25-94 ORDINANCE NO. 25-94
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 36, "FINANCE;
CITY PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS", SECTION 36.06,
"COMPETENCY IN BIDDING", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
HEADING OF 36.06 AND BY ENACTING 36.06(B) TO PROVIDE
FOR THE PREQUALIFICATION OF BIDDERS; PROVIDING A
GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, desires to insure that only competent and qualified
contractors will bid on City projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 36, "Finance; City Property
Transactions", Section 36.06, "Competency in Bidding", of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is
hereby amended by amending the heading of Section 36.06 and by adding
subsection (B) to read as follows:
Section 36.06 Competency in Bidding; Prequalification of Bidders
(A) Competency in bidding is defined as being able properly
to demonstrate trade or industry proficiency, standing, and
qualifications, and the financial ability to deliver the goods or
to complete the contract as executed, together with the
submission of a bid which, in every respect, fully meets and
complies with the terms, conditions, and specifications, or
stated alternatives thereto, which were made a part of, or which
are inherent in, the invitation to bid.
(B) The City of Delray Beach may require prequalification
of bidders on City construction projects.
Section 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
Section 3. That should any section or provision of this
ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a
whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon passage on second and final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final
reading on this the 3rd day of May , 1994.
ATTEST:
City ClerK
First Reading April 19, 1994
Second Reading May 3, 1994
- 2 - Ord. No. 25-94
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9 /0~ - MEETING OF MAY 3, 1994
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE NO.
25-94/PREQUALIFICATION OF BIDDERS
DATE: APRIL 28, 1994
This is second reading and public hearing for Ordinance No. 25-94
which amends Section 36.06, "Competency in Bidding", of the Code of
Ordinances to allow for the prequalification of bidders on City
construction projects.
The Commission passed this ordinance on first reading by unanimous
vote at the regular meeting of April 19, 1994. At that time there
was some discussion on the prequalification guidelines and
criteria. The City Attorney advised that the method used for
prequalification must be unobjectionable and must not promote
favoritism among the bidders, nor can the prequalification
guidelines be arbitrary or capricious. For each construction job
that the City wants to prequalify bidders on, the guidelines will
have to be examined closely to ensure that contractors are not
unfairly excluded from the bidding process.
Ordinance No. 25-94 puts in place the ordinance by which the City
will have the authority to prequalify bidders. The guidelines for
prequalification of a contractor will be reviewed on a case by case
basis, and revised as necessary to accommodate a particular
project.
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 25-94 on second and final
reading.
ref:agmemol7
£1T¥ DF I]ELRII¥ BERgH
p~B~ 100N.W. lstAVENUE · DELRAYBEACH, FLORIDA33~4 · 407/243-?000
llI.Ame~icaCi~
MEMORANDUM
1993
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: {~obert A. BarcinsAi, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # CITY CONNISSION MTG., APRIL 14, 1994
APPROVAL FIRST READING ORDINANCE # ~ -94
PRgQUALIFICATIONS OF BIDDERS/CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
DATE: April 15, 1994
ACTION
City Commission is requested to approve on first reading
Ordinance # ~ -94 which would allow the City to prequalify
bidders for construction projects. If approved, second reading
and public hearing would be held on May 3, 1994.
BACKGROUND
City Commission had requested staff and the City Attorney to
research the possibility of prequalifying bidders for the Golf
Course Clubhouse project. The City Attorney has completed her
research and has determined that we can prequalify bidders,
provided we have an ordinance in place, and that we set forth
nondiscriminatory criteria for prequalification. Attached are
copies of suggested prequalification criteria, as well as
submittal forms. Staff still needs to review the criteria and
forms with Mr. Bridges. Some adjustments may need to be made.
If this ordinance is approved we would advertise the
prequalification, receive input and review, then make a decision
as to those that are prequalified. Bids would not be
advertised. Specifications would be sent only to those
prequalified.
This ordinance is proposed at this time in order to meet our
project schedule.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of ordinance on first reading, to be
effective immediately upon passage on second and final reading.
RAB:kwg
Attachments
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS /~, ~
Printed on Recycled Paper
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 13, 1994
TO: City Commission
David Harden, City Manage~~/w'~t~(/~
FROM: Susan a. Ruby, City attorn~~~
SUBJECT: Prequalification of bidders
You asked the following question of whether the City could
require prequalification of contractors before they bid on the
new golfcourse clubhouse. It is my opinion that the City can
require prequalification of bidders, with an amendment to our
ordinances.
The prequalification guidelines and techniques must be
rationally related to the requirements of the particular Job
that is being bid on. The method used for prequalification
must be unobjectionable and it must not promote favoritism
among the bidders. City of Opa-Locka v. Trustees of Plumbing
Industry Promotion Fund, 193 So.2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The
prequalification guidelines must not be arbitrary or
capricious. If the guidelines are shown to be arbitrary or
capricious, then they could be struck down as being
unconstitutional. For each construction job that the City
wants to prequalify bidders on, it will have to examine closely
the prequalification guidelines to make sure that contractors
are not being unfairly excluded from the bidding process.
Our office has prepared a proposed ordinance (attached), which
would allow for the prequalification of bidders on City
construction Projects. Also, attached are some proposed
guidelines for prequalification of a contractor for the
golfcourse clubhouse as well as a proposed bidder
prequalification form.
SAR: c i
cc: William Greenwood, Director of Environmental Services
Jose Aguila, Assistant Construction Manager/ARCH
- Ted Glas, Director of Purc~--tzlg
ORDINANCE NO. 25-94
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 36, "FINANCE;
CITY PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS", SECTION 36.06,
"COMPETENCY IN BIDDING", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
HEADING OF 36.06 AND BY ENACTING 36.06(B) TO PROVIDE
FOR THE PREQUALIFICATION OF BIDDERS; PROVIDING A
GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, desires to insure that only competent and qualified
contractors will bid on City projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 36, "Finance; City Property
Transactions", Section 36.06, "Competency in Bidding", of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is
hereby amended by amending the heading of Section 36.06 and by adding
subsection (B) to read as follows:
Section 36.06 Competency in Bidding; Prequalification of Bidders
(A) Competency in bidding is defined as being able properly
to demonstrate trade or industry proficiency, standing, and
qualifications, and the financial ability to deliver the goods or
to complete the contract as executed, together with the
submission of a bid which, in every respect, fully meets and
complies with the terms, conditions, and specifications, or
stated alternatives thereto, which were made a part of, or which
are inherent in, the invitation to bid.
(B) The City of Delra¥ Beach may require prequalification
of bidders on City construction projects.
Section 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
Section 3. That should any section or provision of this
ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a
whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon passage on second and final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final
reading on this the day of , 1994.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
First Reading
Second Reading
Ord. No. 25-94
MINIMUM CRITERIA TO BE USED IN PRE-QUALIFYING CONTRACTORS FOR
THE DELRAY BEACH GOLFCOURSE CLUBHOUSE
I. CONTRACTORS BUSINESS INFORMATION
No Minimum Criteria as to type of business.
II. SURETY COMPANY
Contractor must have adequate bonding capacity to provide
for 100% Performance and Public Construction Bonds for
this project. A letter from the Surety Company is
requested as evidence of the above with a minimum of 1
million dollars for a single project.
Surety Company must carry an industry rating (per Best's
Key Rating Guide) of "A-IX" or higher. The Surety Company
shall have a resident agent, licensed and having an office
in Palm Beach, Dade, Broward or Martin Counties, Florida,
to execute and issue the bonds.
III. EXPERIENCE
Minimum experience requirements as a prime contractor
responsible for the complete construction of a new
building:
A. The firm(s) must have successfully completed at least
one recreational type building (ie, clubhouse, hotel,
or similar use building) project, with a total
construction cost of at least $1,000,000; and
B. The firm(s) must have successfully completed at least
one governmental or commercial building construction
project with a total construction cost of at least
$1,000,000.
