Laserfiche WebLink
(Fla. 3DCA 1982); Leitner-Poma of America, Ins. V. Greater Orlando Aviation Authority,2013 <br /> U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195327 (M.D.Fla. 2013). <br /> 16. The requirement of a project schedule is addressed in several sections within the <br /> terms of the ITB and was a required submittal under section 2.7. (Jt. Ex. 1,page 11). Further, it <br /> was specifically included as part of the evaluation process under section 2.4 of the ITB. As the <br /> inclusion of the project schedule is a mandatory submission and required to be considered in the <br /> evaluation,it is deemed to be a <br /> material requirement. <br /> 17. Similarly,the requirement of submittal of financial statements is expressly set forth • <br /> • <br /> in the ITB <br /> which provides that "a financial statement including bidders latest balance sheet and • <br /> income statement",must be provided as part of the submittal (Jt. Ex 1,page 31). The evaluation <br /> of the financial capabilities of the bidder is a component within the ITB that is addressed in several <br /> • <br /> sections of the ITB. These include sections 1.11 and 2.5 of the ITB. (Jt. Ex. 1,pages 4 and 11). <br /> As the inclusion of the project schedule is a mandatory submission and required to be considered <br /> in the evaluation,it is deemed to be a material requirement. Public work bids may also be rejected <br /> as nonresponsive where they fail to include items requested to be submitted with the bid. <br /> 18. i Thou Shiff suggests that because their bid was gg approxumately $1.1 million <br /> dollars lower than Nunez Construction that the City has the ability to award the contract to the <br /> bidder that"...best serves the interest of and represents the best value to, the City..." and that it <br /> may ignore the deficiencies in the submittal. (Jt. Ex. 1,page 3). However, that language within <br /> the ITB does not entitle the City to omit or alter material provisions in the ITB. State Dep't of <br /> Lottery v. Gtech Corp., 816 So. 2d 648 (Fla. App 1 DCA 2001); Emerald Corr. Mgmt. v. Bay <br /> Count Bd.Of CountyCommissioners <br /> County ,955 So.2d 647Fla.App. DCA 2007). In Cityof <br /> ( pp Opa- <br /> Locka v. Trustees of Plumbing Industry Promotion Fund, 193 So.2d 29(Fla. 3`d DCA 1966),the <br /> 9 <br />