85 F.3d 1521 Fernando Alberto ORTEGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. CHRISTIAN, Officer, individually, and as police officer for Metro-Dade Police Department; Fred Taylor, individually as Director/Chief of Police of Metro-Dade Police Department, Metro-Dade Police Department, a political subdivision of Dade County, Florida, Defendants-Appellee. No. 94-5300. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. June 25, 1996. Douglas S. Lyons, Alan Goodman, Lyons and Farrar, P.A., Coral Gables, Florida, fo..
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.
The issue is whether a development order adopted by Respondent City of Marathon by Resolution PC00-09-04 is consistent with the comprehensive plan, land development regulations, and statutes.Development order allowing landowner to transfer density from 12 boat slips to 12 motel rooms was inconsistent with the land development regulations.
The issue in this case is whether Ordinance No. 06-03, as adopted by the Village of Islamorada, Village of Islands (Village), is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development set forth in Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes (2006) (Guiding Principles).1On vacation rentals, Respondent Village of Islamorada was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Principles Guiding Development in Florida`s Keys. The Division has no jurisdiction for constitutional issues.
The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making a preliminary decision to award a public contract, Respondent acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, policy, or project specification; and, if so, for each such instance, whether the misstep was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent`s preliminary decision to award a public contract was contrary to a governing statute, rule, policy, or project specification. Recommended that bid protest be rejected.
Whether Respondent acted contrary to its governing statutes, rules, policies, or project specifications in selecting the winning response to the subject Request for Proposals and, if so, whether any such act was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition within the meaning of Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes.Selection process to evaluate responses to Request for Proposals was materially flawed.
