This is a bid protest proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, in which the primary issue raised by the Petitioner (who is the second-ranked proposer) is that the subject contract should be awarded to the Petitioner because the first-ranked proposer submitted a non-responsive proposal. The Petitioner's alternative arguments challenge the manner in which the proposals were evaluated and assert, alternatively, that, if properly evaluated, the Petitioner would be the first-ranked proposer, or that the evaluation was so flawed as to require that all bids be rejected and that the agency embark upon a new request for proposals. The first-ranked proposer intervened to protect its substantial interests. The primary issues raised by the first- ranked proposer are that its own proposal is responsive, that any flaws in the evaluation process are insufficient in nature and number to warrant embarking on a new request for proposals, and that the second-ranked proposer lacks standing to challenge the proposed agency action because the proposal of the second-ranked proposer is asserted to be non-responsive. The third-ranked proposer intervened primarily in a defensive posture to protect its interests from any adverse consequences that might flow from the issues raised by the other two proposers, as well as to benefit from any windfall that might result from the challenges to the sufficiency of the other two proposals.The response to the Request for Proposal with proposal guarantee and cost proposal in other names was non-responsive and should be rejected.

Whether the State of Florida, Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), issued a Notice of Intent to Award a contract, pursuant to an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN), to LexisNexis (Intervenor), which was contrary to FDLE’s governing statutes, rules, polices, or any applicable bid or proposal specification.Petitioner failed to show that the negotiation of a contract with the selected vendor was a violation of the Respondent`s governing statutes, rules, policies or the Invitation to Bid specifications. Recommend that the petition be dismissed.

On May 12, 2004, did Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), act illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it cancelled the posting and noticed its intent to reject the bid of Rosiek Construction Co., Inc. (Rosiek), in relation to financial project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement, SR 682 (the Project)? § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (2004).The basis for rejecting the sole bid was not illegal or arbitrary.

Whether Respondent's intended award of the contract arising out of Request for Proposal No. 09L04FP4 to Intervenor is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that Respondent`s intended action is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.

Whether Respondent, Department of Education's ("Respondent"), Notice of Intent to Award the contract for Request for Proposal No. 2005-01 ("RFP"), for Administration of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"), is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. Whether Respondent's proposed action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.After receiving 3 bids to administer the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, Respondent`s evaluation committee sought additional information from bidders, but did not violate basic requirements of statutes or the Request for Proposal. Notice upheld.

Whether Respondent's action of disqualifying the bid submitted by Petitioner was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.The Department`s proposed action of disqualifying Petitioner`s bid for submitting an incomplete test run is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the clear language of the Invitation to Bid (ITB).

The issue in this proceeding is whether the proposed action of the Department with regard to procurement of the State of Florida Statewide Law Enforcement Radio Communications System, DMS Number 21-725-001-W, is contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules, policies, or any applicable bid or proposal specification.Motorola challenged Department`s decision to negotiate, but failed to show that proposed action was contrary to law, rules, or policies governing the agency.

The issue is whether Respondent's tentative award to Intervenor of a contract to construct and install a water pipeline should be invalidated because of fraud, arbitrariness, illegality, or dishonesty.Respondent improperly allowed winning bidder and its pipe supplier eight days after bid opening to decide whether to withdraw conditions and exceptions to specifications for a 42-inch pipe, as the conditions and exceptions rendered the bid unresponsive.

Whether Respondent's intended award of a contract to Ramsay Youth Services, Inc., pursuant to RFP No. K8027, is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, applicable rules, or polices or the specifications of the request for proposals.Evaluator made some errors, but correction would not garner enough points to exceed points awarded to other offeror.

The issue in this case concerns whether the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's or Department's) proposed action to award a contract to Couch Construction, L.P., is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications.A bid containing "unbalanced" items should not be rejected absent showing of internal imbalance which would affect order of bids.