Florida Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the Courts of Florida - unoffical reports - Opinions

ROMINGER LEGAL

Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
GENERAL ELECTRIC,
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Appellant,
v.
CASE NO. 1D03-0390
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION and
FLORIDA DRAWBRIDGES,
INC.,
Appellees.
___________________________
/
Opinion filed April 19, 2004.
An appeal from an order of the Department of Transportation.
Donna E. Blanton and Jeffrey L. Frehn of Radey, Thomas, Yon & Clark, P.A.,
Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela S. Leslie, General Counsel and Gregory G. Costas, Assistant General
Counsel, Attorney for Department of Transportation; and David B. Mankuta and
Margaret Z. Villella of Atkinson, Diner, Sonte, Mankuta & Plouchas, P.A.,
Hollywood, Attorney for Florida Drawbridges, Inc.
BROWNING, J.
Appellant seeks review of a final order summarily dismissing Appellant's bid

protests because its bid bonds were deficient. We agree with Appellant that
Appellant did not have sufficient notice of the deficiency, and was not given a chance
to correct any deficiency. Thus, we reverse without deciding whether the bonds
were, in fact, deficient.
The dispute began when Appellee Florida Drawbridges was awarded three
Department of Transportation (Department) contracts and Appellant filed three formal
bid protests. With each protest, Appellant filed a required security bond, listing as
principal on the bond "GE Industrial Systems." Florida Drawbridges, the successful
bidder, intervened in the three bid protest proceedings, held before the Division of
Administrative Hearings (DOAH). Florida Drawbridges then filed motions for a
summary recommended order in each case, on the ground that Appellant failed to list
the proper principal on the bonds. After the three cases were consolidated, the ALJ
recommended dismissal and the Department followed his recommendation.
On appeal, Appellant argues that it did not receive adequate notice of the
deficiency in the bonds and, in the alternative, argues that the bonds were not deficient
because GE Industrial Systems is the same entity as Appellant. Appellant is correct
that notice and an opportunity to cure are required before a bid protest is dismissed
solely due to a deficient bond. 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
2

because it interpreted section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes, whereas the instant
bonds were posted pursuant to section 337.11(5), Florida Statutes. However, the due
process requirements outlined in ABI Walton apply to bid protests filed pursuant to
both sections.
The Department argues that Appellant received sufficient notice of the
deficiency from the motions for summary dismissal filed by Florida Drawbridges.
However, this Court specifically stated in ABI Walton that the agency must give the
protestor both notice of a bond deficiency and an opportunity to cure such
deficiency. ABI Walton, 641 So. 2d at 968 & 969. Thus, notice in the instant case
is insufficient as it did not come from the Department, and such failure cannot be
cured by the allegations of Florida Drawbridges' motions for summary dismissal.
Accordingly, Appellant is entitled to relief.
REVERSED and REMANDED to the Department for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
3

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE