Petitioner found Respondent's gas contained unacceptable levels of alcohol and suspended particles. Respondent should forfeit bond as assessment.

Case No. 81-2421: Whether Petitioner's bid for contractual services to attach labels and mail" The Florida Market Bulletin" should be accepted. Case No. 81-2481: Whether Petitioner's bid for contractual services to attach labels and mail "The Senior Consumer Monthly" should be accepted. These consolidated cases involve the claim of Petitioner Modern Copy Service, Inc., d/b/a Modern Mailers, that Respondent Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should award it two contracts for attaching labels and mailing copies of two separate publications of the agency. Petitioner claims that even though it did not submit the low bid on either of the two contracts, Respondent did not follow proper bidding procedures under Chapter 287, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 13A-1, Florida Administrative Code, not specifying criteria in the invitation for bids which would be used in determining the acceptability of a bid, as required by Rule 13A-1.16, F.A.C. The two contract cases were consolidated pursuant to Rule 28-5.106, F.A.C. upon request of the Respondent. A motion for 1eave to intervene in the proceedings by Direct Mail Specialists, Inc., based on its claim to be the low bidder in both procurements, was granted. At the hearing, Petitioner called three witnesses and submitted the deposition testimony of two other witnesses, plus another deposition of a witness who was called in its case in chief. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1-3) Respondent called no witnesses but submitted two exhibits in evidence consisting of the bid files (Respondent's Exhibit 1) and a late-filed copy of Chapter 13A- 1, F.A.C., of which official recognition was taken (Respondent's Exhibit 2). In a post-hearing letter, Petitioner submitted another copy of Chapter 13A-1, which contained the prior version of Rule 13A-1.06 concerning timeliness of petitions challenging bidding procedures. Official recognition is taken also of this former rule. The Intervenor called one witness. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact have been fully considered, and those portions not adopted herein are considered to be unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact. Respondent did not file a proposed order or brief. The parties agreed that the Hearing Officer would have until January 20, 1982 in which to file his Recommended Orders in these matters.Petitioner's challenge to award of bid to Intervenor cannot be upheld on grounds agency didn't go by rule/statute. Award bid to Intervenor.

Facts establish and not disputed that Respondent had gasoline which exceeded American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. Bond refund posted in lieu of gasoline confiscation denied.

Petitioner entitled to retain that amount of Respondent's bond equal to retail amount of substandard gas shold before discovery of contamination.