provide a more cost - effective solution than full -

time staff.

Gateway ' s BAFO (Clerical Positions)

8 1 . GEO also contends Gateway ' s alternate price offering

provided for a reduction in clerical staff posi tions contrary to

GPR - 035 as set forth in Addendum 6 and the RBAFO . GPR - 035

required that each vendor provide a minimum of one clerical

position for up to 136 treatment slots, and one - half position for

each additional 68 treatment slots.

8 2 . In support o f its position, GEO presented Exhibit 1.

However, GEO ' s Exhibit 1 i s based on incorrect assumptions, and it

is unreliable and unpersuasive. First, the ratios calculated by

GEO are impermissibl y " round ed - up . " Secondly, contrary to GEO ' s

position, the Dep artment only calculates an additional one - half

position once the full 68 treatment slots have been achieved.

GPR - 035 does not require one - half positions for " up to each

additional 68 slots. " A plain reading of GPR - 035, consistent with

the Department ' s re asonable interpretation, is that an additional

one - half position is required only after the full 68 slots have

been achieved.

8 3 . Gateway ' s base price offering fully complied with the

staffing ratios when the ratios are calculated according to a

plain rea ding of GPR - 035, which is bolstered by the Department ' s

practice in calculating ratios. Gateway ' s alternative price

offering providing for a reduction in clerical positions to one

full - time employee per facility was a cost - saving measure

discussed with th e Department and a product of negotiations.

8 4 . Even if Gateway ' s alternative price offering deviated

with regard to the clerical positions, given the discrepancy

between GEO ' s and Gateway ' s price offerings, the deviation is so

small that it is a minor ir regularity and not a material

deviation.

Gateway ' s BAFO ( Pricing )

8 5 . GEO also contends Gateway failed to provide region -

specific pricing or a final, firm pricing offer of any kind for

the initial term or the renewal term.

8 6 . During negotiations and in its BAFO, Gateway reiterated

that it would accept a regional or multi - regional award. Under

S ection 4.12 of the ITN, the Department reserved the right to seek

clarification from vendors regarding their BAFOs and to reopen

negotiations after receiving BAF Os. The negotiation team

recommended awarding Gateway ' s alternate price offering for

Regions 3 and 4 contingent upon clarification from Gateway that

its pricing would be applicable to Regions 3 and 4. Although

vendors were invited and could have attended the public meeting

and heard this for themselves, none of them chose to attend. Four

days later , on November 21, 2017, the Department ' s p rocurement

o fficer reached out to Gateway ' s representative asking it to

confirm that the pricing listed in the altern ate price offering

would remain the same if awarded individual regions as opposed to

the entire state.

8 7 . Gateway ' s representative responded that the alternate

prices included in Gateway ' s BAFO could remain in effect with a

modified administrative person nel staffing plan if Gateway was

awarded more than one region. At the time of this exchange, the

Department ' s negotiation team had already recommended Gateway for

Regions 3 and 4 ; so , the Department knew there would be no need to

renegotiate pricing becau se Gateway was recommended to receive

more than Region 4.

8 8 . According to Ms. Faulk, the Department understood

Gateway ' s response to mean that the per diem pricing provided in

Gateway ' s BAFO would apply to Regions 3 and 4. Gateway would

reduce the overs ight positions to two or three positions,

consistent with the smaller level of responsibilities required for

two regions instead of four. This exchange occurred prior to the

drafting of the award recommendation memorandum, which was dated

November 28, 201 7. It was not signed by Ms. Faulk until

January 3, 2018, or the Secretary until January 9, 2018.

8 9 . Gateway ' s per diem statewide pricing applied equally to

Regions 3 and 4 . Although Gateway did not provide a grand total

price on its BAFO price sheet, t he Department calculated the grand

total price using the correct per diem unit prices provided. The

ITN stated that unit prices would control in the event of a

mathematical error.

90 . As it pertains to th e price sheet instructions, the

RBAFO stated that the vendor ' s pricing should represent the best

price the vendor is willing to offer the Department. Gateway

provided both a base price offering and an alternate price

offering. The base price offering ' s price sheet contained the

required per diem prices for both the original contract term and

the renewal contract term. Under the section titled " TOTAL

PRICE, " Gateway appeared to sum the individual per diem prices

rather than provide an actual grand total contract amount.

Gateway did the same for its alte rnate price offering price sheet.

