STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ASPHALT PAVERS, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-1899BID

) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Mary Clark, held a formal hearing in the above- styled case on April 8, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: W. Crit Smith, Esquire

Smith & Thompson, P.A.

1530 Metropolitan Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

For Respondent: Susan P. Stephens, Esquire

Mark Hankins, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS #58

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

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.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Asphalt Pavers, Inc., filed its Notice of Protest on March 6, 1991, and its formal protest on March 18, 1991.

The protest was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on March 26, 1991, and a hearing was scheduled for April 9, 1991. At the parties' request, due to scheduling conflicts, the hearing was reset for April 8th.

As certified by counsel for FDOT, notice of the protest, the hearing date and right to intervene was provided to all bidders. No other bidders from this project intervened or appeared at the hearing.

At hearing Petitioner presented the testimony of Jennings Clay Dumas, Thomas Joseph Craggs and J. Ted Barefield. Respondent presented the testimony of Howard Knight, Robert Buser, Paul Newell and J. Ted Barefield.

Three joint exhibits were received in evidence, along with Petitioner's exhibits #1, 2, 3, and 5, and Respondent's exhibit #1.

The transcript of hearing was filed on April 24, 1991, and timely proposed recommended orders were filed by each party. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact are found in the attached appendix.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Asphalt Pavers, Inc., was one of several bidders on DOT Project No. 09010-3518, a federal aid highway project in Highlands County, Florida.

   
   

2. The bid specifications include a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal of 10%. The bid packet provided to the bidders by FDOT includes a "Utilization Affirmative Action Certification", to be signed by the bidder, with a prominently displayed notice that DBE utilization forms reflecting full compliance with the contract goal must accompany the bid, or documentation must be included to demonstrate good faith efforts to meet the goals.

   
   

   The notice further states that failure to submit these items will be just cause to consider the bid nonresponsive. (Pet. Ex. #1)

   
   

   Section 2-5.3.2 of the Special Provisions of the bid specifications lists the forms to be attached to the bid submission, which forms include a utilization summary and DBE utilization forms. (Pet. Ex. #1, p. 138)

   
   

3. Asphalt Pavers, Inc., submitted the lowest bid, at $2,402,747.90. The next lowest bidder was Weekley Asphalt Paving, at $2,406,484.55.

   
   

4. The bids for this project, and several others, were opened on January 23, 1991, in the FDOT auditorium in Tallahassee, Florida. The occasion was unusual as Governor Chiles attended and read one of the bids. The staff was excited to have the Governor show up and express some interest in the transportation industry.

   
   

   Although bids were not accepted after the posted deadline, the opening was delayed about a half hour, or until 11:00 a.m., to allow the Governor to arrive. All other routine procedures were followed.

5. These are the routine procedures: At the deadline, bids are collected from the contract management office of DOT and from the mailroom and are carried to the auditorium, where they are stacked on a table. As they are opened, the envelope is checked for loose papers. If any are found, they are placed inside the bid packet. The empty envelopes are placed in a separate pile.

   
   

   The two DOT employees opening bids then check to see if bid bonds are included in the packets. Another crew starts checking the packets to see if the bidders have acknowledged receipt of addenda (revisions in the specifications that are sent out after the project is advertised). If the acknowledgment form is not included, the bidder is contacted at the bid opening, if a representative is present, or later, if necessary, to see if the addenda were received.

   
   

   When the bids have been checked for bonds and acknowledgment forms, they are moved to the front of the auditorium, where they are stacked again. The bid amount from the face of each packet is read aloud, and the packets are placed in boxes.

   
   

   The bids are then wheeled on a cart to the Contracts Administration office.

   The auditorium area is checked for debris or loose papers.

   
   

   The bids are stacked again in the Contracts Administration office along a counter, and an employee is posted to watch them until staff from the Minority Programs Office comes down to check for DBE compliance.

   
   

6. In this case, Howard Knight, an operations and management consultant with the Minority Programs Office, and his supervisor, arrived around 1:30 p.m. on the day of the letting. They commenced checking the bids to see if the DBE's were certified, to see if the summary DBE sheet and DBE utilization forms were attached, and to see if the total amount of the DBE subcontracts met the established goal.

