Whether the amendments to Rule 14-78-005,(7),(e),2, 8, and 9, Florida Administrative Code, promulgated by the Department of Transportation exceeded the authority delegated to the Department by the legislature. Specifically, the issue is whether the Department's rule requiring the minority owner of a disadvantaged business enterprise to possess expertise in critical areas of operation of the business is a reasonable and rationale implementation of the statute requiring that the business be owned and controlled by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual.DOT's rule upheld requiring the minority owner of disadvantaged or minority business to have tech training or expertise in critical areas of operations.

The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Department's proposed amendment to Chapter 14-96, F.A.C. is an unlawful exercise of delegated legislative authority.Portions of proposed rule on access management held invalid exercise of delegated authorityfor vagueness; and arbitrary.

The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended decision by the Florida Department of Transportation to award the bid on State Project No. 79002-3429, for construction of a highway project, SRI- 95/11th Interchange, in Volusia County, Florida, to PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., departs from the essential requirements of law.Unreasonable reliance upon representation by noncertified DBE that certified by DOT/using noncertified DBE major irregularity/nonresponsive DBE goal.

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has the technical expertise necessary to make decisions in the critical areas of operation of the business as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-78.005 (7)(e).White female owner of engineering firm denied minority business status because she lacked technical experience and schooling pursuant to Department of Transportation Rule 14-78.005, Florida Administrative Code.

At issue in this case, generally, is the validity of aspects of Department of Transportation (DOT) proposed F.A.C. Rule Chapter 14-103, which essentially proposes to promulgate as a rule existing DOT standard operating procedures (SOPs) for preapproval of sources of aggregate base material for DOT road construction. Specifically, the Petitioner, Dravo Basic Materials Co., Inc., contends that aspects of the proposed rules are invalid because they are arbitrary and capricious. Dravo also contends that the proposed rules are invalid because the economic impact statement for the proposed rules does not comply with the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Fla. Stat. (1989). The DOT maintains that the rules have a rational basis and that the economic impact statement is legally sufficient.DOT rule for preapproval of sources of aggregate base material. 200 sieve test for fines. Type III mine classification & redistribution not arbitrary

At issue in this case, generally, is the validity of aspects of Department of Transportation (DOT) proposed F.A.C. Rule Chapter 14-103, which essentially proposes to promulgate as a rule existing DOT standard operating procedures (SOPs) for preapproval of sources of aggregate base material for DOT road construction. Specifically, the Petitioner, Blackhawk Quarry Company of Florida, Inc. (Blackhawk), contends that aspects of the proposed rules are invalid because they exceed "FDOT's delegated legislative authority," because they are "arbitrary and capricious" and because they "do not prescribe specific requirements or standards, because they vest FDOT with arbitrary power and unbridled discretion, because they are unconstitutionally vague, because they are in contravention of administrative and judicial orders and directives, and because they violate Petitioner's due process rights." Blackhawk also contends that the DOT's attempt to incorporate the Mineral Aggregate Manual into the proposed rules by reference is invalid "because such manual is not an ordinance, standard, specification or similar material as required in Rule 1S-1.005(1), Florida Administrative Code." Finally, Blackhawk contends that the proposed rules are invalid because the economic impact statement for the proposed rules does not comply with the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Fla. Stat. (1989). Both parties contend that, under the doctrine of res judicata, some of the issues have been conclusively resolved in prior litigation between the parties-- specifically, the litigation resulting in the appellate judicial decisions cases of Dept. of Transp. v. Blackhawk Quarry Co. of Fla., Inc., 528 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)(Blackhawk I), and Blackhawk Quarry Co. of Fla., Inc. v. Dept. of Transp., 538 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(Blackhawk II). As part of its response, the DOT calls into question Blackhawk's standing to challenge the proposed rules. The DOT also seems to contend that the proposed rules only are intended to establish a procedure for preapproval of sources of aggregate material but are not intended to, and do not, contain specific standards and criteria. The DOT specifically denies that the proposed rules incorporate by reference DOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (the Standard Specs) or a carbonate content requirement for cemented coquina shell base material from the Mineral Aggregate Manual. 1/ The DOT also seems to contend that, even if there is incorporation by reference, the DOT's Standard Specs (which are referred to in the Mineral Aggregate Manual) are insulated from challenge by Blackhawk in this case for two reasons: first, in accordance with the Fifth District's decision in Blackhawk I, they are contract terms, not rules that would be subject to challenge; and, second, under Sections and 336.045 and Chapter 471, Fla. Stat. (1989), and F.A.C. Rule 21H- 26.001, only a Florida licensed professional engineer can approve the DOT's Standard Specs. As to the economic impact statement, the DOT maintains that it is legally sufficient.Rule for DOT preapproval of sources of aggregate base material (coquina rock) invalid attempt to incorporate standard specs; probab. test arbitrary

The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to be certified as a disadvantaged business enterprise pursuant to Rule 14-78.005, Florida Administrative Code.Petitioner failed ot establish the socially and economically disadvantaged owners have the knowledge, training or experience to run the company.