CopyCited 22 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...variance to the invitation to bid and thus could not be subsequently amended by Watkins; (2) Whether BOR's policy and practice of requiring contractors to list certain subcontractors is a rule and, as such, is invalid and unenforceable; (3) Whether Section 255.0515, Florida Statutes (1978) and any agency rule which purports to implement that statute constitutes an unconstitutional impairment of Watkins' right to contract, and unlawful delegation of legislative authority, or an unconstitutional...
...information at the time of the bid opening or within 48 hours thereafter. We disagree. Certainly, the rule, as BOR admits, is rather inartfully drawn. However, to give it the construction sought by Watkins would directly contravene the provisions of Section 255.0515, Florida Statutes, which provides in relevant part that "the contractor shall not remove or replace subcontractors listed in the bid subsequent to the list being made public at the bid opening, except upon good cause shown." If the r...
...nd is a nullity. Since agency rules cannot contravene Florida Statutes, such a construction must be rejected. See Seitz v. Duval County School Board,
366 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Further, the transcript of the legislative committee hearings on Section
255.0515 clearly indicates that one of the major purposes of that legislation was to prevent bid shopping by contractors after a bid was awarded....
...ct price, and (3) it permits a successful bidder to accept additional subcontractor bids after the bid opening, giving the opportunity for undercutting the low subcontractor on whom he relied in formulating his bid. These policy reasons, implicit in Section 255.0515, thus prevent competitive advantage, insure the quality of the subcontractors, insure public confidence in the bidding process, and encourage future competition....
...We find that BOR has followed these principles in both the evidentiary support for and explanation of its reasons for requiring a list of subcontractors. This practice is supported by a showing, among other things, of 20 years of consistent state policy regarding public contracts, the legislative history of Section 255.0515 (discussed above), and the factors underlying such a policy: the prevention of bid shopping, protection of subcontractors, insuring future competitive practices, eliminating the advantage of late submission, insuring the integrity of the subcontractors' work, etc....
...Considering the evidentiary support for and the order's justification of this policy, we believe that BOR has adequately explained its deviation, if any, from the cited rule. By its third issue Watkins makes a multi-pronged attack upon the constitutionality of Section 255.0515....
...ovision against impairing contracts or equal protection under the law. Further, we cannot agree that the legislature has not enacted any statute delegating authority to BOR to require the listing of subcontractors. Any fair and reasonable reading of Section 255.0515 implicitly authorizes that agency to do so....