   
   

7. The first packet that Howard Knight checked was Asphalt Pavers'. He found the summary form listing four DBE subcontracts and the amounts for each; and he found three utilization forms conforming to three of the DBE subcontractors. The fourth form referenced on the summary sheet, for H.S. Thompson, was missing.

   
   

   Knight told his supervisor, who told him to check again. He checked the packet page by page and passed it to the supervisor, who did the same thing.

   
   

   When neither found the form, Knight computed the DBE total without H.S. Thompson's subcontract amount, resulting in a DBE participation rate of less than 10%.

   
   

8. At the hearing Mr. Knight could not state what information is provided on the utilization form that is not also on the summary. In fact, the summary lists the name of each DBE subcontractor and the dollar amount for each, with a space for total and a space to indicate how many DBE utilization forms are attached.

   
   

   The separate utilization forms (one for each DBE subcontractor) provide the name and address of the DBE, a brief description of the work to be done, and the amount to be paid. The form includes a signature space for the prime and for the subcontractor, although the subcontractor is not required to sign.

   The summary form and the separate utilization forms are found as the last pages in the bid packet. In this case Asphalt Pavers' bid is comprised of 133 sheets (not including the H.S. Thompson form) stapled together in a packet approximately 3/4 inches thick.

   
   

9. Asphalt Pavers' bid was reviewed by the Minority Programs Office and DOT's Good Faith Efforts Review Committee who found that no documentation was included as to good faith effort to achieve the DBE goal, since the bidder believed that he had met the goal. The bid was thus determined to be nonresponsive, and notice to award to the next lowest bidder, Weekley Asphalt Paving, was posted on March 4, 1991.

   
   

10. Asphalt Pavers, Inc., proposal was prepared by Jennings Clay Dumas, an employee of Asphalt Pavers, Inc., who has been preparing bid proposals for work let by FDOT since 1953. In the last two years Dumas has prepared at least 20 bids for his company for FDOT projects, about one per month.

    
    

11. Dumas prepared the bid in issue using the original packet received from FDOT. Only one blank utilization form was provided in the packet, but Asphalt Pavers had four separate DBE subcontractors, so three additional pages had to be added. Dumas accomplished this by folding back the staples, punching the additional forms into the back of the proposal, and folding the staples in place.

    
    

12. H.S. Thompson is an approved DBE subcontractor who provided a quote of

    $27,650.00 to Asphalt Pavers and to another bidder in this letting. Jennings Clay Dumas completed the DBE summary form listing the four subcontractors, including H.S. Thompson, and completed four utilization forms, including the one for H.S. Thompson which was affixed as the last sheet in the packet. The packet was inserted into the envelope by Mr. Dumas, and was carried by him to the letting on January 23, 1991, where he sealed it and handed it to the FDOT representative.

    
    

13. The total amount of DBE participation in Asphalt Pavers' bid was

    $240,519.70, including H.S. Thompson's subcontract. This meets the 10% DBE goal.

    
    

14. It is virtually impossible to determine what happened to the H.S. Thompson utilization form in the Asphalt Pavers bid packet.

    
    

    Jennings Clay Dumas' testimony that it was included in the packet when he placed it in the envelope is credible. So also is the testimony of the various FDOT employees regarding their careful procedures to avoid loss of documents.

    Nonetheless, while several FDOT employees handled the bids, opened, stacked and checked them, not one who testified could specifically remember opening the Asphalt Pavers' bid; and it was not until the packets were moved at least twice that the DBE forms were checked and the H.S. Thompson form was not found.

    
    

    It is significant to note that at the hearing other pieces of the original Asphalt Pavers' bid packet were falling out of the staple. The H.S. Thompson form was lost, and it is more likely this occurred after the packet was opened by FDOT than before it was sealed in the envelope by Jennings Clay Dumas.

    
    

15. At the same letting, but for a different project, another bid was rejected for failure to include a DBE utilization form. That bidder, Overstreet Paving Company, also contends that the form was submitted with its packet, and its separate bid protest is the subject of DOAH Case #91-2123BID.

