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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-497

StatusPublished

This text of 755 So. 2d 190 (Nippon Carbide Industries (USA), Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

755 So. 2d 190, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4233, 2000 WL 369807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nippon-carbide-industries-usa-inc-v-state-department-of-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack