337.11 Contracting authority of department; bids; emergency repairs, supplemental agreements, and change orders; combined design and construction contracts; progress payments; records; requirements of vehicle registration.—
(1) The department shall have authority to enter into contracts for the construction and maintenance of all roads designated as part of the State Highway System or the State Park Road System or of any roads placed under its supervision by law. The department shall also have authority to enter into contracts for the construction and maintenance of rest areas, weigh stations, and other structures, including roads, parking areas, supporting facilities and associated buildings used in connection with such facilities. However, no such contract shall create any third-party beneficiary rights in any person not a party to the contract.
(2) The department shall ensure that all project descriptions, including design plans, are complete, accurate, and up to date prior to the advertisement for bids on such projects.
(3)(a) On all construction contracts of $250,000 or less, and any construction contract of less than $500,000 for which the department has waived prequalification under s. 337.14, the department shall advertise for bids in a newspaper having general circulation in the county where the proposed work is located. Publication shall be at least once a week for no less than 2 consecutive weeks, and the first publication shall be no less than 14 days prior to the date on which bids are to be received.
(b) On all construction contracts greater than $250,000, the department shall provide a bid solicitation notice to all prequalified contractors at least 2 weeks before the date bids are scheduled to be received.
(c) No advertisement for bids shall be published and no bid solicitation notice shall be provided until title to all necessary rights-of-way and easements for the construction of the project covered by such advertisement or notice has vested in the state or a local governmental entity, and all railroad crossing and utility agreements have been executed. The turnpike enterprise is exempt from this paragraph for a turnpike enterprise project. Title to all necessary rights-of-way shall be deemed to have been vested in the State of Florida when such title has been dedicated to the public or acquired by prescription.
(4)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), the department may award the proposed construction and maintenance work to the lowest responsible bidder, or in the instance of a time-plus-money contract, the lowest evaluated responsible bidder, or it may reject all bids and proceed to rebid the work in accordance with subsection (2) or otherwise perform the work.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the department intends to reject all bids on any project after announcing, but before posting official notice of, such intent, the department must provide to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder the opportunity to negotiate the scope of work with a corresponding reduction in price, as provided in the bid, to provide a reduced bid without filing a protest or posting a bond under paragraph (5)(a). Upon reaching a decision regarding the lowest bidder’s reduced bid, the department must post notice of final agency action to either reject all bids or accept the reduced bid.
(c) This subsection does not prohibit the filing of a protest by any bidder or alter the deadlines provided in s. 120.57.
(d) Notwithstanding the requirements of ss. 120.57(3)(c) and 287.057(25), upon receipt of a formal written protest that is timely filed, the department may continue the process provided in this subsection but may not take final agency action as to the lowest bidder except as part of the department’s final agency action in the protest or upon dismissal of the protest by the protesting party.
(5)(a) Any person who files an action protesting a bid solicitation, a bid rejection, or an award pursuant to this section shall post with the department, at the time of filing a notice of protest, a bond payable to the department in the following amounts:
1. For an action protesting a bid solicitation that requires qualification of bidders, the bond shall be $5,000.
2. For an action protesting a bid rejection or contract award that requires qualification of bidders, the bond shall be equal to 1 percent of the lowest bid submitted or $5,000, whichever is greater.
3. For an action protesting a bid solicitation, bid rejection, or contract award that does not require qualification of bidders, the bond shall be $2,500.
(b) The bond required by this subsection shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs which may be adjudged against the person filing the protest in the administrative hearing in which the action is brought and any subsequent appellate court proceeding. If, after completion of the administrative hearing process and any appellate court proceedings, the department prevails, it shall recover all costs and charges which shall be included in the final order or judgment, excluding attorney’s fees. Upon payment of such costs and charges by the person filing the protest, the bond shall be returned to him or her. If the person filing the protest prevails, he or she shall recover from the department all costs and charges which shall be included in the final order or judgment, excluding attorney’s fees. The entire amount of the bond shall be forfeited if the administrative law judge determines that a protest was filed for a frivolous or improper purpose, including, but not limited to, the purpose of harassing, causing unnecessary delay, or causing needless cost for the department or parties.