C. The.firm(s) must demonstrate experience of the key
personnel assigned on-site, as individuals or in
combination, with the following minimum experience:
1. Recreational type building over $1,000,000; and,
2. Construction experience on at least one
governmental or commercial construction project
over $1,000,000.
IV. LITIGATION
A. Not be involved in current or pending litigation
which, in the opinion of the City, is likely to have
a material negative impact on their ability to
execute this project.
B. Not, in the opinion of the City, display an
undesirable pattern of litigation with Owners over
construction matters.
V. SAFETY RECORD
The firm(s) must, in the opinion of the City, have an
adequate safety record. Adequacy will by Judged through
the review of OSHA citations and insurance experience
modification factor.
VI. FLORIDA LICENSE
The firm(s) must have a valid Florida General Contractor's
License.
VII. FINANCIAL CRITERIA
The firm(s) must, in the opinion of the City, have a
financial record that will enable the firm(s) to complete
the project.
r:\txtl\guidbid.rbs
BIDDER PREQUALIFICATION FORM
JOB OR PROJECT ON WHICH THIS BID IS BEING SUBMITTED:
Submitted To:
Location:
Date Submitted:
Submitted By:
Name and address of organization or firm:
Definitions:
Ail references to "you","organization" or firm appearing in
this document refer to the person, organization or entity
submitting this bid.
1. How long have you been in your current business?
2. Have you ever used any other names for your organization
than the one you have listed at this time? If so please
list the names and the time period that you used them.
3. Depending on the type of organization you have please
answer the appropriate questions.
Corporation:
Date of incorporation -
State of incorporation -
President's name -
Secretary's name -
Treasurer's name -
List names of your directors -
Partnership:
Date organization formed -
· Type of partnership (ie. general, limited or other) -
Nam~ of partners -
Other orqantzation, sole proprietorship, etc.:
Date organization was formed -
Name of owner(s) or principal(s) -
4. Is your organization legally qualified to do business in
the State of Florida and the County of Palm Beach? Please
attach any applicable license or registration.
5. List the projects or jobs that you have worked on in the
past that most closely relate to the project that you are
bidding on now. Provide the names and addresses of the
projects, and the dates you performed work on these
projects.
6. If you have ever failed to complete a project Or Job
please list it along with any applicable reason for such
failure.
7. List all of the pending or outstanding lawsuits,
judgments, or any other action in which a claim has
arisen against the organization or any of its officers,
partners or owners.
8. List all lawsuits or claims filed on behalf of your
organization in regards to construction or vendor
contracts within the past five years.
9. List the major construction projects that your
organization is currently working on and the expected
completion date.
10. Provide a financial statement, audited, for the
organization submitting the bid, and include in the
financial statement a list of the following: all assets,
all liabilities, name and address of the person or firm
preparing the financial statement.
11. Attach Schedule G listing any OSHA citations and any fines
that may have been imposed on your company or organization
in the past ~ive years. If bidder is a Joint-venture or
partnership, list citations for both firms.
12. State your current Insurance Experience Modification
factor.
13. List at least five (5) business references:
14. List at least two (2) bank references:
15. List the name of the bonding company that you intend to
use.
Dated, this day of , 199_, by
as representative of
being duly sworn deposes
and says that the information provided herein is true an
sufficiently complete so as not to be misleading.
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of
, 199 .
Notary Public:
My Commission Expires:
R:\txtl\bidder.rbs
!'.,,~' .: (YITY OF OPA-LOCKA ?. TRUSTtIES O1~ PLUMBING IND. PI~0. F. l~la. 29
cite as, Fla., 193 8o~2d ,'9
the bank'and committed hire financial transactions between the bus- 29 So~d 18; and the annotations appear-
imprisonment in the county' band and wife and in financial trans- ing in 136 A.L.R. 715.
ereupon sued out writ of ha- actions between the husband and xvife
irectly in the Supreme Court. on the one part and the Bank on the other I. thc case s.b ]udice, the respondent
xt snch payments to tile bank, part. )u,lge had already cited petitioner for cost-
ided for in the final decree' tempt of Court and had set a hearing for
case, was not a proper sub- Tile decree in this regard constituted thc purpose of determining the merits
c the contempt order and that no more than the adjudication of a civil the proceedi.g which, nnder the foregoing
tion was void. There was liability to a party who was not a l~arly authorities, hc was without power or jnris-
presented to the Supreme to tile suit and, therefore, was not bou.d dictic, n to :.ljudicatc.
