95-004559BID Pca Health Plans Of Florida, Inc., And Pca Family Health Plans, Inc. vs. Broward County School Board
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, December 8, 1995.


View Dockets  
Summary: Evidence in bid protest proceeding was insufficient to prove that agency action was illegal, dishonest, fraudulent or arbitrary.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8PCA HEALTH PLANS OF FLORIDA, )

14INC., a Florida corporation, )

19)

20Petitioner, )

22)

23vs. )

25)

26THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD )

32COUNTY, FLORIDA )

35)

36Respondent. ) CASE NO. 95-4559BID

41and )

43)

44HIP HEALTH PLAN OF FLORIDA )

50INC., a Florida corporation, )

55and HUMANA HEALTH INSURANCE )

60CO. OF FLORIDA, INC., )

65)

66Intervenors. )

68_________________________________)

69RECOMMENDED ORDER

71Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly

82designated Hearing Officer, Michael M. Parrish, held a formal hearing in the

94above-styled case on October 16, 17, and 18, 1995, in Fort Lauderdale, Broward

107County, Florida.

109APPEARANCES

110For Petitioner: Andrew S. Berman, Esquire

116Young, Berkman, Berman & Karpf, P.A.

12217071 West Dixie Highway

126North Miami Beach, Florida 33160

131For Respondent: Edward J. Marko, Esquire

137Marko & Stephany

1401401 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 201

146Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

150For Intervenor: Robert L. Shevin, Esquire

156HIP Richard Simring, Esquire

160Strook & Strook & Lavan

165200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3300

171Miami, Florida, 33131

174and

175W. George Allen, Esquire

179Allen, Hursey and Lucas

183305 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 701

189Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302

193and

194Gerald M. Cohen, Esquire

198300 South Park Road

202Hollywood, Florida 33021

205For Intervenor: Holly Skolnick, Esquire

210Humana Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff

215Rosen & Quentel, P.A.

2191221 Brickell Avenue

222Miami, Florida 33131

225STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

229Petitioner, PCA Health Plans of Florida, Inc. ("PCA"), has challenged The

242Broward County School Board's proposed award of the group health plan HMO

254contract pursuant to Request for Proposals 96-030S. The ultimate issue

264presented is whether the School Board's proposed award is fraudulent, arbitrary,

275dishonest, or illegal.

278PCA framed the following subsidiary issues in the Joint Prehearing

288Stipulation ("JPS"):

292(a) Whether committee members were arbitrary

298and capricious in rating HIP and Humana

305Respondent, proposals as the only proposed

311products that exceeded current benefits

316(Criterion #3).

318(b) Whether committee members were arbitrary

324and capricious by scoring PCA's mental health

331benefit package lower than Humana's (Criterion

337#5).

338(c) Whether committee members were arbitrary

344and capricious by scoring PCA significantly

350lower than competitors in the area of willing-

358ness to comply with requested services, where

365PCA's proposal was either identical to or

372exceeded the proposal of the successful

378bidders (Criteria #10 and #11).

383(d) Whether some of the voting was the

391result of bias for or against a particular

399proposer so as to affect the integrity of

407the RFP process to the damage of PCA.

415(e) Whether the Board's vote on August 15,

4231995 to approve the contracts with HIP and

431Humana, while PCA's protest was outstanding

437and unresolved, violated the terms of the

444RFP, School Board rules and Florida law, and

452tainted and poisoned the Board's hearing of

459PCA's formal protest.

462(f) Whether committee members acted

467arbitrarily and capriciously by scoring PCA

473significantly lower than competitors in the

479M/WBE category, where the Board's own study

486suggested that PCA was at or near the top in

496this category, and was certainly superior

502to the successful bidders. One committee

508member gave PCA a zero.

513(g) Whether some of the scoring was illegal

521because some of the insurance committee

527members had alternates.

530(h) Whether some of the scoring was illegal

538because at least one of the insurance committee

546member's scores was collaborative.

550In addition, PCA filed a memorandum of law requesting a finding of fact

563that the School Board's M/WBE policy is unconstitutional.

571PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

573This case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on

584September 15, 1995, after PCA filed its formal written protest and petition for

597formal administrative hearing. By agreement of the parties, the hearing was

608held on October 16, 17, and 18, 1995, in Broward County, Florida.

620The School Board and PCA stipulated to the intervention of HIP and Humana

633as parties.

635At the hearing the School Board made an ore tenus motion in limine based on

650Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes. That section requires that a formal

660written protest "state with particularity the facts and law upon which the

672protest is based." The School Board asserted in its motion that issues (e), (g),

686and (h), as set forth above in the Statement of the Issues, were not properly

701part of this proceeding because they were not raised in PCA's formal written

714protest. After hearing argument from all parties, the Hearing Officer granted

725the School Board's motion and limited the issues to be litigated to those set

739forth with particularity in the formal written protest.

747PCA presented the following witnesses: Walter Collymore, Stephanie Sheppa,

756Mary Kay Shea, and Patricia Thompson. PCA exhibits 2-5, 7, 10-13, 15, 18, 19,

77023(b), and 27-34 were received in evidence. Exhibits 1, 23(a), 24, 25, 35 and

78436 were rejected. Exhibit 26 was marked for identification but never introduced.

796(There are no exhibits 6, 8, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21 or 22.)

809The School Board presented the testimony of James Marshall, Jr., and Mark

821Seigle. School Board exhibit 1 was received in evidence.

830Neither HIP nor Humana presented any witnesses. HIP exhibits 1-3 were

841received in evidence. Humana did not offer any exhibits.

850Prior to the hearing, on October 5, 1995, Humana filed a motion to dismiss.

864The arguments set forth in Humana's motion have been considered and are

876incorporated in the conclusions of law.

882At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were allowed ten days from the

896filing of the transcript within which to file their proposed recommended orders.

908The hearing transcript was filed on October 25, 1995. On November 6, 1995, the

922Petitioner and the Intervenor HIP both filed proposed recommended orders

932containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Petitioner

943also filed a separate Memorandum of Law and Intervenor HIP filed a separate

956Closing Argument. The Respondent and the Intervenor Humana both filed

966statements adopting the proposed recommended order submitted by the Intervenor

976HIP.

977The proposals submitted by the parties have been carefully considered

987during the preparation of this Recommended Order. All proposed findings of fact

999submitted by the parties are specifically addressed in the appendix to this

1011Recommended Order.

1013FINDINGS OF FACT

1016The Parties

10181. The School Board of Broward County, Florida is responsible for, among

1030many other things, the purchase of group health insurance for school system

1042employees. The Broward County School System is the second largest in Florida

1054and the seventh largest in the United States with 21,033 eligible employees.

10672. PCA, HIP, and Humana are large managed care companies providing a wide

1080range of health care services to the public. Each proposer submitted proposals

1092in response to the RFP. PCA's proposal was subdivided into PCA Basic (which was

1106designed to generally match the current benefit plan) and PCA Enhanced (which

1118was designed to exceed the current benefit plan). HIP and Humana are interested

1131parties, entitled to intervene, because they were jointly awarded the health

1142insurance contract by the Board, subject to PCA's protest.

1151The Insurance Consultant

11543. The Board retained the services of Siver Insurance Management

1164Consultants ("Siver"), an independent insurance management consulting firm, to

1175aid it and the Insurance Committee with this RFP and other matters. Siver is a

1190group of professionals who provide advice and counsel to both public and private

1203sector clients. The majority of its public sector work involves assisting

1214governmental entities in purchasing their insurance programs.

12214. Siver was not retained to score the proposals or to provide a

1234recommendation to the Insurance Committee or the School Board as to which

1246proposal should be chosen.

12505. At one of the early Insurance Committee meetings, Siver made a

1262presentation entitled "Insurance 101" to inform the Committee members about

1272group health insurance and to advise them about the criteria that could be used

1286in the evaluation process.

1290The RFP

12926. On April 11, 1995 the Board issued an RFP to solicit bids for its group

1308health program, covering eligible employees of the Broward County School System.

1319It sought proposals on one or more of the following managed care organizations,

1332with each organization to be evaluated on its own merit (standing alone):

1344a. Health Maintenance Organization (HMO)

1349b. Point-of-Service Health Maintenance Organization (POSHMO)

1355c. Preferred Provider Organization (PPO)

1360The contract was to begin January 1, 1996 and run through January 1, 2000

1374(4 years).

13767. The RFP set forth, in general terms, the criteria that would be used to

1391evaluate the proposals. Under the category "Evaluation Criteria and Selection

1401Factors", the RFP provided that out of a total of 100 points, 0 to 45 points

1417would be allocated to projected costs and rate guarantees, 0 to 45 points would

1431be allocated based upon the extent to which the proposers were "willing and able

1445to provide products and services as specified in the RFP", and 0 to 10 points

1460would be allocated for the extent to which minorities and women were to

1473participate in the providing of services.

14798. The criteria in the RFP were further broken down for the "willing and

1493able" and M/WBE categories. In the willing and able category (45 points

1505maximum) the major factors which may be considered were stated to be: The

1518degree of relevant experience of the proposer with respect to comparable clients

1530in Florida; the degree to which the proposer matched current plan provisions,

1542coverages and services required by the RFP; the degree to which the proposer

1555exceeded the current plan provisions, coverages, and services required; and the

1566capability of the network to provide proposed care and services.

15769. The M/WBE category (10 points maximum) was further broken down as

1588follows: (a) The degree to which minorities and women participate in the

1600services to be performed and (b) the estimated amount of remuneration to

1612qualified M/WBE's. The M/WBE criteria also provided:

1619A greater amount of evaluation credit will be

1627given to Proposers with a Broward County

1634office(s) whose employee composition by

1639ethnicity and gender reflects the Broward

1645County population as defined by the 1990

1652census. Less evaluation credit will be given

1659to Proposers with administrative office(s)

1664located outside Broward County and/or whose

1670office(s) do not have the employee composition

1677by ethnicity and gender that reflects the

1684Broward County population as defined by the

16911990 census.

169310. The RFP specifically provided that Proposers could protest the

1703contents of the RFP within 72 hours of its receipt. Neither PCA, nor any other

1718Proposer, filed a protest to the contents of the RFP. Specifically, PCA did not

1732protest the School Board's express intention, set forth in Section II, pages 7-8

1745of the RFP, to use the ratio of minority and women business enterprises as one

1760of the criteria to rate the proposals.

1767The Insurance Committee

177011. The RFP was developed by an Insurance Committee of fourteen

1781individuals chosen by the Superintendent of the School Board.

179012. The Insurance Committee was charged with responsibility for evaluating

1800the various proposals submitted in response to the RFP and making a

1812recommendation to the Superintendent.

181613. The fourteen Insurance Committee members, and their respective

1825backgrounds, were as follows:

1829a. Ray Adkins

1832Executive Director

1834Confidential Office Personnel Association

1838b. Walter Browne

1841Executive Director

1843Federation of Public Employees

1847c. James Flynn

1850Executive Director

1852Support Services Personnel Association

1856d. Anthony Gentile

1859President, Broward County Teachers Association

1864e. Judith Hunt

1867Director of Risk Management and Safety for

1874the Broward County School Board

1879f. Nona L. Jones

1883Local Businesswoman with background in risk management

1890g. George Latimer

1893Chief Finance Officer, Broward County School Board

1900h. Lisa Maxwell

1903Executive Director,

1905Broward County Principals Association

1909i. Robert Parks

1912School Board Member

1915Professor, Nova Southeastern University

1919j. William Read

1922Retired Businessman

1924Former Benefits Manager, Chrysler Motor Corporation

1930k. Mark S. Seigle

1934Associate Superintendent for Personnel of the

1940Broward County School Board

1944l. Richard Thomas

1947Director of Benefits, Broward County School Board

1954m. Patricia Thompson

1957President, Broward County Paraprofessional Association

1962n. Lois Wexler

1965School Board Member

196814. Of the 14 Insurance Committee members, two were School Board members,

1980four were high ranking employees of the School Board, six were representatives

1992of various employee unions and associations, and two were from the Broward

2004business community.

200615. Each of the Insurance Committee members was furnished with, among

2017other things, a copy of each of the proposals submitted in response to the RFP.

2032These copies comprised several boxes full of documents.

204016. The Insurance Committee met a total of 11 times, beginning on February

205317, 1995 and ending on July 17, 1995. Each meeting lasted between 3 and 10

2068hours.

206917. All the meetings of the Insurance Committee were publicly held "in the

2082Sunshine."

