ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

20F-004-ADM · Department of Administration · 2021-02-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LA PAZ COUNTY ATTORNEY

Appellant

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

Respondent

No. 20F-004-ADM

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

DECISION

HEARING: January 25, 2021

APPEARANCES: Ryan Dooley, Esq. for La Paz County Attorney; Kenneth R. Hughes, Esq. for the Arizona Department of Public Safety

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thomas Shedden

FINDINGS OF FACT

On November 24, 2020, the Arizona Department of Administration issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on January 25, 2021 at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The issue for hearing is Appellant La Paz County Attorney’s protest of Respondent Arizona Department of Public Safety’s Solicitation No. VOCA-2021-Lapaz-00190.

VOCA is the Victims of Crime Act, under which the federal government provides the states with victim assistance grants. AzDPS administers the grant program in Arizona.

AzDPS issued a Request for Grant Applications for VOCA grants covering October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2023. AzDPS Ex. A.

The County submitted an application dated May 8, 2020. LP Ex. 5.

AzDPS found that La Paz County’s application did not meet the requirements for a grant to be awarded because it scored 627 points out of 1000, and 700 points was required. LP Ex. 4.

The County submitted to AzDPS a protest dated August 28, 2020. LP Ex. 2.

AzDPS’s Director denied the County’s protest though a letter dated September 22, 2020. LP Ex. 3.

Through a letter dated October 5, 2020, the County filed with the Department of Administration the appeal that gives rise to this hearing. LP Ex. 1.

AzDPS presented the testimony of Karen Lyon, its program administrator.

The County presented no witnesses and no legal argument, and relied on an administrative record including: its application, AzDPS’s Application Review Summary Report, the Protest, and AzDPS’s response to the Protest.

The County also had entered into evidence its Fiscal Year 2018 VOCA grant application and AzDPS’s review summary of that application.

In its Protest letter the County raised what it called “Scoring Discrepanc[ies]” related to the Mission Statement, Volunteer Details, Budget, criminal littering, and whether the application met stated expectations, and it asserted that similar applications have been approved in the past.

AzDPS denied the County’s Protest because its Director found that: the application was evaluated in accordance with guidelines established under Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-2702 and the criteria set out in the RFGA; the scores were supported by the evaluators’ comments and those comments accurately reflect the content of the application; the County’s concern regarding criminal littering was valid, but a harmless error that would not change the County’s score; and it was too late to consider any information that was not provided with the application.

The RFGA was properly advertised.

The applications were scored by two evaluators who meet the requirements to perform that function. The COVID-19 pandemic made it necessary to use two evaluators, not three.

The County’s application was scored using the criteria set out in the RFGA.

Ms. Lyon testified as to the scoring of the County’s application, including reference to the evaluators’ comments regarding scoring in the Volunteers section, the performance measures the County selected for justice goals, budget issues and pay-rates for volunteers, and the lack of clarity in the Problem Statement. Her opinion was to the effect that the evaluators’ comments were appropriate and that County’s application was appropriately scored.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The hearing in this matter is being held pursuant to Title 41, Chapter 24; La Paz County bears the burden of persuasion Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(4).

The standard of proof is that of a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119(B).

A preponderance of the evidence is:

The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted). Statutes and rules are construed using the same principles. Id.

The Department of Administration’s Director has authority over this matter. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-2704.

AzDPS has authority to administer VOCA grants. Ariz. Rev. Stat § 41-1711(L).

AzDPS’s use of only two evaluators was appropriate in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ariz. Rev. Stat § 41-2703.

The County presented no evidence or legal argument to show that AzDPS’s Director’s decision to deny its Protest was factually inappropriate or contrary to law. AzDPS presented credible evidence showing that the County’s application was appropriately scored.

The County has not met its burden to show that its Protest should be sustained.

Consequently, the County’s appeal should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that La Paz County Attorney’s appeal is dismissed.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order is five days after the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, February 16, 2021.

/s/ Thomas Shedden

Thomas Shedden

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Andy Tobin

Department of Administration

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000