9 1 . Although Gateway did not provide a grand total price on

the price sheet, it include d a detailed budget breakdown for both

its base price offering and alternate price offering. The

Department felt these breakdowns off ered additional transparency

into Gateway ' s pricing.

9 2 . Section 4.10, Tab F, of the ITN provided that all

calculations would be verified for accuracy by the Department ' s

Bureau of Support Services staff, and that unit prices submitted

by a vendor would p revail in the event a mathematical error is

identified. M s. Faulk testified the Department could calculate a

grand total price by using the per diem pricing provided on the

price page. She explained the Department could multiply the per

diem price for ea ch service type by the number of slots for that

service, and then multiply that number by 365 days to arrive at

the yearly price for a particular service. The Department could

then add those prices together to obtain an annual total. She

also explained t hese same calculations could be done for the

renewal pricing.

UPI ' s BAFO (Clerical Positions)

9 3 . GEO contends UPI deviated from the staffing requirements

by providing fewer clerical support positions than required by the

RBAFO. Specifically, GEO conten ds UPI had a deficit of six

clerical support positions, and that if GEO knew it could reduce

the staffing complement by six, it would have been worth

approximately $270,000. UPI ' s clerical staffing ratios deviate d

from GPR - 035, because its ratios were cal culated based on the

belief that prevention slots were not " treatment " slots. The ITN

and RBAFO refer to prevention slots as treatment slots .

9 4 . Nevertheless, given the discrepancy between the prices

submitted by GEO and UPI, UPI ' s deviations from the c lerical

staffing requirements are so small that they are minor

irregularities and not material deviations.

UPI ' s BAFO ( Pricing )

9 5 . GEO also contends UPI ' s BAFO failed to include the

Revised Price Sheet. Specifically, in paragraph 24 of its a mended

p etit ion, GEO alleged: " UPI appears to have created its own form

that emulated the format of the required form but provides many

more spaces for additional information. Other Vendors that used

the ITN required form did not have the opportunity to include this

additional information. "

9 6 . Although UPI did not use the specific Revised Price

Sheet form, it provided per diem prices for each level of

treatment as required by the form and additional information for

the Department ' s consideration. GEO failed to inc lude per diem

pricing for Residential Therapeutic slots in Regions 2 and 4 . GEO

also modified its price sheets and submitted additional

information in the form of annotations denoted by asterisk.

9 7 . In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced a t

hearing demonstrates that the Department appropriately determined

that the proposed award s to Gateway and UPI will provide the best

value to the Department based on the selection criteria. Any

irregularities in Gateway's and UPI's replies and BAFOs as a lleged

by GEO were minor and not material deviations . The Department ' s

intended award s to Gateway and UPI are not contrary to the

Department ' s statutes, rules, the ITN specifications, clearly

erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.

C ONCLUSIONS OF LAW

9 8 . DOAH has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in

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

120.57(3), Florida Statutes.

99. GEO has standing to bring this procurement protest and

both Gateway and UPI have stan ding to participate as intervenors.

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

rests with GEO as the party opposing the proposed agency action.

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

607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). GEO must sustain its burden of

proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See Dep ' t of Transp.

v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778, 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

101 . Section 120.57(3)(f) provides in part as follows:

Unless otherwise provided by statute, the

burden of proof shall rest with the party

protesting the proposed agency action. In a

competitive - procurement protest, other than a

rejection of all bids, proposals, or replies,

the administrative law judge shall conduct a

de novo proceeding to determine whether the

agency ' s proposed action is contrary to the

agency ' s governing statutes, the agency ' s

rules or policies, or the solicitation

specifications. The standard of proof for

such proceedings shall be whether the

proposed agency action was clearly er roneous,

contrary to competition, arbitrary, or

capricious.

102 . The phrase " de novo proceeding, " as used in

section 120.57(3)(f), describes a form of intra - agency review.

" The judge may receive evidence, as with any formal hearing under

section 120.57( 1), but the object of the proceeding is to

evaluate the action taken by the agency. " State Contracting , 709

So. 2d at 609.

103 . A bid protest proceeding is not simply a record review

of the information that was before the agency. Rather, a new

evidentia ry record based upon the facts established at DOAH is

developed. J.D. v. Fla. Dep ' t of Child. & Fams. , 114 So. 3d

1127, 1132 - 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

104 . After determining the relevant facts based on the

evidence presented at hearing, the agency ' s inte nded action will

be upheld unless it is contrary to the governing statutes, the

agency ' s rules, or the bid specifications. The agency ' s intended

action must also remain undisturbed unless it is clearly

erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or cap ricious.