2083The Committee Evaluation Process

208718. The intention of the Insurance Committee in evaluating the proposals

2098was to design evaluation criteria that afforded maximum discretion. There was

2109no intention of making the Insurance Committee a "mathematical scoring machine."

212019. Based on consultations with Siver, and through its various meetings,

2131the Insurance Committee adopted a scoring matrix to use in evaluating the

2143various proposals.

214520. The scores were divided, as required by the RFP, into three

2157categories: Ready, Willing and Able ("RWA"), Price, andMinority/Women Business

2168Enterprise ("M/WBE").

217221. The maximum scores for each category were as follows:

2182Price 45

2184Ready and Willing 45

2188M/WBE 10

2190TOTAL: 100 Points

219322. The RWA category was subdivided into twelve separate criteria. The

2204M/WBE category was subdivided into two separate criteria. The Insurance

2214Committee thus ranked the proposals using a total of 14 separate criteria.

222623. Ultimately, the willing and able category was broken down into the

2238following 12 "detailed categories": The number of products offered (1,2 or 3);

2252whether the proposal matched current plan benefits or model; whether the

2263proposal exceeds current benefits or model; allocation of premium dollars to

2274medical services/claims; whether the proposal exceeded, equalled or provided

2283less than the current level of mental health and substance abuse benefits;

2295wellness program (level of services to be provided); credentials for managed

2306care products; the extent to which the proposal exceeded, equalled, or provided

2318less than the current provider of managed care services; the ratio of board

2331certified providers to total network providers; comply with requested services

2341set forth in the RFP; agree to service standards set forth in the RFP; and

2356overall experience, specifically in Florida.

236124. The Insurance Committee then allocated maximum points to each of the

237312 "detailed categories" according to their importance. The total of the points

2385added up to 45. The Insurance Committee created a scoring grid containing the

"2398detailed criteria", listing the detailed criteria and maximum points to be

2409awarded in each category on the left side of the document, along with the 12

2424separate proposers across the page from left to right, leaving space to score

2437each proposer in each criterion. In assigning points to the various criteria,

2449it was the intention of the Insurance Committee members to allow for scoring

2462anywhere along the range of assigned points. As noted in an early draft of the

2477scoring matrix: "Maximum Suggested Points means that points may be awarded up

2489to the stated maximum for each criteria."

249625. As a general rule, when establishing criteria for the evaluation of

2508competing proposals for the furnishing of services it is best to try to avoid or

2523minimize the use of subjective criteria. However, with regard to proposals of

2535the type involved in this case, it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons

2548on a purely objective basis and a certain amount of subjectivity is unavoidable.

2561Honest mistakes are to be expected in a committee evaluation of competing

2573proposals. Although a number of the criteria adopted by the Committe in this

2586case were largely subjective, all of the criteria were relevant to a reasonable

2599comparison of competing proposals.

260326. The consultant for the Board, Siver, prepared an analysis and

2614comparative study of the various proposals to assist the Insurance Committee in

2626scoring the proposals. The Proposal Analysis consisted of a breakdown and

2637comparison of those features in each proposal which were relevant to each of the

265112 RWA criteria established by the Insurance Committee. It listed each of the

2664criteria individually and then outlined how each proposer complied or did not

2676comply with the criteria. The analysis provided a quick reference for

2687Insurance Committee members to use during their evaluation of the proposals,

2698particularly given the number and size of the proposals. Each of the Insurance

2711Committee members was provided a copy of the Siver analysis.

272127. Siver's Proposal Analysis was limited to the price/cost and "willing

2732and able" categories. The Board utilized the resources of its own staff to

2745assemble and compare information contained in the proposals with respect to the

2757M/WBE category. Ultimately, the Committee decided to break down the M/WBE

2768category into two sub-categories, to wit: workforce environment and M/WBE

2778participation. It also decided that the workforce environment category would

2788count for 3 points, and the M/WBE participation category for 7 total points.

280128. Shelia Dudley, the M/WBE coordinator for the Board supplied Insurance

2812Committee members with several proposal analyses. The first was a document

2823analyzing the percentage of minority and women employees in the proposers'

2834regional, local, and corporate offices. The second was a proposal analysis of

2846the extent to which the proposers committed to M/WBE participation. The document

2858contained three columns. The first noted the firmness of any contracts with a

2871qualified M/WBE and the dollar commitment, if provided; the second column set

2883forth the form of minority contractor participation, viz: wellness program,

2893printing, copying, etc., and the third column extracted general information from

2904the proposals which might be useful to the analysis. The next document provided

2917a breakdown of minorities/women for "physicians and others", and Dudley

2927indicated that only Humana provided such information. PCA did supply a list of

2940all minority physicians in Broward County with estimated capitation dollars,

2950although without percentages.

295329. Lastly, Ms. Dudley provided Insurance Committee members with a

2963document outlining possible evaluation considerations for the workforce

2971environment criteria and the M/WBE participation criteria. There was no

2981evidence in the record that Ms. Dudley's proposed evaluation considerations were

2992ever adopted by the Committee.

2997The July 13, 1995 Scoring

300230. The Insurance Committee met on July 13, 1995, to score the various

3015proposals.

301631. Prior to the July 13, 1995, Committee meeting, all of the proposers

3029had been given an opportunity to make an oral presentation, to hand out written

3043presentation materials, and to participate in a question and answer session

3054before the Committee voted. In addition, many of the Proposers, including PCA,

3066had previously met individually with most of the Committee members for 20 or 30

3080minutes. The Committee members had also been lobbied by the various Proposers.

309232. Each member of the Insurance Committee scored the proposals for three

3104different group medical products: an HMO product, a PPO product, and a Point of

3118Service HMO product.

312133. The Insurance Committee elected not to independently score the price

3132category, but rather to adopt Siver's price rankings based on a formula approved

3145by the Committee.

3148The July 17, 1995, Scoring

315334. The Insurance Committee reconvened on July 17, 1995, because Siver, at

3165the request of some of the proposers, asked the Insurance Committee members to

3178re-check some of their scores that in Siver's opinion were objectively

3189verifiable and possibly inconsistent with the scores given by other Committee

3200members. Siver offered its help, but left it to the individual Committee members

3213to decide whether to rescore. Some did; some did not. (The final scores by each

3228Insurance Committee member on each of the criteria are set forth in Petitioner

3241Exhibit 18.)

