Bobick v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bobick v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority

648 So. 2d 1263, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 601, 1995 WL 36158

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1995

DocketNo. 94-1719

StatusPublished

This text of 648 So. 2d 1263 (Bobick v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bobick v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 648 So. 2d 1263, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 601, 1995 WL 36158 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Judy Bobiek appeals an order of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority which rejected her protest of the disqualification of her bid for the Authority’s cleaning contract and the award of the contract to another bidder. We find no error in the Authority’s conclusion that the requirement for “references from (3) three vendors” meant that the bidder must include three letters of reference, rather than a list of references. Although the Authority had the power to waive the irregularity, it was not obliged to do so. See generally Liberty County v. Baxter’s Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., 421 So.2d 505, 507 (Fla.1982). As to the second point on appeal, the record does not, in our view, show any impropriety in the handling of the bids. The order under review is therefore affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Judy Bobiek appeals an order of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority which rejected her protest of the disqualification of her bid for the Authority’s cleaning contract and the award of the contract to another bidder. We find no error in the Authority’s conclusion that the requirement for “references from (3) three vendors” meant that the bidder must include three letters of reference, rather than a list of references. Although the Authority had the power to waive the irregularity, it was not obliged to do so. See generally Liberty County v. Baxter’s Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., 421 So.2d 505, 507 (Fla.1982). As to the second point on appeal, the record does not, in our view, show any impropriety in the handling of the bids. The order under review is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

648 So. 2d 1263, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 601, 1995 WL 36158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobick-v-florida-keys-aqueduct-authority-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack