Bid Protest Hearing - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TRAN CONSTRUCTION.... BUILDING QUALITY & DELIVERING EXCELLENCEss, CGC 060092 This list of experiential requirements is clearly exclusive, meaning that it does not purport to include other similar or related requirements, but rather is intended to identify the entire universe of all such requirements. This is demonstrated by the absence of any language, such as "including but not limited to" or"among other things," manifesting an intention to include other matters that are ejusdem genet with the items listed. In addition, each one of the seven experiential requirements is purely objective. Specifically. each criterion is simply a matter of historical fact that either happened or did not happen. Moreover, the existence of these disqualifying experience-related requirements is not a matter of degree --;the desired quality is either objectively present, or it is absent; there is no discretionary middle ground. The upshot is that, any one bidder who, as a matter of fact, is not disqualified by the experiential, is qualified and its qualification is not subject to discretion. Since the disqualifying criteria are unambiguously exclusive, manifesting an intention to identify all applicable experiential requirements the exegetic maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius controls.This rule holds that if"one subject is specifically named [in a contract], or if several subjects of a laarge class are specifically enumerated, and there are no general words to show that other subjects of that class'are included, it may reasonably be inferred that the subjects not specifically named were intended to be excluded." Espinosa v. State, 688 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Gay v. Singletary. 700 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 1997)("[W]hen a law expressly describes the particular situation in which something should apply, an inference must be drawn that what is not included by specific reference was intended to be omitted or excluded."). Here, Paragraph 6.3 provides a comprehensive list of all qualifications requirements. It cannot be said that an additional, unstated requirement exists wherein the bidder is subjected to a reviewer's discretionary determination of whether or not the bidder is qualified or not because it was `late" or "delayed" in some prior project with some other public entity. This is especially true here, where even the City's consultant that takes the position that Southeastern Engineering Contractors. Inc., is more qualified,acknowledges that Tran's"references check out and they come well recommended". All of the foregoing must be seen with a great deal of deference to awarding this Project to Tran --the low responsive bidder. It is the public policy of the State of Florida, repeatedly expressed in thewery clearest and most forceful terms possible by our courts, to award contracts to the low bidder and an equally string public policy against disqualifying the low bidder. "Where there is mandatory competitive bidding, there is a great public interest for the contract to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder 'Whose bid is responsive." Caber Systems v. Department of Gen. Services. 530 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988): City of Sweetwater v. Solo Constr. Corp., 823 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). The courts do not favor the disqualification of a low bidder for non-responsiveness where a bid irregularity does not impart an unfair competitive advantage to the low bidder. In Liberty County v. Barter's Asphalt and Concrete Inc., 421 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1982)concerning principles applicable to competitive bidding the Florida Supreme Court held that there is a strong public policy in favor of awarding contracts to the low bidder, and ati equal strong public policy against disqualifying the low bidder for technical deficiencies which do not confer an economic advantage on one bidder over another. The purposes of bidding would be ill served if a low bidder is ignored for new criteria not set forth in the bid documents. This proposition in general is set forth in the Florida Supreme Court's decision of Wester v. Below. 103 Fla.976, 138 So. 721, 723-24(1931)as follows: The purpose of the bidding process is. . . To secure fair competition upon equal terms to all bidders:. . . to close all avenues to favoritism and fraud in its various forms: to secure the best values for the [City] at the lowest possible 1000 NW 54 STREET.NIIA31I.FL 33127:PIIONE305-756-7756:FAX-305-756-7780 2-21-08 LE ITER TO SZERIAC.doc