CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 31317
...gibility system, referred to as the FLORIDA [3] contract, which would manage all public-assistance service delivery, e.g., food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, Medicaid, etc. The RFP contains the following dispute resolution clause: 7.11 Disputes Any dispute concerning performance of the contract shall be decided by the HRS Contracting Officer, who shall reduce the decision to writing and serve a copy on the contractor....
...e under the FLORIDA contract. In count X, EDS alleged that the Comptroller interfered with HRS's payments to EDS under the contract. HRS filed a motion to dismiss counts I through IX for failure to follow the dispute resolution procedure required by section 7.11 of the contract....
...The crux of this dispute is whether the contract provision controls, requiring EDS to engage in an administrative procedure to resolve its complaint, or whether Section
402.34, Florida Statutes (1987), [4] requires EDS to litigate in circuit court, thereby rendering section
7.11 of the RFP unenforceable....
...ve forum, or prohibits EDS from waiving its right to judicial relief. Moreover, section
402.34 expressly gives HRS the power to contract, which obviously includes the power to agree to an alternative dispute resolution procedure. EDS claims that RFP
7.11 confers upon HRS a power not authorized by the legislature *356 and relies primarily on Lee v....
...ee to settlement of disputes under the contract by arbitration." Id. at 102. It reasonably follows that the power to contract implies as well the power to agree to settle disputes arising under the contract by the dispute resolution procedure in RFP 7.11. In so stating, we note that the United States Supreme Court has approved the enforceability of a provision virtually identical to that in RFP 7.11 in Blair, supra ....
...The Supreme Court held that the contractor was required to comply with the contractual provision's administrative procedure, authorizing the government to resolve the dispute short of litigation. We reject as well EDS's claims that the procedure afforded it under RFP 7.11 is an inadequate remedy because (1) HRS cannot be considered an impartial decision maker; (2) 7.11 provides no time limits for the proceedings; (3) money damages cannot be awarded in an administrative forum; and (4) 7.11 does not furnish a complete remedy, because EDS's action against the Comptroller remains in circuit court....
...e absence of time limits, which is an altogether different situation from being subject to an invalid regulatory procedure. In support of EDS's third point, in which it asserts that damages are unavailable in the administrative forum provided by RFP 7.11, EDS relies upon Barry Cook Ford, Inc....
...Neither that case nor the cases cited therein on such point involved an express agreement by the parties to submit disputes to a prescribed administrative procedure, and each involved an action for statutory or tort damages rather than money due under a contract. Under RFP 7.11, the contracting officer is authorized to determine whether HRS has improperly retained any amounts owed EDS under the contract....