324335. The Insurance Committee's final aggregate scores on HIP's HMO,

3253Humana's HMO, and PCA's two separate HMOs (referred to as "PCA Basic" and "PCA

3267Enhanced") were as follows:

32727/17/95 Score

3274HIP HUM PCA PCA Enh

3279RWA 1 3.00 3.00 2.64 2.69

3285RWA 2 6.93 7.00 6.21 6.77

3291RWA 3 4.57 3.00 1.57 3.46

3297RWA 4 3.00 0.79 2.93 2.92

3303RWA 5 2.36 2.43 1.86 1.92

3309RWA 6 2.71 2.36 2.36 2.31

3315RWA 7 3.04 -0.36 0.29 0.23

3321RWA 8 1.43 2.21 0.93 0.85

3327RWA 9 2.64 0.14 0.07 0.08

3333RWA 10 2.57 2.50 1.93 2.00

3339RWA 11 2.43 2.50 1.79 1.85

3345RWA 12 2.75 3.57 1.57 1.54

3351RWA Subtotal 37.43 29.14 24.14 26.62

3357Cost 40.49 41.29 43.65 40.42

3362M/WBE 1 2.73 2.89 1.07 1.15

3368M/WBE 2 6.00 6.43 4.93 5.31

3374M/WBE Subtotal 8.73 9.32 6.00 6.46

3380HMO TOTALS: 86.65 79.75 73.79 73.50

338636. The Insurance Committee posted the final scores for all Proposers and

3398each of their products on July 24, 1995. HIP and Humana scored more total

3412points than any other bidders on each of the three products. Accordingly, the

3425Committee recommended that the School Board award the entire RFP, including the

3437HMO contract, jointly to HIP and Humana.

3444September 5, 1995 School Board Meeting

345037. On July 27, 1995, PCA filed a Notice of Protest with the Director of

3465Purchasing of the School Board, as required by the RFP. On August 7, 1995, PCA

3480filed a Formal Written Protest with the School Board. PCA's protest challenged

3492the scoring on eight separate criteria: RWA Criteria Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10,

3507and 11, and the M/WBE criteria.

351338. On September 5, 1995, the School Board met to consider PCA's protest.

3526The School Board heard argument from PCA's attorney and from Siver.

353739. Mr. Marshall, on behalf of Siver, informed the School Board that,

3549although some of the criteria were objectively verifiable, others had been

3560scored on a subjective range.

356540. Following Siver's recommendation and its own evaluation of the

3575criteria, the School Board agreed to give PCA the benefit of the doubt and to

3590accept PCA's asserted revised scores on RWA Criteria Nos. 2, 4 and 9 because

3604those criteria were arguably objectively verifiable. The School Board rejected

3614PCA's arguments regarding the other criteria.

362041. Even with the School Board's willingness to give PCA the benefit of

3633the doubt on the three criteria mentioned above, the Insurance Committee's July

364517th rankings did not change. Consequently, the School Board denied PCA's

3656protest.

365742. The revised aggregate scores agreed to by the parties for purposes of

3670the final administrative hearing include the revised scores recommended by Siver

3681and agreed to by the School Board on Criteria Nos. 2, 4, and 9. They are as

3698follows:

36999/5/95 Board Rescoring

3702HUM PCA PCA Enh

3706RWA 1 3.00 2.64 2.69

3711RWA 2 7.00 7.00 7.00

3716RWA 3 3.00 1.57 3.46

3721RWA 4 0.43 3.00 3.00

3726RWA 5 2.43 1.86 1.92

3731RWA 6 2.36 2.36 2.31

3736RWA 7 -0.36 0.29 0.23

3741RWA 8 2.21 0.93 0.85

3746RWA 9 0.00 0.00 0.00

3751RWA 10 2.50 1.93 2.00

3756RWA 11 2.50 1.79 1.85

3761RWA 12 3.57 1.57 1.54

3766RWA Subtotal 28.64 24.93 26.85

3771Cost 41.29 43.65 40.42

3775M/WBE 1 2.89 1.15 1.15

3780M/WBE 2 6.43 5.31 5.31

3785M/WBE Subtotal 9.32 6.46 6.46

3790HMO TOTALS: 79.25 75.04 73.73

379543. On September 12, 1995, PCA filed a Petition for Formal Administrative

3807Hearing.

3808RWA Criterion # 3

381244. Since neither HIP, Humana, nor PCA received a perfect "5" in the

3825aggregate on Criterion #3, the Insurance Committee members obviously viewed the

3836scoring on this criteria as a range from 0 to 5. Criterion #3 was largely

3851subjective and was scorable on a range based upon the Committee members'

3863individual perspectives of the value of the enhancements.

387145. There is a reasonable factual basis in the record for the Insurance

3884Committee members to have differentiated along a range between the proposers on

3896this criterion. Because each proposer offered different enhancements, it was a

3907matter of discretion for each Committee member, in his or her own judgment, to

3921rate those enhancements based on their perceived value to the employees of the

3934Broward County School Board. The evidence is insufficient to show that the

3946scoring on this criterion was arbitrary to any material or quantifiable extent.

3958RWA Criterion #5

396146. Since neither HIP, Humana, nor PCA received a perfect "4" in the

3974aggregate on Criterion #5, the Insurance Committee members obviously viewed the

3985scoring on this criteria as a range from 0 to 4. Criterion #5 was highly

4000subjective and scorable on a range.

400647. The RFP required at section III, pages 6-8 that each provider's mental

4019health subcontractors should "reflect the racial and ethnic composition of the

4030School Board's employees." The Insurance Committee members could have

4039differentiated along a range between the Proposers on this criteria. Each

4050Proposer offered different mental health and substance abuse packages, and it

4061was therefore a matter of wide discretion for each Committee member, in his or

4075her own judgment, to rate those packages based on their perceived value to the

4089employees of the Broward County School Board. The evidence is insufficient to

4101show that the scoring on this criterion was arbitrary to any material or

4114quantifiable extent.

4116RWA Criterion #10

411948. Since neither HIP, Humana, nor PCA received a perfect "" in the

4131aggregate on Criterion #10, the Insurance Committee members obviously viewed the

4142scoring on this criteria as a range from -3 to .

415349. The Insurance Committee members could have differentiated along a

4163range between the Proposers on this criteria. For example, each Proposer

4174offered a different number of on-site customer service representatives: HIP

4184offered 6 representatives, Humana offered 2, and PCA offered 1.

