The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation (Department) acted arbitrarily, fraudulently, illegally or dishonestly in its award of bid ITB-DOT-94-95-4004 to Kemp Services, Inc. (Kemp).PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE AGENCY ACTED ARBITRARILY ILLEGALLY OR FRAUDULENTL Y PETITIONER HAS STANDING BUT NOT ENTITLED TO AWARD OF BID.

The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the award of RFP-DOT-93/94-9025 instead of the Intervenor or, in the alternative, should all proposals be rejected.Agency fairly and consistently scored responses to Request For Proposal; Petitioner failed to establish agency acted arbitrarily or illegally.

In their joint prehearing statement adopted and filed at the hearing on December 23rd, the parties provided this concise description of the controversy: This proceeding is limited to the issue of whether Petitioner, M & J Construction Co. of Pinellas County, Inc. (M & J) should be excused from filing a bid protest outside the statutory period permitting such filings because of a verbal change in the posting date allegedly made by a Department of Transportation (FDOT) employee. Petitioner maintains that it should be excused from not filing its notice of protest within 72 hours of the posting of the intended award because a representative of the FDOT made a representation that the intended award would not be posted until a date at least 30 days after the actual posting; therefore, equity requires that its protest be allowed. Respondent and the Intervenor maintain that the bidding documents made clear that the award would be posted on October 20, 1994 or November 7, 1994, and that no change in this posting date would be made except in writing. As no written change was filed, Petitioner was still on notice that the intended award would be posted on October 20, 1994 or November 7, 1994. FDOT denies that Michael Schafenacker made a verbal representation otherwise. In addition, in a supplement to the prehearing statement, Intervenor contends that Petitioner failed to file a formal protest within 10 days, even if somehow its late notice of protest was excusable. Moreover, Intervenor contends, any actions of the agency, Florida Department of Transportation, cannot operate to waive Mayo's right to the contract.Petitioner has clear notice of posting date in writing and should not have relied on erroneous verbal info. Bid protest denied as untimely.

The issue in this case is whether an outdoor advertising billboard being constructed by Respondent within the city limits of Hollywood must be removed at Respondent's expense and/or whether a permit can and should be issued for the sign.DOT should grant sign permit on "commercial unzoned" property; confusion due to city's adoption of new zoning code results in site being treated as unzoned.

Whether the Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in proposing to award a contract for State Project No. 99003-3501 to the Intervenor.Petitioner proved that DOT was arbitrary in not finding low bidder non- responsive when Minority Business Enterprise was not qualified for type work as of award date.

Whether Respondent has erected or maintained a sign in the right-of-way of State Road 37 and, if so, should it be removed.Respondent's sign located in a state road right-of-way must be removed.

Whether the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, (the "Department"), acted arbitrarily or illegally in deciding to award the Intervenor, Intergraph Corporation, the contract for RFP-DOT-93/94 9008? The parties stipulated that the Department did not act fraudulently or dishonestly in issuing its notice to award the contract to Intergraph.Petitioner did not establish that subcontractor and certified minority business enterprise was a conduit under proposal in response to an Request For Proposal.