(c) As an alternative to any provision in s. 120.57(3)(c), the department may proceed with the bid solicitation or contract award process when the head of the department sets forth in writing particular facts and circumstances which require the continuance of the bid solicitation process or the contract award process in order to avoid a substantial loss of funding to the state.
(d) A person may not file a protest on any project for which he or she is not certified to bid pursuant to s. 337.14.
(6)(a) If the secretary determines that an emergency in regard to the restoration or repair of any state transportation facility exists such that the delay incident to giving opportunity for competitive bidding would be detrimental to the interests of the state, the provisions for competitive bidding do not apply; and the department may enter into contracts for restoration or repair without giving opportunity for competitive bidding on such contracts. Within 30 days after such determination and contract execution, the head of the department shall file with the Executive Office of the Governor a written statement of the conditions and circumstances constituting such emergency.
(b) If the secretary determines that delays on a contract for maintenance exist due to administrative challenges, bid protests, defaults or terminations and the further delay would reduce safety on the transportation facility or seriously hinder the department’s ability to preserve the state’s investment in that facility, competitive bidding provisions may be waived and the department may enter into a contract for maintenance on the facility. However, contracts for maintenance executed under the provisions of this paragraph shall be interim in nature and shall be limited in duration to a period of time not to exceed the length of the delay necessary to complete the competitive bidding process and have the contract in place.
(c) When the department determines that it is in the best interest of the public for reasons of public concern, economy, improved operations, or safety, and only when circumstances dictate rapid completion of the work, the department may, up to the amount of $500,000, enter into contracts for construction and maintenance without advertising and receiving competitive bids. The department may enter into such contracts only upon a determination that the work is necessary for one of the following reasons:
1. To ensure timely completion of projects or avoidance of undue delay for other projects;
2. To accomplish minor repairs or construction and maintenance activities for which time is of the essence and for which significant cost savings would occur; or
3. To accomplish nonemergency work necessary to ensure avoidance of adverse conditions that affect the safe and efficient flow of traffic.
The department shall make a good faith effort to obtain two or more quotes, if available, from qualified contractors before entering into any contract. The department shall give consideration to small business participation. However, when the work exists within the limits of an existing contract, the department shall make a good faith effort to negotiate and enter into a contract with the prime contractor on the existing contract.
(7)(a) If the department determines that it is in the best interests of the public, the department may combine the design and construction phases of a project into a single contract. Such contract is referred to as a design-build contract.
(b) If the department determines that it is in the best interests of the public, the department may combine the design and construction phases of a project fully funded in the work program into a single contract and select the design-build firm in the early stages of a project to ensure that the design-build firm is part of the collaboration and development of the design as part of a step-by-step progression through construction. Such a contract is referred to as a phased design-build contract. For phased design-build contracts, selection and award must include a two-phase process. For phase one, the department shall competitively award the contract to a design-build firm based upon qualifications, provided that the department receives at least three statements of qualifications from qualified design-build firms. If during phase one the department elects to enter into contracts with more than one design-build firm based upon qualifications, the department must competitively select a single design-build firm to perform the work associated with phase two. For phase two, the design-build firm may self-perform portions of the work and shall competitively bid construction trade subcontractor packages and, based upon these bids, negotiate with the department a fixed firm price or guaranteed maximum price that meets the project budget and scope as advertised in the request for qualifications.
(c) Design-build contracts and phased design-build contracts may be advertised and awarded notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (3)(c). However, construction activities may not begin on any portion of such projects for which the department has not yet obtained title to the necessary rights-of-way and easements for the construction of that portion of the project has vested in the state or a local governmental entity and all railroad crossing and utility agreements have been executed. Title to rights-of-way shall be deemed to have vested in the state when the title has been dedicated to the public or acquired by prescription.
(d) The department shall adopt by rule procedures for administering design-build and phased design-build contracts. Such procedures shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Prequalification requirements.
