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 Petitioner's substantial interests are at issue in this proceeding; whether Respondent's decision to award a contract to Intervenor was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, illegal, dishonest, or contrary to competition; whether Petitioner brought this protest for an improper purpose; whether Intervenor should be awarded its attorney's fees for Petitioner's violation of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2005).Petitioner failed to prove bias or failure to follow mandatory requirements by the evaluators; the evaluation was not arbitrary; the bids are responsive. Recommend that the bid challenge be dismissed. Attorney`s fees are denied.

Whether Petitioner is owed $545,124.00 after Respondent required Petitioner to return that amount originally paid under two separate contracts.The case represents an agreed "do over" on a post-payment contract/sub-contract audit. Numerous filing periods were discussed. Accord and satisfaction were found.