Welcome to FloridaProcurements.com (FlaProc), your authoritative resource for navigating Florida’s government contracting landscape, with particular focus on transportation and technology opportunities. FlaProc provides free, expert guidance to help companies identify and secure state contracting opportunities throughout Florida. 

This resource is maintained by Attorney Sean Gellis of Gellis Law, PLLC, one of less than 75 attorneys Board Certified in State and Federal Government and Administrative Practice by The Florida Bar. Mr. Gellis brings unique insight to government contracting, having served as the Chief of Staff of the Florida Department of Management Services (DMS), General Counsel of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and Deputy General Counsel of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation – positions that provided direct oversight of technology initiatives and issues of statewide importance. His record in bid protest litigation reflects the sophisticated advocacy and strategic thinking he brings to government contracting matters, particularly in complex transportation and technology procurements. Sean also leads Procurement Insider, a confidential subscription service that provides technology vendors with strategic intelligence and insider analysis of Florida government opportunities. Learn more about transforming your approach to government contracting at www.gellislaw.com/procurement-insider

Best and Final, Then Better: Coaching an Incumbent in a Polk County Procurement

On August 25, the School Board of Polk County held a work session. Two items on the agenda involved competitive procurements for employee health benefits. Together they account for roughly $49 million a year — about $10.2 million for employee health center services and a pharmacy benefit line the board’s broker described as a $39 million annual expenditure.

Neither was run by the District’s purchasing department. Both were run by an outside health trust and its brokers.

What makes them worth writing about is what one of those brokers said at the podium about how his procurement was conducted.

The discussion begins around 3 hours 54 minutes. 

https://www.youtube.com/live/LkFTS4KvB3E

The record

• 2024 — The District last bid pharmacy benefit management. The resulting contract permitted a mid-term market check.
• Late 2025 — Polk County joins the Florida Educator Health Trust (FLEHT), a nonprofit health trust operating under the Florida Association of District School Superintendents. It has since grown to 23 member districts.
• May 2026 — Marsh McLennan Agency, described in the agenda as FLEHT’s “Vendor Partner,” presents a preliminary report to the Board on expanding the District’s employee clinics.
• June 2026 — According to the broker’s account at the work session, the pharmacy solicitation closes. The incumbent’s final submission is labeled a best and final offer.
• August 5, 2026 — The Superintendent’s Insurance Committee meets and, per the agenda, has additional questions to be resolved before the August 25 work session.
• August 25, 2026 — Both recommendations are presented to the Board. The clinic item carries a financial impact of $10,244,520. The pharmacy item carries no dollar figure at all.
• September 8, 2026 — The Board is scheduled to vote.

What the broker said

A board member asked a reasonable question: had the incumbent been given a chance to match the recommended vendor’s pricing, so that employees would not have to change pharmacies?

The broker said no — and then explained why, in terms that raise a different question than the one being asked.

He told the Board that the solicitation had instructed all proposers to submit their best and final offer up front, because the process was not designed for back-and-forth. But he also volunteered that when the incumbent’s first proposal came in, the pharmacy team reached out and coached the incumbent on how to improve it. He said this a second time later in the exchange, describing it as giving the incumbent opportunities to improve its bid during the process and helping it improve its number. He offered a reason: the incumbent faced the disadvantage of displacement, and they tried to show a little more difference on that account.

The incumbent’s offer improved by $1.9 million.

Another board member pushed back on the price-match request, and correctly: extending that opportunity to one proposer would require extending it to all of them, and the alternative was to re-advertise the whole solicitation. That member wanted no part of a protest, and said plainly that offering one vendor the chance to see everyone else’s results and then submit would give it an advantage over the rest of the field.

The Board did not return to the coaching. The discussion moved to whether the projected savings were guaranteed.

Where the problem sits

Florida’s procurement scheme draws a hard line between two instruments. Under section 287.057(1)(b), an agency uses a request for proposals when it can define what it wants and identify the deliverables. Award goes to the responsive, responsible vendor whose proposal is determined in writing to be most advantageous, based on price and the criteria stated in the solicitation. Negotiation authority does not appear in the subsection.

Negotiation belongs to the invitation to negotiate under 287.057(1)(c) — which is why an agency choosing an ITN must first document in writing why neither an ITB nor an RFP will serve. If proposals under an RFP could be reopened and improved after submission, the ITN would have no reason to exist.

School districts do not purchase under chapter 287. They purchase under section 1010.04, Rule 6A-1.012, and their own board policies. But Polk’s policies use the same three-part taxonomy, and its own Policy 6324 establishes a cone of silence for “all competitive selection processes including Invitations to Bid (ITB), Requests for Proposal (RFP) and Invitations to Negotiate (ITN),” commencing after advertisement and terminating when a written recommendation from Purchasing or Facilities reaches the Superintendent or the Board.

The distinction is not academic in Polk County. The District has used an invitation to negotiate before — ITN 2024-001, for the 23 BBB High School public-private partnership, a project that appeared as the first item on this same August 25 agenda.

So the question is not whether best-and-final offers are ever permissible. They plainly are, in the right instrument. The question is which instrument this was, and what it authorized.

The document itself

We have not been able to review the solicitation.

Despite our review, we could not locate either procurement posted on the School Board’s procurement site, and FLEHT does not publish solicitations, awards, or minutes on its own website. We do not draw any conclusion from that. There may well be a posting we did not find, or a route by which these were let that is not apparent from the public materials.

But the document is what would answer the question. Whatever the process was called, the solicitation is what set the rules — whether it contemplated negotiation, what it told proposers about best and final offers, and what it authorized staff to do with a proposal after it arrived. Until it is available, the only account of those rules is the one given verbally at a work session by the broker who administered them.

The open questions

Which instrument was this? The agenda for the pharmacy item describes it as a “market check/Request for Proposals.” Those are different things, and the difference determines whether a proposal could properly be reopened and improved after submission.

Did other proposers receive the same coaching? The record does not say. The broker described coaching the incumbent and gave incumbency as the reason. He was not asked whether the other six pharmacy benefit managers received comparable outreach, and he did not volunteer it. This remains genuinely unknown, and it is the single most important unanswered question in the file.

What did the Board actually have in front of it? For the clinic award, the packet consists of a broker-prepared slide deck and a one-page budget impact form on which the entire funding-source block is left blank. The form shows contracted services rising from $7,550,000 to $10,244,520 and records no savings, while the deck claims $22.4 million in plan savings. Every savings figure in this procurement originates with a broker.

There is a further oddity in the clinic packet worth noting. Two slides in the recommendation deck are stylistically distinct from the rest, cite outside sources including federal and Florida testing regulations, and cite as their source a file bearing a different name than the attachment itself. Their conclusion runs against the recommendation they accompany: that once occupational health costs are priced in, the recommended vendor trails a competing finalist by between $1.21 million and $1.36 million, and that a $9.9 million gross-versus-net question remains unresolved. That analysis is in the District’s own board packet.

Why this matters beyond Polk County

FLEHT now serves 23 school districts and roughly 65,000 public school employees. Its stated purpose is to put districts, not brokers, in control. Whatever process it used here will be used again, for other districts, on other dollars.

The competitive procurement rules exist so that a vendor who loses can see why, and a taxpayer can see that the rules were the same for everyone. That does not depend on anyone having done anything wrong. It depends on the process being legible from the outside. On nearly $49 million a year, the fullest public account of how this one worked is four minutes of a broker answering a question he was not asked.