2. Public announcement procedures.
3. Scope of service requirements.
4. Letters of interest requirements.
5. Short-listing criteria and procedures.
6. Bid proposal requirements.
7. Technical review committee.
8. Selection and award processes.
9. Stipend requirements.
(e) For design-build contracts and phased design-build contracts, the department must receive at least three letters of interest in order to proceed with a request for proposals. The department shall request proposals from no fewer than three of the firms submitting letters of interest. If a firm withdraws from consideration after the department requests proposals, the department may continue if at least two proposals are received.
(8) If the department determines that it is in the best interest of the public, the department may pay a stipend to nonselected design-build firms that have submitted responsive proposals for construction contracts. The decision and amount of a stipend shall be based upon department analysis of the estimated proposal development costs and the anticipated degree of engineering design during the procurement process. The department retains the right to use those designs from responsive nonselected design-build firms that accept a stipend.
(9)(a) The department shall permit the use of written supplemental agreements, written work orders pursuant to a contingency pay item or contingency supplemental agreement, and written change orders to any contract entered into by the department. Any supplemental agreement shall be reduced to written contract form and executed by the contractor and the department. Any supplemental agreement modifying any item in the original contract must be approved by the head of the department, or his or her designee, and executed by the appropriate person designated by him or her. Any surety issuing a bond under s. 337.18 shall be fully liable under such surety bond to the full extent of any modified contract amount up to and including 25 percent over the original contract amount and without regard to the fact that the surety was not aware of or did not approve such modifications. However, if modifications of the original contract amount cumulatively result in modifications of the contract amount in excess of 25 percent of the original contract amount, the surety’s approval shall be required to bind the surety under the bond on that portion in excess of 25 percent of the original contract amount.
(b) Supplemental agreements and written work orders pursuant to a contingency pay item or contingency supplemental agreement shall be used to clarify the plans and specifications of a contract; to provide for unforeseen work, grade changes, or alterations in plans which could not reasonably have been contemplated or foreseen in the original plans and specifications; to change the limits of construction to meet field conditions; to provide a safe and functional connection to an existing pavement; to settle contract claims; and to make the project functionally operational in accordance with the intent of the original contract. Supplemental agreements may be used to expand the physical limits of a project only to the extent necessary to make the project functionally operational in accordance with the intent of the original contract. The cost of any such agreement extending the physical limits of a project shall not exceed $100,000 or 10 percent of the original contract price, whichever is greater.
(c) Written change orders may be issued by the department and accepted by the contractor covering minor changes in the plans, specifications, or quantities of work within the scope of a contract, when prices for the items of work affected are previously established in the contract, but in no event may such change orders extend the physical limits of the work.
(d) For the purpose of this section, the term “physical limits” means the length or width of any project and specifically includes drainage facilities not running parallel to the project. The length and width of temporary connections affected by such supplemental agreements shall be established in accordance with current engineering practice.
(e) Upon completion and final inspection of the contract work, the department may accept the improvement if it is in substantial compliance with the plans, specifications, special provisions, proposals, and contract and if a proper adjustment in the contract price is made.
(f) Any supplemental agreement or change order in violation of this section is null and void and unenforceable for payment.
(10) The department shall preserve all records which reflect the quantities of materials used in the construction of any road project supervised by the department for a period of 3 years after final acceptance. This requirement is equally binding when materials are purchased by prime contractors or subcontractors.
(11)(a) Every contract let by the department for the performance of work shall contain a provision requiring the prime contractor, before receipt of any progress payment under the provisions of such contract, to certify that the prime contractor has disbursed to all subcontractors and suppliers having an interest in the contract their pro rata shares of the payment out of previous progress payments received by the prime contractor for all work completed and materials furnished in the previous period, less any retainage withheld by the prime contractor pursuant to an agreement with a subcontractor, as approved by the department for payment. The department shall not make any such progress payment before receipt of such certification, unless the contractor demonstrates good cause for not making any such required payment and furnishes written notification of any such good cause to both the department and the affected subcontractors and suppliers.