    At the Contracts Administration Office, where the bid packets are set out for review by the Minority Programs Office staff, Overstreet's packet was stacked next to Asphalt Pavings' packet.

    
    

    These two cases are the only incidents of lost forms in the experience of FDOT's witnesses.

    
    

16. For the subsequent February 1991 letting, FDOT determined that certain DBE information could be submitted within two days of the bid letting, rather than with the bid proposal. Only documentation that the DBE goal is met, that certified DBE's would be used and the amount of participation by each had to be included with the proposal. This is reflected in a memo dated February 20, 1991, to Juanita Moore, Manager, Minority Programs Office, from Tereasa Stewart, Director of Administration. (Pet. Ex. #2)

    
    

    Later, FDOT amended its DBE Rule 14-78.003(2)(b), F.A.C. to modify the requirement that all DBE documentation had to be included at bid opening.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

17. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this case pursuant to Sections 120.53(5)(d), F.S. and 120.57(1), F.S.

    
    

18. The threshold issue here is a factual determination of whether Asphalt Pavings' bid included the documentation of DBE participation required by the bid specifications, and in this instance, more significantly, required by DOT Rule.

    
    

    Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist. Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1956), Lake County Sheriff's Department v. Unemployment Appeals Commission 478 So.2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Both direct and circumstantial evidence support a finding that the bid did include the documentation at the time that it was presented to DOT, but that it was somehow detached and lost after opening.

    
    

    Petitioner's witness testified unequivocally and convincingly that he attached and submitted the required sheet in a sealed envelope. Several hours later the sheet was missing, but none could state that it was not in the packet upon opening. Various persons moved and handled the many packets involved in the January letting and sheets were easily detached from the bulky, loosely- stapled sheaf. For the first time, there were two instances of missing documents in a bid opening session that was also unique for the participation of a new governor and attendant delays and excitement. As careful as the staff certainly was, (and there is not a hint of foul play or bad faith) something went awry. By the time the document was missed, and even days later when the agency learned of the bidder's claim that it had been included, it was too late to effectively retrace steps to locate the errant page.

    
    

19. This threshold determination obviates the need to address at length Petitioner's alternate claim that the irregularity could and should be waived.

    
    

    The DBE utilization form is required not only by the bid specifications, but also by DOT Rule 14-78.003, F.A.C. implementing the directives of Section 339.0805, F.S. regarding transportation trust fund set-asides for disadvantaged business enterprises. The rule that was in effect at the time of this letting plainly requires submittal of names, telephone numbers and addresses of

    certified DBE firms that will participate in the contract and a description of the work each firm will perform. See Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3., F.A.C. This information is found on the utilization form, but not on the summary.

    
    

    The case relied on by Petitioner regarding DOT's later waiver of a requirement, Couch Construction Co. v. Department of Transportation, 361 So.2d

    172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) concerned non-rule policy, not the application of an existing promulgated rule.

    
    

    The substantial body of case law regarding the waiver of non-material requirements or minor irregularities in a bid, for example, Tropabest Foods, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 493 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), is likewise inapplicable, as it addresses invitation to bid requirements or specifications, and not requirements imposed by rule.

    
    

    Even though the rule requirement at issue is uncontestedly not material, the agency is bound by the rule until it is amended or is superceded by subsequent legislation. Hulmes v. Division of Retirement, Department of Administration, 418 So.2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

    
    

20. Because Petitioner has met its burden of proof that it did meet the DBE participation goal and did include required documentation to that effect, it is entitled to the contract as the lowest responsible bidder.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED:

That the Florida Department of Transportation enter its final order GRANTING the protest of Petitioner and awarding the bid in project #09010-3518 to Asphalt Pavers, Inc.

DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

MARY CLARK

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904)488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1991.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties:

Petitioner's Proposed Findings

1. (same finding as paragraph 2, above)

2. Rejected as unnecessary.

3. Adopted in paragraph 16.

4. Adopted in summary form in paragraph 16. 21.-22. Rejected as unnecessary.

1. Adopted in paragraph 15.

2. Adopted in paragraph 6 and 7.

3. Rejected as unnecessary.

4. Adopted in paragraph 8.

5. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14.

