Leon FL Lawyers | Gregg A Gleason -- eLawyers

Ago (1984)

Florida Attorney General Reports Filed: Jan. 19, 1984

Mr. James G. Yaeger County Attorney Lee County Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Dear Mr. Yaeger: This is in response to your request for an opinion on the following questions: 1. CAN A COUNTY CHARGE A SERVICE FEE TO THE USER OF SPECIALIZED COMPUTER ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS WHERE THERE REMAINS AN ALTERNATIVE ACCESS AVAILABLE AT NO COST 2. WOULD EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS ON THE R.E.N.T.A.L. SYSTEM [REAL ESTATE NETWORK TO ALL LOCATIONS] QUALIFY AS A VALID "PUBLIC PURPOSE " 3. WOULD T..

61-463 Ashkenazy v. Ashkenazy's Estate (1962)

District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: May 01, 1962 Citations: 140 So. 2d 331

140 So. 2d 331 (1962) Jeanne ASHKENAZY, Appellant, v. ESTATE of Saul ASHKENAZY, Appellees. No. 61-463. District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District. May 1, 1962. Rehearing Denied May 17, 1962. Richard K. Fink, Miami, for appellant. Wepman & Wepman, Miami, Kovner & Mannheimer, Miami Beach, for appellees. Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C.J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ. *332 HENDRY, Judge. The appellant, Jeanne Ashkenazy, specific devisee under the will of Saul Ashkenazy, filed a petition in the C..

99-000697BID GIBBONS & COMPANY, INC. vs BOARD OF REGENTS (1999)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 16, 1999

Whether Petitioner's protest, challenging Respondent's decision to award to Intervenor, "pending a successful interview," the "Federal Relations Governmental Liaison" contract advertised in Request for Proposal 99-01, should be sustained?Protest challenging the conditional award of Board of Regents Washington representative contract was timely filed, but without merit.

93-002740BID OPUS SOUTH CORPORATION vs BOARD OF REGENTS (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 20, 1993

The issue presented is whether Petitioner is the lowest, responsive bidder on Board of Regents' Project BR-787.Good faith effort criterion made nonmaterial where list of minority organiza tions given to only some bidders and where compliance a meaningless act.

89-006844BID D. E. WALLACE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION vs BOARD OF REGENTS (1989)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 13, 1989

The issues are whether the Petitioner, D.E. Wallace Construction Corp., is the lowest responsive bidder on project BR-116; whether the Respondent, the Florida Board of Regents, correctly rejected the bid submitted by the Petitioner; and whether the bid on BR-116 should be awarded to the Intervenor, Anglin Construction Company.Failure to identify Minority Business Enterprise participation in bid documents is a material defect and cannot be waived.

83-001919BID SANMAR GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. vs. STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF FLORIDA (1983)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Dec. 15, 1983

Rejection of all bids for the construction of a gym approved where all bids were higher than the funds allotted the university system for the project.

82-003303 TYCO CONSTRUCTORS, INC. vs. BOARD OF REGENTS (1982)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Jul. 22, 1983

The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent should award a contract in accordance with an invitation to bid to the Petitioner, to some other bidder, or reject all bids and reissue an invitation. Petitioner contends that it was the low bidder in response to the invitation; that its bid was responsive; and to the extent that it was not responsive, any defects were of a minor sort which should be waived. Petitioner contends that the Respondent has previously waived irregularities such as existed in the Petitioner's bid and should therefore waive them in this case. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner's bid was not responsive, that the irregularities in Petitioner's bid are not minor, that any mistakes the Respondent has made in past acquisitions should not be repeated, and that the contract should be awarded to another company.Petitioner's bid award challenge must fail because it submitted an unresponsive bid.

Gregg A Gleason