(b) Every contract let by the department for the performance of work shall contain a provision requiring the prime contractor, within 30 days of receipt of the final progress payment or any other payments received thereafter except the final payment, to pay all subcontractors and suppliers having an interest in the contract their pro rata shares of the payment for all work completed and materials furnished, unless the contractor demonstrates good cause for not making any such required payment and furnishes written notification of any such good cause to both the department and the affected subcontractors or suppliers within such 30-day period.
(c) The department shall document and monitor claims of nonpayment of prime contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. The claims shall be submitted to the department in writing, and the department shall maintain, in a central file, a record of each claim, specifying the claimant and the nature and the resolution of the claim.
(12) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the department has unilateral authority to pay the contractor the sums the department determines to be due to the contractor for work performed on a project. This unilateral authority to pay by the department does not preclude or limit the rights of the department and the contractor to negotiate and agree to the amounts to be paid to the contractor. By acceptance of any such unilateral payment, the contractor does not waive any rights the contractor may have against the department for payment of any additional sums the contractor claims are due for the work.
(13) A motor vehicle used for the performance of road or bridge construction or maintenance work on a department project must be registered in compliance with chapter 320.
(14) Each contract let by the department for performance of road or bridge construction or maintenance work must contain a traffic maintenance plan which shows the appropriate regulatory speed signs and traffic control devices for the work zone area as defined in s. 316.003.
(15) Each contract let by the department for performance of bridge construction or maintenance over navigable waters must contain a provision requiring marine general liability insurance, in an amount to be determined by the department, which covers third-party personal injury and property damage caused by vessels used by the contractor in the performance of the work. For a contract let by the department on or after July 1, 2025, such insurance must include protection and indemnity coverage, which may be covered by endorsement on the marine general liability insurance policy or may be a separate policy.
(16) The department shall implement strategies to reduce the cost of all project phases, including design, construction, and inspection, while ensuring that the design and construction of projects meet applicable federal and state standards. The department shall make a record of such strategies and the projected savings related thereto.
(17) The department may share a portion of the construction cost savings realized due to a change in the construction contract design and scope, initiated after execution of the contract, with a design services consultant or a construction engineering and inspection services consultant to the extent that the consultant’s input and involvement contributed to such savings. The amount paid to a consultant pursuant to this subsection may not exceed 10 percent of the construction cost savings realized.
(18) When the department determines that it is in the best interest of the public, the department may enter into a contract with an electric utility as defined in s. 366.02(4) for the construction or maintenance of lighting on poles owned by the electric utility and located within a road right-of-way without competitive bidding. In any contract entered into without competition, the individuals taking part in the evaluation or award process shall attest in writing that they are independent of, and have no conflict of interest in, the entities evaluated and selected.
(19) The department shall have the authority to develop procedures for the administration of maintenance contracts. In addition to the other contract administration matters, the procedures shall address advertising and bid solicitation for maintenance contracts and each bid solicitation notice shall contain specific requirements, if any are deemed necessary by the department for maintenance contractor eligibility.
Cited 44 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 493, 38 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20173, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 1240, 2008 WL 2678812
...(2007) (Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or state agency to contract for real estate acquisition services); § 255.503(9), Fla. Stat. (2007) (Dep't of Management Services); § 255.513(1), Fla. Stat. (2007) (Div. of Bond Finance); § 337.11, Fla....
Cited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1988 WL 89766
...1st DCA 1961), the system of competitive bidding protects against collusion, favoritism, and fraud in the award of public contracts. Liberty County, 421 So.2d at 507; Wester v. Belote, 103 Fla. 976, 981-82, 138 So. 721, 723-24 (1931). To provide needed flexibility, section 337.11(3), Florida Statutes (1985), gives DOT broad discretion to reject all bids on competitively bid construction projects: The department may award the proposed work to the lowest responsible bidder, or it may reject all bids and proceed to readvertise the work or otherwise perform the work....