~estion now here involved, by it. Ordi.:srily, therefore, issnanc¢ of thc ah-
te added feature, common to.
We have considered thc cases ciled i. s.lute rule in prohil~ition would anto-
a case and the instant case, brief for the respondent Judge but do not rustically follow, but in this case we are
I decree, providing for the find them in point, sure .h.lge Phillips will follow this opinion
st to the third party creditor, and the formal issuance of the absolute writ
:rms of a property settlement Thc dccrcc l, ci.t7 o.e ,-cq.iri..q ti,,' will accordingly bc withheld.
ween the parties), paymc,t of a debt thc, due 1,, a th:,,',l
g tile issue involved, the Su- party is not a dccrcc i/mt may bcc,- It is so ordered.
,1 Cahu held as follo~vs (text forccd by procccdi, gs in contcmpt."
(Emphasis supplied). AI.I.I(.~, C..T., and I.II.ES, .1'., concnr.
~t was not a party to the suit [4, 5] "Prohil,itiou" is Ihat process 1,y
Ba,k a party to thc agree- which a sniwrior Court l,rcvcnls ;m i,fcrior
a.t the record .dto:t,$. That Court or tributml from exceeding its ju-
lecree requiring the payment risdiction or nsorping jurisdiction with
of $50, with accrued interest which it has not been vested by law. Slate
s therein referred to to be e.x: rel. Florida Real Fstatc Commission
I~ITY OF OPA-LOGI(A, a municipal
15th day of each and every v. Anderson, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So.2d 265;
corporation, Appellant,
after was simply a decree State ex rtl. O'Dom~cll v. I-Iall, Fla.App.
bert B. Cahn to pay a debt 19~..$, 175 So.2d 792. It is an extraordinary v.'
ts already obligated to pay. writ because it only issncs when the parLv TRUSTEES OF the PLUMBING INDUSTRY
alimony, ~tor was it suit '~ seeking it is without other adcq.atc means PROMOTION FUND, a trust fund, A. M.
A. Engineering and ¢onstruetlon, Inc., a
: position of the Bank has of redress for the wrong about to be in-
Florida corporation, and Harry Pepper &
anged either by the agree- dieted by the act of the iufcrior tribunal. Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation,
~ the parties thereto, nor by State ex tel. Ferre v. Kchoe, Fla. App. pellees..
! the Court in regard to the · 1965, 179 So2d 403. No. 66-552.
the money to the Bank. '.'.
the obligation of Cahn to , [6] In cases cited itt Scussel v. Kelly, District Court o£ Appeal of Florida.
odified or changed by the ':' Fla.App. 1963, 152 So.2d 767, it w:~s held ~'hird District.
· by the decree. Section 16 that proldbkion is an appropriate remedy Dee. 20, 1966.
ration of Rights, Constitu- to prevent judicial action when the judge i.~
id:i, provides: without jurisdiction to act in a cause, and
shall be imprisoned for debt, may be specifically iuvokcd .against a judge Proceeding on appeal from a final de-
es of fraud.' when a party is about to be cited for con- crce of the Circuit Court, Dade County,
tempt on the basis of acts which could Hal. P. Dekle, J., enjoining city from fcc-
in regard to the payment of not constitute contempt of court. See State ognlzing bid of contractor on contract to
~ the Bank was not based ex rel. l~cGregor v. Peacocl:, 1934, 113 install cemetery sewer house services. The
trital duty of the husband . Fla. 816, 152 So. 616; State ex tel. Hill District Court of Appeal, Hendry, C. J.,
It was based upon civil :(~ v. Hearn, Fla. 1957, 99 So.2d 231; State ex held that county code provision requiring
,ugh it is true that the lia- .~ rel. Gary v. Davis, 1922, 83 Fla. 422, 91 $o. that bidder be certified as competent prior
to have had its origin in 267; Giblin v. State, 1947, 15S Fla. ,~90, to bidding on public ~vorks project was not
· : invalid as unreasonable restriction on cam- 8. Municipal Corpor-~tlons ~237
petition or as violation of public policy. County code provision requiriug that
Decree affirmed, bidder be certified as competent prior to
bidding on public works project was not
invalid as unreasonable restriction on cora-
l. Stalutes ~::~200,203 petition or as violation of public polic.v.
Where text of act reflects clear legls- ¥.$.A. §§ 180.01 ct seq., 180.24.
lative fate,t, such intent may be effect,areal
I,.v supplying word iuadvcrtently omitted 9. MunlclpalCorporatlons~:~330(3)
a,d correcting clerical errors. City co,Id not waive nccesslty of public
works project bidder having certificate
2. Municipal Corporations <~:=330(I) of competency prior to bidding, as required
City charter provisions that expendl- by provision of county code, as immaterial
tures for materials and snpplics shall he vlolalion in specifications for competitive
made on basis of sealed competitive bids bidding. F.S.A. §§ 180.0t et seq., 180.24.
are deslgued to secure fair competition on
cqu:d terms for all bidders, to avoid favor-
itism and to secure public improvements at Albert L Wcintraub, Miami, for appel-
lowest possible cost to ta.,;payers, lant.
3. Municipal Corporations ~:=330(I) Joseph 1I. l~.aplan, Fred Patrox, Miami,
All persons or corporations ha%-in~ for appellees.
ability to furnish supplies or materials
nccdcd or to perform work to be done for Before HENDRY, C..f., and PEARSON
municipality should be allowed to compete and CARROLL, JJ.
freely without unreasonable restrictions.
I'IENDRY, Chief J'udgc.
4. Municipal Corporations
Where competitive bidding is required, By its final decree, the lower court ca-
ordinance which unduly limits number of joined the City of Opa-Locka from rccog-
bidders thus tending to increase cost of nizing the bid of Itarry Pepper & Asso-
work is void, and in addition, such ordi- elates, Inc., on a contract to install cer-
nances are void on constitutional ground rain sanitary sewer house services, known
of discrimination, as Project No. 1002.
.5. Municipal Corporations ~:=237 On March Il, 1966, the city of Opa-Locka
advertised for bids on Project No. 1002.
Attempts to qualify bidders for
The bids were formally opened and it xvas
nicipal contracts prior to receipt of bids
found that I-Iarry Pepper & .Associates,
.are sustainable as long as method of pre- Inc., had made a substantially lower bid
qualification is unohjectionable, than auy other bidder, it was further
6. Munlelpal Corporations ~:=237 noted that Pepper did not possess a "Cer-
tificate of Competency" from Metropolitan
Procedure of prequalifyirlg bidders for
Dade County.
municipal contracts must not be scheme to
pro;note favoritism among bidders but must The city permitted Pepper to obtain a
treat all alike, certificate and then passed on first reading
an ordinance accepting the bid of Pepper.
7. Evldenco ~::=32 A meeting of the city commission was
District Court of Appeal cannot take scheduled for June 3, 1966 for the purpose
judicial notice of musticlpal ordina;xces, of final reading of said ordinance.
'.'~ CITY OF OPA-LOCKA v. TEUSTEES OF PLU'M~ING IND. PB,0. F. Fla.
· -'~: Immediately preceding the meeting issued by the appropriate examining
~.lons ¢:,~'/ ' ~ A. 1~{. A. Engineering and Construction, board, qualifying said person, firm, cor-
ovisiov requiring that Inc., the second lowest bidder, and the poration or joint-venture to perform
as competent prior to trustees of the Plumbing Industry Pro- the work proposed by the bid and con-
forks project was not motion Fund, a n-on-profit trust established tract documents." [~.mphasis added.]