419450. Members of the Insurance Committee could have evaluated Proposers

4204based not just on whether they would, but whether they could, provide the

4217requested services. This inference could be drawn by a Committee member based

4229on the Proposer's references, which demonstrated their prior ability to perform,

4240and the number of years that the Proposer has been a health care provider. The

4255evidence is insufficient to show that the scoring on this criterion was

4267arbitrary to any material or quantifiable extent.

4274RWA Criterion #11

427751. Since neither HIP, Humana, nor PCA received a perfect "" in the

4289aggregate on Criterion #11, the Insurance Committee members obviously viewed the

4300scoring on this criteria as a range from -3 to .

431152. The Insurance Committee members could have differentiated along a

4321range between the Proposers on this criteria. Just as with Criterion #10, the

4334Insurance Committee members could have evaluated Proposers based not just on

4345whether they would, but whether they could, comply with the requested services.

4357The evidence is insufficient to show that the scoring on this criterion was

4370arbitrary to any material or quantifiable extent.

4377The M/WBE Criteria

438053. The M/WBE criteria was broken down into two categories: workforce

4391environment and vendor participation. Out of 10 possible points, the Committee

4402decided to allow a maximum of 3 points for workforce environment and 7 points

4416for minority participation.

441954. The RFP, however, expressly indicated that Proposers who did not have

4431an administrative office in Broward County would be scored lower than Proposers

4443that did. (See Paragraph 9 of these Findings of Fact.) PCA does not have an

4458administrative office in Broward County. Both HIP and Humana do have

4469administrative offices in Broward County. This information alone was sufficient

4479for the Insurance Committee, in its honest discretion, to score PCA less than

4492HIP and Humana.

449555. The M/WBE Participation Proposal Analysis prepared by the School

4505Board's Equal Employment Opportunity Department indicated that Humana

4513anticipated that 48 percent of its primary care physicians would be M/WBEs, that

452635 percent of its specialty physicians would be M/WBEs, and that 43.5 percent

4539($157,783,000) of the total dollars paid to physicians in 1994 were paid to

4554M/WBEs.

455556. PCA did not provide a breakdown of the ratio of its M/WBE physicians

4569to the total number of physicians. Instead, PCA indicated that it had about 378

4583total M/WBE physicians and that the total fees that would be paid to such

4597physicians were estimated to be $853,944.

460457. Humana was the only Proposer to provide a breakdown of its physicians

4617by ethnicity and gender.

462158. There was other sufficient information available to the Insurance

4631Committee members upon which they could reasonably have scored PCA lower than

4643HIP and Humana in their "honest exercise of discretion." The evidence is

4655insufficient to show that the scoring of the M/WBE criteria was arbitrary to any

4669material or quantifiable extent.

4673Bias

467459. PCA did not present any evidence that any of the Insurance Committee

4687members were biased for or against any of the Proposers.

469760. A comparison of the scores of the various Insurance Committee members

4709indicate that they were, for the most part, in reasonably good agreement with

4722respect to how they rated HIP, Humana, and PCA on each criteria. There are,

4736however, as mentioned below, a number of scores that appear to be abberations.

4749Some General Observations

475261. The evidence in this case is sufficient to show that at least one

4766member of the Insurance Committee made at least some scoring decisions on the

4779basis of arbitrary considerations. The evidence also establishes that another

4789member of the Insurance Committee made all of his material scoring decisions on

4802the basis of appropriate considerations. The evidence does not show the

4813reasoning behind any of the scoring decisions of any of the other twelve members

4827of the Insurance Committee. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to

4837establish that any of the scoring decisions of any of the other twelve Committee

4851members was arbitrary.

485462. The arbitrary scoring decisions of one member of the Insurance

4865Committee have not been described in detail in these Findings of Fact because

4878the impact of those few scores on the average scores is de minimus. If all of

4894the average scores were to be recalculated to take into account the few arbirary

4908scores that were proved there would be no significant change in the ranking of

4922the parties.

492463. There were some scores by some members of the Insurance Committee

4936that, on the record in this case, appear to be what can best be described as

4952unexplained abberations. Because they are unexplained, the evidence is

4961insufficient to establish that these apparent abberations were based on

4971arbitrary considerations. It is possible they were merely honest mistakes. It

4982is possible there is some logical explanation for some or all of the apparent

4996abberations, which explanation is not part of the record in this case because

5009the members who cast those votes were not called as witnesses. Unexplained

5021abberations are an insufficient basis upon which to conclude that a bidding

5033process is arbitrary.

5036Final Rankings

503864. According to the July 17, 1995 scores, PCA's best score was 5.96

5051points lower than Humana's score.

505665. Using the September 5, 1995 scores (and thus giving PCA the benefit of

5070the doubt of higher scores on those criteria that were objectively verifiable),

5082PCA's best score is still be 4.21 points lower than Humana's score.

509466. Even if the M/WBE scores were not considered, PCA's best score using

5107the September 5, 1995 scoring would be 1.35 points lower than Humana's.

511967. Even if PCA were given the full 10 points for the M/WBE criteria,

5133PCA's best score using the September 5, 1995 scoring would still be .67 points

5147lower than Humana's.

5150CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

515368. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

5163subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding pursuant to Sections

5175120.53(5) and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

518069. HIP and Humana, as the successful bidders for the RFP, are entitled to

5194intervene as parties in this proceeding.

520070. In a bid protest such as this, the sole responsibility of the Hearing

5214Officer is to ascertain whether the agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily,

5224illegally, or dishonestly. Department of Transportation v. Groves-Watkins

5232Constructors, 530 So. 2d 912, 913(Fla. 1988); Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt

5244and Concrete, Inc., 421 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 1982); Blue Cross and Blue Shield

5259of Florida, Inc v. AHCA, DOAH Case No. 95-3635BID (RO issued September 27,

52721995).

527371. As the Florida Supreme Court noted in Liberty County:

5283[A] public body has wide discretion in

5290soliciting and accepting bids for public

5296improvements and its decision, when based on

5303an honest exercise of this discretion, will

5310not be overturned by a court even if it may

5320appear erroneous and even if reasonable

5326persons may disagree.

5329530 So. 2d at 913 (emphasis added).

533672. In the context of an evaluating committee, such as the Insurance

5348Committee in this case, the courts have held as follows:

5358The Hearing Officer need not, in effect,

5365second guess the members of [the] evaluation

5372committee to determine whether [they] and/or

5378other reasonable and well-informed persons

5383might have reached a contrary result.

5389Scientific Games, Inc. v. Dittler Bros., Inc., 568 So. 2d 1128, 1131 (Fla. 1st

5403DCA 1991) (emphasis added).

540773. This more restrictive standard of review for competitive bidding cases

5418is consistent with the limited remedy available to a successful bid challenger.

5430If a public bid process is declared arbitrary, a Hearing Officer does not have

5444authority, even if the parties so stipulate, to make a de novo evaluation of the

5459bids or to award the contract to a different bidder. The Hearing Officer only

5473has jurisdiction to remand the entire matter to the agency for further action.

5486Procacci v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 603 So. 2d 1299,

54981300-01 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Moore v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative

5510Services, 596 So. 2d 759, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

552074. Substantial disagreement among the members of an evaluation committee

5530is not unusual in cases of this nature. See, for example, Blue Cross and Blue

5545Shield of Florida, Inc. v. AHCA, DOAH Case No. 95-3635BID (RO issued September

555827, 1995), which involved the "use of 24 evaluators with diverse backgrounds and

5571perspectives; use of questions involving the application of judgement and

5581subjective standards; and use of the 0-10 scoring scale without any exact or

5594true score for any questions."

559975. The Petitioner in this case has not contended that the School Board's

5612action is fraudulent or dishonest. The Petitioner's primary contention is that

5623the School Board's action is arbitrary and, by reason of being arbitrary is,

5636therefore, also illegal. There is no assertion by the Petitioner of any illegal

5649conduct by the School Board other than the allegedly arbitrary conduct in

5661awarding the subject contract.

566576. Based on the agreement of the parties resulting from the September 5,

56781995, School Board Meeting, PCA is challenging only the Board's scores on the

5691following five criteria:

5694RWA Criterion #3: Whether the proposal exceeds current

5702benefits or model;

5705RWA Criterion #5: Mental Health and Substance Abuse;

5713RWA Criterion #10: Whether the proposal complies with

5721requested services;

5723RWA Criterion #11: Whether the Proposer agrees to

5731service standards; and

5734The M/WBE criteria.

573777. PCA only challenges the School Board's award of the HMO product, not

5750its award of the PPO or the POSHMO. PCA is not contesting the price rankings.

5765PCA is not challenging HIP's first place ranking; it only challenges Humana's

5777second-place ranking over PCA's third-place ranking.

578378. On all of the contested criteria, there was information made available

5795to the Insurance Committee upon which it could, within the exercise of a

5808reasonable discretion, reasonably score Humana higher than PCA.

581679. While it is possible that some of the scoring decisions of the twelve

5830Committee members who did not testify may have been arbitrary, there is no

5843persuasive competent substantial evidence in the record of this case to

5854establish that such is the case. Further, on the record in this case there is no

5870way in which the impact of any such possible arbitrary scoring can be

5883quantified. Absent quantification it cannot be shown that any such possible

5894arbitrary scoring resulted in any substantial injury to the Petitioner's

5904interests.

590580. A great deal of the Petitioner's argument is based on the notion that

5919an unexplained deviation from an expected scoring result constitutes proof that

5930the unexpected result was the result of some arbitrary action by one or more

5944Committee members. Such is not the case. Deviations from expectations can

5955result from any number of different reasons. In order to demonstrate

5966entitlement to relief from unexpected results, the Petitioner must present

5976evidence of the reason for the results and must prove that the reason

5989constituted an arbitrary, illegal, fraudulent, or dishonest act. Absent such

5999proof, relief must be denied.

600481. The Division of Administrative Hearings does not have jurisdiction to

6015address PCA's claim that the M/WBE criteria utilized by the School Board in

6028scoring the RFP was unconstitutional. See, e.g., Myers v. Hawkins, 362 So. 2d

6041926, 928 (Fla. 1978). PCA's attempt in its memorandum to recharacterize the

6053issue as factual rather than legal is unavailing.

606182. Even if PCA had a valid constitutional claim, PCA waived its right to

6075contest the School Board's use of the M/WBE criteria because it did not contest

6089the relevant portion of the RFP within 72 hours as required by the RFP itself.

610483. In brief conclusion, the evidence in this case is an insufficient

6116basis for granting the relief sought by the Petitioner. The few instances of

6129arbitrary scoring that were actually proved were too few in number to have any

6143material impact on the average scores. Accordingly, the Petition and Formal

6154Protest should be dismissed and all relief requested in the Petition should be

6167denied.

6168RECOMMENDATION

6169On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School

6183Board of Broward County issue a final order in this case dismissing the Petition

6197and Formal Protest filed by the Petitioner and denying all relief requested by

6210the Petitioner.

6212DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1995, at Tallahassee, Leon

6224County, Florida.

6226_________________________________

6227MICHAEL M. PARRISH

6230Hearing Officer

6232Division of Administrative Hearings

6236The DeSoto Building

62391230 Apalachee Parkway

6242Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

6245(904) 488-9675

6247Filed with the Clerk of the

6253Division of Administrative Hearings

6257this 8th day of December, 1995.

6263APPENDIX

6264The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact

6276submitted by all parties.

6280Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner:

6285Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted.

6290Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance, but with a large number of

6301argumentative or editorial details omitted.

6306Paragraph 4: First two sentences accepted in substance. The remainder of

6317this paragraph is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details, or as

6328irrelevant.

6329Paragraph 5: Rejected as consisting primarily of quotations of testimony

6339and of subordinate and unnecessary details.

6345Paragraph 6: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

6353Paragraphs 7 through 10: Accepted in substance.

6360Paragraph 12: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details that are not

6371entirely accurate.

6373Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance.

6378Paragraph 14: Most of this paragraph has been rejected as consisting of

6390subordinate and unnecessary details and of quotations of testimony; portions

6400also rejected as irrelevant.

6404Paragraphs 15 through 21: Accepted in substance, but with some

6414argumentative and editorial language omitted.

6419Paragraph 22: First two sentences accepted in substance. The remainder is

6430rejected as consisting primarily of argument, of summaries of testimony, and of

6442subordinate and unnecessary details.