10 5 . The Florida Supreme Court explained the clearly

erroneous standard as follows:

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when,

although there is evidence to support such

finding, the reviewing court upon reviewing

the entire evidence is lef t with the definite

and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed. This standard plainly does not

entitle a reviewing court to reverse the

finding of the trier of fact simply because

it is convinced that it would have decided

the case differently. Such a mistake will be

found to have occurred where findings are not

supported by substantial evidence, are

contrary to the clear weight of the evidence,

or are based on an erroneous view of the law.

Similarly, it has been held that a finding is

clearly erroneous where it bears no rational

relationship to the supporting evidentiary

data, where it is based on a mistake as to

the effect of the evidence, or where,

although there is evidence which if credible

would be substantial, the force and effect of

the testimony considered as a whole convinces

the court that the finding is so against the

great preponderance of the credible testimony

that it does not reflect or represent the

truth and right of the case.

Dorsey v. State , 868 So. 2d 1192, 1209 n.16 (Fla . 2003).

10 6 . The contrary to competition standard precludes actions

which, at a minimum: (a) create the appearance of and

opportunity for favoritism; (b) erode public confidence that

contracts are awarded equitably and economically; (c) cause the

procu rement process to be genuinely unfair or unreasonably

exclusive; or (d) are unethical, dishonest, illegal, or

fraudulent. Care Access PSN, LLC v. Ag. for Health Care Admin. ,

Case No. 13 - 4113BID, 2014 Fla. Div. Admin. Hear. LEXIS 3, at *54

(Fla. DOAH Jan. 2, 2014) ; Phil ' s Expert Tree Serv., Inc. v.

Broward Cnty. Sch. Bd. , Case No. 06 - 4499BID, 2007 Fla. Div.

Admin. Hear. LEXIS 161, at *23 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 19, 2007).

10 7 . An action is " arbitrary if it is not supported by

logic or the necessary facts, " and " ca pricious if it is adopted

without thought or reason or is irrational. " Hadi v. Lib.

Behavioral Health Corp. , 927 So. 2d 34, 38 - 39 (Fla. 1st DCA

2006). If agency action is justifiable under any analysis that a

reasonable person would use to reach a decisi on of similar

importance, the decision is neither arbitrary nor capricious.

J.D. , 114 So. 3d at 1130. Thus, under the arbitrary or

capricious standard, " an agency is to be subjected only to the

most rudimentary command of rationality. The reviewing cour t is

not authorized to examine whether the agency ' s empirical

conclusions have support in substantial evidence. " Adam Smith

Enters., Inc. v. Dep ' t of Envtl. Reg. , 553 So. 2d 1260, 1273

(Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Nevertheless,

the reviewing court must consider whether the

agency: (1) has considered all relevant

factors; (2) has given actual, good faith

consideration to those factors; and (3) has

used reason rather than whim to progress from

consideration of each of these factors to its

final decision.

Id.

10 8 . Under section 287.057 , Florida Statutes , an agency

seeking to procure contractual services may elect to use either

an invitation to bid ( " ITB " ) ; a request for proposal ( " RFP " ) ; or,

as here, an invitation to negotiate ( " ITN " ). § 287.057(1), Fla.

Stat.; A T&T Corp. v. State, Dep ' t of Mgmt. Servs. , 201 So. 3d

852, 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). The ITN process is the most

flexible procurement process and contemplates that not all

vendors will necessarily provide the same solution to the same

problem. As recogniz ed by the First District in AT&T :

The ITN process was created as a distinctly

more flexible process than the RFP or ITB

process and gives an agency the means " to

determine the best method for achieving a

specific goal or solving a particular

problem " and t o identify " one or more

responsive vendors with which the agency may

negotiate in order to achieve the best

value ."

AT&T Corp. , 201 So. 3d at 855 ( quoting § 287.057(1)(c), Fla.

Stat . (2014) ) . 5/

10 9 . Relevant to ITNs, section 287.057(1)(c) provides, in

pe rtinent part:

2. The invitation to negotiate must describe

the questions being explored, the facts being

sought, and the specific goals or problems

that are the subject of the solicitation.

3. The criteria that will be used for

determining the acceptab ility of the reply

and guiding the selection of the vendors with

which the agency will negotiate must be

specified. The evaluation criteria must

include consideration of prior relevant

experience of the vendor.