hie restriction on corn- in Dude County for the purpose of im-
fion of public policy· proving the plumbing industry, filed their [1] Tile chancellor substituted the word
seq.~ 180.24. complaint for emergency injunction. "on" for "or" as it appears in the phrase
. "proffer a bid or any public works project",
The chancellor found that § 10-3(b), and the word "of" between the words
lions ~::,330{'~ Code of ~,letropolitau Dade County makes "time" and "snch" in the phrase ":it the
aive necessity of public it unlawful for an)' person, firm, corpo- time such bid". We believe that the iutent
[er baviug certificate ration or joint-ventnre to bid or proffer of the section is clear, i. e., to require as
to bidding, as required a bid on auy public works project, unless a couditiou precedent to bidding on ally
lty code, as immaterial such bidder hokIs all appropriate eertifi- public works project that the bidder hold
:allots for competitive cate of competency qualifying him to per- a valid certificate of competency. 'sVhere,
180.01 et seq., 18024. form the work proposed by tile bid. The as here, the text of thc a~t reflects the
chancellor also found that this section is a clear legislative intent, then this intent may
valid legislative enactment which the city be effectnated by supplying the words
tub, Miami, for appel- could not lawfi,ily waive. .%ince it was ad- advertently omitted and correcting clerical
mitred that Pepper did not possess such a errors. X
< certificate at tile time it submitted a bid,
~ ~i tile chancellor found that Pepper was not [2,3] Section 2-19(a), Charter of the
~, F~'ed Patrox, Miami, '~i qualified to bid on P'roject Bio. 1002. City of Opa-Locka provides that, "Ail
· C. ~., and PF. fftR$OI~I' The city conteuds that § 10-3(b), supra, expenditures for supplies, materials, equip-
' as written contains missing words or gram- ment for eontraetural services, e.xcept for
matieal errors which renders it meaniugless, professional services, amounting to more
' Thc city also contends that the lower than One Thousand Dollars shall be made
! Judge. '~;.~. court's construction of § 10-3(b) renders on the basis of sealed competitive bids."
· :C~ this section unconstitutional as a restraint Provisions such as this are designed to
.-e, the lower court eh-
)pa-Locks from recog- ~I of competition in bidding on puhllc works secure fair competition on equal terms for
tarry Pepper & Asso- and violates the public policy of the State ali bidders, to avoid favoritism and to se-
'"'"--~f Florida. It further contends that § 10-3 cure public improvements at the loxvcst
:ontract to install cer-
house g~rvices, known (b) is void insofar as it contravenes chapter possible cost to the taxpayers.-' "All per-
180, Flu. Stat., F.S.A. and that § 10-3(b) sons or corporations having the ability to
may be waived by the city. fur,dsh tile supplies or materials needed,
j, the city of Opa-Locka or to perform the'work to be done should'
on Project 1~1'o. 1002. Sec. 10-3(b) Code of l~-fetropolitan Dade be allowed to compete freely without un-
County (Ord. Bio. 64-59, § 3, 11-24-64), reasouable restrictions.''$
~lly opened and it was
as written, is as follows:
Pepper & Associates, Tile city argues that if a certificate of
substantially lower bid "Any person, firm, corporation, or competency is a condition precedent to
tder. It was further joint venture who shall bid or proffer bidding then it is an unreasonable restric-
lid not possess a "Cer- a bid or any public works project shall, tion on competitive bidding because its
~cy" from Meiropolitan at the time such bid or proffer nf bid, effect is to limit competition for public
hold a valid certificate of competency xvorks projects xvlthin Dude County to
:d Pepper to obtain a I. Armstrong v. City of l~lgewater, Fla. (1O~0); Mayes :Printin~ Compan~ v.
passed on first reading laC, g, 1~7 8o.2d d22; 50 Am..lur. Statutes Flowers, Fla. App.1O(ia, 15t So.2d
ing the bid of Pepper. §
a. 10 MeQuillin, Municipal Corporations §
city commission was 'Z Robert O. Lnsslter Cz Co. v. Taylor, 99 2~.4-t (8rd ed. I r950).
~, 1966 for the purpose :" FI~ $19, ~ 8o. It. ~1~ A.L.1L
! said ordinance.
32. lela' 193 I~OUTHEEN REPOP, TER, 2d SERIES
business firms regularly doing business in Chap. 180, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. is the bas'
· this area. of the authority for a municipality to r~
quire its citizens to connect to its sanitar
[4, 5] Where competitive bidding is re- system. § 180.24 Fla.$tat., F.5.A. rcquirt
quired, any ordinance which unduly limits competitive bidding for contracts for cot
the number of bidders thus tending to itt- struction of any of the utilities menfio,~c
crease the cost of the work is void; iu in chapter 180. \Vc have previously d,
addition, such ordinances are vokl on thc term/ned that on its face, § 10-3(b) supr~
constitutional ground of discrimination.4 docs not contraveqc a statute rcquiri~
However, attempts to qualify bidders prior competitive hiddi,~g.
to the receipt of the bids have heeu sus- Finally, the city argues that it m~
rained as long as the method of prcqnalifi- waive the necessity of a bklder haviug
cation is unobjectionable,s By statute, certificate of competency prior to biddi,;
cities in :New York having a population as an i,mnaterial violation in specificatim
of one milliou or more may restrict bklding for competitive bidding. The city pein
to those who shall have qualified prior to
the receipt of bids according to standards out that the Iow bidder on Project N.
1002 was able to secure such a certificw
fixed by the board of education,s
after snbnfitting its bid.
[6-8] The objective of § 10-3(b) Code
[9] 'Fo allow the city to permit biddc'
of Metropolitan Dade County is reasonable
to qualify after their bids are acccptt
insofar as it limits bidders to fl~osc xvho are
would circumvent the intent of § 10-3(b
responsible and competent. On its face,
§ 10-3(b) does no more than require that It would also be an unfair advantage ox',
a bidder be certified as competent prior those who must prequalify. If the city m;
to bidding on a public works project. The in its discretion waive this section it wou
be conducive to favoritism by allowing son
procedure of prequalifying bidders must
not be a scheme to promote favoritism bidders to qualify after their bids are a
among bidders, but must treat all alike, cepted while refusing to consider bids ,
The record before us does not reflect the others on the ground that they did n
,.. procedure whereby Dade County pre- prequalify'S
· . qualifies bidders. We can not take ju- Having determined that the decree ,
':' ! dicial notice of municipal ordinances.~ We the chancellor is without error, it is a
i.:' have, therefore determined that the chan- firmed.
I~' "' cellor was correct in finding that § 10-3(I0,
5 'I" supra, is a valid legislative enactment. Affirmed.
~. Amlerson v. ~uller, I~1 Fla. ~0, 4t 80. 60~3, 70 A.2d 6"21 (1950); IIarris v. Cily
684. 6 L.R.A.,N.S., 1026 (1906); 10 Me- of Philadelphia, 299 Pa. 473, 149 A. 7'.."2
: Quillin, so. cit. supra nots 3 ~ ~0.45. (1930).
5. William A. CareY & Co. v. Borough o{~ 6. l~.~'.F/.iucation Law, blcKinney's Consol.
Fair Lawn, 37 NJ.,.quper. 155, 117 A.Od Laws, c. 1(3, § 255(3, subd. 12; Applies-
140 (1955); Application of Caristo Con- tics of Caristo Construction Corp., supra
struction Corp., 30 Mise.2d 185, 221 N.Y. note 5.
i'. ~ 956 (1961) modified on other
'. grounds Carisco Coast. Corp. v. Rubin. 7. State ex rel. Kay v. City o~ l~liami, 1,5,5
15 A.D.2d 561, 222 N.¥.g.2d 998 aff'd 10 Fla. 26, 27 So.2d 413 (1946).
~. N.Y.2d ,5a8, ~ N.Y.S.2d 502, 180 N.E.
':" 2d 794; Application of Pipe & Engineer- 8..T. Turco Pa~*iug Contr.. Inc. v. City
~'.;! ins Co., Sup., 220 N;~.2d 175 (1961); Council of City of Orange, 89 N.J.Sut,:r.
!. t~;..,...' Corcoran v. City of Philadelphia, 363 Pa. 93, 213 A.2d 865, 870 (1965).
