CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
REYNOLDS, SMITH & HILLS, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS & PLANNERS, INC., A CORPORATION; GEE & JENSON ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, INC., A CORPORATION; C. VARGAS & ASSOCIATES, LTD.; HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW & ASSOCIATES, INC., A CORPORATION; AND WAITZ & FRYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the City's ordinance requiring fee quotations before negotiation is not inconsistent with the Consultants' Competitive Negotiations Act.
[1] A local ordinance requiring fee quotations from engineering firms before competitive negotiation is not inconsistent with the Consultants' Competitive Negotiations Act, a…
[2] The Consultants' Competitive Negotiations Act contemplates that agencies may consider factors beyond those explicitly listed in the statute when selecting professional se…
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 intelligenceEngineering firms wishing to contract with the City were required by ordinance to submit fee quotations before negotiations, which they declined to do…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preemption cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The City of Jacksonville appeals a judgment declaring portions of its Ordinance 130.301 et seq., Professional Services Contracts (ordinance), invalid as inconsistent with Section 287.055, Florida Statutes (1981), the Consultants’ Competitive Negotiations Act (Act). We do not see any inconsistency and reverse.
The appellees, all engineering firms, wished to negotiate for services in connection with a street construction project. The City, as required by its ordinance, requested a quotation of fees before beginning negotiations. The engineers declined, citing the Act. All were downgraded in the selection process because of this. The engineers then sought relief in the circuit court, leading to the order on appeal.
The Act creates a two-step process for agencies or political subdivisions to use when hiring architects and engineers. The first is competitive selection, the second is competitive negotiation with those firms selected in the first step. The ordinance largely tracks the Act with one difference which caused this litigation. The ordinance requires firms to submit a quotation of fees, unless prohibited by law, and requires that this be taken into consideration in determining the three most qualified firms before entering into competitive negotiations. The Act makes no mention of fee quotation.
Without an express prohibition, or express preemption of the subject by the legislature, we must determine whether such use of fee quotations damages the process established by the Act. We conclude that it does not. The Act contemplates the City considering factors other than those listed in subsection 287.055(3)(c). Section 287.055(3)(d). The Act makes budget considerations a factor in selection, Section 287.055(4)(b).
We see no harm done if a City legislatively finds that early consideration of fees is in its best interests. Like other professionals, architects and engineers are going to have to live with price competition.
Our disposition of this issue makes discussion of the City’s other issue unnecessary.
REVERSED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Lynn Haven v. BAY Cnty. Council OF Registered Architects, Inc., 528 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…be purchased for a project.” § 287.055(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1986) (emphasis added). AFFIRMED. SMITH, C.J., and NIMMONS, J., concur. . Standing was not referred to in City of Jacksonville v. Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Engineers & Planners, Inc., 424 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), wherein this court entertained a suit initiated by engineers who challenged the validity of an ordinance as inconsistent with the CCNA, or in Miami Marinas Association, Inc. v. City of Miami, 408 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), w…
-
Fla. Ass'n OF the Am. Inst. OF Architects & Mudano Assocs. v. Pinellas Cnty., 436 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See City of Jacksonville v. Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Architects, Engi [*189] neers & Planners, Inc., 424 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). HOBSON, A.C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.…