Nippon Carbide Industries (USA), Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nippon Carbide Industries (USA), Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation

755 So. 2d 190, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4233, 2000 WL 369807

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 12, 2000·No. No. 1D99-497·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Nippon Carbide Industries, Inc. (NCI) appeals an order rejecting its bid protest relating to a bid on reflective sheeting. Though NCI was the apparent low bidder, the Florida Department of Transportation concluded the bid was non-responsive because the bid did not meet the specifications of the Department’s invitation to bid. NCI filed a bid protest and sought a formal administrative hearing. Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, the administrative law judge concluded that NCI did not meet its burden of “demonstrating that the proposed agency action is ‘clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.’ ” See § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998); see also GTECH Corp. v. State, Dep’t of the Lottery, 737 So.2d 615, 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Because competent substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s findings, we affirm. See State Contracting and Eng’g Corp. v. Department of Transp., 709 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hubbard Constr. Co. v. Department of Transp., 642 So.2d 1192, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

AFFIRMED.

MINER, KAHN and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Nippon Carbide Industries, Inc. (NCI) appeals an order rejecting its bid protest relating to a bid on reflective sheeting. Though NCI was the apparent low bidder, the Florida Department of Transportation concluded the bid was non-responsive because the bid did not meet the specifications of the Department’s invitation to bid. NCI filed a bid protest and sought a formal administrative hearing. Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, the administrative law judge concluded that NCI did not meet its burden of “demonstrating that the proposed agency action is ‘clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.’ ” See § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998); see also GTECH Corp. v. State, Dep’t of the Lottery, 737 So.2d 615, 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Because competent substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s findings, we affirm. See State Contracting and Eng’g Corp. v. Department of Transp., 709 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hubbard Constr. Co. v. Department of Transp., 642 So.2d 1192, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

AFFIRMED.

MINER, KAHN and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

Nippon Carbide Industries (USA), Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation, 755 So. 2d 190, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4233, 2000 WL 369807 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

755 So. 2d 190 (Nippon Carbide Industries (USA), Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related