6446Paragraph 23: Accepted in substance.

6451Paragraph 24: The basic substance of this paragraph has been accepted, but

6463the majority of the details have been omitted as subordinate and unnecessary or

6476as quotations rather than proposed findings of fact.

6484Paragraph 25: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as

6494irrelevant.

6495Paragraph 26: Rejected as comprised primarily of argument and proposed

6505legal conclusions, rather than proposed findings of fact.

6513Paragraphs 27 through 31: Accepted in substance, but with a number of

6525argumentative, subordinate, and unnecessary details omitted.

6531Paragraph 32: Rejected as comprised primarily of argument and proposed

6541legal conclusions, rather than proposed findings of fact.

6549Paragraph 33: Rejected as comprised primarily of a statement of another

6560party's position, rather than proposed findings of fact.

6568Paragraphs 34 and 35: Rejected as comprised primarily of argument and

6579proposed legal conclusions, rather than proposed findings of fact. Also

6589rejected as irrelevant, inasmuch as the School Board has agreed that PCA should

6602receive full credit on the subject criterion.

6609Paragraph 36: Rejected as irrelevant, inasmuch as the School Board has

6620agreed that PCA should receive full credit on the subject criterion.

6631Paragraph 37: Most of this paragraph has been rejected as being

6642argumentative, as consisting of subordinate and unnecessary details, or as

6652irrelevant. A few facts from this paragraph have been accepted.

6662Paragraph 38: Most of this paragraph has been rejected as subordinate and

6674unnecessary details, or as irrelevant because, even if accepted, evidence of

6685improper voting by one of fourteen members would not be a sufficient basis upon

6699which to conclude that the Petitioner was entitled to any relief. The last

6712sentence of this paragraph has been rejected as too vague to be meaningful and

6726as not fully supported by the persuasive competent substantial evidence.

6736Paragraph 39: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

6744Paragraphs 40 through 44: Rejected as consisting primarily of argument and

6755legal conclusions, rather than proposed findings of fact.

6763Paragraphs 45 through 58: These paragraphs are, for the most part,

6774rejected for several reasons. They include many subordinate and unnecessary

6784details. They are comprised extensively of argument, much of which argument is

6796predicated on theories which are not persuasive to the Hearing Officer.

6807Paragraph 59: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

6815Paragraph 60: Rejected as a combination of argument and subordinate and

6826unnecessary details.

6828Paragraphs 61 and 62: These paragraphs are, for the most part, rejected

6840for several reasons. They include many subordinate and unnecessary details.

6850They are comprised extensively of argument, much of which argument is predicated

6862on theories which are not persuasive to the Hearing Officer.

6872Paragraph 63 through 65: First three sentences of paragraph 63 are

6883accepted in substance. The remainder of these three paragraphs is rejected as

6895irrelevant because they deal with an issue not properly raised in this case.

6908Paragraph 66: Rejected as consisting primarily of argument with

6917subordinate and unnecessary details.

6921Paragraph 67: First sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of

6932this paragraph is rejected as argument.

6938Proposed findings submitted by Respondent:

6943(None submitted; Respondent adopted the findings proposed by

6951Intervenor HIP.)

6953Proposed findings submitted by Intervenor HIP:

6959Paragraphs 1 through 9: Accepted in whole or in substance.

6969Paragraph 10: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details not relevant

6979to the disposition of this case.

6985Paragraphs 11 through 40: Accepted in whole or in substance.

6995Paragraphs 41 through 45: These paragraphs consist of descriptions of a

7006party's positions or arguments; they belong more appropriately in the

7016conclusions of law than in the findings of fact.

7025Paragraphs 46 and 47: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

7035Paragraphs 48 and 49: The form of these paragraphs is rejected as

7047constituting summaries or quotations of testimony, rather than proposed findings

7057of fact. The underlying essence has been accepted in substance.

7067Paragraph 50: Accepted.

7070Paragraphs 51: Accepted in substance.

7075Paragraphs 52 and 53: Rejected as summaries of testimony, rather than

7086proposed findings of fact. Also rejected as subordinate and unnecessary

7096details.

7097Paragraph 54: Accepted in substance.

7102through 54: The form of these paragraphs is rejected as constituting

7113summaries or quotations of testimony, rather than proposed findings of fact.

7124The underlying essence has been accepted in substance.

7132Paragraphs 55 and 56: Rejected as summaries of testimony, rather than

7143proposed findings of fact. Also rejected as subordinate and unnecessary

7153details.

7154Paragraph 57: This paragraph consists of descriptions of a party's

7164positions or arguments; it belongs more appropriately in the conclusions of law

7176than in the findings of fact.

7182Paragraph 58: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

7190Paragraph 59: Accepted.

7193Paragraphs 60 through 62: Rejected as summaries or quotations of

7203testimony, or as subordinate and unnecessary details.

7210Paragraph 63: Rejected as a statement of a party's position, rather than a

7223finding of fact based on the evidence.

7230Paragraphs 64 and 65: Rejected as summaries or quotations of testimony, or

7242as subordinate and unnecessary details.

7247Paragraph 66: The first sentence of this paragraph is accepted in

7258substance. Most of the details in the several subparagraphs of paragraph 66 are

7271rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

7277Paragraph 67: This paragraph consists of descriptions of a party's

7287positions or arguments; it belongs more appropriately in the conclusions of law

7299than in the findings of fact.

7305Paragraphs 68 through 72: Accepted in substance with a large number of

7317subordinate and unnecessary details omitted.

7322Paragraph 73: This paragraph consists of descriptions of a party's

7332positions or arguments; it belongs more appropriately in the conclusions of law

7344than in the findings of fact.

7350Paragraphs 74 through 77: Accepted in substance with a large number of

7362subordinate and unnecessary details omitted.

7367Paragraph 78: This paragraph consists of descriptions of a party's

7377positions or arguments; it belongs more appropriately in the conclusions of law

7389than in the findings of fact.

7395Paragraphs 79 through 81: Accepted in substance with a large number of

7407subordinate and unnecessary details omitted.

7412Paragraph 82: Accepted.

7415Paragraph 83: This paragraph consists of descriptions of a party's

7425positions or arguments; it belongs more appropriately in the conclusions of law

7437than in the findings of fact.

7443Paragraphs 84 through 86: Accepted.

