Leon FL Lawyers | Cynthia Denise Johnson -- eLawyers

15-003082BID THE MIDDLESEX CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 28, 2015

The issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation's (DOT) proposed award of a “design-build” contract to Prince Contracting, LLC (Prince), is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the specifications of the Request for Proposals (RFP).Award of contract is contrary to specifications and governing statute.

13-000685BID JAMES HINSON ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 19, 2013

Whether the Department of Transportation's (DOT) intended decision to award contract T2442 for the Intelligent Transportation System improvements (Project) and other incidental construction on State Road 9A, in Duval County, to American Lighting & Signalization, Inc. (ALS), is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications.DOT's decision not to extend the bid deadline for the project at issue was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary and capricious.

12-003862BID TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED CORP. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 28, 2012

The issue in this case is whether Respondent's intended award of a contract to Intervenor pursuant to Request for Proposals No. RFP-DOT-12/13-9003-JP is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, Respondent's rules and policies, or the specifications of the Request for Proposals.Petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that award of bid for upgrade of State GPS system to Intervenor was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.

12-002870BID COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 28, 2012

The issue in this case is whether Respondent's intended decision to award a contract, challenged by Petitioner, is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules, policies, or the proposal specifications.Petitioner did not prove that contract award to another bidder was contrary to statute, rule, policy, or RFP specifications. By failing to meet RFP's pre-qualification requirements, Petitioner's proposal was non-responsive.

11-003284BID UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2011)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 28, 2011

Whether, in making a preliminary decision to award a contract for the subject services, the Florida Department of Transportation (Respondent) acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, policy, or project specification; and, if so, whether such misstep(s) was/were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.Petitioner did not prove that the evaluation of its response to the subject RFP was arbitrary or capricious.

06-002451BID SUNSHINE TOWING, INC vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 13, 2006

The issue is whether the Department of Transportation's (the "Department") intended award of RFP-DOT-04/05-6063DS to Anchor Towing, Inc. ("Anchor Towing"), after the re-evaluation of the proposals pursuant to the Department's Final Order on Motion to Remand is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that its proposal should be awarded the contract for "Road Ranger" services from Respondent. The solicitation process conformed with applicable statutes, rules and specifications of the Request for Proposals.

10-007669BID AMERICAN LIGHTING AND SIGNALIZATION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 17, 2010

The issue is whether Respondent Florida Department of Transportation’s (the Department or FDOT) determination that Intervenor Miller Electric Company (Miller) is a responsive design-build proposer was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary and capricious.Petitioner proved that Intervenor's bid was non-responsive.

10-000134BID SUNSHINE TOWING AT BROWARD, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 12, 2010

The issues in this bid protest are, first, whether, as Petitioner alleges, Intervenor's failure to attach copies of "occupational licenses" to its proposal was a deviation from the requirements of the Request for Proposal; second, whether any such deviation was material; and third, whether Respondent's preliminary decision to award Intervenor the contract at issue was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.Respondent's intended decision to award contract for towing and emergency roadside services to a corporation whose proposal suffered from a minor irregularity was not clearly erroneous, arbitary or capricious, or contrary to competion.

08-005356BID ASHBRITT, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 23, 2008

The issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation's (DOT) proposed award of contracts for emergency debris removal services is contrary to law, the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the specifications of the Request for Proposals (RFP).Respondent did not err in contracts awarded through RFP for emergency debris removal services.

08-004272BID MID-STATE PAVING CO., INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 28, 2008

Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T1285 to Intervenor Kamminga & Roodvoets, Inc. ("K & R").A hyperlink on the Department`s webpage was not a bid specification, and therefore Intervenor was not required to comply with it. The Department`s proposed award did not violate relevant rules, statutes, or policies.

Cynthia Denise Johnson