...urbed); Weber v. Philadelphia, 437 Pa. 179, 262 A.2d 297 (1970) (if municipality, in connection with competitive bidding, is empowered to do so, it may reject any and all bids in the absence of fraud, collusion, bad faith or arbitrary action). Under section 337.11(3), DOT is authorized either to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder or reject all of the bids....
Cited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ovide the hearing which it had improperly denied. Those proceedings led eventually to the Department's final order of April 25, 1978. We affirm that the Department has wide discretion to reject all bids and to call for new bids for public contracts. Section 337.11(3), Florida Statutes (1977); Willis v....
...If the Department still considers that to be the proper action, notwithstanding all it has learned since December, the Department may enter a new final order which explains and defends its decision. The April 25, 1978 order must be and is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for entry of an order consistent with Section 337.11 and this opinion....
..."CONCLUSIONS OF LAW "The first issue presented for decision is whether, under the facts of this case, the D.O.T. abused its discretion or acted in bad faith, arbitrarily, capriciously or under a misconception of law in rejecting all bids received on December 21, 1977. "F.S. Section 337.11(3) provides as follows: `The department may, at its discretion, award the proposed work to the lowest responsible bidder, or it may reject all bids and proceed to readvertise or perform the work with convict labor or free labor.' "We a...
...Whether this failure to attend would have been sufficient to declare petitioner to be irresponsible or disqualified as a bidder need not be determined herein, for that is not what the D.O.T. did. It rejected all bids, and not just the petitioner's bid, as it had the authority to do pursuant to F.S. § 337.11(3)....
...hat the requirement was set forth in underlined capital letters in the invitation to bid, which the record reveals was received by Couch. [5] The decision to reject all bids was also for sound reasons, within the broad discretion granted to DOT by F.S. 337.11(3), and was not shown to have been taken in bad faith, arbitrarily, capriciously nor under a misconception of law....
...Inc. v. Division of Admin., etc., 281 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1973), wherein it concluded: "However, although the Department of Transportation must open the bid submitted by White Construction Company, Inc., we recognize the application of Florida Statutes, Section 337.11(3), F.S.A., which provides, `The department may, at its discretion award the proposed work to the lowest responsible bidder, or it may reject all bids and proceed to readvertise or perform the work with convict labor or free labor.'" (...
Cited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...1973), is erroneous. Neither § 337.16 nor the Supreme Court's White case has eliminated the traditional competitive bidding requirement that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. That requirement is codified in Florida Statute § 337.11. Delinquency in fact in work progress is evidence to be considered on the question of whether White was a responsible bidder to whom the contract could be awarded. The term "responsible" as used in bidding statutes such as § 337.11, has been defined as follows: [3] "The term `responsible' ......
...nsidered by the DOT prior to the award of the contract stating (281 So.2d at 197): "However, although the Department of Transportation must open the bid submitted by White Construction Company, Inc., we recognize the application of Florida Statutes, Section 337.11(3), F.S.A....
...appellant has no interest of the type that the applicable statute is intended to protect and that, therefore, appellant lacks standing. In essence, the Department concluded that the contract with D.A.B. is a "construction contract"; that, therefore, section 337.11, Florida Statutes (1991), is controlling; and that section 337.11, Florida Statutes (1991), is controlling; and that section 337.11 is intended to protect only the interests of bidders and potential bidders for contracts, extending no protection to suppliers such as appellant....
...On appeal, the Department does not contend that appellant has failed to satisfy the first prong of the Agrico test. The disagreement is with regard to whether the second prong has been satisfied. The contract for construction of the weigh stations was advertised for bids pursuant to section 337.11, Florida Statutes (1991). Among other things, that section delineates *60 the scope of the Department's authority to negotiate for and enter into construction contracts. As the Department correctly points out, contracts entered into pursuant to section 337.11 are exempt from the "competitive sealed bidding" requirements generally applicable to state procurement. Section 287.057(3)(f)12., Fla. Stat. (1991). Appellant does not contend otherwise. Rather, appellant argues that it is entitled to a formal hearing notwithstanding the fact that, as a general rule, section 337.11 is intended to protect only bidders and potential bidders for contracts, because it has alleged that the Department's action has permitted the Department to circumvent the legislature's overriding intent to ensure the integrity and the economic efficiency of the public contracting process....
