Bid Protest Hearing - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

court affirmed the long standing principle that "where discretion is vested in a public agency for the award of contracts for public works on competitive bids, this discretion 'may not be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously but must be based on facts reasonably tending to support the conclusions reached by such agency."' Id. at 1088 (internal citations omitted). Additionally, as observed by the court in Baxter's Asphalt and Concrete. Inc. v. Department of Transportation. 475 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 151 DCA 1985). "[a] public body has wide discretion in soliciting and accepting bids for public improvements and its decisions, when based on honest exercise of their discretion, will not be overturned by a court even if reasonable persons may disagree." Id. at 1287 (citing Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt and Concrete. 421 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 1982). Finally, it is well established law that "[p[ublic agencies are not required to accept the lowest dollar-and-cents bid as the `lowest responsible bid' in every case. However, if the award is made to one other than to the lowest bidder it must be based upon facts which reasonably support the conclusion." Maves Printing Company v. J.A. Flowers. 154 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 151 DCAJ 1963). Here. Tran fails to make the requisite showing the bid award to Southeastern was arbitrary or capricious. Additionally, Tran fails to establish that the bid award was not based)upon facts which reasonably support this decision. Although Tran was the lowest "dollar-and-cents bid", this fact, standing alone, is legally insufficient to warrant reversal of the bid award to Southeastern. Notably, the price differential between Southeastern and Tran was only approximately $100,0001 Considering the contract award amount of $3,635,852.00 this price differential is de minimus considering the highly complex and specialized nature of the Central Island project. The contract documents and specifications, as well as Section 62-8 of the City Code, clearly authorized the award lof Bid No. 07-10- 02 to Southeastern, the bidder deemed to be the lowest responsive and responsible'bidder. The City Manager's recommendation of the bid award to Southeastern is fully supported by facts which reasonably support this recommendation. The City Manager's recommendation was based on a careful review of the various factors outlined in Section 62-8 of the City Code. Based on the information that he reviewed, and his experience, the City Manager recommended that Southeastern be awarded the bid because they were most responsible bidder with the lowest price, and they had the "capacity to complete an extremely complex project." A review of the same criteria led to the opposite conclusion that "Tran failed to demonstrate fully that it had the capacity and skill to perform the job." Because Tran fails to demonstrate that the bid award was made in an arbitrary or capricious fashion, the bid award should be affirmed. IV. Conclusion For all the reasons stated above, the administrative decision to award Bid No. 07-10-02 should be upheld by the Hearing. Examiner. 6