Bid Protest Hearing - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 as paragraph 18.2 of the Request for Proposals. The reasons stated in its Bid Protest `t letter is that Petitioner submitted the lowest bid and the City's decision was arbitrary. III. In its Response to the bid protest by Petitioner, the City argued that the bid protest should be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) the City has the authority to select the most qualified bidder under the City Code; (2) the City has the authority tolselect the bid that it is in the best interest of the City under the bid documents; and (3) the City is not required to select the bidder with the lowest price under the law. IV. The City submitted affidavits by its City Manager, Public Works and Engineering ° Director, and its engineering consultant. These affidavits confirm that I the City has complied with its Code in selecting the contract recipient for Bid No. 07-10-02. V. The Petitioner failed to present any evidence showing that the City's decision was arbitrary. VI. At the bid protest hearing, the Petitioner raised several new arguments that were not stated in its bid protest letter dated February 21, 2008. Conclusion of Law The Hearing Examiner, having duly considered the matter, arguments of counsel and the evidence presented at the public hearing, makes the following conclusions of law: I. The City has shown that the City Commission's decision to award the bid to ' Southeastern is supported by competent and substantial evidence. • II. At the hearing, the Petitioner raised several new arguments that were not raised in the bid protest letter. These arguments are deemed waived in accordance with Section 62-15.A. of the City Code because the Petitioner failed to assert these arguments in the bid protest letter. III. Section 62-8 of the City's Code of Ordinances and the requirements set forth in the City's Request for Proposal ("RFP") are controlling. I F IV. The City Code permits the City to consider things other than price when setting forth the criteria for a contract award. The City has complied with its Codef V. The cases cited by the Petitioner are not controlling on the particular facts of this case. More precisely, the Sweetwater decision relied upon by Petitioner (cited as Sweetwater v. Solo Construction Corporation, 823 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) is distinguishable in that the City Code of Sweetwater required the City to accept the bid of the responsive, responsible bidder submitting the lowest acceptable proposal. In contrast, the Code of the City of Sunny Isles Beach authorizes the City to consider all of its factors on an equal basis in awarding the bid to the lowest responsible bidder. I ,