Florida’s First District Court of Appeals recently held in State of Fla., Agency for Health Care Administration v. Best Care Assurance, LLC, 302 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (“Best Care”), that a contractor who had been awarded a contract in a “multiple award procurement” lacked standing to challenge awards to others.
Today, the government frequently conducts “multiple award procurements.” When this is done, the RFP or ITN provides for more than one contract award. Sometimes, the RFP or ITN provides for future competitions for task or work orders that are only open to those who have been awarded a “master” contract. Other times, the RFP or ITN authorizes the government to directly award task or work orders to the “master” contract-holders without a competition. Yet other times, the RFP or ITN has a formula or other system for divvying up the work amongst the awardees.
In Best Care, the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) was procuring Medicaid insurance plan contracts for “Region 8” pursuant to § 409.974(1)(h), Fla. Stat. which states “The agency shall procure at least two plans and up to four plans for Region 8.” In a nutshell, the selected Medicaid insurance plans in a region (there are eleven throughout the state) compete with each other for individual enrollees, then act as the enrollees’ health plan provider. The health plans are paid by the state per enrollee, meaning the more enrollees a plan has the more revenue it earns. A related provision, § 409.966(3)(e), provided “To ensure managed care plan participation in Regions 1 and 2, the agency shall award an additional contract to each plan with a contract award in Region 1 or Region 2. Such contract shall be in any other region in which the plan submitted a responsive bid and negotiates a rate acceptable to the agency.”
When AHCA made its initial awards for Region 8, it awarded a contract to Best Care and three other firms. One of three other firms was Humana, who had also won a contract in Region 2, and AHCA’s award notice for Region 8 stated that Humana was being awarded an “additional contract” pursuant to § 409.966(3)(e). However, Molina, who did not win a contract, protested. AHCA settled Molina’s protest by awarding it a contract. But, AHCA did not take an award away from anyone else. Thus, AHCA awarded a total of five contracts in Region 8.
Best Care filed a Ch. 120 bid protest challenging the fifth award to Molina, alleging it unlawfully violated § 409.974(1)(h). Best Care argued it had standing because it would face more competition for Medicaid enrollees than the Legislature had intended when it capped the number of awards at four. Ultimately, AHCA dismissed the protest for lack of standing.
The First District affirmed, holding that Best Care lacked standing because the alleged harm was not the sort of injury that § 409.974(1)(h) was designed to protect against. The First District reasoned that even if it accepted Best Care’s argument the Legislature capped the number of awards that could be made at four to ensure the Medicaid insurance plans were economically viable, it would be just as reasonable to conclude this statutory scheme was intended to protect Medicaid recipients from unstable health plans, and not the economic interests of the plans themselves. The First District alternatively ruled on the merits in AHCA’s favor regarding the meaning § 409.974(1)(h), which had to be read in pari materia with § 409.966(3)(e).
- Partner
Joseph M. Goldstein is the Managing Partner of the Fort Lauderdale office of Shutts & Bowen LLP, where he is a member of the Business Litigation Practice Group. Joseph also practices out of the Tallahassee office.
A ...
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
- Florida Appellate Court Provides Further Guidance Regarding New Summary Judgment Rule
- SEC Adopts New Cybersecurity Rules
- From 😊 to 💼: Can Emojis Create a Legally Binding Contract?
- HB-3: An Overview of ESG Factors Relating to Public Funds Investment and Financial Industry Impacts
- The Live Local Act Part 2 - Affordable Housing Incentives
- Florida's Live Local Act
- Taking an Appeal to Florida’s New Sixth District Court of Appeal? Three Local Rules You Need to Know
Popular Categories
- Business of Real Estate
- Real Estate Law
- Construction
- Construction Litigation
- Development/Land Use
- Landlord-Tenant
- Trusts and Estates
- Appeals
- Contracts
- Litigation
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Business
- Foreclosures
- Florida Government Contracts
- Property Tax
- Estate planning
- Supreme Court
- Conveyances
- Appellate Blog
- Cyber fraud
- Technology
- Lease
- Wealth planning
- Government
- Florida Bid Protests
- Government Contracts
- Business
- Insurance
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- Public Contracts
- GAO
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Bid Protest
- Title
- Cybersecurity
- Data Security
- Promissory Notes
- Construction
- Regulatory Compliance
- Liens and encumbrances
- Creditor's Rights
- Government Contracting
- Florida Public Contracts
- Small Business
- Bidding
- Compliance
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Federal Government Contracting
- Florida Administrative Law
- Public procurement
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Florida Procurement
- Bankruptcy
- Eviction
- Mortgages
- Record on Appeal
- Rehearing
- Loan guaranties
- Attorneys' Fees
- Employment and Labor
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Maritime
- Briefing
- Request for Proposal
- Commercial Brokerage
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Florida Public Procurement
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Certiorari
- email hacking
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- State Government Contracts
- Lis Pendens
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Finality
- Preservation
- Technology
- Evidence
- Expert
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Government Vendor
- Mootness
- Public Private Partnership
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Veteran Owned Business
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- June 2024
- May 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016