7448Paragraph 87: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

7456Paragraph 88: Rejected as consisting of a summary of testimony, rather

7467than proposed findings of fact. Also rejected as subordinate and unnecessary

7478details.

7479Paragraph 89: Accepted in substance.

7484Paragraph 90: This paragraph consists of descriptions of a party's

7494positions or arguments; it belongs more appropriately in the conclusions of law

7506than in the findings of fact.

7512Paragraph 91: This paragraph is rejected as consisting primarily of

7522argument about the weight of the evidence, rather than consisting of proposed

7534findings of fact.

7537Paragraphs 92 through 94: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

7547Paragraphs 95 through 97: Accepted.

7552Paragraph 98: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

7560Paragraph 99: Accepted.

7563Paragraph 100: First sentence rejected as constituting primarily argument

7572about the weight to be given to the evidence. Second sentence accepted in

7585substance.

7586Paragraph 101: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence

7595rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

7601Paragraphs 102 through 104: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary

7610details.

7611Paragraphs 105 through 107: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and

7622unnecessary details.

7624Paragraph 108: Accepted in substance.

7629Paragraphs 109 through 111: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary

7638details.

7639Paragraphs 112 and 113: Rejected as comprised primarily of arguments,

7649rather than proposed findings of fact. Also rejected as subordinate and

7660unnecessary details.

7662Paragraphs 114 through 117: Accepted.

7667Proposed findings submitted by Intervenor Humana:

7673(None submitted; Intervenor Humana adopted the findings proposed by

7682Intervenor HIP.)

7684COPIES FURNISHED:

7686Andrew S. Berman, Esquire

7690Young, Berkman, Berman & Karpf, P.A.

769617071 West Dixie Highway

7700North Miami Beach, Florida 33160

7705Edward J. Marko, Esquire

7709Marko & Stephany

77121401 East Broward Blvd, Ste. 201

7718Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

7722Robert L. Shevin, Esquire

7726Richard Simring, Esquire

7729Strook & Strook & Lavan

7734200 South Biscayne Boulevard

7738Suite 3300

7740Miami, Florida, 33131

7743W. George Allen, Esquire

7747Allen, Hursey and Lucas

7751305 South Andrews Avenue

7755Suite 701

7757Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302

7761Gerald M. Cohen, Esquire

7765300 South Park Road

7769Hollywood, Florida 33021

7772Holly Skolnick, Esquire

7775Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff

7779Rosen & Quentel, P.A.

77831221 Brickell Avenue

7786Miami, Florida 33131

7789Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo

7793Superintendent of Schools

7796Broward County School District

7800600 S. E. Third Avenue

7805Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125

7809NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE EXCEPTIONS

7815All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this recommended

7827order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit

7841written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit

7853written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final

7865order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions

7878to this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be

7890filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
Date: 01/05/1996
Proceedings: Letter to E. Marko & CC: Parties of Record from MMP (re: & enclosed Petitioner`s exhibit #19(a)) sent out.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/1995
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 12/08/1995
Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 10/16-18/95.
Date: 11/08/1995
Proceedings: Letter to Hearing Officer from Robert L. Shevin Re: Correcting caption in Recommended Order filed.
Date: 11/06/1995
Proceedings: PCA`s Post Hearing Memorandum of Law; Disk (Recommended Order) ; Recommended Order (for Hearing Officer Signature) w/cover letter filed.
Date: 11/06/1995
Proceedings: Humana`s Notice of Adopting HIP`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order; Closing Argument of The School Board of Broward County, Florida filed.
Date: 11/06/1995
Proceedings: HIP`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order (for Hearing Officer signature W/computer disk, Hearing Officer has disk); HIP`s Closing Argument filed.
Date: 10/25/1995
Proceedings: Memorandum to counsel for all parties from MMP sent out. (deadline for filing proposed recommended orders will be 11/6/95)
Date: 10/25/1995
Proceedings: Letter to Hearing Officer from Andrew S. Berman Re: Reconstructed exhibit 19a filed.
Date: 10/25/1995
Proceedings: Volume I through III (Transcript) filed.
Date: 10/23/1995
Proceedings: Exhibits (3 boxes, tagged) filed.
Date: 10/16/1995
Proceedings: PCA`s Trial Memorandum; PCA`s Memorandum of Law On Constitutional Issue; (Respondent) Notice of Compliance; Joint Prehearing Stipulation (filed W/Hearing Officer at hearing) filed.
Date: 10/16/1995
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 10/13/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Intent to Rely Upon Summaries filed.
Date: 10/10/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Request to Take Judicial Notice filed.
Date: 10/06/1995
Proceedings: Order Granting Party Status sent out. (for Humana Health Insurance Co)
Date: 10/05/1995
Proceedings: Petition to Intervene of Humana Health Insurance Company of Florida, Inc. filed.
Date: 10/05/1995
Proceedings: (Hilarie Bass) Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss ortions of Petition forLack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for More Definite Statement; Intervenor's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions to Dismiss Portions of Petition for Lac k of Subject Matter Juri
Date: 10/05/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Second Request for Production filed.
Date: 10/03/1995
Proceedings: HIP`s Witness List; HIP`s First Request for Production of Documents to the School Board of Broward County; HIP`s First Set of Interrogatories to PCA; HIP`s First Request for Production of Documents to PCA filed.
Date: 10/02/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Request for Production filed.
Date: 09/26/1995
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing Location sent out. (hearing set for October 16, 17 and 18, 1995; 8:45 a.m.; Ft. Lauderdale)
Date: 09/22/1995
Proceedings: Order Granting Party Status sent out. (by: HIP Health Plan of Fl., Inc.)
Date: 09/22/1995
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Oct. 16-18, 1995; 8:45am; Ft. Laud)
Date: 09/22/1995
Proceedings: Prehearing Order sent out.
Date: 09/20/1995
Proceedings: (HIP Health Plan of Fl., Inc.) Petition to Intervene filed.
Date: 09/15/1995
Proceedings: Agency referral letter; (Exhibit A-H); Summary Of Opinion, From Jim Marshall (2); Agenda Request Form; Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing; Agency Action letter filed.

Case Information

Judge:
MICHAEL M. PARRISH
Date Filed:
09/15/1995
Date Assignment:
09/15/1995
Last Docket Entry:
01/05/1996
Location:
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
District:
Southern
Agency:
County School Boards
Suffix:
BID
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (2):