PRESTON CARROLL COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Preston Carroll Company challenged the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority's award of a water supply contract to another bidder, but the court dismissed the challenge on standing grounds, holding that as the third-lowest bidder rather than the second-lowest, Preston Carroll lacked the requisite 'substantial interest' to protest the contract award.
The court held that Preston Carroll, as the third-lowest bidder, lacked standing to protest the contract award because it failed to demonstrate a 'substantial interest' in the matter. Only a second-lowest bid establishes the substantial interest necessary to challenge a public contract award.
[1] A party must demonstrate a substantial interest to contest the award of a public contract.
[2] A second lowest bid establishes a substantial interest for the purpose of contesting a public contract award.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In order to contest the award of a public contract to an apparent low bidder, appellant was required to establish that it had a 'substantial interest' to be determined by the agency. A second lowest bid establishes that substantial interest.”
Establishes the standing requirement for challenging public contract awards under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePreston Carroll Company submitted a bid for a water supply contract with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. The FKAA awarded the contract to Iacobel…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
BASKIN, Judge.
Preston Carroll Company, Inc., unsuccessful bidder for a water supply contract, chai- lenges an Order of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) denying Preston Carroll’s protest pursuant to section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1979) of the award of the contract to another bidder, Iacobelli-Ferr-era. We do not reach the merits of appellant’s argument, however, because we find that appellant lacked standing to challenge the award of the contract.
In order to contest the award of a public contract to an apparent low bidder, appellant was required to establish that it had a “substantial interest” to be determined by the agency. A second lowest bid establishes that substantial interest. See Jets Services, Inc. v. Hoffman, 420 F.Supp. 1300 (M.D.Fla.1976); Couch Construction Co., Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 361 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Greenhut Construction Co. v. Henry A. Knott, Inc., 247 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); § 120.57, Fla.Stat. (1979).
In an effort to meet the standing requirement, Preston Carroll maintained that it produced the lowest bid and that FKAA’s determination that CFW Construction Co., Inc. was the second low bidder was erroneous because CFW extended “deduct” provisions to its alternate bid after bidding had been closed. The unrefuted testimony presented by professional engineer and project coordinator MacVicar disclosed, however, that at the time apparent low bidders were decided CFW’s bid, which included “deducts”, was the second lowest bid. Relying on Mr. Mac Vicar’s expertise in evaluating bids, the Board of Directors of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority determined that the “deduct” offered by CFW applied at all times not only to its base bid but also to its alternate bid and that no change in its bid occurred after the bids were opened. This court may not substitute its judgment for an agency’s judgment concerning the weight of evidence. § 120.-68(10), Fla.Stat. (1979).
For these reasons, we hold that Preston Carroll, as third low bidder, was unable to demonstrate that it was substantially affected; it therefore lacked standing to protest the award of the contract to another bidder. See Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972); Peterson v. Florida Department of Community Affairs, 386 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation v. Jerry, 353 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1978).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Jacksonville Transp. Auth., 491 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ons of MATRA and JTA which occurred after the bids were opened. A party has standing to protest the lowest bid if that party has a substantial interest to be determined by the agency. Preston Carroll Company, Inc. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 400 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981). See also Section 120.- [*1241] 53(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1983)6. In Preston Carroll, supra, an unsuccessful bidder did not establish a substantial interest entitling it to challenge the highest bidder where the testimony showe…
-
Silver Express Co. v. The Dist. Bd. OF Lower Tribunal Trs. OF Miami-Dade Cmty. Coll., 691 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…id protest, given the fact that the committee had ranked Silver Express third, and as such, the company lacked the standing to succeed on its other claims of error in the committee’s decision.3 See Preston Carroll Co., Inc. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct, 400 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Since the bid protest, as amended, raised no facial constitutional challenge, there was no need for direct judicial intervention. The hearing officer’s or agency’s inability to issue an injunction did not render the administrati…
-
Silver Express Co. v. The Dist. Bd. OF Trs. OF Miami-Dade Cmty. Coll., 691 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Preston Carroll Co., Inc. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Auth., 400 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1972)
- The Fla. Dep't OF Offender Rehab. v. Leroy Jerry and the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, 353 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Greenhut Constr. Co., Inc. v. Henry A. Knott, Inc., 247 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Joyner v. Joyner, 247 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Couch Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp., 361 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Peterson v. Fla. Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs, 386 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)