Leon FL Commercial real estate, Probate and Real estate Lawy -- eLawyers

92-006440BID SMITH AND THOMPSON, P.A. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1992)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 28, 1992

The issue is whether respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting all proposals and withdrawing its solicitation of offers to provide legal services and representation of HRS in matters involving child support enforcement cases in the Second Judicial Circuit.Where agency uses competitive process to solicit services, bid dispute principles are applied even though agency doesn't characterize proceeding as bid dispute.

91-001899BID ASPHALT PAVERS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 26, 1991

Petitioner has challenged Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's), intent to award State Project No. 09010-3518 to Weekley Asphalt Paving, Inc., alleging that the agency erred in determining Petitioner's bid to be nonresponsive. Petitioner is indisputably the lowest bidder. Respondent rejected Petitioner's bid for failure to attach a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Sheet for each DBE subcontractor listed on its summary form. Petitioner claims that the sheet was submitted and, in the alternative, the sheet should be waived as immaterial. Moreover, Petitioner claims that including the sheet with bids has been waived in subsequent bids, by administrative fiat, and later, by rule amendment. The issue for resolution is whether Respondent's determination that Petitioner's bid was nonresponsive is arbitrary, fraudulent, illegal or dishonest.Petitioner entitled to award as lowest responsible bidder-agency erred in rejecting bid when petitioner proved compliance with rule and specs.

89-006871BID STATE PAVING CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1989)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 15, 1989

The issue for determination at the formal hearing was whether Respondent should be required to provide funds to Petitioner and Intervenor for their respective technical and price proposals in accordance with former Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-91.006(5)(hereinafter "Rule 14-91.006(5)").DOT should reject all Request For Propsals. DOT may not refuse to apply its own valid written rule. Refusal is invalid unwritten rule which can be challenged in 120.57 hearing without 120.56

90-003122BID FAIRCHILD CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1990)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 23, 1990

The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Transportation (DOT), should award State Project No. 46090-3511 to the Hardaway Company, notwithstanding the bid protest filed by the Petitioner, W. R. Fairchild Construction Company, Ltd. (Fairchild), alleging that the Hardaway Company's was unbalanced, irregular and unresponsive and that the DOT did not properly exercise its discretion in evaluating the bids.Grove-Watkins allows de novo review of award. Bid review procedure was inci- pient policy and reasonably applied. Bid imbalance andfront-ending not material

90-003121BID THE CONE CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1990)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 24, 1990

The issue for disposition is whether the Department of Transportation properly rejected Petitioner's bid for State Project Number 02000-3608 for failure to meet disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) goals and failure to include information regarding good faith efforts to meet the goals.Bid did not show disadvantaged business enterprise goal met or good faith effort- was properly rejected.

84-001598 HEWITT CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1984)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: May 21, 1990

Petitioner lost standing to challenge bid dispute when convicted of federal contract crime and lost certificate from Respondent. Recommend dismissal.

89-002715F BUSINESS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS OF TALLAHASSEE, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES (1989)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Oct. 27, 1989

The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of costs and attorney fees under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. By stipulation and agreement, the parties have resolved most issues in the case. The only remaining disputed issue is whether the Department's action was substantially justified.Original agency denial of recertification to Minority Business Enterprise was ""substantially justified""; therefore Petitioner not entitled to award of attorney fees

88-003885 BUSINESS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS OF TALLAHASSEE, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES (1988)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Mar. 21, 1989

The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Business Telephone Systems of Tallahassee, Inc. ("BTS"), meets the eligibility criteria for recertification as a Minority Business Enterprise. The sole area of dispute concerns whether Ms. Nancy L. Nuce has control over the management and daily operations of the Petitioner corporation, within the meaning of Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, as implemented by Rule 13-8.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. At the hearing, both parties presented evidence in the form of testimony and exhibits. Following the hearing, a transcript was prepared and, thereafter, both parties filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact. The parties' proposals have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. All proposed findings of fact are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.Evidence established that minority owner possessed and exercised the control and authority over company affairs required by statute and rule.

88-002898BID HEWITT CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1988)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Aug. 24, 1988

Agency has wide discretion to rule on bidder's competence. Here agency's decision to award to company which may not have broad experience still supportable

Walter Crit Smith