4. The agency shall evaluate replies again st

all evaluation criteria set forth in the

invitation to negotiate in order to establish

a competitive range of replies reasonably

susceptible of award. The agency may select

one or more vendors within the competitive

range with which to commence negotia tions.

After negotiations are conducted, the agency

shall award the contract to the responsible

and responsive vendor that the agency

determines will provide the best value to the

state, based on the selection criteria.

1 10 . " Best Value " means " the high est overall value to the

state based on factors that include, but are not limited to,

price, quality, design, and workmanship. " § 287.012(4), Fla.

Stat.

1 11 . Negotiations are an inherent component of the flexible

ITN process. However, the Department can not make " material

changes " to the ITN during negotiations. AT&T Corp. , 201 So. 3d

at 85 8 . It has long been recognized that " [a]lthough a bid

containing a material variance is unacceptable, not every

deviation from the invitation to bid is material. It is

only material if it gives the bidder a substantial advantage

over the other bidders and thereby restricts or stifles

competition. " Tropabest Foods, Inc. v. State Dep ' t of Gen.

Servs. , 493 So. 2d 50, 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); AT&T Corp. ,

201 So. 3d at 858 (concluding that revisions to statement of

work that evolved during negotiation phase did not restrict

competition -- and recognizing that AT&T elected not to modify its

initial reply) .

1 12 . Turning to the merits of the instant case, as detailed

above, the Department ' s proposed action in awarding the contracts

to Gateway and UPI, and not to GEO, is not contrary to the ITN

specifications, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition,

arbitrary or capricious. A ny irregularities in Gateway ' s and

UPI ' s replies a nd BAFOs as alleged by GEO were minor and not

material deviations .

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

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

final order dismissing the protest of GEO Reentry Services, LLC .

DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April , 2018 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DARREN A. SCHWARTZ

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 20th day of April , 2018 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Section 2.4 of the ITN provide d that the overall goals of the

Department inclu de:

Û Providing the appropriate targeted level

of substance abuse services to each inmate

with an identified need.

Û A reduction in the substance abuse within

the inmate population.

Û An increase in treatment engagement among

clients enrolled in service s.

Û A reduction in anti - social thinking among

the participants enrolled in services.

Û A reduction in anti - social behavior among

the participant enrolled in services.

Section 2.4.1 of the ITN provide d the following specific

goals of the ITN:

• Establ ish a Contract, with transparency of

service costs and better alignment of

costs with services.

• Establish a Contract that allows the

Vendor to bring market expertise, and an

ability to shape strategy, to lower the

cost of substance abuse treatment

servic es.

• Ensure a smooth transition/continuation of

services from the current Contract(s) to a

new Contract without disruption.

• Contract with a Vendor that applies

clinical and operational expertise to

ensure a smooth continuation of services

with minimal risk.

• Ensure cost effective pricing throughout

the entire term of the Contract.

• Establish a collaborative relationship

with the prospective Vendor, which will

maximize the extent to which the

Department can achieve the objectives of

this ITN.

2 / FA CTS was created in 2011 or 2012 for the purpose of

increasing transparency to taxpayers and vendors.

3/ Pursuant to contract, GEO currently provides substance abuse

treatment services for the Department at some facilities,

including Everglades . Other en tities also provide substance

abuse treatment services for the Department at certain facilities

pursuant to contract. Some of th e contracts are encompassed by

the ITN. Everglades is within the scope of the ITN.

4 / Notably, the memorandum includes a tot al annual cost amount of

$1,134,693.75, for Aftercare services for all four regions, which

the undersigned has not subtracted from the total annual amount

of the cost of the proposed award s to Gateway and UPI.

5/ There is no substantive differences betw een the 2014 and 2017

versions of section 287.057.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire

Benjamin E . Stearns, Esquire

Carlton, Fields, Jorden, and Burt, P.A.

Post Office Drawer 190

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

(eServed)

Sean W. Gellis, Es quire

Kristen K. Clemons, Esquire

Department of Corrections

501 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2500

(eServed)

Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire

Mallory L. Harrell, Esquire

Joshua S. Smith, Esquire

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC

101 North Mo nroe Street , Suite 1090

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(eServed)

David C. Ashburn, Esquire

Hayden Dempsey, Esquire

Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

101 East College Avenue

Post Office Drawer 1838

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(eServed)

Kenneth S. Steely, General Coun sel

Department of Corrections

501 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2500

(eServed)

Julie L. Jones, Secretary

Department of Corrections

501 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2500

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTION S

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

1 0 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.