HUBBARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Hubbard Construction Company challenged the Department of Transportation's rejection of its lowest bid as nonresponsive based on a minor discrepancy. The court reversed the department's final order, finding that the hearing officer's recommendation was supported by competent substantial evidence and that the department acted arbitrarily in rejecting the bid.
The court held that the hearing officer's findings were supported by competent substantial evidence and that the department erred in rejecting those findings. The department acted arbitrarily in rejecting the appellant's bid, and the final order denying the bid protest was reversed.
[1] A department's rejection of a hearing officer's recommended order is improper when the recommended order is supported by competent substantial evidence and does not invol…
[2] A discrepancy in a bid for a public contract may be considered a minor irregularity if it does not confer an improper advantage to the bidder.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because the hearing officer's recommended order was supported by competent substantial evidence and did not involve a misapplication of law, we reverse.”
Statement of the court's holding and the standard for reversal in administrative appeals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHubbard Construction submitted the lowest bid for a highway construction contract. The department rejected the bid as nonresponsive due to a discrepan…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bid Protest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges a final order in which the Department of Transportation (the department) rejected certain findings of fact and conclusions of law of the hearing officer and thereby denied the appellant’s bid protest. Because the hearing officer’s recommended order was supported by competent substantial evidence and did not involve a misapplication of law, we reverse.
The appellant submitted the lowest bid for a contract to construct a highway project. The department rejected the bid as nonresponsive and notified the appellant of its intent to award the contract to the next lowest bidder. The appellant filed a timely protest, and, following a hearing, the hearing officer determined that the discrepancy in the appellant’s bid was a minor irregularity that did not convey an improper advantage to the appellant. The hearing officer thus concluded that the department acted arbitrarily in rejecting the appellant’s bid and recommended that the department award the bid to the appellant. The department rejected the hearing officer’s findings that the discrepancy was minor and that the irregularity did not result in a competitive advantage to the appellant, and thus concluded that it had not acted arbitrarily in rejecting the appellant’s bid.
Contrary to the department’s position, we conclude that the record contains competent substantial evidence to support-the hearing officer’s findings and that the department thus erred in rejecting those findings on that basis. See, e.g., Department of Transportation v. Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So. 2d 912, 913 (Fla.1988); see also Overstreet Paving Co. v. Department of Trans., 608 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Asphalt Pavers v. Department of Trans., 602 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). And the findings amply demonstrate that the department acted arbitrarily in rejecting the appellant’s bid.
We accordingly reverse the final order. We remand this cause to the department for an order awarding the contract to the appellant, if the contract has not already been awarded to a competitor. If the contract has already been awarded, the appellant may seek ancillary relief pursuant to section 120.-68(13)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1993), in an appropriate circuit court. See Overstreet Paving, 608 So. 2d at 853.
ALLEN, KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nippon Carbide Indus. (USA), Inc. v. State, 755 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ecause competent substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s findings, we affirm. See State Contracting and Eng’g Corp. v. Department of Transp., 709 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hubbard Constr. Co. v. Department of Transp., 642 So. 2d 1192, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). AFFIRMED. MINER, KAHN and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Transp. v. Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1988)
- Asphalt Pavers, Inc. v. State, 602 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Overstreet Paving Co. v. State, 608 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)