6. Rejected as unnecessary.

7. Adopted in paragraph 5.

Respondent's Proposed Findings

1. Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 2.

2. Adopted in summary in paragraph 2.

3. Adopted in paragraph 4.

4. Adopted in part (as to lowest bid) in paragraph 3, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to the 10% goal requirement).

5.- 8. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 4 and 5.

9.-11. Adopted in paragraphs 7 and 8. 12.-13. Rejected as unnecessary.

1. Adopted in part in paragraph 4. The "normal routine" was at least disturbed by the delay in the reading of the bids and by the excitement generated by the Governor's presence.

2. Rejected as unnecessary.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ben G. Watts, Secretary

Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458

Thornton J. Williams General Counsel

Dept. of Transportation

562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458

W. Crit Smith, Esquire Smith & Thompson, P.A. 1530 Metropolitan Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32308

Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Mark Hankins, Esquire Dept. of Transportation 605 Suwannee St., M.S. 58

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ASPHALT PAVERS, INC.,

Petitioner,

vs. DOAH CASE NO. 91-1899BID

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this matter came on for hearing before Mary Clark, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 8, 1991, at 10:30 a.m., in Tallahassee, Florida. The parties to this matter are Petitioner, Asphalt Pavers, Inc. (hereinafter Asphalt Pavers), and Respondent, the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (hereinafter Department). Appearances on behalf of the parties were as follows:

Petitioner: W. Crit Smith

Smith and Thompson

1530 Metropolitan Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida

Respondent: Susan P. Stephens and

Mark Hankins

Assistant General Counsels

Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458

Asphalt Pavers filed a protest of the Department's determination that the bid submitted by Asphalt Pavers for State Project No. 09010-3518 was non- responsive. The Asphalt Pavers bid was deemed non-responsive by the Department for failure to provide a description of the work to be performed by DBE contractor H. S. Thompson. Such information is to be provided on what is known as a DBE utilization form.

The issue for resolution is whether the Department's determination that Asphalt Pavers' bid was non-responsive is arbitrary, fraudulent, illegal or dishonest.

A Recommended Order was entered by the Hearing Officer on May 10, 1991. Respondent and Petitioner filed Exceptions to the Recommended Order with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings on May 23, 1991. After a complete review of the record, the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are adopted except as specifically modified below.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Findings of Fact 1-13 as set out in the Hearing Officers Recommended Order are adopted and incorporated herein.

In Finding of Fact No. 14 the Hearing Officer made the following determination:

It is virtually impossible to determine what happened to the H. S. Thompson utilization form that was to be included in the Asphalt Pavers bid packet. Jennings Clay Dumas' testimony that it was included in the packet when he placed it in the envelope is credible. So also is the testimony of the various FDOT employees regarding their careful procedures to avoid loss of documents. Nonetheless, while several FDOT

employees handled the bids, opened, stacked and checked them, not one who testified could specifically remember opening the Asphalt Pavers' bid; and it was not until the packets were moved at least twice that the DBE forms were checked and the H. S. Thompson form was not found. It is significant to note that at the hearing other pieces of the original Asphalt Pavers' bid packet were falling out of the staple. The H. S. Thompson form was lost, and it is more likely this occurred after the packet was opened by FDOT than before it was sealed in the envelope by Jennings Clay Dumas. [Emphasis added]

The Hearing Officer's finding that the H. S. Thompson form was lost and that it was more likely that the loss occurred after the bid proposal packet was opened by the Department is not based on substantial competent evidence and therefore must be rejected. DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1957); Ammerman v. Fla. Board of Pharmacy, 174 So.2d 425 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1965). The testimony did not establish that the Department lost the utilization sheet. No evidence or testimony was offered to support the conclusion that the Department was careless. On the contrary, the testimony of Department employees (which the Hearing Officer found to be credible in the same Finding of Fact), was that FDOT procedures are designed to insure that bid packages remain intact (Finding of Fact Number 5 and Transcript Pages 90-91). Those procedures were followed at the January letting (Finding of Fact Number 4 and Transcript Page 90- 91).

