Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida
Filed: Jul. 12, 1991
Whether Petitioner, has established by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent improperly and unlawfully engaged in collusion with the Intervenor prior to the preparation and issuance of Respondent's 91-20 Invitation to Bid (ITB 91-20). Whether Petitioner has established that, as a result of the alleged collusion, ITB 91-20 was drafted in such a manner as to unfairly limit competition among prospective bidders and, in fact, constituted a scheme to show favoritism in the bidding process by drawing certain specifications in the ITB such that only one bidder can qualify. Whether Petitioner has established that certain specifications the Respondent included in the ITB are overboard and unreasonable to the extent that the inclusion of such specifications in ITB 91-20 constitutes agency action which is arbitrary, capricious, and subverts the integrity of the public procurement process.Requirements that prospective bidders possess a US DOT safety rating and 5 year experience do not unduly restrict qualified bidders and are not arbitrary
