CAPITAL COPY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 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.
Capital Copy, Inc. challenged the University of Florida's dismissal of its bid protest, arguing that the University failed to provide statutory notice of the right to protest. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the defective notice denied Capital Copy a clear point of entry into the administrative review process.
The University's omission of the statutorily required notice constituted a defect that denied appellant a clear point of entry to the administrative process. The order dismissing the bid protest is reversed, the case is remanded, and the University must allow Capital Copy to pursue its bid protest.
[1] A notice of decision to accept or reject a bid must contain a statement informing potential protesters of the time limits for filing a protest to avoid waiving administra…
[2] Failure to include the statutory notice regarding protest filing deadlines in a bid tabulation deprives a bidder of a clear point of entry into the administrative process…
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“Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes.”
Establishes the statutory language that must be included in bid decision notices to inform bidders of their protest rights and deadline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 1, 1987, the University of Florida posted a bid tabulation listing vendors and identifying the successful bidder but failed to include the …
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 Notice Of Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Finding appellant Capital Copy, Inc., was provided no clear point of entry into the administrative process, we reverse an order issued by the University of Florida (University), dismissing a bid protest filed by appellant.
Section 120.53(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that the notice of decision to accept or reject a bid shall contain the following statement:
Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
The notice of decision, posted by the University on October 1, 1987, in its bid tabulation, was defective in that it failed to contain the above statutory notice.1 The failure to include the statutory notice, or words of substantially similar effect, in the posted bid tabulation resulted in appellant’s not receiving a clear point of entry to protest the award of the bid to the successful bidder. See Henry v. State, Department of Administration, 431 So. 2d 677, 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), holding the department’s letter of determination “did not bear the hallmarks of finality required for final orders affecting substantial interests in that it failed to inform appellant of his right to request administrative review and failed to state the time within which he was required to request proceedings under Section 120.57.” Compare Lamar Advertising Co. v. Department of Transportation, 523 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), observing that although the department’s notice did not use the term “final agency” action as specifically required in the department’s rule, it did advise applicant that his permit had been denied and that he had the right to request a 120.57 hearing within 30 days of the date of the notice.
In concluding that appellant was never provided a clear point of entry, we find it unnecessary to decide whether appellant’s notice of protest was timely filed.
The order dismissing the bid protest is reversed, the cause is remanded, and the University is directed to allow appellant to pursue its bid protest pursuant to section 120.53(5).
BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. . The bid tabulation listed the vendors submitting bids and circled the name of one of the bidders.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. League OF Cities, Inc. v. Admin. Comm'n & Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, 586 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…e clear point of entry the notice does not have to track any particular language or recite statutory provisions verbatim, so long as it clearly informs the affected party of its rights and the time limits. Capital Copy Inc. v. University of Florida, 526 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Lamar Advertising Co. v. Department of Transportation, 523 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). A properly noticed clear point of entry does not have to set forth the Commission’s sanctions policy which will be employed. An agency is…
-
Env't Res. Assocs. OF Fla., Inc. v. State, 624 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…thers that it was not. See, e.g., Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. Administration Comm’n, 586 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Southeast Grove Management Inc. v. McKiness, 578 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Capital Copy, Inc. v. University of Fla., 526 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Lamar Advertising Co. v. Department of Transportation, 523 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); City of St. Cloud v. Department of Envtl. Reg., 490 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Henry v. Department of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 4…
-
Northrop & Northrop Bldg. P'ship v. State, 528 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…sion as required by § 120.53(5), Northrop’s delay in filing its written protest did not constitute a waiver of Ch. 120 proceedings. Accordingly, its formal protest should not have been denied as untimely. Capital Copy, Inc. v. University of Florida, 526 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also § 120.68(8), Fla.Stat. Reversed and remanded for further agency action. NIMMONS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Henry v. State, 431 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Lamar Advertising Co. v. Dep't OF Transp. & Headrick Outdoor Advertising, 523 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)