~.S.~ ~ ~e b~is 'ip~SON, Judge (c~rring s~- child within purview of dependent ~ild
..:.- ~;.g-~-~: . .. ·
auni~p~i~ to ~- : ~ :~ly). smtut~ F.S~ t 39.01(10).
~t to i~ sa~ · "
tL, F~.~ r~uires I con~r ~ ~is decision only ~use, as
contrac~ for con- pointed out in ~e majo~ opinion, this
utiliti~ mentioned record is i~uffi~ent to show the procedure Henry Coleman, Key We~ for appellanL
we previously de- whereby Dude County ~ifics bidders. ~rl Faircloth, ARy. Gen., and Arden
~ 1~3(b) supra, Ii ~e r~ord were suffici~t to show ~at M. Sie~ndorf, AssL Atty. Gen., for ap- ..~:,
s~tutc r~uiring ~e qualifi~tion procedure h su~ that it peilee.
tends to increase ~e cost of the work to
the public or violates o~r established Before HENDRY, ~ ~., 5WANN, ].,
~es that it may principles of law, I would hold the section and KANNER, A. O., Associate Judge.
bidder having A of the Code void.
prior to bidding PER CURIAhL
n in s~ciiications A petition was flied under ~ 39.05, Florida
The city ~ints ': ~,..K,s,s,t.) Statutes, F.S.A., by ~e ~ternal grand-
on Project No. ~ .... -_~
mother of a minor child, fl~e objective bcing
such a certificate to have the juvenile couR dcclare the
minor child to be a dependent child and ~.'
award to the grandmother t~ry c,sto-
to permit bidders dy. The juvenile court, after heart,g,
)ids are accepted la the Interest oi ~. P., a DeCadent Child. found there were r~ons to ~lieve the
tent oi ~ l~3(b). ' Ho. ~1. then ~xisting conditions and environment
ir advantage over were such ~ to endanger ~e ~lfare and
r. Ii the city may District Court or Ap~al o~ Floridm the happiness of ~e minor child, and eh-
is section it would Third Dlstric~ tered its order finding ~at the child was
t by allowing some D~. ~0, ~OG& a dependent child ~d awa~g t~porary
their bids are ac- custody to the grandmo~er for a period
consider bids of of three monks, pending rehearing.
hat they did not Proceeding on petition by maternal Appealing for that order, the appellant
gran~other of minor child to have child [natural mo~er] controver~ sufficiency
dec~ dependent child and to obtain of the evidence to es~blish ~at the child
at the decree of t~ra~ custMy oi ~ild. ~e Juvenile was a dependent within ~e pu,iew of
t errs, it is al- Court, lionroe County, Eva Warner Gib- ~ 39.01(10), ~odda Statutes, F.S.A.
son, ~., entered order finding that child
was dependent child and awaking tem~- We a~ee t~t ~e record fails to dis-
ra~ cust~y to grandmo~er, a~ ~ild's close such subs~ntial, competent evidence
natural mo~er appealed. ~e District to demonst~te the de~nden~ of ~e minor
; Harris v. Oit7 ~u~ of Appeal held fl~at ~dence was child within ~e definition o{ ~e dep~dent
4y~, 149 g ~ inefficient to super finding that minor child statute. Ac~rdingly, ~e order of
~i child was de~ndent child within pu.iew
the j~venile couR is reversed and me couR
~uua~'a ~oL · o{ dependent child statute, directed to enter an order ~at ~e maternal
~. ~; AUUli~- J~ grandmother io~with relinquish cust~y
ion Corp., supra ? :
Reversed and remanded, of the minor child to ~e natural mother,
without prejudice to the ap~llee-~and-
y o~ ~tiami, ~ mother to have ~e ~use set down for
~). ~ la~at~ ~1~.8 further hearing where ~e partes may offer
% ~ v. City
.., E~dence was insufficient to ~p~rt test~ony and ~ fully hear&
e,~).~ ~J.Su~er. ,~-~ finding, that minor child was dependen~ ReVersed and remande&