...will result in injury to it, and to the public in general. We agree that appellant's allegations are sufficient to satisfy the second prong of the Agrico test and, therefore, to entitle it to a formal hearing. We believe that, in focusing only upon section 337.11, and arguing that that section was not intended to protect suppliers making the type of allegations made by appellant, the Department has too narrowly focused its attention....
...d at the lowest possible cost, ... the system of competitive bidding protects against collusion, favoritism, and fraud in the award of public contracts." 530 So.2d at 913 (citations omitted). Like this case, Groves-Watkins involved interpretation of section 337.11....
Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1987 WL 3011
...to increase the price by $317,463 based on a unilateral mistake, after the competing bids are all opened, where the new contract price would still be lower than the second lowest bid. The Department of Transportation (DOT) solicited bids pursuant to section 337.11, *1327 Florida Statutes (1985), for the construction of an interchange at the intersection of State Road 826 and Interstate 75 in Hialeah....
Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...the date deemed correct by DOT, a finding of nonresponsibility on that date is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Baxter's further alleges that DOT abused its discretion in finding it was not a responsible bidder within the meaning of Section 337.11(3), Florida Statutes (1983)....
...The facts are not in dispute. Baxter's was the low bidder on the bid let by DOT on 31 August 1983. On 19 September 1983, it was notified by letter of DOT's intention to reject its bid, on the ground that it was not a responsible bidder within the meaning of Section 337.11, Florida Statutes (1983)....
...The issues for resolution were whether the bid should be rejected because: (1) Baxter's uncompleted work might hinder prompt completion (Section 2-11(e), Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (1982)); (2) Baxter's was not a responsible bidder (Section 337.11(3), Florida Statutes (1983)); or (3) Baxter's had falsely certified current asphalt capacity (Rule 14-22, Florida Administrative Code)....
...le as of 10 October 1983. Nonresponsibility at either point in time is supported by competent, substantial evidence and as such must be affirmed by this court. See Section 120.68 Florida Statutes (1983). DOT is given great leeway in awarding bids by Section 337.11(3), Florida Statutes (1983)....
...h Baxter's acquitted itself on those jobs, its "previous conduct under the other contracts, and the quality [timeliness] of [its] previous work" are sufficient evidence that it is not a responsible bidder for Job No. 55320-3425 within the meaning of Section 337.11(3), Florida Statutes (1983)....
Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...ometimes been ignored. Subsequently, White, on advice of counsel that it was not disqualified from bidding because of the governing statutes and Administrative Code (Chapters 1-4, 14-9, Administrative Code; Florida Statutes, Sections 337.13, 337.14, 337.11(3) and 337.16, F.S.A.), filed its bid in the amount of $522,400.76 with the Department of Transportation within the time, at the place, and in the manner specified for such filing....
...e laws of this state and rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation. However, although the Department of Transportation must open the bid submitted by White Construction Company, Inc., we recognize the application of Florida Statutes, Section 337.11(3), F.S.A., which provides, "The department may, at its discretion award the proposed work to the lowest responsible bidder, or it may reject all bids and proceed to readvertise or perform the work with convict labor or free labor." Th...
Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1465, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10649
...ds and the authority of a county to reject bids for road construction. Compare *331 Section 336.44(5), Florida Statutes, governing the construction of county roads: "The commissioners may reject any or all bids and require new bids to be made", with Section 337.11(3), Florida Statutes, regarding the construction of all roads designated as part of the state highway system: "The department may award the proposed work to the lowest responsible bidder, or it may reject all bids and proceed to readve...
...See also Annot., 31 A.L.R.2d 469 (1953) (governmental entities generally have the right to reject all bids whether or not there is an express statutory or constitutional provision allowing the rejection of the bids). In the present case, DOT was given explicit statutory authority by Section 337.11(3), Florida Statutes, to reject all bids....
Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...on. The manufacturer contended that the DOT's bid specification requiring the inclusion of a component available only from a competing manufacturer was arbitrary and anticompetitive. The contract was governed by competitive procurement provisions in section 337.11, Florida Statutes (1991), relating to the department's *575 purchasing and contracting authority, and for that reason was exempt from the requirements of the general state procurement statutes. § 287.057(3)(f)(12). The DOT denied the hearing request on the ground that the manufacturer itself was not a bidder for the contract and therefore, it had no standing to file a bid protest under section 337.11....
...oad improvement work along Interstate 75 in Marion County. D.A.B., another licensed road and bridge contractor prequalified to bid on work for the department, was the second lowest bidder. On December 15, 1994, D.A.B. filed a bid protest pursuant to section 337.11, Florida Statutes (Supp....
...st be dealt with solely in the context of an administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to section 337.16, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994). It rejected D.A.B.'s assertion that a prequalified contractor could be declared a nonresponsible bidder under section 337.11(4), Florida Statutes (1993), without following the procedures set forth in section 337.16....
...Dep't of Management Services, 624 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (affirming denial of bid protest based on a lack of standing because there was no assurance that any relief, consistent with section 120.53(5), could be afforded). D.A.B. argues further that, because section 337.11(4) provides that the department may award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, [1] responsibility may be determined outside the context of a section 337.16 proceeding....
...Relying on this court's opinions in Couch Constr. Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 361 So.2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 475 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), D.A.B. asserts that it may challenge White's lack of responsibility under section 337.11(4) in a bid protest proceeding. In Couch, this court held that section 337.16 did not eliminate the traditional competitive bidding requirement that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder as set forth in section 337.11, and the issue of responsibility was raised in the bid protest proceeding. In Baxter's, this court again recognized that the responsibility of a bidder may be challenged under section 337.11 in a bid protest proceeding....
...to section 337.16. The department's rules promulgated thereunder are designed to insure that prequalified contractors are afforded procedural due process before their qualified status is vacated. Under the department's interpretation, both sections 337.11 and 337.16 deal with delinquency-based responsibility challenges and, being in pari materia, must be read in conjunction with each other....
...one; it need only be within the range of permissible interpretations. State, Bd. of Optometry v. Florida Soc'y of Ophthalmology, 538 So.2d 878, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The department has correctly construed section 337.16 and its relationship with section 337.11. An administrative hearing triggered by a bid protest under sections 337.11 and 120.53(5) is not the proper vehicle by which a contractor's responsibility and qualification to bid is to be investigated and adjudicated....
...ative proceeding conducted pursuant to section 337.16 had not been concluded and a final determination of nonresponsibility had not been rendered at the time the bids were awarded. D.A.B. argues that it is entitled to an administrative hearing under section 337.11(4), based on its allegation that White lacks the financial capacity to perform the contract....
...The department argues that a bidder's financial resources and ability to perform a contract are addressed in the framework of the qualification process pursuant to section 337.14(1) and the rules promulgated thereunder, rather than in a bid protest proceeding under sections 337.11 and 120.53(5)....
...has failed to demonstrate that, as a matter of clear legal right, it is entitled to the performance of an indisputable legal duty. State ex rel. Glynn v. McNayr, 133 So.2d 312, 316 (Fla. 1961). Accordingly, D.A.B.'s petition for a writ of mandamus is DENIED. ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 337.11(4), Florida Statutes (Supp....
Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 176606
...bove and beyond what was called for in said contract and run the risk of not receiving payment for same, especially when FDOT refuses to execute a supplemental agreement. Order REVERSED and Cause REMANDED. SHARP, W. and TORPY, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 337.11(8) of the Florida Statutes (2001) authorizes FDOT to issue a supplemental agreement when a contractor's work exceeds the initial contract by 5% or when a contractor provides unforeseen work....
...nd. ABI Walton Ins. Co. v. Dep't of Mgmt. Servs., 641 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Appellees argue that ABI Walton is distinguishable because it interpreted section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes, whereas the instant bonds were posted pursuant to section 337.11(5), Florida Statutes....
This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.
