Caber Systems, Inc. v. Department of General Services
Citation | 530 So.2d 325,13 Fla. L. Weekly 1658 |
Decision Date | 13 July 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 87-909,87-909 |
Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1658 CABER SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, Apple Computers, Inc., and International Business Machines, Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Richard J. Dewitt, Jr. and John R. Hart of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Miami, and Philip L. O'Neill of Keck, Mahin & Cate, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Susan B. Kirkland and Sandra E. Allen, Office of General Counsel, Tallahassee, for appellee Dept. of General Services.
Richard A. Lotspeich of Landers, Parsons & Uhlfelder, Tallahassee, and Thomas M. Beason of Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, Tallahassee, for appellee Apple Computers, Inc.
We review by appeal a final order of the Department of General Services (Department or DGS) dismissing two bid protests filed by Caber Systems, Inc. That order adopted the hearing officer's recommended order proposing approval of the Department's rejection of all bids for the 1987 State micro-computer term purchasing contracts and extending the previous year's contracts. The Department is subject to sharp criticism for failing to follow the time limits prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1985), but we find no reversible error in the appealed order and affirm.
On December 15, 1986, Caber protested some of the awards the Department proposed to make pursuant to its invitations to bid on the micro-computer contract. After several meetings to discuss settlement of the protest, DGS determined that the invitation to bid was ambiguous and substantially flawed and, on January 21, 1987, gave notice of its intent to reject all bids. Caber immediately protested DGS's rejection of all bids. After another settlement meeting with Caber, both of Caber's protests were referred to a hearing officer on February 27, 1987. The protests went to hearing on March 13, 16, and 17, 1987, and, pursuant to the parties' request, proposed recommended orders were filed on or before April 13. The hearing officer entered his 25-page recommended order on May 13, 1987.
Caber presents two legal issues on appeal. The first questions whether the Department of General Services exceeded its statutory authority under section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), by summarily rejecting all bids after Caber had filed its protest of the awards (first protest) and had later filed a protest of the decision to reject all bids (second protest). The second issue is whether the reasons underlying the Department's decision to reject all bids were arbitrary and capricious, and not supported by competent, substantial evidence.
The hearing officer's order, adopted by the Department's final order, found the following facts:
The hearing officer next found that "on August 29, 1986, DGS issued Invitation to Bid 545-250-040-B, Micro-computers (ITB) for purposes of establishing the 1987 term contract" and that the ITB classifies micro-computers in seven categories which are further broken down into some 55 subcategories based on specific makes and models of computers. The hearing officer's findings of fact then continued:
"5. The Special Conditions of the ITB include a requirement for submission of price tables as part of a bid:
To be considered responsive, bidder must submit properly completed Tables A, B, C and D.... A complete set of Tables A, B, C and D must be submitted for each sub-category bid.
TABLE A--MICRO-COMPUTER HARDWARE COMPONENTS:
All hardware bid, whether mandatory or optional, must be entered in Table A. The sub-category, district and vendor must be indicated in space provided.
Table A must reflect only items applicable to the sub-category. A separate Table A must be submitted for each sub-category bid.
TABLE B--MICRO-COMPUTER OPTIONS/ACCESSORIES
All options, upgrades, and accessories must be entered in Table B. Accessories must identify microcomputer model(s) to which they are applicable. If there are no options, upgrades or accessories, so indicate with N/A.
TABLE C--SYSTEM SOFTWARE:
All system software, such as the operating system, editors, loaders, generalized utilities, etc., must be entered on Table C--System Software. Unit price of additional copies of documentation, if any, must be listed.
A separate Table C must be submitted for each sub-category bid.
TABLE D--EVALUATION CONFIGURATION:
Seven basic configurations will be considered in making awards. The configurations are designated Category 1 through 7 and are shown in Table D1 through D7. Care should be taken in completion of Table D since incorrect information could result in disqualification. In case of errors in Table "D", prices in Tables A, C, shall prevail. State reserves the right to correct arithmetic errors in Table "D".
To qualify for award, any system must, as a minimum, satisfy the evaluation configuration specified in Table D.
Manufacturer Name and Model: Enter sub category (listed in Table I of specifications) being bid plus the name and model of the system.
If there is no charge for a component, so indicate with N/C.
Components and prices listed by vendors in Table D must agree with components and prices listed in Tables A and C.
Use separate Table D for each sub-category.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Int'l Display Sys., Inc. v. Okimoto
...Our interpretation of HRS § 103D–701(f) is also supported by case law from other jurisdictions. In Caber Systems, Inc. v. Dep't of Gen. Services, 530 So.2d 325, 336 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988), the court construed a Florida statute similar to HRS § 103D–701(f) which provided that “ ‘the agency s......