PARTNERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND BROWARD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH COALITION, INC., APPELLEES
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.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a contract protest, holding that the appellant failed to meet the statutory bond requirement and that this requirement did not violate constitutional due process or access to justice provisions.
No, the Department of Children and Families did not err in dismissing the protest because the bond requirement is clear and the appellant was aware of it but did not comply. Furthermore, the bond requirement does not violate the due process clause as the appellant has no property interest in an unawarded contract, nor does it violate the access to justice provision.
[1] A statutory requirement to post a bond to challenge an administrative contract award is enforceable when clearly set forth and the challenger was aware of the requirement…
[2] A party challenging an administrative contract award has no constitutionally protected property interest in a contract that was not awarded to them, precluding a due proc…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 bond requirement is clearly and unambiguously set forth in section 287.042(2)(c) and the record is undisputed that appellant was aware of the bond requirement but chose not to comply with it, we reject appellant’s first argument.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for rejecting the argument that the dismissal was erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePartnership for Community Health, Inc. (appellant) challenged a contract award by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to Broward Behavioral …
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 Constitutional Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
Partnership for Community Health, Inc., appeals a final order of the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF), appellee, closing an administrative challenge by appellant to the award of a contract to Broward Behavioral Health Coalition, Inc., appellee, to manage certain substance abuse and mental health services in Broward County. Appellant argues that DCF erred in dismissing appel*1193lant’s protest on the ground that appellant failed to post a bond as required by section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), and that the statutory requirement of a protest bond is unconstitutional under the due process clause, article I, section 9, and access to justice provision, article I, section 21, of the Florida Constitution. Because the bond requirement is clearly and unambiguously set forth in section 287.042(2)(c) and the record is undisputed that appellant was aware of the bond requirement but chose not to comply with it, we reject appellant’s first argument. As to the due process argument, appellant has no constitutionally protected property interest in a contract which was not awarded to it. See University of South Florida College of Nursing v. Department of Health, 812 So.2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Agency for Healthcare Administration, 917 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). As for the argument that the bond requirement runs afoul of the access to justice provision, this constitutional provision only protects rights which existed at common law or by statute prior to the enactment of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution. McElrath v. Burley, 707 So.2d 836, 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The right to administratively challenge an award of a contract by a state agency did not exist until the adoption of the Administrative Procedures Act in 1974, after the adoption of the Florida Constitution’s Declaration of Rights. Thus, appellant has not demonstrated the bond requirement violates article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Penrod Bros. Inc v. City of Miami Beach (S.D. Fla. 2025)…by ignoring statutory and regulatory directives.” However, Florida does not recognize that same protected property interest, so the analysis of Georgia law in Pataula is not helpful here. See P’ship For Cmty. Health, Inc. v. Dep't Of Child. & Fams., 93 So. 3d 1191, 1193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) (A plaintiff “has no constitutionally protected property interest in a contract which was not awarded to it."). Another case Plaintiff cites notes that “[i]n the context of bidding contracts, courts have generally f…
Authorities Cited
- McELRATH v. Ronna S. Burley, 707 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Lakeland Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State, 917 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Stier v. State, 812 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Univ. OF S. Fla. Coll. OF Nursing v. State, 812 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)