Specifically, it was determined that: The area where the bids were opened was inspected for loose papers and debris (Finding of Fact Number 5); the bids are brought to the Contracts Administration Office and were stacked along a counter; an employee is posted to watch them until staff from the Minority Programs Office comes down to check for DBE compliance (Winding of Fact Number 5); and that no utilization sheet for H. S. Thompson was found (Finding of Fact Number 7).

These facts conclusively refute the finding that it was more likely that the Department lost the form. No evidence supports that conclusion. Indeed, the Hearing Officer specifically found that it was virtually impossible to determine what happened to the documentation (Finding of Fact No. 14). Moreover, the record reflects that the Department had a standard procedure for handling bid proposal packets and that the procedures were followed in this case. This constitutes prima facie evidence that the documentation was not lost by the Department. Cf. Smith v. Mott, 100 So.2d 173 (Fla. 1957); Southern Bakeries v. Fla. Unemp. Appeals, 545 So.2d 898 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1989); Corbett v. Berg, 152 So.2d 196 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1963).

Findings of Fact 15 and 16 contained in the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order are adopted as if fully set out herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Hearing Officer's legal conclusion No. 1 is adopted herein.

   
   

2. To the extent that the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law No. 2 identifies as the threshold issue, the factual determination concerning absence of the DBE documentation, it is accepted. The remainder of the "Conclusion of Law" is rejected because it is nothing more than a restatement of previous

   analysis attendant to the Hearing Officer's ultimate finding in Finding of Fact No. 14.

   
   

3. The Hearing Officer's legal conclusion No. 3 is adopted and incorporated as if fully set out herein. Petitioner's exception to the legal holding in Couch Construction Co. v. Department of Transportation, 361 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and its application to the facts at issue here are rejected. The Hearing Officer's refusal to apply that case was appropriate and her rationale is adopted herein.

   
   

4. The standard of review for the Respondent's determination that the sheet was not in Petitioner's package is whether that determination was fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest. Groves-Watkins, 530 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1988). The facts in the instant case do not support a finding of that the agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly. The Hearing Officer's conclusion, based on what she determined to be the credible testimony of the Respondent's employees, was that it was virtually impossible to determine what happened to the missing sheet (Finding of Fact Number 14).

Petitioner failed to establish by competent substantial evidence that it had complied with Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3., in that Asphalt Pavers failed to include a description of the work to be performed by DBE contractor H. S. Thompson. Nothing in the record demonstrates that the Department's action on determining Asphalt Pavers' bid to be non- responsive was in any way arbitrary, fraudulent, illegal, or dishonest. Department of Transportation v. Groves-Watkins Constructors, supra. In fact, no such finding or conclusion was made by the Hearing Officer. Put simply, Petitioner failed to carry its burden of proof.

Therefore, in conformance with the above-cited rule, the bid submission of Asphalt Pavers on State Project No. 09010- 3518 was properly deemed non- responsive by the Department.

It is therefore ORDERED that the protest by Asphalt Pavers of the intended award of State Project No. 09010-3518 is hereby DISMISSED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of May, 1991.

BEN G. WATTS, P.E.

Secretary

Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

RIGHT TO APPEAL

This Order constitutes final agency action and may be appealed by Petitioner pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, by filing a Notice of Appeal conforming to the requirements of Rule 9.110(d), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, both with the appropriate district court of appeal, accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, and with the Department's Clerk of Agency Proceedings, Haydon Burns Building,

605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458, within thirty

(30) days of rendition of this Order.

Copies furnished to:

Mary Clark Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

W. Crit Smith, Esquire Smith & Thompson, P.A.

1530 Metropolitan Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Mark Hankins, Esquire

Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458

J. Ted Barefield, Manager Contracts Administration Office

Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

R. D. Buser, Director Office of Construction

Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Docket for Case No: 91-001899BID

Orders for Case No: 91-001899BID