Whether Respondent owes Petitioner $14,080 on account for vegetables sold and delivered at the request of Respondent.Respondent received shipment of vegetables; invoice is correct; amount claimed should be paid.

At a City Commission meeting on May 17, 1990, the City Commission voted unanimously to award Intervenor a contract for the renovation and construction of two city pools. Bids on the job had been opened on May 14, 1990. By letter dated May 18, 1990, Petitioner, which had submitted a bid for the job, filed a formal protest. By agreement between Petitioner and Respondent, the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing. On July 10, 1990, Intervenor filed a petition to intervene, which was granted at the beginning of the hearing. At the hearing, Petitioner presented three witnesses and offered into evidence nine exhibits. Respondent presented four witnesses and offered into evidence four exhibits. Intervenor presented one witness and offered into evidence no exhibits. All exhibits were admitted into evidence. However, Respondent's Exhibit 1, which was one version of the, subject Invitation to Bid, was misplaced during the hearing, although the seven pages of attached drawings remained in the custody of the hearing officer. Respondent was given ten days to replace the textual portion of the exhibit. If it fails to do so, the exhibit shall stand as only the seven pages of drawings. Due to the urgent time constraints, which are discussed below, the parties agreed that, even if a transcript were ordered, they would not wait for it to be filed before filing their proposed recommended orders. Accordingly, the parties were given until July 16, 1990, to serve their proposed recommended orders. The Hearing Officer indicated that he did not require the transcript in order to prepare the recommended order. Petitioner and Respondent filed proposed recommended orders. Respondent's proposed findings are adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment accorded Petitioner's proposed findings is detailed in the appendix.City justified in rejecting bid of protestor which included work not included in Invitation To Bid (ITB) and exclusive work included on ITB, even though winner ommited references and licenses.